Don Noon

It's just cello-specific drivel derived from the more general gobbldygook I quoted in post #6.

I didn't have to try... my browser is set to translate to English, and it seems to read quite well. Your construction method, however, is foreign to my lazy way of thinking. I just take a photo of a violin with a shape that I like, import it into a CAD program, then draw a bunch of tangent arcs or ovals until it comes close. The form geometry is offset from that.

Yes, those are the annual growth rings. The only thing you can say about the cut is that it isn't flatsawn. The rings show up as lines when quartered and even with a high degree of off-quarter, but flatsawn they wander all over the place. The photo looks to me like a quartersawn set, or very close to it. The lines are always there in maple, although usually far less obvious than in spruce. It also varies between species of maple, and from tree to tree. It says nothing whatsoever about preparation, sound, or integrity. If the growth lines are extremely wavy, curved, or otherwise irregular, that could be different.

For picking nits about spacing and finger feel, I would think that the nut is far more important, as it is the dominant factor in the lower positions where string spacing is more cramped. For the bridge, I don't think that spacing is quite so critical... but the combined effect of spacing and string height will determine the bow angle difference between strings, which seems to me like it would matter more to the player than the spacing between strings in the upper positions. I never use the upper half of the fingerboard, so perhaps those players that do can comment from their experience. Do players use the G and D strings much in the high positions anyway?

Dividers for the initial groove placement, then I have a tool with 2 notches in it at the proper spacing to use when the strings are on, to fine-tune things. It's easier and more precise than trying to use dividers at that point. Groove spacing can drift around a bit after using the dividers to get started.

Similar issues with pernambuco re: weight and carving difficulty. Maybe even worse with the coarse grain. 300+ years of maple history happened for a reason, I think.

You can get a pretty good idea by sticking bits of clay on a standard bridge. Around the feet, not much difference; up near the strings, it's a mute.

1.6g is extremely light; 1.1g is ridiculously light... for a normal violin. Maybe something else in your violin provides some muting effect that is counteracted by a highly unmuted bridge.

What is the weight difference between the bridges?

I tested a pernambuco bridge, and you should read thru the thread where I posted the results. Basically: it's a huge pain to carve, you need to severely lightweight it to get anywhere within the functional range of weight, but if you do that, it's maybe OK. But why?

Just be aware that the treble and bass F holes distort differently over time, with the treble lower wing often well below the level of the adjacent top due to soundpost distortion.

I see that Colin Gough published a paper re: bow vibrations as analyzed by finite element analysis. How that relates to what the player experiences, I don't know (I haven't read it). But it seems to me that the weight of the player's hand might matter, as well as where on the bow you're playing... and a whole pile of other stuff. It's all a mystery, as are all things related to the violin.

Violins change over time, I think almost everyone agrees with that. Let's not get into the endless "play-in" debate, which has been addressed many times without resolution. One other thing... no matter how identical you make violins, they don't come out sounding all the same. Wood varies, not just in measurable and selectable measurements, but how it sounds in the end as well. Wood that you might think is not-so-hot can end up surprisingly better sounding than the "best" stuff. Or not. You never know.

If the "recently bought" violin also means "recently made", I would think it would be at a tonal disadvantage from the age standpoint when compared to what you have been using for "several years". I have no clue what workmanship differences there might be between Gliga's Gems and Gamma lines, but I would guess that the main difference is nicer-looking wood... finer, more even grain on the top, and deeper flame on the maple. That means nothing for tone.

Xylene, MEK, acetone, and laquer thinner work pretty well. Alcohol maybe.