Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Don Noon

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Don Noon

  1. What Melvin said. But most often I find requests for narrower necks from less chunky players, mostly women. This would be harder to "correct" later if one wanted to get it to standard dimensions.
  2. Is metal (strings, fine tuning screws) Vegan?
  3. I think a lot of the "kick" at the beginning of the note has to do with the player. In this case, I think the player is not attacking the start of the note very strongly, more of a smooth aesthetic. The G string is plenty strong. We worked it pretty well in testing. I think that the good, level amplitude up to 1 kHz and above give the first couple of overtones of the G string its power, except right around C# where the A0 resonance is strong.
  4. I have a large box of scraps just for that purpose, saved from resawing oversized spruce wedges.
  5. Apparently the pasted youtube image/link didn't work. I fixed it with just using the link. The bowed spectrum looks a bit different, with a dip below 2 kHz. Keep in mind that this is only the second day under tension, and even torrefied wood needs to settle in. Not as much as non-torrefied, but still something. I don't keep track of string angle... I just use standard-ish overstand, bridge height, and saddle height, and the string angle is what it is. Bridge weight was 1.88g, but I didn't take a photo. Strings were Vision Solo, with silver D, per client request. Top weight was just at ambient shop humidity, which is fairly constant 50-ish percent. Slightly higher in the summer, and occasionally wild drops in the winter. I'd just note in my files if the humidity was abnormal, but not go to any extremes to ge more accurate. There are plenty of other things to disturb the measurement... final edgework, final scraping, neck block cutout, etc., so I don't get too worried about a couple of grams here or there.
  6. You could also fill the thing with expanding foam. Power comes from vibrations, and a wolf comes from vibrations, so there is some tradeoff to be considered. Taming a wolf with some "fix" has effects not just on the wolf, but elsewhere too. The cure can't be worse than the disease. That said, I do believe that some construction parameters can be more targeted at wolf reduction (arching and grads), which are not so easy to fix later.
  7. You want to maximize the space between G and D pegs on one side, and A and E on the other side so that there is room for your fingers for tuning. That means putting the G&E and D&A pegs closer together. It also looks nicer.
  8. 2021 was not a great year. My average has been around 3 instruments a year; last year was zero. A significant part of that time was eaten up by CNC design, programming, and tooling, but mostly I just haven't felt like spending a lot of time in the shop. But anyway... one violin has finally emerged. It's the first one of my "large" 358 mm length, and seems to work well. For the data nerds, the top density is .37, without bar was 58.5g, 359 Hz M5. The back is .64 density, 100.6g and 399 Hz. Speed of sound was 5950 and 4200 for the top and back. In spite of using a fairly heavy (4.5g), center-heavy bass bar, the assembled signature modes came out high, as usual. B1+ is just under 560 Hz, almost exactly an octave above A0. But that's not a big deal. With a test bridge, which was very stiff and light, I thought it was on the strident and harsh side. Cutting a new bridge a bit heavier and more flexible, it was far better. Impact spectrum: Sound clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghki13MAno4 And some photos of the fiddle....
  9. Since I use a lathe to cut the peg shafts, it's much easier for me to cut all the pegs to the same size (7.2mm) and then ream the holes to fit. With a peg shaver, it might be easiest the other way around. For the rough peg holes, 1/4" would be slightly too large for the small side of the hole, so I use the next size smaller. I prefer to start with small diameter pegs and holes, which also fits a small Wittner geared peg, if the client wants that.
  10. With free plate taptones, the edges of the plate flap a lot... so it's hard to say if the higher stiffness of thicker edges will make the taptones go up, or the added mass will make the frequencies go down. Maybe Marty has something in his files about this. But the edges of the plates don't flap like that when the instrument is assembled, so while I DO record free plate taptones, I continue to consider them mostly as a distraction from what matters.
  11. The 10 dB range in the total intensity curves for the viola is much more in line with what I would expect on the violin, and is close to my measurements of the 1714 ex-Jackson. Modern violins usually make a more uniform noise, so there is less variation.
  12. I did some more digging into my data on G string fundamental vs. total note power, bowed notes: 1714 ex-Jackson fundamental delta from open G (weak) to C# (A0 strong) = 28.8 dB 1714 ex-Jackson total note power delta, open G to C# = 8.2 dB My #21 violin, same comparisons of G string deltas: Fundamental = 25.5 dB, total power = 1.7 dB. By just visual comparisons of the spectral components, the reason the modern violin has less variation in total power is due to overtones in the 700 - 1600 Hz range, where typically there is stronger response in modern violins than Cremonese, with Strads (from what I've seen) being even more pronounced in weakness through this band. So in the Strad, the midrange overtones are weaker, giving the fundamental tone more influence over the total power. Tonally, I'd describe the Strad G string as round and smooth, the modern louder and more gutsy.
  13. That looks a LOT more like a FFT of all notes played, not a plot of total power of each individual note. If it IS the latter, I am curious how they managed to play notes halfway between the end of the fingerboard and the bridge, in order to get notes at 8 kHz and even higher. And why.
  14. Marty, I think you are inappropriately equating a fundamental frequency with the power of the full note. While the fundamental frequency of a low G string is quite weak, the complete "note"... with all of its overtones... is not. Here is an amplitude plot of the bowed G string notes, first position. The notes are fairly even in power, even though there is nearly zero power on the fundamental of the open G. A viola G string and a violin G string will have a different distribution of power in the overtones, and sound different. I think the band from 1-2kHz might be the biggest difference, where the violin is often relatively weak. The A0 isn't all that much lower in frequency, about one note or so, and probably not so much of a player in tone perception. You might get a more satisfying G string with a larger bodied violin, but at the expense of an anemic E string. It's all about trade-offs and balance, and what you want the instrument to do.
  15. There was a paper written several years ago about that, and a MN thread discussing it here. From talking to one of the paper's authors and some of my own experience, in general terms: -Long, skinny holes behave like larger ones, and round holes behave like smaller ones... when you calculate area. -Long, skinny holes create higher damping in the air resonance, round holes have lower damping. In this case, I think that damping is good, broadening the resonance peak. I have played a round-holed violin, and the A0 resonance was extremely peaky, with the precise A0 note jumping out and booming.
  16. I have a garage too... with the lathe and small mill. And tons of non-violinmaking crap, forming a cave where the car barely fits.
  17. I remeber when I first set up my workshop, it looked sorta like that. Now there are no bare horizontal or vertical spaces left, so wall color has been replaced by a kind of camouflage. More stuff has been added in the 7 years since the bottom photo, but you get the idea...
  18. I doubt that it would... plate flexibility is almost certainly the main player in creating more apparent volume.
  19. I took that advice after trying a few bracing experiments years ago. I could likely do a better job now if I tried bracing, but at this point I'm not looking for time-consuming experiments. At best, you'd only come in second place, as Marty crossed the finish line long ago. Edit: Oops... forgot about Doug Martin. He might have crossed the finish line so long ago that I forgot for a moment.
  20. This is true if you only consider flat-plate bending stiffness. If you consider arching and ring modes (and whatever the ring modes of double-arched domes are), you might get some other results. Guitars are much larger than violins, and probably can't use the arching concept of violins to get the same high-frequency results, since ring mode frequency is inversely proportional to radius of curvature. I think that the arching is critical to the shape of the violin response curve (i.e. tone), and a ribbed flat plate will be different in some way.
  21. Curly mathematical thingies... as opposed to the swoopy mathematical thingies like cycloids, caternaries, splines, parabolas, or even tangent arc segments.
  22. For the top plate, it's quite an effort to match spruce in the relevant acoustic poperties and make it lighter. Something like ultra-thin skinned high-modulus carbon fiber on a honeycomb or foam core is what I estimate you'd need. And then you'd have to match damping. Not simple. For a violin, I think that concentrating on the neck and fingerboard would be the way to go for lightness without performance sacrifice, and I think that lighter plates (beyond a certain point) would not perform well. Violas or larger instruments would be more appropriate subjects for lightweight experiments.
  23. Thus on he goes, in the quest to find a more desirable opinion.
  24. Body flexibility matters. Imagine pressurizing the body... one that expands more will act like a larger volume. There is a Strad and a very accurate Curtin-Alf bench copy; A0 for the Strad is 260 Hz vs. 274 Hz for the copy. The Strad also has a B1+ of 488 Hz (slightly below a B note)... apparently an extremely low stiffness instrument. The B1+ of the copy is more normal, at C - C#. Some general comments about the whole project: 1) If I read the conclusions correctly, you found that signature modes and graduations are of lesser importance to the overall result, which is in line with my opinions. 2) This is a datapoint of one instrument, with multiple significant differences from a "normal" one. A change that improves this instrument might make some other instrument worse. To be sure of what is going on, you'd need to make lots of instruments with restricted differences, and change one thing at a time on all of them (see you in 1000 years). But one is better than none, and at least there are some suggestions as to what knobs to tweak to get the balance you want.
  • Create New...