francoisdenis

Ok I understand better your idea. I agree , the human mind likes analogy as a way to get an understanding of the world unfortunately the best vegetable are not enough to make a good soup

That's a bit confusing for me "A lot to do " doesn't necessarily means mean "with the quality of the sound" sonority jugements change with time and needs but not the fact that you have to divide a string in two to hear the octave. The main dimensions of the instruments was obviously and historically connected to the string length , but I don't see the connexion with a contemporary appreciation of the quality of the sound

It's always the same , a lot of preliminary work to gather as much reliable information as possible before you start to think about what meaning to give to it all. I dream of collective work on these subjects, an open and collaborative database where it would be possible to deposit information. It's easy to build such collaborative database on a subject like the place of "pins" interested people?

And also to compare with the other Stainer's instruments to have an idea in which direction to dig ...I mean further than "it could be connected with arching and thickness "

It would be interesting to know the match between points and thicknesses in the Stainer violin

- it is also the case on the friedberg instrument -If one of the goal is the check of the thickness the upper F holes on the table could play this role making the hole useless...

It was the origine of my lack of enthusiasm when i wrote "need to be describe" because the thickness process mentioned doesn't explain this feature it's also why I propose these multiple finalities a clamping device could "fill a bit, the hole of the theory" What we could imagine that: - the nail help to hold the back - the nail can be a reference for the heigh of the back - the nail can be a reference for the thickness - the nail can be a reference for the soundpost (al least for the only untouched violin we know )

untouched since 1594 Theses "bars" doesn't exist on the original Xray shot Yes , it's true that the fact doesn't apply to cremonese instruments. about the central pin I record 3 ideas ("theory" is may be an ambitious word for such a detail) -a central sound post -a remind of thickness process (need to be describe) -a remind of a clamping system any other ideas? PS: we have some allemanique instruments with 2 or 3 pins in the back

Theories are not always opposable. I mean that we must consider that a theory can complet an other one. but actually, in this exemple it is not a theory it is a fact : on this untouched instrument of Frieberg the sound post is set on the axe

you have a neck to set ?

hum, that makes many accidents ... If you enlarge the picture , you will notice that musical ratios has been widely used as a key element of the conception of the world. You know that music was also part of the quadrivium - Furthermore, knowing the place of the monochord in the teaching of the quadrivium, that musical instruments could have been set appart of this would be weird. Ignore this is just historically difficult to defend. Of course, I understand that the survival these ideas into what you curiously call "old traditionnal Cremonese ratios..." is difficult to grasp (may be because only a small part of the picture is spotted) Don't make of our ignorance a truth, more probably we just don't know yet how it could have been connected to the music As we say in french: " l'absence de preuve n'est pas la preuve de l'absence"

Not always.... but often yes We have testimonies that Musical ratios have been involve in architecture, difficult to imagine than this was not apply to the musical instruments ... the question is may be more how? In your exemple It depends which dimensions you consider - (and that was the sens of my previous question) If you take 5 parts of a quantity that you have divided in 9 parts you find the ratio 5 to 9 which is nothing in music but you have 4 remaining parts so dividing in 9 parts you have also the ratio 4 to 5 which is a major third and also a ratio 4 to 9 which is nothing in music

Hi David, that is interesting, what do you think could be the reference length for you? I see 3 obvious possibilities (and some others less obvious to demonstrate like those proposed by Kevin) -the string length -the stop -the neck For example, if we choose, the string length = L like reference quantity of calculation we would have a theoretical length L = 20 parts which gives by a split of fifth 12 + 8 ratio 3: 2 (fifth) then we subtract a part 12 + 7 ratio 12: 7 (?) and the next expected ratio would be 12 + 6 ratio 1: 2 (octave) Otherwise I allow myself to correct a point; the 7:10 ratio is NOT increase of the 2: 3 ratio by a tenth. The ratio 7:10 is a (close) tritonus interval (actually √2) that means a measure between the fifth and the fourth (fourth augment of a major semi-tonus ) We have very strong clues that all the relative dimensions of the instrument (middle age in western country) were initially calculated following the tradition of the division of the monochord - (Boèce give us a nice glimpse about this forgoten and little-knowed approach.) PS: Again, mm measurements could allow us to check your data

Sorry but my post was nothing controversial... I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that these two tenors actually have the same neck length (but two different body lengths 483mm for Guarneri and 476mm for Strad)