• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by francoisdenis

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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?
  4. 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 "
  5. It would be interesting to know the match between points and thicknesses in the Stainer violin
  6. - 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...
  7. 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 )
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Hi Mike,

    Just one info about the violin drawing ,

    is it your invention?

    1. MikeC


      Hi Francois,  I wish it was my idea but unfortunately I'm not creative enough to invent that.  I can't remember the person's name.  He posted on MN a long time ago a link to the instructions.  I printed the instructions and followed them to make the drawing.  He has a website where he sells the instructions.   I'll try to find it for you.   To be honest I think your drawing method is simpler and therefore probably more likely to be historically correct.   There is also another drawing method other than this one that uses a three bar linkage that is really interesting also. It exactly makes the C bout curves with one smooth drawing line which is really interesting when you see it for the first time.   I'll try to find a link to that one also but it's difficult to understand the instruction on that one.  

  11. 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"
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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)
  15. if one want to take account of the way ancient craftmen habits. -the neck lenght is connected to another dimension - it is an unavoidable rule it can be the string length - the stop - the body length etc... It true that, as David is saying the way we take the measurement can change the result for the neck , where is the "correct" place? the wooden form the block the ribs the edge? Here I will say that the guideline is the making tradition PS: for the tenor the table mensure being 265mm the neck length 152,5 152,5/265=0,584=7/12 (7:12 is a commun ratio connected to the square) -
  16. Hi Bruce, A wedge (3 mm) has been placed later between le rib and the neck so the original length was to be 152,5 mm note that the body length of the tenor braccio (viola) is ...482 mm and a Cremones braccio lenght is 482/3 mm
  17. Hi David, In his book W L Monical 's neck original measurements for the violin family are from 120 to 130 mm. May be the question is : Are these variations a result of natural empirical drifts (compared to standards that are already nearly two centuries old!) or are they different measurement procedures and traditions?
  18. Thank you Kevin for this very constructive response, I am working on exactly the same subject at the moment. A study which also includes viols and lutes families and I have exactly the same feeling as you ( which is why I insisted a little on having your answer Yes indeed if we do not find a clear answer it is perhaps that the question must be asked in a different way ... (we come back here to the interpretation of asymmetries by RH) PS: If you are interested in this subject, you will come across the question of the format, I means the rules behind the ratio of the length to the width. We will certainly have the opportunity to talk about it again.
  19. What do you mean Kevin? It is just a "feeling" or you have element to bring?
  20. Hi David, Rather than asserting what was ... may be it would be more constructive to demonstrate it in a more effective way. When it comes to ratios, please could you provide us a set of measurements that anyone can double check? (for exemple Bruce gave me slightly different measure of the Canon original neck length) In addition, evaluating the nature of a difference (of measurement) between a theory and an observation is never simple. The discussion on the explanation of the asymmetry of the contours has just given us an example. Several theories emerge (and it is what makes this forum interesting for me) So what are the "original" measurements you propose for this violin?
  21. you are probably right... I remember reading Roger's article with great interest, finding it very stimulating but; as soon as I started making woodenforms by hand and then making corners with the little templates ,I came across troubles managing the symmetry of the shape. So my pb was no longer the asymmetry but the symmetry... Afterwards I realized that the angle adjustment could affected only the top contour in a small amount (and not the corners or only one). Then I compared many outlines and found that it didn't seem to work as the article said. In short, It ended up that, following my expérience, this hypothesis remains plausible for the setting of the neck but has nor (or only a minor asymmetrical) effect . just to say that it's not so obvious to me
  22. I don't see a real contradiction, we have been trained in a certain way and we have to imagine something different. Our imaginations will start by drawing on what is familiar to us. It's a very natural process that I personally find it hard to escape. I envy those for whom this is not a problem.