francoisdenis

Members
  • Content Count

    437
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by francoisdenis

  1. I understand that you agree that a set a relative measurements have been used . We have seen that many other ratios existed - not quote by Pollens So the interesting question is : "Can we find how these relative measurements have been originated?" How can we manage empiricism and theory?
  2. R-Houel came to me during his last year of school in Mirecourt. I met a talentuous and smart guy having (like I) the project to refind the original proportion of the Andrea Amati basse. The project as been realised in my studio I had the historical knowledge of the measurements and he had a deep knowledge of the history of the crown of france (not so commun!) It was a nice and efficient cooperation. http://www.orpheon.org/OldSite/Roland/Vc-Houel/Vc-Houel-conference/Partie2 - Reconstitution virtuelle.pdf
  3. Where did you find this text? Is it from R-Houel?
  4. Marty , It seems very challenging to you to understand that the way you produce the outline is not the point... your proposition is nice as soon as you can copy a Strad or Amati why are you embarrassing of this flexible rod? I do the same just by hand, it is much more easier and quicker.
  5. Marty, I still curious to know what are for you, the other "traditionnal ratios " use in Cremona
  6. David , when one are aware of the pb face by the the tools of the ancients to take measurement Sorry... this post was a mistake
  7. David , when one are aware of the pb face by the the tools of the ancients to take measurement
  8. With all my respect, I will not make a violin using this outline.. And if I have to that will be with a rasp to correct it
  9. Peter-K That 's probably a part of the true story! Nevertheless, don't forget that the climax of the creativity in instruments making occured from 1450 to 1550 and the violin is only one of the latest invention of this incredibly creative period. The fact that all these other inventions that we know only from painting or engraving have disapeared did not gave to the violin a label of superiority for the design
  10. David Woodrow gather 5 different data base and I will be surprise if he have had any possibilities to really chek their reliabilities anyway I'm speaking of the strad forms and their measurements are : MS 33 (first B form) L=352,1mm UB =154,1 MB= 101,7 LB=194,5 mm MS 38 (second B form reduced) L=346,7 mm UB=154,3 mm MB =102,1 LB=195,4 mm Average of all the forms L=347,5 UB=196,6mm , MB=101,7mm LB =196,6 mm for info other measurements M1 MB 193,4mm M2 S 195,2 mm MS6 p(b) retouched 196,7 mm MS 28 193,5 mm MS 39 195,7 mm (Such little differences are difficult to detect on the instruments) Le larger LB=200 mm forms arrived with the G PG and P serie that's clear enough to close the issue on my side
  11. It should not be to difficult to find...
  12. Marty, speaking of the Strads mold this statement is clearly a mistake. It's even a counter sens . The form are larger on the late period not at the beginning Speaking of the instruments, I repeat, without a close study of the discrepancies for each instrument the level of approximation in the measurement is to hight to draw any conclusion.
  13. Did you notice that only a small portion of the ellips match the outline (and futhermore , the match is not good) do you have any idea of how many différent lines can be drawn with a so imperfect match?
  14. There is definitely no spiral on the Strad form Ellipss appear during the making as distorcions of the circle- nothing else
  15. Where do you see that the long patterns are 5 mm narrower than his earlier violins ! Another pb of data and reference Marty! The long patterns "seem " narrower but they are not , It's just an impression given by the change of format the waist looks thinner compared to the length but actually the B forms are among the largest "C" bout . So, your "clue " is wrong in term of demonstration but good to show how our perception works.
  16. What are for you these other "simple ratios". Which ones would you qualified of "traditionnal"
  17. Hum...do you believe that asymmetries could be intentional? If yes, on this previous example, can you explain what is the intention of N.Amati here? Which outline is the symmetrical and which outline is the asymmetrical? Could you define what means "freely" . Is it an empirical choice or another type of recipe? What is a "Circle geometry" ? Can you give examples ? "Interger ratios " do you mean that you exclude the irrationnals ?
  18. David, I am with you when you state that a violin design is a combination of ratios and circles to define limits and outlines I also noticed like you (and others before us) that arcs often have simple arithmetic relationships with the surfaces in which they are inscribed. But when you also state to know the specificities of "the geometric tradition of Cremona". Before to believe you, I start to question me about the solidity of your method of analysis I think everyone here understands that the larger the approximations, the less reliable the conclusions. As this is the most obvious (and also most justified) criticism that can be made to the retro-engeenering, it is important to define the limits of the analyzed data. A boring step, I agree... David I give a lecture on "the measurement of musical instruments" near Marseille on December 8th in a beautiful place at the edge of the Mediterranean (where we eat well) Ben Herbert will be there too - come join us it will animate the debate.
  19. Dear David, I think we do not understand each other very well. I posted this N.Amati I was keying in my database because it is typically an instrument whose asymmetry and measurement differences make any interpretation risky.The question was not to find ratios, you can find some, and there are others. I wanted to emphasize that strictly speaking the comparison of this photographic elements (and measures!) requires us to be cautious for the simple reason that the ratios of the table will not be the same as those of the back. It's all I wanted to say. I never let students who ask me to look into an instrument proceed the way you seem to do. (They are sometimes unhappy to have to start all over again... but they can also thank me.) You talk a lot about "tradition" as a big bag in which you seem to put all the concepts that are useful to you. Perhaps the meaning is not the same in the US, but as far as I'm concerned I can not speak as you do of a geometric tradition specific to Cremona. A simple example; you have this tenor of Andrea Amati and this viola of Gasparo da Salo, different sizes but obviously the relative measures are the same. Da Salo is more asymmetrical because he does not use a complete mold. The difference is the method of making nothing else (Gasparo viola in black /Andrea Amati tenor in red reduced to the same size) Continuous geometric traditions that exist and are documented...? I know only one, it is the tracing of the typo taught in Paris since the Renaissance. If you question the teacher you will be astonished to learn that these alphabets, perfectly drawn with a ruler and a compass that we all know have very very rarely been used as is. On the other hand, they served as a basis for drawing templates used freely to create families of typos that we know. The use of a template well done is pragmatic, effective and also dangerous in the long term. This practice (and its risk) are documented since ancient times
  20. That your statement, and that remains to be demonstrate I eager to discover how you overcome the challenges, we are facing there... Certainly not using pictures more or less appropriately documented I always comme across a trivial limit in my interpretation called "approximation more or less 2mm" for a violin 2 mm is enough to shift from a ratio to another one...so I give the example I have on my desk right know (I'm working on the Amati family) So this instrument Nicolo1658 table (nice shot from il DNA degli Amati) measurement L=354,5/UB=170/MB=115/W=208,5 back measurement L=353/UB=167/MB=107/ W=206 Now study of the outlines the table and its symmetry Now the back and his symmetry and the superimposition of the back and top symmetry Furthermore including the overhang or not will extend a bit more the possibilities of interpretation notice that measurements are given to have been done over the arch MB of the table 115mm MB of the back 107 mmm 8 mm of difference ...that's weird..... and It's just an example among others (I remember when Sam Z ask to study the Plowden I took the measurement from the plaster cast....result 2 mm longer than the measurement of Guarneri book ) I don't want to defend that it doesn't worth to search but just draw our attention that the solidity of a conclusion can be ruined by the weakness of our source
  21. I still do not understand what you mean, maybe I did not express myself correctly. I said that the specificity of Cremona was the use of a complete mold but, in terms of measurement methods, I see on the contrary a homogeneity throughout the Eu. The changes are gradually taking place from the beginning of the 17th century and affect all trades. They are concomitant with the industrialisation and organisation of the states. The influence of Stainer is interesting but it is not my subject here.
  22. Yes, that's very true, what we know is often the obstacle to what we want understand or discover. I remember exactly when I felt what meant to defend that unity is not a number and how this new perception changed my way of seeing and understanding. You don't learn this kind of concept at school when your are a child, you even learn the opposit. Difficult to erase !
  23. Ok, I would be curious to know them. Having studied measurements in different kind of trades and countries. (in Eu) I notice the same evolution everywhere strongly corrolated to the progress of industry and politic integration of the states. The same basic designs seems to have been used and known in Eu until the turn of the baroque période and Cremona could have been not the last to used them..
  24. I see not 2 but 3 periods - 1550-1650 what I called the "geometric period" 1650-1750 the "post-géométric period" 1750-today the "romantic period" During the "post-geometric period" the originals patterns made by the amati continue to circulate among the crafmans most of the new forms were made and copy from these original patterns (at least in Cremona) The end of the Cremonese golden age shows a clear decline in the solidity of the outline. Some features (like the increasing of strait line before the corner) are signature of a change - the orignal amati patterns were lost (copying of the rib structure rather than the moulds) The "romantic period" is the time were violin makers identify their practice to an "art" seeing the achievement of the shape of the violin as the invention of an artist illuminated by his inspiration-intuition etc...Giving a simple answer to a deep mystery, the "romantic period " works as a myth