David Beard

Members
  • Content Count

    2895
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Beard

  1. One dimension parameter tend not to have simple meaning by themselves on a violin. Consider instead of just the height, the whole cup shaped area created by thw arching? What area of the plate has been given an overall cohesive downward dome like shape, all concave on the inside? This area can vary considerably. But it never depends just on the plate height. It also depends on how quickly the long and cross arches come down. Or, in a different but related way of thinking about it, the area depends on how wide the channels are, and where convextivity changes. Few things exist
  2. It was and remains a perfectly good romanticized picture of violins from the view of an enthusiastic amateur looking from the outside via a 19th century English trade perspective. Not to be taken seriously as a guide to either good making, modern making, or historical making. But is a good book to spark or fuel budding interest.
  3. Don't get me wrong. We do have plenty of serious discussions. And, I'm generally very grateful the MN is here as a resource. Still, many threads go tediously astray.
  4. It's just gotten too difficult to have an extended conversation of actual ideas on MN. Every thread devolves into squash jokes and STLs.
  5. Classic you. MMMFC. M -Marty's M -MN M -Mind F -fk C -Comedy
  6. This isn't really correct. The iconography shows a rich mix of both approaches. No overhanging wasn't predominate, just in the mix.
  7. I would look first to the history and evolution as the main reason. In paintings we see lots of various instruments were tried before we get violins. At a fairly early stage, we have a highly varied family of plucked and bowed 'vielles' with many different body configurations, and many arrangements of soundholes, mostly of circle shaped and either open, covered, or partially covered. Most seem to have distinct back and front plates and sides. Many of these early vielle type instruments already show over hanging edges. After all, if your basic form has separate plates and si
  8. Stubborn, huh. Consider a cross section of rib and plate edges at right angles to the rib surface. The plates sit across the top and bottom edges of the rib. The overhang extends to one side, the flat of the plate to the other. The plates make T shapes at both the top and bottom edges of the rib, with one side filled in with lining. So, overall the rib + plates make an I bar cross section all along the sides. This contributes to the huge difference in the very high pliancy of the sides to motion at 90° to the rib surface and 'in plane' relative to the plates versus a much lower
  9. The first answer is that the tradition evolved that way. There are likely many motivations behind that evolution, including Jacob's suggestion. Also, a plate edge and ribs then join in a 'T' shape, giving an overall 'I' bar shape to the ribs. This kind of shape gives increased stiffness to weight, particularly against motions out of the plane of the plates. The curves and corners of the bout shape also do that. So, out of plane stiffness in the sides seems to have been valued in the evolution of the design.
  10. If Burgess believed and agreed with what you just said, there would be no conflict.
  11. For years, I've been publicly discussing these aspects of arching. All along I've including the caveats that: 1) I'm presenting an hypothesis, and 2) distortion is real but not a primary factor. I will be glad when a mixture of authoritarian misrepresentations, insistence of position, and bullying is no longer fashionable or acceptable public discourse. Again, my hypothesis is that maker choice and intentional carving are the primary factors behind the character of long arches we see in the old making. I will continue to publicly lay out the case for this. Your posit
  12. You're lying and distorting. Always from the beginning I give distortion its due as a secondary actor. You just didn't take note.
  13. Hi HoGo, Yes, would deflects it position. And yes, wood can be plastic and hold a deflection under the right circumstance. However, will defelect or flex, it does not readily stretch. The long arches we are discussing do not exist in isolation. Each point alond the long arch is also the highpoint for a corresponding cross arch. If distortion lifts a point on long arch, it also is lift the high point of the corresponding cross arch. If we are going to talk about distortion lifting the long arch toward its ends as it approaches the top and bottom blocks, then we are also tal
  14. So then you agree that carving rather than distortion is the primary cause of the top long arch character we see today in the old instruments?
  15. Unless it gets edited, the post immediately before I said this refers to rounded top arches. Pleas read before accusing me of not reading
  16. So you think you see a pointed peak at high point of top arches? You have very imaginative eyes.
  17. None were rounded. None. From any family.
  18. Look at examples. Low or high, they all have the flattish stretch. All the families.
  19. So, where is that Stainer example? Or other example if you prefer. As far as I've been able to observe, these flattish stretches of the top are present in all Cremona examples, at least into 1770s. And, though I haven't explored as thoroughly, it seems to be in all the older Italian violin making. If there are counter examples, I'd like to know about them. But I don't think Stainer is where you'll find them. I believe Guadagnini might have experimented with nearly dissapearing the flattish component of the top arch. But as far as I'm aware, no one didn't use this flattish fea
  20. I would be very interested to see even one old Italian example of this. Can you post even just one example?
  21. The false equivalence is jumping from 'some degree of distortion is real' to 'distortion is the Primary cause for the character of long arch we see in the old instruments'.