David Beard

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Beard

  1. 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'.
  2. Just repeating your favorite false equivalency. We both agree that all violins experience distortion. That does not mean that those distortions are the primary factor in giving the old top arches the basic character we see today. It DOES NOT mean there weren't originally carved with the basic character of the top shapes as we see them now.
  3. We did this one before. 1 of 10 times you give the half disclaimer. We both agree that 'distortion is real'. But my hypothesis is 'distortion is real' AND 'that ALL those old instrument were carved with essentially the same character of the old top arches as we see them today. Despite you 1 in 10 moderated disclaimers, 9 of 10 you speak as if 'distortions are real' means 1) my hypothesis is absurd or even dangerous, and 2) that distortion is why we see the characteristics top arches we see today - but they didn't have that character origunally, that they were through arch
  4. I have no argument with this. It is the further claims that the instruments started with modern type through arched tops and transformed from that into what we see today. To me, that is unsupported fantasy.
  5. Certainly no surprises in that statement or its tone.
  6. Which David? We are both David B.
  7. Again, in 2D the idea appears viable. But, in 3D, the extra height at the ends also affects the cross arching. How do they get broader? And, why aren't the angles in the channeling more effected. Since the claim is that ALL classical examples went through various degrees of similar distortions, ALL the chanelling should be skewed at the extremes of the bouts. So, why don't the examples show that? Also, if the plates are just deformed, why does fairly significant pushing in or pulling out of a free plate at the ends yield similarly visible degrees of enhanced and reduce tempor
  8. Ditto. Rather belittling, please recognize that we disagree. I have presented an hypothesis that is simpler than yours. You have presented an hypothesis. I do not think you have presented cause for resorting to your more comlicated hypothesis. I do not think you have presented sufficient evidence to claim your hypothesis is viable, so I discount your hypothesis as very unlikely. But, in the prior thread, I also gave list of additional points which, if demostrated, would support tye viability of tiur hypothesis. You have simple evaded those points rather than adre
  9. In 2D, the distortions you claim are reasonable. Probably that's why you manage to hang on to your unfounded belief. But in 3D, the distortion you claim are not reasonable nor sufficient to explain the range of historical examples.
  10. There is a very broad range in the historical examples. To point to the fact that arching made wtih a modern through curved top arching can be pushed and distorted to aquire characteristics resembling classical top arc shapes is not equal to claiming the actual old arch shapes start significantly different in character than as they are seen today. And, pointing to the failure of some modern examples made too actually flat is not equal to claiming that the actual old arches, with their slight crowning through the flattish area, would also have failed. To claim that distortions
  11. The amounts of movement needed at the ends and bridge to produce the shapes seen would be more than anything justifable by observation. The directions are as you would like, but the amounts are not. Not by a long shot. Remember, 1) the compression hypothesis is a guess, 2) it solves a problem that doesn't need solving - why not believe the arching were simply carved basically as we see they? 3) the proponents of this theory are biased. They made tops with a modern through curve, and they want to beliveve that's what the old masters did. ***** Do you really believe that uncont
  12. If you copy them well, there is a slight crown to the flattish stretch. That helps. And, of course, we do have a good number of old examples that do show collapse and distortion around the bridge and require repair. But that doesn't mean it isn't still the way the best violins were built.
  13. You can also say that the most player favored instruments historically all show this feature.
  14. Do you mean in modern making, or old German making, or maybe in Old Italian making? There was recently a long and rather combative thread about this very thing. Instead of dragging us back to rehash the same ground, could you perhaps look up that thread. It's only a few weeks ago.
  15. Thank you for showing this.
  16. Super cheap can be nothing more than wet dry papers, flat backing, a strop and compound. For easier gross shaping, you can add a cheap coarse tile workers diamond rasp from HomeDepot, or similar. From this, you can improve your honing with a 3000 or 4000 grit waterstone. Flatness and support matter, so upgrade from wetdry to diamond plates as opportunity allows. Grinding with this basic kit is laborious, and you have to be very alert to not overheating your steel. So, as opportunity allows, buy a slow speed wet grind wheel. I also think a simple jewlers loop is very valua
  17. The original OP was talking about very small changes to outline. Under that limitation, 'small changes', you can argue that sound is somewhat insensitive to the body outline. But then the thread ran off as if outline doesn't matted at all. Kind of a big leap? Just look at extreme cases and you can see that outline does ultimately matter. Where's the line between doesn't matter and does matter? Who knows. Soundholes however appear to be very sensitive to change of all kinds. We seem to make over big leaps often around here. Under circumstances 'A': If 'B
  18. This is just an example of the shorter flattish stretch. This is not at all unique to Del Gesu.
  19. "some" You also can't rule out that they ALL might have worked under the shared common notion that the top long arcs should be carved differently than backs in basically exactly the way we see them today.
  20. Read the second sentence. You limit this to modern makers erroneously immitating what they thought old makers did. Then ultimately conceed that neither you nor I actually positively know currently. That's good if you sruck with it. Remember, you are the one claiming that what we see in thousands of examples isn't to be believe. You have the burden to justify such a claim. You are making the more conjectural claim that 'what we see, basically wasn't.' I am making the more neutral claim that 'what we see basically was'. But, I happily acknowledge that we both are hypothesizin
  21. This is the first time you have clearly limited your claim: "either is, or could be, an artifact of typical distortion". However, you are still claiming more than your experiment earns. You have only demonstrated that under some conditions it is sometimes possible to change a modern through curved top arch shape into something that looks a bit more like a classicsl top long arch. As I enumerated in an earlier post, you have not demonstrated the further points that would allow claiming that the classical long arches didn't start off carved in with the basic character of arching w
  22. How many of you can't think back and remember picking up, holding, maybe touching, and certainly marveling at an old extreme Venetian or Tyrolean example where the height of the top is wild and extends crazy far toward the blocks, and with thar height extending very full and wide across the upper and lower bouts. Are you really going to be told those shapes weren't carved that way? That the extreme ends and widths of those outer bout areas were lifted high and pushed out full by comparatively many times smaller movements at the bridge? Why not just believe your eyes, evidence
  23. So now people are saying that every photo shows the flattish v through curve difference from back to top, but it's just a random photographic illusion, even though we get the same sort of illusion across hundreds of examples? Are you so afraid to use your eyes to see what's obviously true? Have we been gaslighted so much these recent years that people can no longer look and see with their own eyes?
  24. And for that, I trust him in what he actually observed.
  25. I am not denying their actual observations that arches distort, and that under some circumstances you can start with a through curved top long arch and use bridge pressure to transform it into something more like a classical long arc shape. I am saying that they have not demonstrated that: >such distortions are sufficient to produce the full range of existing classical long arcs that any limited idiot like me can dig up and observe nor >that such distortions acting on an already classically shaped long top arch don't normally leave it still looking like a classical lo