Report A0 mode: What is more important air mass or frequency? in The Pegbox Posted May 14 Like everything in a violin, each detail actually touches many out comes in complicated ways. We just don't get to move one variable without many things changing. This is way I'm placing my bets and effort on returning to old ways. Their community learning was highly collective and continous over generations of development. Our modern efforts to learn and improve are by comparison very disjunct and isolated. We might explore an idea across tens of iterations. But our units of change are usual too big and radical. So they exist in separate little islands. The classical development in contrast was collective, and proceeded in very incremental units of change, across generations and thousands of iterations. For such a holistic object as a violin, where each part touches so many outcomes, their approach has great advantage. When we come to Strad, Del Gesu, and even Gii Amati, Montagnana, Seraphino, et al.; they're standing on a great mountain of accumulated continous collective learning. Too bad the continuity of culture broke circa 1750-1776. My bet is that 'low iteration', 'big unit of change' modern efforts to improve violins are going to continue to be interesting but inbalanced in outcome for a long while. That's why I believe the best road is to resume their methods, continously from their works of around 1710 to 1740. If this becomes possible, then a small community of such new makers could also resume their slow collective approach to development.