Peter K-G

The philosophy is that wood varies a lot in strength and density. Why would for ex. the height of two backs be the same, if one have a speed of sound of 3 700 and the other 4 500

Hmm.. Another trace of my own violins made without any kind of templates. Trace compared to Titian:

Well, that's another, much more interesting discussion. For me arching is not a matter of personal preferences, but a matter of copying sound. Just not in the mood to repeat that discussion for the nth time. I'm sure you have an idea what I'm doing by now - the wood's properties dictates the arching height and volume/appearance.

I meant the read side curves. I see nothing wrong with them, just that I go a little narrower and in general get straighter cross arch curves. I don't have a good enough tool to make examples from several cross arch positions. It's also time consuming to draw them to paper and trace with image software. More in this direction but just not that extreme

I like your approach and have tested the curves on my own violins -> Real violin vs. your curve at 31.8 I don't use templates though! IMO there is no need for templates, once you figure out how to, by eye and shadows. But your system is educative on how to make good arching. I would "optimize" a little more by adjusting the read lines in your system.

First post, in this thread, that makes sense. You are not strange to me, I notice what you notice.

Repeating post. Guys! No need to write long posts, just find your history (if you dare) and paste links. I use CC goggles for arching, kind of was born with CC eyes

Of course, that’s why I have a UV box with 6 UV tubes, takes 6-8 hours between coats. In summer time I cure varnish in the Sun, takes about 4h between coats. At this time of the year we don’t have much stinkin’ Sun and it’s getting worse every day.

I'm testing some varnish at the moment and realized that varnish cures just fine with normal tubes, it just takes a little longer 16-24 h between coats. I accidently left some pieces under my bench light (one 18 W tube) and they cured so I continued the experiment. works great if you are not in a hurry.

Interesting to see how old posts popup. 2018 vs 2020 batch. I'm at the stage where I won't need pigments for darkness, but I'm still going to use small amounts for tinting color and to make it look more interesting (And yes it is an obsession)

I haven't tested, but two violin makers living nearby use Joha's color extracts. From what I can see their violin's color haven't faded. My two first violins was colored with this and they haven't faded either. I actually think It's really hard to find anything better, ready to use, for coloring varnish. It can be used in both oil and spirit.

Joha oil varnish works well and if you want to succeed with coloring your first couple of violins, go for their color extracts, super intense and transparent. I have a liter or two left and I use it for coloring my own made varnish that I use for all kinds of small furniture varnishing. Golden brown has been my favourite, it's actually quite red too. I don't use it for violins anymore as I want to make everything myself nowadays. Watch out for the old Italian varnish it's a spirit varnish that never dries hard.

While on repeating I would never diddle with graduation. The mission is tonal copy and I think that if you set all the parameters the same you can come close: M5 and later B1 modes are worthless without the same weight and graduation scheme. Thickness is adjusted for the wood's density. If density is the same thickness is the same.

We must be all in great need to repeat ourselves For the record I'll repeat: If you want them (M5/B1) to correlate it's possible up to R^2 1.0. (Anders will say that there is something wrong if R^2 1.0 and I will say My data and Wikipedia says that it's possible)

Sometimes I wonder? Is it the common assumption, that we as human beings have evolved in 300+ years after "the old guys". There is nothing new that we know now, that they didn't know back then (in the context of wood and violin plates/acoustics). At that time they where as intelligent as we are now (probably more). Technology has developed, but not in this field to the extent that it could make any difference. All great makers knock on wood, back then as now