polkat

Took a look at the book today...and saw a lot of room for improvements. Then, thinking about it...heck, I'd just end up with a regular violin. One thing I thought was odd, he wrote that book with beginning makers in mind, yet he ignores any advice on carving the neck (other then the head stocks and dimensions kin the plans). Rather odd for a beginning maker book. Think I'll take a closer look at the Chanot stuff.

Wow! That's unusualy. Almost seems like that design promoted the art rather then the function, and I get the sense that he studied the Chanot style as well. Which brings up another point. I wouldn't bring this up in a post where I asked a different question, but I think it relates. Questions on the function of the corner blocks has always been in the back of my mind. Classical appearance and some structional strength is there of course, but if you remove the top from any standard violin (which has real corner blocks) you find that the sound box inside is guitar shaped (much like Chanots are outside). So is there a necessary reason for corner blocks? Anyone care to comment on this?

richardz, google "Savart trapezoid violin images" without the quotes and you'll see a few. Kevin, wish I could read french. Is that book on line anywhere? Maybe it has pics. I found a website (then lost it) that claims the top plates were about 2mm at the edges and near 5mm through the center. That just seems too thick to me for any kind of top plate! Hummm...I'm thinking arched top plate and flat bottom plate.... hummm. Savart also ran his bassbar down the very center which strikes me odd (probably for support against string tension). There was also one claim that he didn't use a post, but I doubt that. Yes, I have built 'real' violins (though I'm more of a repairer/player these days), but there's just something about these trapezoids that interests me. Goofy huh?

I get the feeling that the general concenses here is that it's not worth the effort. Still, the tone as I experienced it was surprising. I thought they would sound like cigar box fiddles. They didn't. That's why I'm asking about building one with arches. I mostly repair now in a CA foothills community, so I have some time to play around with it. Think I'll give it at least one try. If something good results, I'll post about it.

I have heard for years of trapezodial shaped violins (Savart style) and didn't pay much attention. Recently I had a chance to look at and play a few that a friend has, and was quite surprised by the tone (better then many standard student violins I've played). Both plates on these things are flat (though some appear rolled over on the outside edges-but not carved in the traditional sense), and I got to wondering how they might sound if the plates were arched inside and out. There is at least one (older) book out on them, but I was wondering if anyone here has built one, or knows of any other info (on the web-whitepapers)? Thanks!

Very interesting page. Yes, that's what I was talking about. Hummm, an interesting study. Thanks for that.

OP here. Yes, I think it would be desirable to keep appearance as close to classical as possible, but I'm one of those few who are not opposed to advances in design, as long as such advances represent a positive advance in the function of the instrument. I'm not certain of course, that what we are talking about here is a positive advance, or if so, that tradition might be standing in the way. For example; many people still are opposed to Pegheds or other geared tuners, while see no problem with them, and have used them since they came out. Anyway, while it was not a part of my original post, I was hoping to see some examples of how bolted necks have been acomplished. Anyone know of any websites with visual examples?

Nonado, can you mention that makers name?

I seem to remember a few years ago there was a thread here about bolt-on violin necks. While I realize that the idea might raise some eyebrows, was there any success in this? If I remember rightly, the idea incorporated easy neck adjustments, although I'm guessing there was a weight increase to deal with. Does anyone remember this?

Well, here's what I've done in the past. I'm not sure where I got this, but I've seen it before a few times on the web, so it must be a fairly common technique. To be honest, I'm not sure of the science here, so if I say something wrong, well, too bad for me. Lightly stuff a glass peanut butter jar with fine non-oiled steel wool (600 is fine) and fill jar with household vinegar (5% is best). Screw on the cap and punch it with a few air holes. Wait until the vinegar eats the wool, which might take from a few days to a few weeks (and it likely won't eat all of it). Should be a dark brown or grey color when done. Filter the solution with a coffee filter into another jar when done. 1/4 cup of this solution is needed, the rest can be discarded. Add 2-1/4 cups of distilled water (tap water will work if necessary) to the 1/4 cup of solution. Apply this with a rag to all the external maple parts of the violin. You want the wood to get nicely wet, but not soaked! When dry, knock down with very fine steel wool or paper. If the flame is not dark enough, repeat. This may leave the violin with either a greenish, blackish, or grey tint, or both, but this dissappears when a ground is applied. What happens is that the iron oxide in the solution reacts with the tannin in the wood and makes areas with more tannin (flamed areas have more tannin) darker. If the maple is just barely showing any flame, it can be painted with a very strong solution of English Black Tea. This adds tannin to the wood, helping the process described above. The results of all this is questionable. it certainly effects the flame, but in a good or bad way will be your decision!

In regards to the original question, I'm not convinced that there are all that many 'secrets' (you mean techniques?) being kept from websites, forums, or books for that matter. I think it's all a matter of understanding certain approches rather then thinking of them as technical secrets. Oh yes, certain makers have different approaches to arching, corner cutting, thicknesses, scroll carving, even grounds, varnish, etc. etc. but these all revert back to original basic ideas and methods, concepts long in use. I'm no master luthier in my own mind, but much of what I know I got from this very website over the years. There are other great making sites as well you could check out. But I can't presently identify any basic "secrets" to learn about.

OP here. Thanks for all the responses guys. I found a pic (see below) on the web somewhere showing a Strad that was divided up to show all the areas where PHI applied. I first found this rather surprising, then realized that any artist of the time must surely have been aware of trends in mathmatics, and the golden proportion was well known by the beginning of the golden period of violin making (hummm...lots of 'goldens' floating around here.). That's what got me interested, but I'm certainly not loosing any sleep over it. Further, I realize that the base design of the violin came from a combination of design results from previous instruments, certainly the restraints of the human body, and ideas (and experiments) from Amati and others of his time (but I can't see Amati alone as the sole creator). I think this is worthy of further research (if there's anything left to research) and may do so. Thanks again!

Thanks, but your response is a bit confusing in itself. You say "I am convinced that Andrea Amati lay the foundation for violin design and that every luthier in Cremona was basically just repeating what he (or his teacher) did..." Hummm, so if Amati did in fact have a teacher (and who was that person?) then the teacher came up with the design? Lines and circles?...okay, based on what? You also say, "This is a big and complicated topic. It doesn't lend itself easily to a discussion board." Well, sorry for wasting everyone's time here! I thought the original question was pretty simple. Where can it be discussed or read about??

Yes, I've read Torbjorn's method of F hole placement elsewhere. I understand PHI and certainly don't think of it as something mystic, and while I realize that the golden age of violin making was also a time of strange scientific beliefs, I also realize that the real properties of PHI remain effective scientific fact today long after the days of trying to make gold from lead have disappeared. My question was really less aimed at PHI in setting F holes, and more about wondering if PHI or any other early math formulas came into play in the original form (Amati?) of the violin? The original dimensions had to come from somewhere at a time when there were few other violins references!? I don't think I'm really putting this right.

I believe this came up here a few years ago, but I don't remember any conclusion. The book; The Da Vinci Code got some people in luthery talking when it was siggested that Strad used PHI in the placement of his F holes. Some here said no way. Others disagreed. I've been studying this Golden Number, measuring the dimensions of various old violins such as lengths of various parts, compairisons of bout sizes, etc. etc., (of both 4/4 and smaller instruments) and indeed this proportion does seem to come up (or comes very close) in a lot of these compairisons. Now, I'm no math pro, and most of my violin work is in repairing and restoration, not making anymore, but I'm courious about any further thinking on this in recent years. PHI was known by many during the Golden Period of violin making, so it stands to reason some luthiers of the time may have experimented with it. Anyone?

OP here. I think that Don (in his thread #6) pretty much answered this for me. I was talking basically about cheap Chinese violins with basic setups. Since many of these 'factory' jobs use parts primarily machine made (plates, garlands, etc), with likely limited hand finishing, it's not surprising that two of the same brand and model can look nearly identical but have widely differing sound. With limited hand skills and uncertain wood choices, that sound quality spreads acoss a wide variety is not surprising I guess. Too bad.

In the last few years I've seen a number of cheap priced violins (mostly Chinese made) that actually sounded pretty good. I've even seen two of the same make and model where one sounds horrible and the other sounds nice. It got me to wondering what woods are used on the bulk of these things. I know it's maple and spruce, but why the wide variation in sound? Do they just grab the cheapest woods they can find and sometimes get lucky? Any opinions?

Lots of specs on the web for Strad and Amati plate graduations, but does anyone have any average numbers for JB Guadagnini? Thanks!

I blew the picture up a bit and sharpened it, and noticed that the violin is sitting very slightly sideways in it, and that the bag is a bit wider then a violin body. Further, the neck sits halfway out of the top of the bag, with the pegbox level with the bag's grips, possibly causing damage if handled roughly. I'm certain this is a shopping bag, or a schacle of some type. If it was a 'violin bag', it offers little or no protection for the instrument.

I blew the picture up a bit and sharpened it, and noticed that the violin is sitting just slightly sideways in it, and that the bag is considerably wider then a violin body. Further, the neck sits halfway out of the top of the bag. Also, the bag grips are level with the pegbox, suggesting possible damage if roughly handled. I'm certain this is a shopping bag, or a sachel of some type. If it was a 'violin bag', it offers little or no protection for the instrument.

I've seen a number of violins labled Ernst Kreusler, made in the 1910's-20's. I haven't heard much about this name as a luthier. Was he an actual maker, or are these (as I suspect) German factory violins with that name on the label? And what does one look for to verify authenticity?

Quote: "If the proper balance is not maintained, the bow will be very difficult to play." Well, I know from experience that some players (myself included-I play jazz and am usually closer to the tip) like the balance a bit closer to the tip, while others prefer it a bit closer to the frog. So what exactly is 'the proper balance'? Since these variable choices exist, a difficult bow to play must be very unbalanced! No?

On bowmaker Andreas Grütter's website it is suggested that, depending on bow weight, balance, and a number of other factors, removing the silver winding can improve the bow's response. The 'science' behind this can be read on the site, but, has anyone here tried this and what were the results?

I like vernice bianca and use it exclusively on my fiddles. I don't finish or ground the neck, but simply rub it with linseed oil on my fingers and dry it well. I like a neck that's glass smooth and haven't found that when using finishes or grounds on the neck...but that's just me.

Didn't see this until just now, but I must disagree that cold (wet) bent ribs will automatically re-assume their shape when released from the mold. I grew up in the blueridge (VA) and learned cold bending, which I've always used. The idea is to bend as slowly as it takes until the strip fully fits the mold, keeping the wood damp (we also made the molds so that the ribs could be cut to perfect size while in the mold). This usually resluts in the wood comforming to the mold (the rib bender is also referred to as a mold) quickly at first, and then much slower as it pulls further into the final shape. Then we would throw the molds up onto the barn roof (where it was warmest) and basically forget about them unless it rained. I do have some that have been out of the molds for some years, which retained the bent form just fine. Works for me....but do I think that Strad did this? Probably not...but then again, it works fine, the limited technology has always been there, and I have no doubt that ribs have been cold bent for as long as they have been hot bent, so who knows?