Jump to content
Maestronet Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

2558 profile views

chanot's Achievements


Member (3/5)

  1. I guess Strad added screws to his body/ neck joints plus hide glue..I didn't dovetail mine when making 30 years ago .. they are still solid ..am I just lucky? ..would the small dovetail in the upper block be that helpful in firming up that joint to resist pull of strings over the long haul.?
  2. I am a retired physician; amateur maker and player with 3 violins and one viola I created primarily in 1980s and 90s..could use brighter E string on one and note that Goldbrokat E's have found favor. Were these prominent players using Goldbrokats /Lenzner plain steel or brassed steel or the new 24 karat gold..I thought I heard that some experts were using one that was Tin Plated.(apparently unavailble now).are any less susceptible to whistle ?
  3. Duane.. Thanks so much for your invaluable info.
  4. The articulate analogy to the cat painting her/himself purple in the" good vs bad discussion " made me laugh

    1. Violadamore


      Why thank you.  It did me too, after all the bites and slashes healed.  :lol:

  5. Thanks to all for the tips on the Larsen A string for viola and sound post position--- much appreciated
  6. Could I trouble someone for proper string spacing for 3/4 violin bridge. Thanks.
  7. My 15 inch viola (my build) has Obligato set strings..All OK but A seems weak and a bit fuzzy. Any ideas Re: adding an A from a different company
  8. used to use spirit varnish rub on rub off ..Like Karate Kid..now I'm concerned if this can be shipped to me through Canadian Mails...I have a product labelled "oil primer" and this raises the question so clearly presented by the experts above... whether it will correctly seal/size the wood..I'll contact the supplier Lemuel in Ontario and see if he can send me spirit varnish through the mails (then I could use it as ground and follow with my usual clear oil varnish with various color extracts Advice would be appreciated..Chanot
  9. Thanks to Tim for advice will try the trick on D.peg turns.. Violin Rus: glad the weight worked..will you be able to cut the new bridge to be heavier..it may not work as well as the located metal weight..I have tried to create the heavier bridge and left the top thicker up to 2.5 and over 4mm in center and left feet and knees at 5 but it seemed to dull all strings.....wondered about trying a 7 mm post and place it more south for a real shrill e? Apparently the narrower top of post gives better fulcrum.. so who knows about the 7mmm... will try it a question just popped into mind..probably crazy? ..could sound post ever be moved west actuallyoutside of the back of foot..That is, cut a longer post for primary placement in that position that unusual position?
  10. A very shrill e not eased by sd post adjustment on a 19th century French Instrument I'm restoring..tuning of bridge also no help..."heavy bridge" has been recommended....odd.. If I affix a tiny piece of silver on bridge on treble side it does reduce the shrillness... but I don't like to do this as I think it affects the other strings adversely . .Maker since 1980...Where and how would one find a "heavy bridge? I usually choose the best Aubert/Mirecourt... If I leave top of bridge at 2.5 mm instead of 1.3 mm still doesn't reduce the problem.... Also i have a recurring problem in lack of richness of D string in some of my violins..?? thicknessing problems...self taught Advice appreciated
  11. Been away for few years doing jewellry and large sculpture. Missed my violin making and restoring and contact with friends at Maestronet. Came across a Francois Salzard violin made mid 19th century. Has been roughly treated, with edge of front plate excoriated both at middle bouts and upper bouts.. and 2 corners of front plate missing. Sound post fell when strings removed and violin jarred... post showed excellent crafting but at some time in the past or.. maybe the current one..must have been too long, as the inner border of f hole is about 0.8 mm above outer border near middle ..Upper wing is only about .33 mm raised. I wonder how much tone is disturbed by this apparent minimal displacement? I believe I read advice not to insert a slightly shorter post with string tension at partial to "retrain the slightly elevated front plate to gradually settle to unelevated state and eventually accept the proper length of sound post...Likely the post would fall in this case during the treatment if strings removed and would appear too short when placed without string tension .... Likely not enough distortion to remove top...No sound post crack... ...Would some application of moisture to corpus from internal moisturizer help if this procedure was attempted?.. ..Probably should follow advice I just read from of one of the experts and fit post lightly snug with no string tension at the current elevation of front plate and leave well enough alone. I wonder how much tone suffers in a fiddle apparently played for years with this minimal elevation of front plate from too long post? Depends how it sounds after I string it up now and make new bridge (missing) whether I go on to restore the edges of spruce top.Advice is appreciated. Chanot/Dale Palko MD
  12. Modified about 3 years ago a 7/8 rather lack lustre violin I made early in my career to hole in heart viola..can be done with shorter children's instruments as well for the kids who like the bass better than treble...a difficult process to keep the hole in top plate just larger than the sound post so that it doesn't rub against side..what it does mainly is free up vibrations of the top plate between the f holes as the plate is no longer restricted in movement by being pinched from downward force of treble foot and upward force of top of sd..not bad sound in bass range close to viola sound...treble a bit less rich and projecting. One can add a heavier tailpiece to enhance this conversion..Although the internal volume is smaller than traditional viola range,Violin Physicist Professor Beament in his book says the mathematical calculation of optimal size in violas would result in too large for player comfort...If not careful the post tends to move in direction of string tension or laterally and seize up against inner edge of hole...defeating its purpose ..I can't quite figure out the strange metal pin on this fiddle... doesn't seem to link with treble foot..there is a convex semicircle in the treble foot? treble foot. Hole in heart described in STRAD about 10 years ago especially for smaller student fiddles for kids who just aren't likeing the violin tonal range and prefer viola like sounds. One uses a glued dowel about 2 mm diameter and 5mm long set into ankle of treble foot(the foot being first removed at mid ankle..also set into the top of sd. post and glued. Dale P "Chanot"
  13. Michael: its an honor to receive your advice. We corresponded years ago when I purchased a violin with a cleverly forged repair label allegedly by Stradivari( label fooled the people at Strad magazine as it was almost the same as his signature on his will..but it turned out the violin was not old enough) I copied the article by Hutchins some years ago from the web.it is entitled A NOTE ON PRACTICAL BRIDGE TUNING FOR THE VIOLIN MAKER...going to the web today I have found two listings as to its publication..ACOUSTICS FOR THE VIOLIN MAKER VOL II J42 Page 41 and CATGUT ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY LIBRARY issue 42 page 15-18 NOV.1984..they were only references and I couldn't bring the article to the screen. Don't know how to send scanned material to Maestronet but could fax to you.. I'm at dalepalko@shaw.ca. I looked at a number of my bridges..20 years worth.. and all have the gentle TRANSVERSE convexity on the fb side with perfectly flat top edge.. but I note that the transverse convexity is greater on some and less then others.Of course this varies with the bridge height somewhat. If you look at a completed and mounted bridge from the side and compare the slope facing fb to a steep ski hill ( note Padah hound) my earlier bridges have no convexity in the vertical axis (ie down the fall line) That always concerned me(but I guess it was correct) because this usually reduced the thickness of the transitional area below heart and between kidneys to less then the recommended 4mm... I carved a bridge yesterday following the guidelines in your book (stay healthy..Antonio lived to about 90- maybe longevity from exposure to the woods and the continued mental challenges)I started with reducing the lower 1/3 to a thickness of 4.6 mm working on both faces 2/3 to 1/3.. then created a straight top of 1.5 mm. The top 1/3 of bridge showed the maximal transverse convexity on fb side and a tiny bit on other side. Here is where I need your help. I didn't follow your final step of placing the bridge on 220 sandpaper over a flat surface and removing the vertical axis transitional convexity where the 4.6 mm thickness meets the tapering from the top.If I did that(as I used to do before getting worried recently about Hutchins' article) I would remove any vertical axis but would reduce the thickness in the transitional area just below the heart and between the kidneys, which I had been told to keep at 4mm.(however not by much.. about 3.75-3.80) One could reduce the tranverse convexity somewhat a bit below top without losing straightness of top but as you say may tend to look sunken..So I think you will likely say its OK to follow your final step and that the slight reduction of thickness at transitional area from final flat sanding is OK.. Thanks to you and Maestronet for your continuing support Dale/Chanot
  14. Hi Jeffrey: Yes I had seen it before and it helps.. but the drawing in Hutchings' paper seemed to show the thickness of the top equal for first few mm down towards the heart then flaring to the remainder of the rest of the face..however Michael Darnton's chapter says the first 5 mm of the bridge on the fb facing surface should not be convex when looking from the side(if I am reading it correctly) only lower on the fb side just above the waist it would show the covexity where there is a little belly( i think you mentioned that in your contribution to the thread) so i'm still not absolutely clear but understand that the lower 1/3 is planed to about 4.6 mm initially and then the top edge reduced to 1.3-1.5 mm even across the top and tapers down with I assume no noticeable ridge or facet where the two angles merge? PS To Michael if he's on the forums these days... your book is going to be an amazing bible for us makers..how would we order? is that wrong to ask? Chanot/Dale
  15. Maybe I've been shaping my bridges wrong thru the years? I usually develop a 1.3- 1.5 mm thickness straight across the top by working on the surface facing the finger board. Then when viewing the finished bridge from the side,my thickness on the surface facing the finger board gradually increases in a uniform taper towards the waist- of course resulting in the usual convex appearance on that surface- While the back of bridge is left alone and maintains a right angle with the plane of the ribs.I thought I just saw in an article by the late Ms.Hutchings, a photo of her drawing of a profile of a bridge that appeared to show the top 5 mm facing the finger board to have no taper-- as if the 1.5 mm top thickness would still measure 1.5 mm thick all the way down that first 5 mm or so.This would seem to leave a ridge at that point and doesn't seem right..Any advice would be appreciated Dale/Chanot
  • Create New...