sospiri

Very nice. I am an admirer of subtle and variable vibrato in this context. I also liked the fullness of the sound from a string quintet.

Psychoacoustics is also what we think we hear, sometimes illusory.

What about longitudinal tension, to help prevent the arching ridge sinking under the bridge over time?

Is there enough rosin on the bow?

Thanks for the reply. I'm fascinated by the possibilities of what these images offer in design and function. I was when I first posted here. Do you believe the nut and fingerboards on the 1668 and 1679 are original?

And is it whimsical to suggest that some of Stainer's fingerboards may have been similar to those posted above by Davide? And Nicolo Amati too? Jackson and Martin, can we debate this without the ad hominems?

I repositioned 6mm north with no difficulty. It really was simple. The 1679 Stainer is 8mm north of the pegbox heel. Both the 1668 and 1679 Stainers have a very thin nut very close to the G peg. It it really so unreasonable to suggest that the nut was moved up and down by some luthiers? And since that time all Cremonese violins have been standardised to modern string length.

There isn't an ideal string break angle. Just different effects from different angles. An average number is probably best for the average player though. But I like the idea of having variables.

I'm trying to build up natural immunity.

Thanks Davide. Today measurements are so standardised. It was more variable then. This discussion shouldn't make people so angry. Yes and yes.

And a tradesmen's entrance used by men hauling carts of wood.

Yes. Bruce Carlson says the original neck was 120mm.

I think they probably just changed the fingerboard as and when necessary.

"It can be seen that the walls of the pegbox have been thinned out as they approach the nut. This is to allow the E and G strings easier access to the box. This feature seems to be original, but it may be a later alteration."

Nut and fingerboards replaced. Sometimes with a longer string length. Why such hubris?