sospiri

Christian, they complement each other beautifully.

Cranky.

Yes, Zukerman's attack is very powerful, deliberately so. The GdG is both mellow and and bright in tone, these things are evident even with a most basic recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpeI4vzVsMo

I would love to have a go. No desire to own something so awkward to handle though.

Yes. Just like the way we talk and write. We make it up as we go along. To do this musically seems to me to be such a natural thing to do. The way we construct sentences is remarkably similar to musical phrasing and expression, don't you think?

What's your definition of a pedagogue? Many of the dictionary definitions show a negative connotation.

In that example, where the archings are the same, yes to both questions. In this example: https://www.roger-hargrave.de/PDF/Artikel/Strad/Artikel_1987_09_Jacobus_Stainer_1697_PDF.pdf or one with even higher arching, the top block has to me made deeper the counteract the greater forces. That's how I see it, with a normal sized block the forces would be too great. Perhaps that was one of the reasons why high arching went out of fashion? Maybe some of the skills were lost?

Ne cogitare nimium nec parum.

I think there is some miscommunication here that is inevitable and debating will only make it worse. My point was simple, a point you made earlier in the thread, we all find different set ups more or less comfortable and it help our playing and perception etc. I know who Michael Darnton is.

Are we talking real or imaginary differences in sound? A difference in playability when adjusting projection will affect how you get the sound you want won't it? But it that really a measureable difference in the actual sound. And didn't Martin make this very point a few days/pages back? If Don Noon is skeptical of the efficacy of intervention x in tonal 'improvement' whatever that might be, then I consider his words carefully. I'm obsessed with tone and playability but I think there is a lot of illusion and delusion around the subject. If you have a specific point to make that is demonstrably cogent and not just an opinion then I'm all ears, but I know that sometimes we can imagine an improvement when there really is none. The kidology factor is something I'm very aware of. I don't have a definition of boxy though.

Please excuse me if you think this too hubristic but my own neck resets were worked out carefully and executed to my satisfaction. It was a simple case of undestanding basic trigonometry. The effects on sound? Well I agree with Don; not a whole hill of beans. Il Cannone is not a standard neck projection is it?

Ok, so what should a restorer do and not do? Structurally, I agree with posters on page one about too high a projection. OPs projection problems are easily solved. As is too low a projection. Shaving too much is probably easy to do, but surely that's a beginners mistake? Cosmetically I don't like wedges on the neck.

I want you to step back from over asserting the issue of understanding the forces. It's beyond anyone's comprehension. The number of variables involved is huge and they all interact. Carry on using your eyes and ears to do what looks and feels right.

I agree Michael. A thread full of awesome alumni failing to address the OPs question.

You're confusing yourself with these issues. Each tweak has its own effect on torque. If you raise the nut position and/or overstand and thus reduce string angle..... well reduced string angle reduces torque also doesn't it? So aim for bridge height and string angles like you have been (correctly) doing for years.