notsodeepblue

Members
  • Content Count

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About notsodeepblue

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just for clarity, when you say plate I take it that you really do mean "plate" (rather than shell)?
  2. If you haven't seen it already, this Strad3D video of Sam Zygmuntowicz discussing his take on the function and performance of f-holes is thoroughly interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke-LkYYXXN8
  3. This is such an informative, and helpful document - thanks very much for sharing.
  4. I believe on that site you will find a scroll template for the Betts, as well as a template for the appropriate form. To make your own companion arching templates, there's a video of a CT scan of the instrument on youtube - nice and easy to digitize and scale to match the published dimensions, and it will give you a rough idea of what an instrument made on a Stradivari form ought to look like (as long as you make an allowance for distortion through time, etc.). For what it's worth, I started making in the same way as you: I bought a strad poster, the Courtnall and Johnson book, searched maestronet for dimensions/hints, and watched all of Davide Sora's magnificent videos. I definitely could have lived without the poster, but not the videos... Along the way, I learned that there was no point in me "copying" an existing instrument - I spent a lot of my time fire-fighting, trying to fix the little mistakes that came from my lack of hand-tool skills / experience, and ultimately this shaped the violin far more profoundly than the source of the templates I used. Unless you have good hand-tool skills and experience of working wood to begin with, you should probably expect the same for your first too and perhaps not worry too much about trying to make your first a "copy" of a specific instrument.
  5. Thanks for the link - always good to see what the professional end of the market is capable of, even if it's well outside my budget. Those look like really good, highly useable results - your posts have definitely given me a lot to think about in terms of how I could improve my own setup in future. thanks again,
  6. Good work! And thanks for posting your video showing your high-end hardware /software in use - I've found it really difficult to find this kind information about this type of high-end system that hasn't been overpolished to the point that it's basically just advertising. For a little while I have been using an Intel RealSense SR300 + budget dlp projector to projection-map computed contours onto plates during arching. My original plan was (on fliipping the plate) to use the same technique to project real-time computed thickness maps, but the depth data was (predictably) just too inaccurate and noisy, even after significant filtering. May I ask if your setup generates accurate, real-time depth data that might allow it to be used in this way, or if it comes together only after off-line post-processing? thanks,
  7. Both of these hypothetical effects would't seem to offer too much help to the violin makers...but perhaps the dealers could use this information: Either measure customers as if fitting a suit (or just put up a discrete sign - "does this violin make your bum sound big"), or hit them with little spruce hammers as they walk through the door?
  8. Given the very limited separation from source, the most acoustically-important body in the room must be the one propping-up the instrument: So do waiflike or wiry violinists project differently to those of their peers that are ..."built more for comfort than speed", and do they have different requirements of an instrument? Which I think is my round-about way of asking whether the sought-after "carry" of a fine instrument should be looked for in the frequency-domain, or time-domain?
  9. Reading this, it seems as if 2.5dB wouldn't be considered a big difference between two instruments - just curious, but what would be? By my quick estimation this would equate to the most powerful having ~180% the power of least powerful, which seems pretty significant to me. I guess I am missing something?
  10. A good first step might be working through this document, if you haven't already: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Documents/Advice factsheets/Consumer Affairs/c-buying-at-auction.pdf A good second step might be asking someone who's opinion you value (but who you haven't shared the details with) to do the same, then take a look at the auction lot details and Bromptons terms and conditions before giving you their honest opinion. It's clear you are unhappy with the situation you find yourself in, but as others have pointed out if there is little hope of reaching a conclusion you are ultimately satisfied with (for whatever reason), pressing-on might not be a great idea.
  11. Any relation to this one? https://maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/343049-bass-bar-crisis/ (if not, there certainly seems to be a type that appeals to you)
  12. What software did you use, and which of the variable input parameters did you use? ... I would also be keen to know, if you don't mind sharing. But most of all, I would be highly interested to know how the resulting approximation(s) are being quantitatively assessed - the lack of an objective, quantifiable metric against which the different methods can be unambiguously tested is a glaring omission in this rather circular thread (...or should that be spiral?).
  13. Salmon's Polygraphice has quite a few - it dates to 1672 or thereabouts. I believe that he had a tendancy to repeat the work of others without properly attributing, so there's a good chance the numerous recipes he provides (example yellow and red varnishes below) are potentially much earlier and in common circulation by this time.
  14. This is such a helpful description - thanks for taking the time to post this.
  15. Sounds like it to me, too. Before you give up on Maestronet (which would be a shame), it might be worth taking a quick look at something seemingly unrelated to see if it gives you a more palatable experience: The Maestronet website seems to delegate the business of advertising (other than the dealers, on the front page) entirely to Google, hence it was Google that offered you the chance to remove the advert you saw. When you load the page, it will be using its highly sophisticated "ad personalization" services to sell/place the adverts you see - this will also be true for countless other websites as well. If you are viewing Maestronet while logged-in to a google acount (gmail, etc.), then the personalization settings associated with that account will potentially be used to select the adverts you see - given that you are the "Maestronet knife guy", I can imagine there might be keywords in your email/web history that will match the audience targeted with Mr. Lapierre's surveys... If so, your web browsing experience might improve if you manually change your ad-personalzation settings - this process is described here: https://support.google.com/ads/answer/2662856 Alternatively, you might like to try browsing to Maestronet using a "private" or "incognito" mode in your web-browser - this should have a similar effect, without changing anything in any google account you may have. And finally, should you wish to pry the advertising dollar from Google's cold, digital hands entirely, there are browser extensions that remove all adverts of this kind for most modern browsers (certainly chromium and firefox, probably edge etc.) - I'm sure lots of Maestronet users will use these and can offer advice as to what works but I can email you a list of the extensions that I use, if it is helpful. Good luck,