Shunyata

Members
  • Content Count

    347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Shunyata

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. What sources/suppliers do you use for tonewood? Is anyone else finding that availability is becoming spotty in the last couple of months?
  2. I strongly endorse the 1/7th method. Deviating from this placement has generally harmed the responsiveness of my instruments.
  3. I make my own violins and fit my own bridges... $20 for a good quality blank and an hour of fussing to get the profile properly fitted to the violin. I would charge more than $45!
  4. Someone said, "I'm find it amazing that some people don't seem to grasp even some of the most simple mechanical principles." As a mechanical engineer who has done his fair share of finite element deformation models, I agree - but not necessarily in the way you mean. The bottom line is the deformations are complex, in multiple directions, not just one. But with some basic thought you can rank the first order effects. Bridge compression is significant, end folding is not. The f holes tend to concentrate bridge deformation in the center of the plate so "bulging" is not heavily driv
  5. Agreed... there is no way that "folding" distortion - bringing neck and tail together - can cause flattening of the top. In fact it would cause buckling of the top and an INCREASE in arching!
  6. Some of the difference in arching that I am seeing likely would not arise from string load on the plate. I make the assumption that load would tend to flatten arching. The profiles I am seeing actually tend to concentrate increased curvature at the upper bout widest-point. As a mechanical engineer, I don't see how this would occur solely through load. If course that does not mean the historical shapes are undistorted. But there is more than just distortion going on.
  7. Looking at the other discussion, I can see this topic is a real can of worms. The short answer seems to be that what I am seeing actually exists in old instruments. Whether I should duplicate it is another matter. I will simply note that the instruments I make with a flatter top profile sound good... perhaps this is answer enough.
  8. I would like to make sure I properly understand a subtlety. The long arch has a high point in the middle of the plate and slopes down to the top and bottom edge of the plate. For backs it seems like the arching is typically symmetrical - the top-side arch and bottom-side arch are mirror images. For bellies it seems like the bottom-side arch is very similar to the back. But the top-down arch is rather different. The belly top-side arch seems to stay flatter as you move from the center, then fall more steeply once you cross the upper bout wide point. Do I understand thi
  9. FFT is designed to detect independent components. I there are two fundamental tones, that is what FFT will find. Your ear also hears the sum of those two fundamental tones, which is often perceived as "beats'. But mathematically FFT is incapable of hearing the beats.
  10. This is where the difference between artistic and pecuniary influences shows up. I am an ameteur with an overly romantic view of violin making. But even my shop has a bandsaw and a drill press.
  11. My bad. It is Strobel that refers to scoop as a "non essential nicety". Johnson and Courtnall instructs one to produce a "hollow", no more than 1mm on the G string side - with some passing acknowledgement to making room for string vibration. J&C also talks quite a bit about assymetry in the radius and scoop, aiming for a subtle and efficient profile.
  12. I am an enthusiastic amateur, so pardon my ignorance about scoop. The texts I have read (e.g. Johnson and Courtnall) seem to imply that scoop is "optional", not strictly necessary, but some players seem to prefer it. I haven't seen that it is essential for talented, vigorous players. (I can only vouch for myself, an untalented, vigorous player.) Then again, I haven't tried to solo over a full orchestra. I suppose a lot has to do with the nut height on the G string, too. If you wanted a super low nut height, an extra 1mm of clearance in in the scoop could be important.
  13. I have made finger board with flat profiles and constant-radius curvature. I don't see any difference in playability or interference with strings. My opinion is that scoop is just an accidental artifact of constant radius templates.
  14. The geometry is a simple conic section. If you use a constant radius of curvature at every point along the length of the fingerboard you will automatically wind up with a hyperbolic "saddle" around 1mm deep. (I measure by putting a straight edge against the fingerboard surface and measuring the maximum gap.)