• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About GoPractice

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. My intent is not to stir up an argument here. I might have read through this thread a little too fast and might also be missing some details. Maestro Noon, your statement, "My response plots show that body resonances don't change noticeably with varying string tension," and i think this is true at the lower frequencies on some of the plots i have produced. Though i have not establish a better way to measure the long and lateral movements across the entire length of an instrument, what I subjectively notice, is that the overtones or extended frequencies of these lower frequencies do change. These upper frequencies get lost in the plots since it is harder to read the changes in the frequencies on 2d plot simply because the resolution of pitch tends to smear together. But my ears ( actually hands too ) tell me that something is changing. A luthier has run off with my copy of the Strad3d dvd awhile ago, so i can not clearly imagine the movement of the top when bowing the lowest notes of the g- string, but i can perceive changes in the sound and certainly the response. While setting up this experiment, the tailpiece interaction can be significant. I have removed all tuners and sometimes wedge a block under the TP near the saddle in efforts to create better isolation. I have used wire in some tailpiece experiments but have found composite string to also be very stiff. My goal is to eliminate the tailpiece all together and use full-length steel strings similar to a guitar strings, but the existing guitar strings are simple in construction and do not behave well, ringing for far too long. I am not sure that this is the best direction, but the intent is to force the elasticity or the distortion of the top. This is where the body movements might not be changing very much, but if there are any changes... When there is more time, i will play around some more. I do miss watching the dvd, but these are examples of ideal instruments. Thank you for your work. So i do hope that
  2. Note: These images were borrowed from Millant from another thread. Thank you again Maestro Pasewicz for the concise reply. To clarify my previous thread, the above photo is an example of an instrument that would require considerable adaptations in set up. In addition to the upper eye being so close together, assuming the bassbar is just inside the left upper eye, the f- holes appear to be placed lower on the top. Placing the bridge foot over the bassbar would require a narrow bridge. It would also be a bit scary securing a post along the grain lines that approach the right-side upper eye. As one might see, there are so many potential pitfalls, but an owner would likely want it "correctly" set up.
  3. Maestro Manfio is helpful to me in this discussion. Maestro Preuss, is it worth mentioning the quality of the bassbar wood? I was curious about this while reading the thread. Of the instruments played the last dozen years with taller, narrower ( longer ), bass bars most have been very nice. Of those, the impression was that they played more powerfully than expected while just a fewer were very smooth tonally for a new instruments. I also believe that the graduations were likely to have been a bit thinner overall with longer f- holes. The Bassbar was very visible from the f- holes. Long term, i have not seen any of those instruments recently, but the one i owned for 2 years kept getting better and better. Optimizing the strings helped as did post adjustments along the way.
  4. Thank you for replying, Maestro Pasewicz. This has been my understanding. Also in my past experience, the inexpensive reference is the Strobel's Useful Measurements for Violin Makers book that describes "the standard or initial position of the post..." ( my bolding ) as being behind the right - treble - side of the bridge foot. And without linking previous postings in MN, there are so many instruments that are not set up with an ideal bridge width, based on a healthy bassbar. Even before moving the post, it might not be possible to generalize too freely about how a SP might react. Most post adjustments, in that sense are "temporary," if the starting point of the ideal set up is already compromised. At the costliest, a new bassbar, bridge and post could be expensive but for recreating a reasonable form, establishing some symmetry and having better graduations. I am not trying to be regressive, but i have been caught in the dilemma of just setting the post so the facets fit and offering limited adjusts to the players taste for, at best a nominal fee, when an instrument is in obvious distress due to the post position. This is for less expensive instruments and it is just a goodwill gesture but the player or parent should also take the responsibility of understanding the situation. So explaining all that, is it possible that there might be any generalization based on that "initial" position? Again, Maestro Pasewicz' offered the "bark" description to help in understanding an example of over-tightness of the post. We know there are consequences with distortions in arching and potential saddling if we over do it. I am sure many have experience an instrument with a post on the wrong side of the bridge. I am certainly interested in an example where the instrument sounded better that way.
  5. The thing about measuring devices is determining how one decides to use them. Even the use of the knuckle, at many levels, is different in the hands of a novice compared to that of a professional or an artist. There are bowmakers who are or should be considered artists, rather than professional bowmakers. The difference is in how they create a bow out of an interesting piece of Pernambuco they have selected. Workmanship is one thing, as we can learn to visually assess such qualities over time studying books and looking at bows. But for most of us who do not work in a shop, we listen to discussions and listen to an assortment of advice from friends and associates. We can trust our eyes, perhaps too much. An interesting piece of Pernambuco is a piece of wood that a maker believes is worthy of a new life beyond it's existing on a shelf. The meter helps some determine, if there is a pre-build value for potential buyers. It is part of preparing for a sale. I would also guess, that buyers might feel better if a maker had a meter? and the data logged for the stick might be of some interest generations from now. Otherwise, the grain, the color, the density, the run out, its resilience, its resonance or its sheer charm is why a maker might choose a particular stick. The meter, for the Artisan, would likely not make the list. I am not saying it that it is irrelevant, but rather, like our sight might blind us from the observational sounds of planing and the feeling of the stick if it were in the maker's hands. They would know. Know what to do. Or not do. They have handled thousands of bows in training and in study. While perhaps on a CNC machine, the set up of the stick and finding the ideal chip and clear rate would likely be more important as the roughing out stage and the duration of the finish work would be limited. Or maybe not. Perhaps an insigthful maker can fell these subtleties in the final mm of work. But the practical part of life is that a young maker can not house several hundred blank, or for a professional maker it is important to be able to sell bows in a trending markets. The Lucchi meter, for the price of a dozen fairly nice blanks can afford some sense of security and possible outcomes. Does it insure outcomes? i would like to suggest: probably less likely for most, but for others it might be very important. But i am uncertain of this. I am sure there are some makers who find it to be a very important tool. Players are also a vast sea of unknowns. Bony hands vs fat hands, slender vs heavy arms, good posture vs adaptive caressing ( have some of you seen Gaelynn Lea perform? listen to her - the tone, is it glowing? )... i can probably adjust my playing for high m/s sticks. I do. My last Parisian bow, expensive and purchased brand new with no prior chance to play, is really stiff and light. My students generally love it ( predictable spiccato and power ) but i struggle to achieve what i consider my range of sound. It is dynamic and where you point it, it goes. But delicate? dreamy? It is unforgiving and with about 200 hours of use ( 20 of which are mine ), i can sound amateurish if not unsure, trying to determine how to best play the bow. This might be the stereotypical dilemma of orchestral vs chamber vs solo music playing. Generally, in orchestral work it is to sound uniform; Chamber music requires more nuance and expressiveness, while solo work often is about expressing individuality. Among the finer Lucchi meter using bowmakers ( that i know ) the buyers are usually younger conservatory level players. Perhaps these are the best customers for the best type of tools required in school? Certainly the pricing is more reasonable than a retail French bow. Then after getting a professional position, they are able to acquire a Sartory or similar level bow? It is not intended to steer these generalizations this direction, but the orchestral sound has changed in the past 20 years, arguably for the better while others seriously miss the Ormandy ( Philadelphia - Angel? ) or Szell ( Cleveland - CBS ) or even the more digital Solti ( Chicago - London ), restored digital - Reiner ( Chicago - RCA ), or the fully modern Jansons ( Oslo - Chandos ) sounds? They played Vuillaume era bows. I still will not pass up the ever more rarer opportunity to play this era bow. It is eye and ear opening ( if possible. ) Anyway, the by product of the use of a meter, might be for a stronger - not necessarily a finessed - stick, as i assume the power of the marketplace. The reason i would like a Lucchi meter is in trying to determine if it is possible to measure a "played out" bow. It would be interesting to overplay a bow in person or on a machine and measure to see if there are any changes as the bow becomes subjectively softer in either feel or sound. There are vigourous players out there and some bows do not survive. I can only assume that the integrity of the wood has some how deteriorated and if it could be measurable. My thought was that if there were damage across the grain the m/s would be slower or not read as a high output due to the loss in "heat" energy. I have tried coupling a vibrating element to a frog and measured the output at the tip with a microphone. It is fun just to goof off, but the vibrating element starts to roll off quickly around 1.2k ( 3rd position on e-string ) due to the bow's mass, and to the best of my knowledge the coupling is not perfect and the assembly behaves unpredictably. The fulcrum was near the thumb grip, but some have argued the use of the balance point. So very little is of value but goofing off is fun. Sorry if there are too many thoughts in this narrative.
  6. Just a link to a site: Can search relative posts... a friend recently suggested i purchase one. But not sure the bows i make for myself needs all this added data, though data is cool. The meter is rather pricey.
  7. Maestro Kaspezyk, Thanks for the super clear demo. I am probably not the only one fascinated by these types of adjustments. Would you mind posting the Length of Assembly in it's relaxed length? You mentioned that there was about a 7mm variation in overall length. Do you also generally create about < 2mm or a greater overhang? In your assembly, the greatest elasticity appears to come from the lower bouts which makes sense. When lengthened, the upper and c- bouts are likely in greater tension. This assembly is fascinating as this is, the first place besides the selection of wood, where i give up control to the nature of the ribs. Though a mm or two appears not to be a big deal, every change seems to have an effect on the sound.
  8. Good, inexpensive instruments are scarce - It is truly difficult to visit private parties,looking for an instrument. Until one develops a specific knowledge of what to look for, it is a bit of a challenge. Not knowing what part of the world you are looking for a new instrument, it is a guess as to what type of music you enjoy and are playing. Set-ups can be differ regionally making it hard to offer precise advice. Steel strings are generally not recommended - Steel strings generally were on instruments in classrooms from yesteryear. They can be very durable, but may not necessarily produce a satisfying sound on violins. But there are many brands and some, very sophisticated models out there, but their particular sound can be more desired foe Fiddling, Bluegrass or folk music-styled instruments. Many fine sounding cellos do regularly use steel strings. They generally are higher in tension and may ( ironically ) not be helpful for beginning students despite being marketed to student programs. Frankly, an Asian ( bad quality ) steel set might only cost $5 USD, while a reasonable set of adult synthetic strings might start at $50, while synthetic students strings start at around $25. Synthetic strings are gentler on the left hand and bowing skills will improve faster. I agree with others that have posted about this. A better bow could be a priority - A straight bow with a goof balance will make playing easier and likely keep the right hand more relaxed for a longer period of time. The bow should remain straight even under tension. Synthetic bows have become more reliable and better at the less expensive price-point. I think it is best to learn from the sellers, either in person, online, or over the phone. Some of the better stores will also offer, for free, reasonable quality rosin for free with purchase. If you are to purchase a outfit, see if there is a composite bow upgrade if the wood bow is sub-par in quality. A good seller will actually select a bow for you, if requested. The bow is what makes the violin sing, so it is important. Listen to others if it truly sounds educational - Violin recommendations are difficult in this style forum. And shopping is an education in itself, so it is suggested to spend time looking or researching. If you are patient, what is learned from a good salesperson will help in determining how long you will use the instrument before upgrading to a better instrument. For this reason, location makes a difference. In Elko, Nevada or Milan, Arkansas, there likely won't be a good, upgrade-able, instrument for most students. And you might consider trying a new instrument first. Symmetry, string-type, good set up, are important qualities to look for. You may not find all the important details, but you are better prepared to make a good intuitive, if not educational, choice. Opinions of those close to you matter - Also, trust in your teacher and a good music friend to help with offering opinions. This might help in your decision making, or it might not, but you will have a memory of the decision making process this way. Though this is not a check list, this might steer you in some useful directions. Since those close to you also know you better, their opinions might help in determining what qualities would make a better fit for longevity in playing the instrument.
  9. Outside of the first position, the slope of the upper bout has an effect. In first position, given an identical shoulder rest and chinrest, the muscle memory in the arms -the bend at the elbow - appears to lock in the starting pitch of the 1st ( index ) finger. On longer instruments, the whole step between open and first finger seem wider. The location of the thumb opposite the fingers help adapt the minor adjustments in the fingers without thinking too much. This is a horrible simplification but bringing the thumb closer to the player ( and the middle finger ) pulls the 4th finger back a tiny amount, due possibly to a small twist in the forearm. This is a bit of a psychological fix too. A minor tweak implemented forces us to focus a bit more. Fast passages in the same position, do ok with this tiny adjustment.
  10. I can not miss this opportunity to ask anyone, in the context of adapting the old ways to newer techniques now, what would be the very basic current considerations or parameters when choosing the bridge placement and size? It was interesting to read the Bridge Survey data that was posted elsewhere. I see older work from 50+ years ago and some adaptations appear very innovative even now while others are curiosities. Most of us do not work on better instruments like so many here, but the rest of also try to make what's on the bench better. The pressures and stresses are certainly different but would like to approach the thinking process in similar ways. I can only speak in generalities because VSOs of various origins of the past are sometimes very different.
  11. Having re-read the post, this is a bit Obi-wan or Zen-ish. Obviously your expertise was respected. Is it apocryphal that this could have happened in Switzerland, Austria or Japan? There was a trend out of Cremona going back about ten years in time, where a bunch of violins including Master F Bissolotti's had at least partially varnished or a protected ground applied to the neck. It reminded me of the clearcoat applied ( sprayed? ) on to the entire body of inexpensive instruments. The varnish on the neck has an effect on my playing, as it feels completely different. Players could possibly adapt, or have it scraped off. Did the trend of varnishing necks catch on elsewhere? I know some collectors were fond of this trend, but the first fingerboard work would ruin the appearance and player wear patterns would be both interesting and strange.
  12. Having slept on looking at your pics, on the screen of my laptop, the back matches the color and shininess of any number of the higher-end or mid- French factory instruments. But the top work does not appear to match how i imagine the rest of the instrument, except that the corners match the top. Does the purfling match front/ back? The finish appears French chippy. compared to the bit more robust German finishes that withstand dings better. I can not tell about the fluting of the lower wing of the f- holes, as the right side looks more subtle than the left side. The lower holes are so close to the purfling, that the linings should be visible. Dimensions would be nice, but lacking that information, based on the the pattern, should not the f-holes be longer and the eyes a bit more inboard? So i was mentally commited to the back, but my checklist looks horrible. The visual dissonance here is that the ribs visually do not match the back and the scroll does not match anything. The button on the back is appears to be quite generous but because it is on its side, i can not tell how it is notched in to the edge nor can i judge the symmetry. I see very little similarity between the fullness of the upper f-holes and the stinginess of the back of the scroll. The ribs do not match the back, the repair is also interesting, but what's happening? Was this a repair and/ or composite? Did Master Rury have a story or explanation when selling the instrument?
  13. Side note: Chaudiere? How is it?
  14. This is something that i was taught, but, how often is this possible with the variety of instruments out there? If the bass bar is one that is in location that helps us, do we attempt symmetry? Do we first set the post under right leg, measured to match the distance from the center or the f-hole, assuming the archings are also symmetrical? I think the ( your ) opinion, that there are no standard positions, is correct. But we have to start somewhere. In my mind the adjustable post was important because it would save me a tremendous amount of time. I try not to work late at night and the mornings are reserved for specific work. Morning adjustments leave me cranky. The best time is ideally a few hours after lunch where i am slower in playing, slower in thinking. An adjustable post would be lovely. I could test the next morning and cut a new post at that time, re-fit, retest in the afternoon.
  15. I will get the book and i sincerely thank you for the suggestion. But i am not asking about Dr McLennan's work, but ours? Where is our baseline? Each of us starts somewhere. Hundereds of posts and probably a thousand adjustment later, i still wonder. I know there are those who have made thousands of posts. What's their intuition beyond what's been suggested. I have read Dr Bissinger's work and have had discussions with him regarding rib movement. I follow Master Zygmuntowicz's "gluey" approach and apply mass where I think it has a greater effect on tone of particular instruments. It is super cheap and easy. I like applying what i learn, but because each instrument is rather unique most of start at zero and work from there. I love Australia and almost moved there. It is a great place and long to go, but it is rather isolated. What have you discovered from Dr McLennan's work?