Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

ViolinAnanda

Members
  • Posts

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

ViolinAnanda's Achievements

Member

Member (3/5)

  1. I meant thinner side to side, while front to back remains the same. Maybe i should have used word "narrower' instead I tried to carve out with precision knife waist while the bridge was on the violin with strings on full tension. I made ankles narrower with precision file also with bridge under full tension. So I could immediately test whats the difference while having everything else at the same configuration in relation to soundpost etc.
  2. When studying bridges I've noticed that the most effect on better responsiveness was making waist and ankles thinner. I could change other elements but there was not as much effect. It seems to me that it's because waist is the point where the upper part is rocking from one side to the other on the same axis as movement of bow. It seems that the same thing is for the ankles (I saw some old threads where people measured rocking frequency attached to ankles). 1. Would you say that the rocking of waist is carrying middle and high sound vibrations, while the rocking on ankles are carrying lower frequencies? (If I make thinner feet I will improve capacity to carry low vibrations. If I make waist thinner I will improve middle and high frequencies responsiveness). Is that your experience too? 2. How one knows what is the optimal thickness for the waist and ankles so, it's flexible enough to allow itself to rock while being resistant at the same time to discharge rocking movement further into energy carried to the top plate? Is there a way without testing and risking overdoing, carving too much? If one makes waist and ankles too thin I think It will rock easily but the energy will flow as badly as in situation where waist and ankles are too thick. Some say knowing rocking frequency can help but the same rocking frequency with different wood density, volume can have inconsistent results I think.
  3. Wow, the strings in your violin are long, I think it would help a lot my violin if it had 3-4 mm more string length, but not sure if it would be ok to move bridge further past the recommended notches lime. So I get the idea that it's 1/3 because the upper part of bridge has to be on the center of notches line. But in your bridges the back is slightly slanted, I wonder if that position would be different for bridges with perfect vertical back, as then top part is in different position.
  4. Now, I tried it and It doesn't entirely contact the surface as top plate is curved but more or less it gives good glimpse if one of corners of ruler is 1-2 mm above top plate. I think it would be a good idea to just make one's own ruler from some stiff plastic material so one of the corners would be 1-2 mm longer and use it as adjusted 90 degree template for given violin. It seems in your violin top plate is all ideally parallel and perperdicular to the edges so it would make sense. In mine violin there are slight deviations, so can't use this as perfect reference. What string length do you get in your violins after bridge set up? Do you consistenly achieve the same string length (let's say 326.5 mm) using eyes only for 90 degree angle or there is some error margin of 1 mm depending on luck? Now since my bridge is tilted towards fingerboard, I'm thinking it could be also the cause for my wolftone on A string when I play with bow close to the bridge, which dissapears if I play with bow close to the fingerboard. If I had that additional 1.5 mm of strings length it would give me additional space to play closer to the bridge and maybe the wolftone would be totally gone too. Also recently watched Edgar Russ's video from Cremona in which he said that the bridge should stand on 1/3 of the line created by the f-holes, not exactly in the center. I always thought it should stand exactly in the center of the line. Is that practice true and what would be the reason 1/3 would be better that 1/2? He says it in this video
  5. 1. Soon I will be carving bridge and I am curious how one can be sure that bridge back is 90 degree with the top plate so the strings length will be in range 325-328mm. I saw luthiers on videos who only used their eyes looking from side to make sure its 90 degree but im not sure they will be always precise this way. The top plate is often curved so its hard to be sure its 90 degree with that reference. Do they compare it with the edges of violin maybe as reference? 2. In my violin that I bought in dealer shop where bridge was carved by luthier it seems that the back is not 90 degree but the front is 90 degree instead, the string length is 325mm. Is this correct way of carving? I saw other violins in the shop had similar their bridges carved in the same way. I attach photo of my violin and its bridge.
  6. Thank you all for the responses! I wish in 21 century someone would come up with even better and cheaper solutions than hamberger soundposts. Wish there were also some innovative tools to move it around with precision of 0.01mm
  7. When moving soundpost to the east towards f-hole... how people know if the actual effect they achieve comes from changed position or maybe it's because top and bottom plate are closer so with the same soundpost length it becomes tighter. It seems no one can objectively measure and check what would be the actual effect as that would require to shorten soundpost everytime they do it so that the tightness is exactly the same as in previous position. So I'm reading many different opinions in internet what is the effect of moving soundpost towards f hole: 1. Some say it will amplify E and A string (but is this really due to movement or unnoticed side effect of tightness) 2. Some say it will make G string have more clarity 3. Some say it will make the sound more bright (but is this really due to movement or unnoticed side effect of tightness) 4. Some say sound will be more tense similar to distancing hands from each other when lifting weights. (and again is this really due to movement or unnoticed side effect of tightness) I often don't see people mentioning that this movement towards f hole will make soundpost tighter and I don't know if they take it into consideration when explaining the effect. What in your opinion moving soundpost to the east actually does, assuming somehow one would keep exactly the same tightness of the soundpost?
  8. That's how I got my first $120 chinese violin with special delivery from China, it was delivered wet though but drying it for 1 minute in microwave did the job.
  9. Thank you, that's the answers I was needing! When I carved long time ago $40 Milo Stamm Royal on $120 chinese violin and it sounded too sharp and harsh, I carved later in the same exact way $10 Milo Stamm Standard and this time it sounded beautiful. Later in Royal version experimentally I even tried to carve out more of the wood in the waist and feet that It was recommended or just make it gradually thinner in different places and It always was giving too sharp sound due to more stiff material that gave too much undesired punch into low quality top plate that was not able to translate into beautiful sound. It was just too high quality bridge for low grade violin like Luthier Edgar Russ mentioned on his website, nothing could be done to make it sound good.
  10. No worries. The photos were sent by employee, they are often bored and whenever there is finally something to do they are grateful . My japanese uncle Sutoradibari knows how to sharpen katana and cut some wood, with a little bit of his help it'll be all fine . I guess all 3 bridges seem to be normal by the answers I got here. I was hoping though everyone would say to choose number 3 as the face side has longest rays of all and I heared that it can matter a lot. Even though it's hard to see long rays on side photos as the photo focus is bad but I assume if the face side has long rays then the thin sides will also have long rays more or less. What I am also worried is that I might be buying too high quality bridge for my Klaus Heffler No.500 violin. How can I know that without first buying and testing? Luthier Edgar Russ says on his website https://www.violincellomaker.com/blogs/masters-secrets/how-to-choose-the-perfect-bridge - "You can understand that if you would put a deluxe bridge on a low grade instrument it would actually amplify this sharp focus sound which probably is not the great solution (and not the best to hear). " I once carved Milo Stamm Royal on my previous $120 chinese violin and I got that harsh sharp focus that sounded very bad. I hope that with Klaus Heffler No.500 that is 10-20 times more expensive, the $40 Royal version will not be too sharp for it's grade. The Fiddlershop is selling Klaus Hefflers violins with Despiau Three Tree bridges which is of similar price as Milo Stamm Royal and on their youtube recording their violins sounded nice. I hope that Despiau Three Tree and Milo Stamm Royal are of the same stiffness. But Despiau bridges are not available in my location so I have to choose Milo Stamm. For Klaus Heffler No.500 violin would you rather choose $40 Royal version or $20 Premium version bridge that might be slightly softer but I might risk that I will not get full potential out of violin?
  11. Online shop dealer sent me pictures of 3 Milo Stamm Royal bridges to choose from. Based on looking on medullary rays which one is the best in your opinion and why? Or maybe none is quite good enough?
  12. Thank you all! I've heard opinion that Aubert bridges wood supply is recently very bad than it used to be and Milo Stamm is one that has most consistency when it comes to quality. I'm thinking if I'm gambling a lot if I buy "Royal" version in online shop without seeing it first. If there is lots of variety when it comes to wood quality selection or maybe the manufacturer knows all these things and makes sure that most expensive bridge will be 9 in 10 cases always best of the best. My local shop is quite far away and not sure if they are abundant in having a lot of bridges to choose from.
  13. Which Despiau bridge model is your favorite? How would you compare Despiau with Milo Stamm?
  14. In reality using physical eyes and right light settings the vertical lines are nearly invisible fod me, it's because my phone used auto-contrast in the picture they became visible. Its easier to notice horizontal lines on the sides without effort though. The pictures below show uncarved $10 Milo Stamm Standard and carved $40 Milo Stamm Royal. Interesting that the horizontal grain lines seem to be of the same consistency in both, yet the Royal version is much stiffer. The vertical lines on one side are more visible than on the other side in second picture. If they had no signatures I would have hard times telling that they are different through visuals. The only difference is that on front face the Royal version has thicker flecks.
  15. Not sure if I understand it right. Observing it like in this picture On sides I dont see much rays, usually the most visible rays when looking at front and back faces.
×
×
  • Create New...