ff holes questions

[Oded Kishony]

The air inside the wood is trapped in cells, all the relevant air movement is from the surface of the instrument. At certain frequencies (which differ with each instrument) the F holes flap around wildly, especially the upper wings. I refer you once again to Martin Schleke's web site where you can see this for yourself. ( I believe it's mode 5 that does this) This movement can be a strong radiator of sound.

When I said radiate sound from their edges I simply meant that the flaps of the F holes are moving I didn't literally mean ' from inside the edge' sorry if I wasn't clear.

Oded

[Oded Kishony]

Yes, no doubt about it altering the top will change the sound in as much as it changes the behavior of the entire corpus at frequencies below 1000Hz Above those frequencies the plates behave more independantly and can have an effect on the harmonic overtones. We've wandered off the point so I'm not sure what's the dissagreement (if there is any )

Oded

[Craig Tucker]

"Your entire argument is based on the sound being generated by the top- All the sound of the violin comes from the entire corpus up until about 1000Hz (around B above the open E string! ) So altering the behavior of the top will not have a very noticeable effect on the sound unless it changes the behavior of the entire corpus.

Oded"

Or, if altering the bridge can alter the way the entire violin responds, or, if altering the bass bar can, or the arch or thickness, - then why would it be a stretch to say that ff hole placement can't do the same?

I'm saying that ff hole placement has a lot to do with the tone of the violin. Period. I'm also making the claim that it is the upper eyes that have the greatest effect.

I'm including the basics of how and why I place my ff holes the way I do. You think my thinking is in error? Then what do you think they do and why, or do you think that their placement has no effect on the tone of the violin?

I'm not even saying I'm right - I'm only claiming to do something that works for me. I'll listen to other ideas. But you're not giving me much to go on here - I don't think your argument makes much sense - lots of things you can do to the "top" will change the tone of the entire violin...

Probably, this is like asking a painter how does he know how blue to paint the sky in a painting? Not blue enough or too blue will not work depending on the rest of the painting. There seems to be a specific blue that will work with a specific painting, where entirely another blue will work with another painting.

[Craig Tucker]

Oops sorry, you added to your argument while I was composing. I'll take a look and get back to you on this.

[Oded Kishony]

In this thread people have thrown out a number of famous examples of F holes both close together and wide apart that don't seem to have destroyed the sound of the instrument.

My objection is to your charecterization of how the sound is produced. I'm simply trying to point out that the picture is more complex than how you're presenting it.

Oded

[Michael Darnton]

Over the years I've sort of casually come to the conclusion that of all the things that make a difference, f-hole placement isn't one of them.

Notice how easily people gravitate to the things they can easily measure as being the important ones? Like if you just had all the "best" numbers, you could make a great violin.

[Craig Tucker]

"Notice how easily people gravitate to the things they can easily measure as being the important ones? Like if you just had all the "best" numbers, you could make a great violin."

The fact is that violin making is, to a very great extent, a game of correct measurements.

[Oded Kishony]

I did, in fact, carry out an experiment with F holes a few years ago. I made two cellos with the same wood and same model (my own) but one with longer more open F holes the other with shorter smaller F holes. I expected the one with the larger F holes to have a bigger sound (this is before I learned anything about acoustics) I was surprised when the small F hole cello turned out to be significantly louder, darker and better. Some elements of F hole acoustics can be counter intuitive.

Oded Kishony

[Michael Darnton]

But though everyone can access the measurements, very few build excellent violins. I always accept the measurements as something fundamental, like not filling your gas tank with sugar, not something extremely enlightening.

[Oded Kishony]

>>Notice how easily people gravitate to the things they can easily measure as being the important ones? Like if you just had all the "best" numbers, you could make a great violin.<<

Name one thing that can't be measured, monsieur!

(slap slap with the kid leater gloves then throwing down the gauntlet)

Oded

;-)

[Regis]

Quote: "can be counter intuitive"

Now that explains a lot of things that I struggle with.

[Craig Tucker]

There are many aspects of violin making that seem counter intuitive until you realize that there is a phenomenon of an ideal size for a given amount of energy, and that both too big and too small can easily be not optimum.

[Michael Darnton]

"Name one thing that can't be measured, monsieur!"

Tone quality, at this point. Though lots of folks pretend they can do it, it seems to come down that the people who make the claim don't have functional ears. (No naming of names, but Oded knows I just added another maker to that list the other day, based on some stuff he said in a speech.)

[Craig Tucker]

"But though everyone can access the measurements, very few build excellent violins. I always accept the measurements as something fundamental, like not filling your gas tank with sugar, not something extremely enlightening."

I agree with some of this thinking but not all of it - for example, I think that the measurements can be extremely enlightening.

Well, I'll be honest, in the final analysis, it’s not real important to me if everyone agrees with my opinions or not. I have found that no two makers agree on all aspects of making, nor on every point regarding what is important.

Usually, the only thing I will accept as gospel, from other makers, is how well their instruments play. That's one of the reasons why I enjoy going to violin making competitions. You really can't fake the product, even though you can fake your claim to experience on-line. Though I don't believe that either of us is making intentionally false claims here.

In the meantime, all I can do is post what works well for me and my thinking behind why it is so. If you’ll notice in my posts I make a specific point of saying:

“I'm not even saying I'm right - I'm only claiming to do something that works for me. I'll listen to other ideas.”

Then again, I’m not promising that I’ll accept what someone else says (as true) either... at least until I try it and see for myself.

[Craig Tucker]

"Tone quality, at this point."

This is exactly my argument against the "scientists" who occasionally post as if they had it wired somehow.

[Oded Kishony]

>> Tone quality, at this point. <<

I knew you were going to say that. It's actually very easy to measure tone quality- you listen to the instrument, think about it, then decide "I rate the quality of this instrument to be 8 out of 10." Bingo! you've just measured it. If you want to get more sophisticated; then we hook you up to a lie detector to make sure you're not lying about your opinion.

I win :-)

Oded

[Michael Darnton]

No, I think you lose. An essential component of a measurement is that it be on some standardized system. You're rating, as you said, not measuring.

Measure: "Dimensions, quantity, or capacity as ascertained by comparison with a standard."

[Oded Kishony]

My Webster's 20th Century Unabridged defines 'measure' as:

"any standard of valuation, comparison, judgment etc, criterion."

"any standard" means I can choose the standard.

But even granting your point there are still dozens of ways to measure quality if you choose to do so.

Take an individual wired to a lie detector have them listen to a known instrument of quality then have them listen to your instrument in question and compare the difference. The human ear does the sampling and the lie detector does the measuring.

The human capacity to measure is almost infinite, of course, some measurements are univerally accepted and some are not.

I bet you'r one of those contrarians who uses calipers that measure to the hundredths of a mm, aren't you Mr. Darnton????

Oded

;-)

[Claire Curtis]

I'm with Michael on this one.

Quote:

---

"any standard" means I can choose the standard.

---

Yes, you can choose the standard, but it has to BE a standard. Measurement units are defined; that's why we have the Bureau of Standards. You can make aesthetic judgements, but they are not measurements. Even if you apply ratings to those judgements, and thus obtain a number, they are not measurements. In the social sciences (even in the physical sciences), defining measureable standards is a major endeavor.

-Claire

[Craig Tucker]

OK then, what about some sort of "standard" in the visual arts? You either like a painting or you don't, just as you either like the tone of a violin and/or its playing qualities or you don't.

The only real "standard" in the violin world is what someone is willing to pay for a violin.

[Claire Curtis]

Going by the measurements is the craft of violinmaking, and you can produce a fine instrument that way. Copying the masters is the traditional way of training students in any artistic field, all the more so when deviation from a norm isn't much tolerated, as is the case in violinmaking. Training the eye is largely a matter of internalizing artistic principles. Defining those principles objectively seems to be what many of us are trying to do.

But I think there is an art, and not just a craft, of violinmaking. Art students learn about proportion and perspective, and with those tools they can make a decent painting, even a fine painting. But it takes something more to make a great painting.

It's interesting to look at the art and poetry produced by computers. Some of it is frighteningly good. That can happen by a combination of a very good set of rules and some serendipity. Some is also quite bad. It may just be that we need to define the principles more precisely; that's the craft approach. I like to think that there is some aspect that is ineffable, which defies definition, that produces art. But I'm a romantic at heart, what can I say.

--Claire

[Guy_Gallo]

I believe the definition quoted is being misphrased.

"any standard of valuation, comparison, judgment etc, criterion."

Does not mean, "a valuation by any standard (that I chose) is a measure"

It means, if a valuation is done according to a standard, it is a measurement.

Any STANDARD of valuation...

not

ANY standard of valuation.

I think, Oded, you are putting the emphasis on the wrong word.

Whether or not "I like a painting or not" or the market values a painter or not... this is a fashion, not a standard.

And using price, of a violin or of a painting, as a measurement -- well, that's just silly. It's measurement as metaphor. Not measurement as a meaningful tool as Michael means it. And as the definition, even in Websters, means it.

[Guy_Gallo]

The example given of measuring "quality" is actually a measurement of the perception of quality, filtered through the imperfect and subjective vessel of a listener.

The lie detector may be able to produce quantifiable, and even replicable, measurements. But they are doing so connected to a subjective conduit.

It's not a measurement of any meaningful thing.

For it to even be close to a meaningful measure, that same listener would have to be the ONLY judge of tonal quality, listening to all the violins in the universe, strapped to the lie detector -- and theoretically, all the tests would have to happen at the same time -- so that vagaries of mood and sleep patterns and emotional stress and a bad shellfish lunch would not muddy the measurement.

[Beaven]

For measurement to be meaningful we have to have an agreed upon measurement that can be replicated by anyone anywhere. A fact is something that (past,present)is being measured or has been measured. On a violin we would need to take presise measurements of the wood in all parts, the sizes of all parts, and sometype of measureable outcome. It could no doubt be done if we have the devices to do all of these measurements. I haven't seen any way to measure quality of sound. Souned waves are interesting--but.

[Oded Kishony]

Clearly my tongue in cheek argument has missed it's mark. The original point was that you could find a way to measure anything. I would even say that the impulse to measure in hard wired into the human brain. To measure something as subjective as 'tone quality' reaches for the far, far boundary of the feasible, but can certainly be done if a small group of people (like say, a group of one ;-) defines the parameters, then the object under scrutiny can be measured. Tone quality can be measured-I'm certainly not arguing that it can be measured meaningfully.

Y'all way too serious.

Oded