How long does it take to "play-in" a new violin?

[Dan Keller]

How long does it take to "play-in" a new violin? Is there an

effective way to do this other than play for hours and hours? Can a

violin be "played-in" by some form of vibration, such

as hanging the violins where it can vibrate along with music

being played in the room? As a violin dealer it would be nice to

sell violins that are already "played-in". As I understand it, the

vibrations of playing loosen up the wood fibers, like working a

piece of leather makes it soft.

Dan

Select Violins

[Selim]

"--As I understand it, the vibrations of playing loosen up the wood fibers, like working a piece of leather makes it soft.--"

I think vibration plus tension rather makes the joints and fibers more tight as It the violin is played more.

From physics perspective, this looks like a complicated subject like others. Just an idea..

[MANFIO]

Good violins will have a good sound from the very beggining, they will get better with playing in, but they must be good from the start.

I've noticed that good players can antecipate the effects of playing in while choosing a new violin.

[Brad Dorsey]

Some dealers attach some sort of electric/electronic vibrating or oscillating device to the bridge for a few hours (or days?) and claim to get good results. I don't know the details.

[Cassi]

i've seen lots of posts here and on other boards about 'playing

in,' and techniques people use to do it in a less labor-intensive

way (such as putting instruments in front of speakers for several

days), so people seem to really believe that violins get better

with extended play...

also, the effect seems real to me, because even

though i've never had one long enough to 'play it in,' i feel

that the violins i've played sound better even after playing them

for a few minutes--although some people say that's just the person

warming up and not the violin, to me it *does* seem to change...

   of course, this may also be something different from

the long-term playing in...

however, i'm trained as a scientist (even though i'm didn't really

ever become one! i seem to be pretty immune to that 

 , and something that has always kinda bothered me is that

when i first started playing (a few months ago), i ran across an

article where the 'playing in' effect was evaluated in a somewhat

controlled manner, and seemed to not exist, so i wonder a bit about

this...i'm not saying anyone is wrong, because a lot of people i

respect believe it is true--maybe i just misunderstood the article,

and they were evaluating something else? i'm just still confused

about this...

i can't remember where i found the article, i just ran across it

somewhere, somehow, but basically (IIRC) they found a maker who had

the reputation for making really consistent violins, took 2 copies

of the same model, stored one in a controlled environment, and had

a professional soloist play the other as his main instrument, so it

got a lot of playing time...after three years, they removed the

unused violin from storage, brought in the soloist, and had blind

auditions (soloist and observers) of the instruments...the soloist

could tell his instrument by feel, but not by the sound, and the

observers couldn't tell any difference, so they kinda discounted

the 'playing in' effect...

can anybody comment on this article, or otherwise as to the effect

of playing in on sound quality?

thanks!

cassi  

[Fellow]

Hi all,

I don't think there any fixed time for "playing-in" another point that is it player

dependent?

[skiingfiddler]

quote:

---

Originally posted by:

Cassi

i

the soloist

could tell his instrument by feel, but not by the sound, and the

observers couldn't tell any difference, so they kinda discounted

the 'playing in' effect...

cassi

---

If the difference in feel means a difference in response of the instrument, then that would be an important difference, at least, for me.

I believe that any pretty competent violinist will be able to make any decent violin sound pretty good, and sound pretty much the same as the other violins played, because the sound of the instrument is, by and large, controlled by the player. To generalize, maybe to the point of overdoing it: The violinist is the biggest factor in the sound of the instrument, and it shouldn't be surprising if a violinist is able to make a bunch of violins sound pretty much the same. They sound like the violinist playing them, because the violinist has the same target sound in their head, regardless of what the fiddle is.

The difference is what the violinist has to do in order to realize that target sound. If you have to work twice as hard to produce a certain sound or be twice as careful on one violin to get the sound you want compared to another violin, then that does make a difference. It may not be a difference that's realized in a couple minutes of playing, but a couple hours of playing may make it obvious to the player that one instrument is far superior to the other because the violinist doesn't have to work as hard or be as careful to get that target sound.

For what it's worth, from personal experience, I do believe that violins get better from playing in, but that getting better may not necessarily be an improvement in tonal quality but an improvement in response, which allows the player to play more easily, with less effort, and, when hours of playing are required, produce a better musical result.

[Victor_Zak]

Perhaps a case in point -- a violin I have at the moment that at one time had a disappointing response on any notes on the 2nd octave of the G string. Starting at the 'A' (1st finger, 8th position), the violin would literally resist producing a good sound -- I could almost feel it fight back.

The rest of the violin is great -- one of the best D strings I've used -- strong and clear. And this character was fairly evident from the beginning. (It's a new violin.)

The violin has had several reviews of and changes to its setup, with slight but insufficent improvements in the above problem. However, over about the past 3 months, the higher G string positions have been improving, seemingly one note at a time. The gradual improvements may the result of some setup changes that have taken a while to settle in or might simply be the violin opening up and maturing.

It's taken a couple of years to get this point, but I think this is longer than the usual, probably because the 2nd octave positions aren't used as frequently (by me at least) as other portions.

[Selim]

"-- it shouldn't be surprising if a violinist is able to make a bunch of violins sound pretty much the same. --"

I think, Good player can get better sound from an avarage instrument, but no doubt the same player will get even better sound from better instruments. I mean what good playing can do is limited on an avarage violin, while It is more capable on a better instrument.

Assuming 'Playing in' and 'Break in' are the same thing (sorry for any misunderstanding, If any), It is real and gives warmth and maturity to the sound. In some cases I observed weaker sounds recovered in time.

Right, heavy bowing might be accelerating the process.

However, I find, It is not realistic to expect a radical change in sound during palying in.

[Cassi]

in case anyone is interested, here is the link to the article i

mentioned above:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/powerhousetwins.html

cassi  

[Fellow]

Hi all,

I believe " settle-in" meaning " the sound post moves by itself to a location where

it is most natural" after being played for a long time. Of course, I cannot prove it.

Just a theory in my head.

[Michael_Molnar]

Maybe it's me. but I still don't know the answer to his question from these replies.

Mike in NJ

[COB3]

That's because the answer is still a matter of opinion. However, there are opinions, and then there are opinions. You need to decide whether to believe what players and makers have found to be true, experientially, AND what some researchers have measured, or what some other researchers say is a load of hooey.

I have a very old violin (inherited from my great-great grandfather) that had not been played for over 50 years, when I got it. It did NOT sound good, and though it was played intermittently, did not seem to improve much, for about a year, then suddenly seemed to come to life, and sounded quite pleasant, though not a powerful or rich sound.

New instruments change appreciably sometimes in less than an hour of hard, loud playing, particularly a lot of double-stops. Makers know this, and give a new instrument a quick workout before a prospective buyer comes to try it out. Nothing wrong about that-- no more than warming up a cold engine before a buyer arrives.

How much of this is a semi-permanent change, I have no idea. But Professor Von Reumont measured the phenomenon, using ammeters on a small motor driving an eccentric, which in turn excited the corpus of a cello. After a period of time at a given frequency, the required amperage to drive the box decreased. He would then change the frequency, and begin again. You can read about it in the book, available from Henry Strobel.

And the controversy will continue regardless...

[Fellow]

Hi Mike,

"play-in" is a belief that there exists a phenomenon that one has to play a newly constructed

violin for a certain amount of time in order to reach its full capability.

Different people have different experiences, therefore, we offered different answers.

My belief: all parts of a new violin have to settle to thier natural positions. For example

the soundpost moves to its natural position, the bridge rocks to its natural position,

strings stretch, pegs move too, glue holding power tested, etc.

[Melvin Goldsmith]

Personally I believe the notion of a playing in period is pretty much a myth. Often players will play for a few minutes and then exclaim...wow! this violin is really starting to warm up!...but what actually is happening is that they are starting to achieve a synthesis with it where bow pressure,speed & attack etc get tuned to what will best produce sound from the instrument. The notion of a long playing in period where something really significant is happening to the instrument is a useful notion for hasty sellers to use to palm underperforming instruments off on to doubtful but trusting buyers. But a good instrument will sound good from the start playing well with balance and response all over the register..........Often the notion of a playing in period gets confused with what is actually a SETTLING IN PERIOD.....A new instrument strung up for the first time or an older instrument strung up after having had the strings off for a while will require a settling in period over which time the equilibriums of tension settle. During this time elevation might change and post changes etc might be needed. It is only after this settling in period has happened that it is fair to evaluate an instrument. I prefer not to offer instruments to clients untill the settling in period of an instrument is finished......... Going back to the notion of a playing in period, we might have Hills to thank for this myth.....they postulated that del Gesus took a hundred years or so to start sounding good.....but that was their view of history!...It's a pretty patronising view to believe that a genius like del Gesu made violins that would not satisfy his public for 100 years! Regards, Melvin

[skiingfiddler]

The Hills, in THE VIOLIN-MAKERS OF THE GUARNERI FAMILY, (Dover edition, pp 110 - 111) have some interesting things to say about "the tone seasoning process" in fine old violins. Clearly they believe that playing improves an instrument: "Use, which implies age as well, is the real factor in maturing the tone: for age without use, though it does season the fabric, cannot to the same extent improve the sound..."

The Hills offer a table (presented here selectively) of the years required to "season the tone of the most famous makers' instruments" from the point when they were brand new:

Stainer, 10 to 15 years

Amati large and more robust types, 30 to 35 years

Stradivari 1710 - 36, 50 to 60 years.

del Gesu, 1737 -43, 60 to 80 years.

Carlo Bergonzi, most massive, 60 to 80 years.

The question is whether Dan Keller is asking for this kind of maturation of tone, which seems to take three or more decades and will be quite subtle over the decades, or whether Dan is asking about a rather rapid and dramatic settling in of tone of a brand new fiddle.

A rapid, dramatic change in tone did occur in a violin I got, brand new. First, the fiddle settled into a more mellow, more balanced sound on all strings. That was a matter of weeks. Then, after about a year or so, the fiddle went too far in the "more mellow" direction to become somewhat fuzzy, losing some of its sparkle. A sound post adjustment restored the sparkle.

[Melvin Goldsmith]

The Hills were wrong! Skiing fiddler sorry! we posted at the same time but I'd refer you to my post above. I think it's pretty patronising and just plain wrong in terms of the economics of production for Hills to imagine that a genius like del Gesu was making violins that did not sound great at the time he sold them. Believe me ...I make my living as a violin maker....if feeding your family depends on it you don't make violins that need 100 years playing in! Regards,Melvin

[Victor_Zak]

I'm not an expert but I'll take a shot at it. To set the context, I've had a couple of new violins that I've used lots, both of good to very good quality. I tend to play firm to medium-heavy.

I suspect the time needed for a violin to settle in will depend on the model, material & contrucution of the violin and how much it's played on a daily basis. So there'll be a fair amount of variation.

However, I'll suggest that a well-constructed, new violin that's used daily for let's say 2-3 hours per day of normal (but firm) usage will undergo a significant amount of playing in over the first three to six months. After that, the settling will level off somewhat and progress at a slower rate for perhaps a couple of years. That is to say, the settling or playing in is a curve. I suppose seasonal fluctuations will also have a bearing on the violin and it'll continue to change character as humidity increases and drops.

I'm also of the opinion that maturation of the wood occurs over time and this is a separate process that occurs over a period of perhaps 30 or 50 years or more. This "maturation" will result in a warming or added richness of the sound one often hears in a good, old violin.

On the other hand, a piece of junk may peak after ten hours of use and go downhill from that point...

--- Edit:

Sorry. There were a couple of posts at least while I composed. Didn't mean to try to contradict anyone or argue my point.

Also, I'm using the terms "settling in" and "playing in" interchangably. I don't think a violin does much settling unless it's played.

[skiingfiddler]

Melving,

I didn't see your post before making my post.

I agree with you about the need for any violin to settle in after any dramatic change to it, including being freshly made.

Concerning the Hills' notion of seasoning, though, I don't think they were saying that a del Gesu needed 60 to 80 years to sound good. From what I read, they were saying that a del Gesu needed that much time to reach a level of tonal quality that we associate, today, with del Gesu's. There's no reason to assume from what the Hills wrote that del Gesu's didn't sound good from year zero (after some settling in). The Hills seem to say, I think, that the late del Gesu's reached their best tone (or at least, a definably better level of tonal quality) after 60 or 80 years.

The really important point for me from what the Hills wrote is that a del Gesu would need a longer time of playing in than a Strad would in order to reach full potential.

[skiingfiddler]

quote:

---

Originally posted by:

Victor_Zak

I'm also of the opinion that maturation of the wood occurs over time and this is a separate process that occurs over a period of perhaps 30 or 50 years or more. This "maturation" will result in a warming or added richness of the sound one often hears in a good, old violin.

---

That seems to me to be the point the Hills were making: That any violin needs decades to reach its peak, and some need more time than others. They also assume that the playing of the instrument during those decades is an important part of tonal improvement.

[Melvin Goldsmith]

Hi Skiingfiddler, It's a valid point you make and a wise reading of

Hills.....I'll just chuck in this anecdote from a conversation I

recently had with one of the top dealers re the del Gesu Cannon

violin...he recounted a conversation he had with a player who was

due to perform on the Cannon...the player said that he tried the

violin and it was terrible! the only noise it made was a whirring

from the vibrating of the strings!..nothing was happening..no

sound...the player wanted to reject it but felt that if Pagannini

played it he must learn to play it also...after three hours of

trying the sound came....did the violin get played in or did the

player learn to play it????... surely players adapt faster than old

wood??? or do they???..... but this playing in process took three

hours!.....................................................Hi

Victor_Zak, I agree re yr edit..in my definition of settling in an

instrument still benefits from playing.....You also speak about

wood aging..I've used very old wood and not noticed much difference

to violins I have made with newer wood. Also there's plenty of old

instruments that have been played a lot but sound bad.....probably

nothing a skilled luthier couldn't sort out! Regards, Melvin

[Selim]

"--a genius like del Gesu was making violins that did not sound great at the time he sold them. --"

He was a definetely a genius and I have no doubt he developed a specific design for a reach, powerful sound that came out right away, not even after a day or week. I have no doubt his violins sounded powerful and rich, right after they were strung.

I am afraid, the idea that Del gesu violins started sounding better after decades is not a valid point and It is a good example for invalid informations floating around.

I assume break in is the same thing as play in.

[skiingfiddler]

Melving,

That's an interesting anecdote. You have to feel sorry for any player who has to perform on an instrument they're not used to, and in addition to that, it's an instrument that spends more time as a museum piece than as a performing instrument.

Concerning using very old wood for new instruments, your findings agree with the Hills (p. 111) where they note that several French makers tried using "exceptionally old wood" for new making and got "negative results".

[skiingfiddler]

quote:

---

Originally posted by:

Selim

"

I am afraid, the idea that Del gesu violins started sounding better after decades is not a valid point and It is a good example for invalid informations floating around.

.

[/img]

---

I don't think the issue was that del Gesu violins, specifically, sounded better after decades of use. The point was that any good violin will sound better after decades of use.

[Mauricio]

quote:

---

Originally posted by:

Melving

the only noise it made was a whirring

from the vibrating of the strings!..nothing was happening..no

sound...the player wanted to reject it

---

Melving, that's erie! I recently finished a Cannone model with the original thicknesses (I should say "as they appear in the Strad poster") mosty to see what would happen and I confess that those were my exact comments and feelings, especially regarding the d string. It felt as if the plates were so thick that only the actual string vibrated. The rest was mostly OK.

But I agree with the points and assumptions you make about DG and his capabilities. I can't speak for everyone, but I would certainly lose all motivation to improve or simply to continue on if I were to believe that a violin can only sound great after the maker is dead.