Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Yet another wood treatment


IHS
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't say that you did. This was just a comment about modifying this radiation ratio, even though the radiation ratio of normal violin wood works quite well.

On that topic, if you want to see how backwoods with different radiation ratios sound then why not just try different kinds of wood to see how well it works? Why wait a long time trying to turn maple into something different when you could just try a different unmodified woods and see if you think it sounds better. Then if you find a wood with a radiation ratio that works 'better' you would know how much you need to change your maple for a similar result.

Always looking for something that works weller.

I tried sitka for a while and found that the softer samples worked quite well in a few examples. I am less concerned at this point about maple, although I want to experiment more with backs (of any material).

My records that record effective stiffness have also kept an extra column for stiffness/mass. I noticed early on that better violins had a higher number here. I have not decided which column is the best for correlation.

I think that the degree of taper of maple may be more of an adjustment to stiffness/mass for a back than for a top (which is much more uniform thickness.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very nice photo on that blog post -- thanks. It's interesting to note the differences in the two violins, and then with a smile to note the Optivisor off to the side.

It's good to see 'Le Messie' looking exactly as it did in 'The Strad' from 1990, and unusual to see it in direct comparison to a working instrument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, have you ever tried bamboo? I saw once a violin with a one piece bamboo back. Didn't have the chance to try it, but looked good.

-Edit for mispelling.

Something wrong there. Bamboo does not grow in any size or way remotely amenable to a one piece violin back, except perhaps a 1/128th size violin, but the market for these violins is limited to talented embryos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, have you ever tried bamboo? I saw once a violin with a one piece bamboo back. Didn't have the chance to try it, but looked good.-Edit for mispelling./quote]

I have not tried any non-traditional woods other than various species of maple and spruce. That is only because I wanted to see what could be optimized within given parameters. (If anything.........)

Obviously, I want to get rid of even experimental subjects. But I would like to have a [free] carbon fiber violin for experiments. Not that I could tell much from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think the fair way to do the tests would be to do them over again, with Stradivari backstage smiling and handing his violins to the player, the same way the modern maker was doing. I can't believe that anyone is taking this high-junk science half-blind / half seriously-compromised test seriously!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"This is the part that I have the biggest problem with. As soon as you bring tone into this, it is all subjective. How can you judge anything as helping acoustics without it being subjective? As soon as you try to say something is better sounding then you can't get rid of the "subjective listening test crapola."

I was going to write something but these two statements say it all for me. (MD & WJ)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something wrong there. Bamboo does not grow in any size or way remotely amenable to a one piece violin back, except perhaps a 1/128th size violin, but the market for these violins is limited to talented embryos.

Here's one with a one-piece back, sides, and top --

You might be able to make a carbon-fiber version of this, but a PVC version would be much quicker.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting William Johnston - "This is the part that I have the biggest problem with. As soon as you bring tone into this, it is all subjective. How can you judge anything as helping acoustics without it being subjective? As soon as you try to say something is better sounding then you can't get rid of the "subjective listening test crapola."

In context, William's Post #27 quoted me regarding "helping acoustics, tonally" and "better sounding"

[where I was being critical of wood treatment claims backed-up only by a subjective listening Poll].

OTOH, tone sourced by Violin is not subjective at all. If you've figured-out a way to control Violin output via combination of design, set-up, plate-tuning voodoo - whatever - one may objectively measure its frequency response or other acoustic characteristics and attempt to improve such at the source-end.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In context, William's Post #27 quoted me regarding "helping acoustics, tonally" and "better sounding"

[where I was being critical of wood treatment claims backed-up only by a subjective listening Poll].

OTOH, tone sourced by Violin is not subjective at all. If you've figured-out a way to control Violin output via combination of design, set-up, plate-tuning voodoo - whatever - one may objectively measure its frequency response or other acoustic characteristics and attempt to improve such at the source-end.

Jim

How do you define improve? In the end a person decides whether a violin sounds good or not. Any 'improvements' again have to be judged by a person so it is a matter of opinion. Measurements are useful for telling you what is going on when you change something on a violin but they can't tell you whether the change improved the tone or not, that is for a person to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you define improve? In the end a person decides whether a violin sounds good or not. Any 'improvements' again have to be judged by a person so it is a matter of opinion. Measurements are useful for telling you what is going on when you change something on a violin but they can't tell you whether the change improved the tone or not, that is for a person to decide.

There has been a few apparently successful attempts to correlate measured spectra and instrument quality. I post one of the abstracts on the subject.

I think it is possible to see if an instrument is fairly good or may have a problem by looking at impact hammer spectra, and to some extent by looking at long time average spectra. It does not give as much information as playing, but it does give some useful information on the instrument properties and quality.

I think that those that do a lot of these comparisons between playing the instruments and looking at their spectra become quite good at drawing information out of the them. It cannot give the whole story, but quite much, I would say.

post-25136-1254803920_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something wrong there. Bamboo does not grow in any size or way remotely amenable to a one piece violin back, except perhaps a 1/128th size violin, but the market for these violins is limited to talented embryos.

Really? The violin I saw was a 4/4, but don't remenber if it was one or two pieces back, sorry.

There are a lot of "bamboos", the genus "Phyllostachys", known as "timber bamboo" can grow up to 40 meters high. Take a look at these pics:

Construction_maison_bambou.jpg

352px-Giant_Bamboo_with_person.jpg

180px-BambooKyoto.jpg

JosefHoflehner_GiantBambooJapan.jpg

bamboo.jpg

rio_abajo_bamboo.jpg

etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tall indeed, but I searched giant bamboo and discovered such things to be perhaps some 14" in diameter, which is about right in the pictures you provided. Don't forget, bamboo is hollow, like tubing, and cannot render material the way a tree can. Ken's demonstration aside, it would appear impossible to get even a four piece back out of relatively thin walled stock that has a 7" radius (think carving a one piece violin back from a typical metal chimney flue). Perhaps it is flattened and then formed, but I am not aware of any process that will allow bamboo to be flattened. It bends readily axially, but is subject to cracking tangentially, e.g., trying to flatten out the radius. My guess is that the back you saw was carefully fashioned from many pieces so as to appear to be from one piece. This would involve nothing more complicated than gluing up split sections of a given length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you define improve? ... Measurements are useful for telling you what is going on when you change something on a violin but they can't tell you whether the change improved the tone or not, that is for a person to decide.

I continually remind myself of the simple inverse frequency & wavelength relationship [to acoustic instrument design].

To create a Violin with improved tonal frequency response - a perfect blend of laser-like highs and buttery lows -

we're all free to explore dimensional changes [other than fixed string-length] whether it be via corpus shape,

plate graduations, set-up, etc.

How else you gonna master 3-D sound without first mastering length ?

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tall indeed, but I searched giant bamboo and discovered such things to be perhaps some 14" in diameter, which is about right in the pictures you provided. Don't forget, bamboo is hollow, like tubing, and cannot render material the way a tree can. Ken's demonstration aside, it would appear impossible to get even a four piece back out of relatively thin walled stock that has a 7" radius (think carving a one piece violin back from a typical metal chimney flue). Perhaps it is flattened and then formed, but I am not aware of any process that will allow bamboo to be flattened. It bends readily axially, but is subject to cracking tangentially, e.g., trying to flatten out the radius. My guess is that the back you saw was carefully fashioned from many pieces so as to appear to be from one piece. This would involve nothing more complicated than gluing up split sections of a given length.

The truth is that I didn't have time enough to investigate how many pieces was the back. Thank you for your input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...