Ken Pollard Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 No mention of this on Matthews's blog. In fact he seems very happy with his Strad:Matthew's blog 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnmasters Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 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.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandini Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolas Temino Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 .....although I want to experiment more with backs (of any material). 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight J Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I think you missed the part that says "After the contest, British violinist Matthew Trusler traded his Stradivarius valued at $2 million, for one of the fungi treated instruments."My money is on this one! How about this one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMM22 Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnmasters Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Noon Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I would like to have a [free] carbon fiber violin for experiments. Make sure you get two, and send me one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean_Lapinel Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 "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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Pollard Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Fenestrate Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 Wow, just under $46, Group buy??? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMM22 Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 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. Clever Mr. Pollard, very clever. O.K., so I was wrong. Live and learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnmasters Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 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. I know this was a joke, but seriously folks .......... PVC should have a lot more damping than bamboo. The comparison might enlighten one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimMurphy Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wm. Johnston Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anders Buen Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolas Temino Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 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: etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMM22 Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimMurphy Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolas Temino Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.