VSA Journal

[DonLeister]

Have you seen the latest journal?In case you aren't a member, it is packed with many of the latest studies on violin acoustics and related topics.

I was especially pleased to see part one of lengthy article by Nagavary that summarizes much of his research and ideas.

The VSA did a great job!

Cheers!

[TQuinn]

Have you seen the latest journal?In case you aren't a member, it is packed with many of the latest studies on violin acoustics and related topics.

I was especially pleased to see part one of lengthy article by Nagavary that summarizes much of his research and ideas.

The VSA did a great job!

Cheers!

Would it be possible to post the Table of Contents?

[DonLeister]

Let's see if I have this up. The VSA does kindly give written permission

to reproduce parts of the journal, not for profit.

Edit, I'll have to try later. I can't get an image up , sorry. Anyone have any helpful hints or threads? Ahh, just needed to get it into jpeg format instead of tiff, see next post.

[DonLeister]

[DonLeister]

deleted

[Bruce Tai]

After reading the article by Joseph Nagyvary, I believe that the ultimate secret of Italian violins is in the wood treatment. The wood treatment we are seeing is extremely aggressive from a chemical perspective. And yet the wood suffers no structural damage from long term use. The varnish is of secondary importance compared wood itself. That's my two cents.

[Janito]

After reading the article by Joseph Nagyvary, I believe that the ultimate secret of Italian violins is in the wood treatment.

Something like this...

There was a young man from Dundee

Who thought there was magic in Pee

So he sprayed a viola

And measured a Pergola

T'wit “QED” was shouted in glee.

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

Surely you cannot assert this without comparing the wood treatment of 'good' and 'bad' sounding master Cremonese violins.

And what about the comment that a great violin can get 'tired'.

[DonLeister]

Yes, it's good of Nagavary to share his thoughts and I look forward to the second part of his article.

I"m in the camp that thinks there is something about the wood being treated somehow.

[violins88]

After reading the article by Joseph Nagyvary, I believe that the ultimate secret of Italian violins is in the wood treatment. The wood treatment we are seeing is extremely aggressive from a chemical perspective. And yet the wood suffers no structural damage from long term use. The varnish is of secondary importance compared wood itself. That's my two cents.

The Nagy man is a publicity hound. Pure and simple. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

I did the shrimp shell thing.

He lives for publicity. He should be living for his grandchildren, like me.

[Craig Tucker]

I did the shrimp shell thing.

Wow, you actually did the shrimp shell thing?

Is there an interestig story there?

[violins88]

Wow, you actually did the shrimp shell thing?

Is there an interestig story there?

Well, yes, it was interesting. After reading N man's writing about how chitin (insects wings, shrimp shells) was the "secret", I followed the instructions. Boil shrimp shells in Potassium hydroxide. Then filter and wash. Then place the remaining matter in vinegar. Apply to violin for base wood treatment. The problem was that it was more of an acoustic absorber than a stiffener.

[Don Noon]

The wood treatment we are seeing is extremely aggressive from a chemical perspective. And yet the wood suffers no structural damage from long term use.

"We", as in you are independently verifying the N-guy's results?

I re-read N's paper, and managed to repress my gag reflex at the overbearing ego and verbosity of it all, to try to find any underlying useful information.

The good:

- Some hints at chemistry that might improve the properties/acoustics of wood

- Some possible evidence that it might have been done in old instruments

The not-so-good:

- The evidence for historical processing seems pretty inconclusive to me, as a non-involved non-chemist

- The wide-ranging claims and conclusions, combined with the apparent strive for acclaim and importance, don't give me confidence in the objectiveness of the work

- (in other words: I don't trust anything he says, even though he might be right on some things)

The inexcusable:

- 34 years, and 200 instruments trying out a vast number of treatments and coatings, and not ONE SINGLE SAMPLE (that I'm aware of) showing a quantitatively measurable change in the actual physical properties of the wood. After all, it can only be by changing the physical properties of the wood (and I include coatings here) that it can have an effect on the sound. This omission strikes me as exceptionally poor science.

[JimMurphy]

Have you seen the latest journal?In case you aren't a member, it is packed with many of the latest studies on violin acoustics and related topics.

I received my first copy last week. As a new VSA Member I'll say I'm very impressed with the quality of the publication.

Who's this Nagyvary fellow??

I'm anxious to read Bruce Tai's article "Stradivari's Varnish: A Review of Scientific Findings - Part II". Is it wrong to ask whether Bruce's "Part I" is available in pdf form - and if so - where may I procure a copy?

Thanks,

Jim

[Oded Kishony]

First let me first admit that I have not read the article. However I'm willing to concede (for the moment) that The Cremonese makers used highly treated wood and that the treatment resulted in a superior material. Does it then follow that their instruments necessarily will sound better?

Take for instance Douglas Martin's experience building violins from balsa wood. Clearly balsa is much lighter than spruce or maple and quite stiff, yet Douglas nevertheless must spend many hours tweaking, rebuilding and changing his instruments before they make a good sound. My point is that no matter what materials you choose to build from a great deal of craft and experience is needed to make a good sounding instrument. And, equally important, a bad sounding instrument can result from good (even super) quality building materials.

So, even if Prof N has demonstrated that the wood had been treated, which is quite interesting, he has clearly not demonstrated that this is the cause of better sounding instruments.

Oded

[Dean_Lapinel]

snip...However I'm willing to concede (for the moment) that The Cremonese makers used highly treated wood and that the treatment resulted in a superior material...snip

I am surprised by your statement Oded. I would have guessed that the words "the possibility" followed your use of concede.

[Dean_Lapinel]

"We", as in you are independently verifying the N-guy's results?

I re-read N's paper, and managed to repress my gag reflex at the overbearing ego and verbosity of it all, to try to find any underlying useful information.

The good:

- Some hints at chemistry that might improve the properties/acoustics of wood

- Some possible evidence that it might have been done in old instruments

The not-so-good:

- The evidence for historical processing seems pretty inconclusive to me, as a non-involved non-chemist

- The wide-ranging claims and conclusions, combined with the apparent strive for acclaim and importance, don't give me confidence in the objectiveness of the work

- (in other words: I don't trust anything he says, even though he might be right on some things)

The inexcusable:

- 34 years, and 200 instruments trying out a vast number of treatments and coatings, and not ONE SINGLE SAMPLE (that I'm aware of) showing a quantitatively measurable change in the actual physical properties of the wood. After all, it can only be by changing the physical properties of the wood (and I include coatings here) that it can have an effect on the sound. This omission strikes me as exceptionally poor science.

Well stated Don. I'm glad you wrote this so I didn't have to.

[DonLeister]

Don Noon, what kind of measurable changes in the wood would you like to see?

Violin sound being as subjective as it is we still have to go by one's word, so when Nagavary speaks of tone it is in that context.

[Oded Kishony]

I am surprised by your statement Oded. I would have guessed that the words "the possibility" followed your use of concede.

You're right Dean, I should have written "the possibility" thanks for pointing this out.

OK

[Dean_Lapinel]

You're right Dean, I should have written "the possibility" thanks for pointing this out.

OK

NP...I kinda knew that's what you meant.

[Janito]

Violin sound being as subjective as it is we still have to go by one's word, so when Nagavary speaks of tone it is in that context.

Dr N quotes subjective evidence that his violins sound better than Strads. Is that good enough?

[Don Noon]

Don Noon, what kind of measurable changes in the wood would you like to see?

Density, modulus, damping... that sort of thing. One can argue about a change being good or bad, but for good science, it seems to me you should at least try to show before/after changes in SOMETHING you can measure objectively. If you treat wood and build a fabulous violin, how do you know the original wood wasn't the cause of the fabulosity, and not the treatment? Or the skill of the builder?

Dr N quotes subjective evidence that his violins sound better than Strads. Is that good enough?

If I say my left shoe sounds better than a Strad, is that good enough subjective evidence?

[DonLeister]

Good points Don. I think we all would like for him to have been more open and specific on his findings. Nagavary's work would stand on it's own better if there were some before and after documentation of wood properties. That is perhaps why I don't go back and reread his papers, there is not enough there to put into practice.

Still it is good to see him publishing in the VSA journal.

Maybe it's a good thing he hasn't given us too much to sink our teeth into, like mineral grounds or plate tuning!

[Bruce Tai]

That treated wood has profound acoustic effects on violins has been well known since 1800s. Many accused of Vuillaume of doing so.

To demonstrate that Strad/del Gesu have treated wood is a major breakthrough.

So far, to my knowledge, no one has clearly demonstrated that Strad/del Gesu plates are made out of untreated, air-dried spruce and maple. By CT (Stoel and Borman study), NMR, IR, and elemental analysis, there appear to be many abnormal traits not found in natural wood. Until someone can provide evidence that at least a few Stradivari plates are made out of untreated wood, and that those few Strads sound really excellent, why is it logical to assume that untreated wood can be carved to consistently produce the Stradivari/del Gesu sound?

Just because untreated spruce and maple are convenient materials for building modern instruments do not make them historically correct until real evidence is presented. Right now the chemical-physical evidence is against it. We can see that Strads are built of spruce and maple, and dendrochronology tells us that the wood were recent cuts, but what does that tell us about what the wood has been through?

If anyone knows of any evidence that Strads are built of untreated wood, please share this knowledge with me.

[Dean_Lapinel]

That treated wood has profound acoustic effects on violins has been well known since 1800s. Many accused of Vuillaume of doing so.

To demonstrate that Strad/del Gesu have treated wood is a major breakthrough.

So far, to my knowledge, no one has clearly demonstrated that Strad/del Gesu plates are made out of untreated, air-dried spruce and maple. By CT (Stoel and Borman study), NMR, IR, and elemental analysis, there appear to be many abnormal traits not found in natural wood. Until someone can provide evidence that at least a few Stradivari plates are made out of untreated wood, and that those few Strads sound really excellent, why is it logical to assume that untreated wood can be carved to consistently produce the Stradivari/del Gesu sound?

Just because untreated spruce and maple are convenient materials for building modern instruments do not make them historically correct until real evidence is presented. Right now the chemical-physical evidence is against it. We can see that Strads are built of spruce and maple, and dendrochronology tells us that the wood were recent cuts, but what does that tell us about what the wood has been through?

If anyone knows of any evidence that Strads are built of untreated wood, please share this knowledge with me.

Wow. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but now I think I understand how you work. The quote above is a form of psychological manipulation and I really dislike this behavior.

The premise must be that the wood was aged to some varying degree and that's about all we have. Twisting the foundation around to one where the common and accepted understanding is that the master's wood was treated is appalling.

[MANFIO]

I am a low tech guy and I can't understand technical papers.

I am currently making a viola with a top wood with these technical measurements, that I've heard are good:

density = .333

C = 5378

RR = 16.2

Q = 134

If the wood is that good can I relax while making the instrument? I don't think so... in general I can listen to the wood saying to me: "You are loosing your time, I will not become a good sounding instrument" and I have to think and work a lot to make it sound good...