Low Density Spruce

[jezzupe]

Light and or low density spruce can really come in all the different variety's. I feel that one can choose top material that is too light. IMO if one is going to use super low density top material that the back and maybe the ribs should be a tad on the heafty side so as to strike a balance.

[Michael_Molnar]

This thread on too-low density spruce rings true with me. (pun ) I am now realizing that there is some kind of sweet spot with density. I don't have numbers yet, but it seems the high end of Engelmann is best.

Stay tuned.

Mike

[CT Dolan]

This, perhaps?

Thank you.

I must be very seriously impaired when it comes to finding things on the internet (either that, or very unlucky).

[scordatura]

I have been to Simeon's site. What I was wondering is how does his wood compare to others like Orcas Island (Bruce Harvey) or Mountain Voice (Carson)or others? My aim is to order a number of pieces so that I can season them. Perhaps I should order one from each to see what works best. Opinions welcome.

A side note some years ago I was fairly close with a maker who knew well one of the major wood suppliers in Germany. He said that some (not all) of the wood that people thought was European was in fact from North America. I am not trying to start up anything by mentioning this other than back in the day there was a pretty significant bias against North American tonewood. The arguement being that the Cremonese did not have access to it therefore the NA wood could not be the answer to what we are all after--how to consistently make awesome sounding instruments. And yes, I personally played some Cremonese instruments that from a sound standpoint were not that great. But I have played some that were in a class of their own rarely touched by non Cremonese makers. I am not trying to sterotype and say that only Cremonese instruments are superior sounding to all others but there is a kernal of truth there.

[JimMurphy]

... He said that some (not all) of the wood that people thought was European was in fact from North America. ... The arguement being that the Cremonese did not have access to it therefore the NA wood could not be the answer to what we are all after--how to consistently make awesome sounding instruments.

Let's set some margins for 'awesome sounding instruments'. Is there some inference it's not possible to craft a violin with superior clarity unless a certain grade or genus of wood is chosen? And IF it's not clarity which makes the difference between great sounding violins [and not-so-great] then what is it - a certain pattern of 'noise' one hears??

As I recall, there're many not-so-great sounding Cremonese instruments all using the same genus of wood [as the great ones].

Thanks,

Jim

[Craig Tucker]

A side note some years ago I was fairly close with a maker who knew well one of the major wood suppliers in Germany. He said that some (not all) of the wood that people thought was European was in fact from North America. I am not trying to start up anything by mentioning this other than back in the day there was a pretty significant bias against North American tonewood.

Back in the day?

Do you mean yesterday, or this morning? (guffaw!)

Ok, I really don't want to see this thread turn into a gossip column, but I have some second or third hand knowledge of this also, from talking to many tonewood dealers over the span of many years...

At one time it was fairly common knowledge that some American Maple and spruce was being passed off and sold from European dealers as European tone wood - because, apparently even the experts (even now - today) have a very difficult time differentiating between some of them as far as being able to identify the country of origin.

Of course, things that are "common knowledge" are often just that, "common knowledge" - which doesn't guarantee either the validity of the claim - nor does it guarantee its falsehood.

Often, it's simply talk.

What speaks louder to me, is the obvious temptation for business, and in particular business that operates under the umbrella of incorporation, to always want to find ways to maximize profits by turning a blind eye to such *trivial* things, in the interest of the hefty profits to be made. That, more than anything else, fairly well answers any questions I might have about whether or not such things may or may not happen. Ethics seems to not enter the picture when profit is at stake - in particular with reference to the typical 'profit at all costs' driven corporate mindset.

There are most likely many satisfied makers out there, that isist on buying only European tone wood, who have actually used wood that was ultimately from wherever the supplier could get it cheapest.

I have known several tone wood dealers also, who have made this claim privately. Interestingly, one of them, later in life, changes his opinion and claims to not have any knowledge of such practices…

It makes me wonder how much pressure exists (and what form it takes) to keep such things quiet.

This bias is only now being dismantled, as the obvious truth of the matter becomes more difficult to disguise. Today, even Chinese maple is being acknowledged as perfectly appropriate tonewood - which, of course, it is and always has been...

[Don Noon]

Back to the topic...

I recently regraduated an old trade fiddle for a friend. If there was any such thing as "rock spruce", I think this had it. The thicknesses were not excessive, but it was extremely heavy (90g top) and stiff. I estimated the density at ~.49. At the original condition, the G and D strings were essentially useless; A and E were OK but harsh. After regraduating (thickness ~10% less than "normal", weight still high at 78g with bassbar, taptones slightly on the low side) it became quite good. Compared to my ultra-low density instruments, the overall sound output was only a slight bit less, and not as quick to respond, but that could be a good thing for many players who are not comfortable trying to let out the clutch on a race car with no flywheel and a microswitch for a gas pedal.

[MANFIO]

Is there a way to measure the spruce used by Stradivari, Del Gesù, etc.?

[jezzupe]

See, its like this. if we grow a Japanese Maple here in the states, is it not a Japanese maple? European species trees can and do grow here. There can be a large difference in the trees growing environment based on region. Northern and Southern Climates often times result in very different end products within the same species.

Really, just like most things in the world, there is always some "motivation" in the "sketch"....the motivation is usually money. Humans have a funny way of parroting what previous generations have done and said. Most people hear certain things and take them as "facts" or truths based on hearing form someone else{the world is flat}. Tonewood, just like any wood, is a market. There is always motivation. There are many people here who will disagree with my statements, and that's ok, this is just my opinion. I am not bashing "tonewood" or any suppliers, I just feel that we need to be specific with what we are talking about. If you want to make exacting copies of master instruments, only use spruce and maple, if you want to make traditional violins only,use spruce and maple. On the other hand, if "sound" is you goal. I suggest anyone who wants to pursue it disregard most of what you hear and focus on what you are trying to do. Understanding what makes a good sounding instrument. Wood choice is probably #1. Related to choice, it does not have lots to do with what species it is and where it came from. It has to do with the "marriage" of a harder wood with a softer one, and once married how the thinning of the wood interacts with itself in conjunction with many other things

It is my experience that wood in general, regardless of species,cut or drying method, has the potential for suitability for instrument making.Really it just comes down to understanding what you are doing with it.

As a "justification" for this "statement" I would refer people to my "j-hole" post. I think that the J hole is a very good sounding violin, not my best, probably my 5th best sounding one, at any rate, that violin has been picked in blind tests, both live, and on the recordings {I mute the "introductions"} by many competent musicians as either "the better sounding one" and or "as good" or "certainly not much worse" than its competition.

That violin is made from braizilian cherry hardwood flooring, that is not tone wood, that is not dried in the air, that has a back made from several pieces, that has a top made from redwood purchased from a forgotten pile of 1/2" lumber at a hardware/lumber store. The aforementioned wood is far from what we would call "tonewood". Yet, I think most people agree it sounds 1.like a violin 2. like a good sounding violin.

So, I am not trying to be controversial or antagonistic. I would just urge you to listen to the samples {if you have not heard them, mute the parts when I start to speak} and ask yourself....1.which one is "tradition", which one is not...2. Do they sound dramatically different, as in one does not sound like a violin? 3. If you agree that the J hole sounds good,{doesn't have to be better, just "competitive"} does this not prove that either I am magic, or somewhere in all this repeated "speak" about wood lies some potential false perceptions?

[scordatura]

Let's set some margins for 'awesome sounding instruments'. Is there some inference it's not possible to craft a violin with superior clarity unless a certain grade or genus of wood is chosen? And IF it's not clarity which makes the difference between great sounding violins [and not-so-great] then what is it - a certain pattern of 'noise' one hears??

As I recall, there're many not-so-great sounding Cremonese instruments all using the same genus of wood [as the great ones].

Thanks,

Jim

I knew this would possibly evolve/devolve into what is good sound debate. I am lucky in that I am a professional player (mostly classical and some jazz) and also someone who delves into making from time to time. I have enough skill on the violin to extract the good qualities of an instrument and play around the inadequacies of an instrument. BTW I am not trying to “toot my own horn” or play my own violin if you will…laughing. What I can suggest is that I am a pretty good evaluator of violin sound (or noise) and most of those really great instruments have been Cremonese. I have played some modern instruments that might also fall into that category.

I am not saying that a particular genus of wood is always going to be a complete winner over all others. The question in my mind is--how can we best have control over the things we can most control? Yes even wood varies from the same tree. But if as makers we can establish a range of density that we want to work from, that aids in our ability to gain SOME control in this impossible endeavor of instrument making.

How do we know a piece of wood is great before it is done? It looks good? So many grain lines per cm or inch? Gradual or distinct winter and summer grain lines? Sounds a certain way when we run our hand across the grain? Tap it and hear the noise/sound that it produces? Cut into it with a plane or gouge to sense the qualities? All of the above? The wood supplier says so? Or just take any piece that strikes our fancy and work our magic and vary the arching/scoop and thicknesses and hope for the best. It seems to me that we need something quantifiable to assess the raw materials. For me that probably means sticking to a genus (if we can trust our wood supplier) with a target range of density and use some or all of the above tests to determine and then manipulate with arching and thickness.

Or do we just subscribe to the “it’s all in how you use it” theory…LOL

You have to love the black art of violin making. It makes for some interesting debates.

[JimMurphy]

It seems to me that we need something quantifiable to assess the raw materials. ... Or do we just subscribe to the “it’s all in how you use it” theory…LOL ... You have to love the black art of violin making.

Well stated, scordatura.

FWIW, I was goin' for the objective rather than subjective view on great sound - as in if 'clarity' is the quantifiable objective, then low-density spruce guarantees nothing. The many different violin Models of Stradivari and Del Gesu have already proven that. Only so many produce 'clarity' and those are made of widely-varying plate thicknesses & wood densities. Anybody can make a noisy fiddle though.

What is the quantifiable objective ... ? [Rhetorical question]

Jim

[jezzupe]

"The question in my mind is--how can we best have control over the things we can most control? "

Related to choosing wood, my opinion

1. you must pick the wood by hand, and or you must not order wood without being able to handle it

2.Handling the wood, is choosing the wood.

3. Handling the wood refers to having the ability to hold wood, tap wood, touch wood, rub wood etc. and have an understanding that what you are doing is "testing" woods sound properties, mostly related to radiation,dampening and stiffness.

4. One who is perceptive of such things has the ability to use this "touch" to select proper wood for instrument making. This could be likened to having a nose for wine.

5.Generally speaking, we are choosing a hardwood for the back and softwood or the front. One choice will dictate what the other choice will be. The understanding of interactions between the hardwood and softwood is key. I generally will choose my hardwood first, I seek low density hardwood. This enables the softwood to have a larger window of suitability. This is not always the case, there are other combinations.

Again, this comes down to understanding what you are trying to do. You need to establish a "starting point" that is what is choice {A.} for the back. This choice will establish a benchmark. That benchmark will be that pieces qualities related to, how heavy, type of grain, radiation, dampening, stiffness. Those are factors you need to be able to determine by using your eyes, hands and ears in conjunction in order to perform sonic tests on the spot with different pieces of wood in your hands.

Once you have chosen piece {a} you need to choose piece {b}. Choosing piece {b} should now be thought of as it related to piece {a}. The piece you have in your hand may be a nice piece of wood, but does it "go with" piece {a}. If there is any magic in this, it is having the ability to use your ears and hands as a computer in order to determine stiffness, weight, radiation, dampening etc of any certain piece of wood and then be able to "store" that data in your memory while you choose a suitable piece to go with it by finding a good "match" for it

An example, if I choose a very, very light low density back. I do not wish to choose a super light top, there very well may be too much radiation. If I choose a very heavy back, I do not want to choose a very heavy top, there will not be enough radiation and probably too much dampening based on stiffness, unless I go super thin, but then what about structural integrity? Now I could go on with all sorts of various combinations, but I think you get the idea. Ofcourse once chosen, the graduation and arching play a key role.

Related to evolution, most times it is driven by the de-evolution of something that was before it.

[Wm. Johnston]

Is there a way to measure the spruce used by Stradivari, Del Gesù, etc.?

Density or stiffness?

Density can and has been measured several times with ct scans. The most recent Strad has an article about this. Overall the density of Strad and Guarneri's wood is obtainable with modern wood without too much difficulty. The density of their wood isn't anything special.

We also know the free plate tap tones of the tops from a few Strads and Guarneris. Since for the same mass a stiffer piece of wood will have higher tap tones, it looks like the stiffness of their wood was nothing special either.

[Don Noon]

The density of their wood isn't anything special.

We also know the free plate tap tones of the tops from a few Strads and Guarneris... the stiffness of their wood was nothing special either.

Key: "a few Strads and Guarneris". I don't think we have enough data to tell if the wood from the really great ones differs from the not-so-great (and who would decide which category an instrument was in, anyway?). The really tough parameter to get at, and possibly very important, is the damping, which is frequency dependent. I know Bissinger wrote a paper where he didn't find any significant difference in damping between crappy modern and good old instruments, but I'm not convinced yet.

[Wm. Johnston]

Yes but the ones that we have this information on are some of the 'good' ones. They are worth a lot of money and if the instrument had been repaired to death then the owners wouldn't let the ct scans be published in the Strad (or anywhere else) for everyone to see. Also if they weren't good then the violinmakers involved would have a lot less enthusiasm for taking time away from their shops in order to do this work. One thing I really like about their work is that unlike a lot of the violin research being done today, these guys aren't even trying to break even by making you buy a $500 dollar book with their findings in it.

Damping might be important for violin tone but personally I'm not too convinced that it is. Experimentally it is tough to measure even in controlled situations so how is it going to cause predictible effects in a violin being held by different people?

[Melvin Goldsmith]

If density and stiffness of the good old ones are not exceptional that might indicate that these are not the key. If I recall correctly cross grain stiffness was mentioned in the above mentioned Strad articles as being less than expected.

[NewNewbie]

I have been to Simeon's site. What I was wondering is how does his wood compare to others like Orcas Island (Bruce Harvey) or Mountain Voice (Carson)or others? My aim is to order a number of pieces so that I can season them. Perhaps I should order one from each to see what works best. Opinions welcome.

A side note some years ago I was fairly close with a maker who knew well one of the major wood suppliers in Germany. He said that some (not all) of the wood that people thought was European was in fact from North America.

Odd that you should also mention other wood suppliers as well, since they all have satisfied customers, and 'good' wood or they woodn't be in business.

If you deal with several wood suppliers, you will find, perhaps, a price difference, and a service difference.

You will know what one you enjoy doing business with the most.

As to wood choices, you will have to develop your own tastes, be they 'narrow or broad', well all that is up to you.

Ordering a small amount from a few various suppliers should help you to narrow it down.

Also just making more instruments helps to develop one's own personal fingerprint, so to speak.

Some makers develop a refined palette for wood, while others will be able to just use wood from a fine palette!

If tomorrow it leaked that such and such maker used wood from the outer reaches of Timbuktu, then all that European wood, would become African wood, with a small price hike!

[NewNewbie]

I know Bissinger wrote a paper where he didn't find any significant difference in damping between crappy modern and good old instruments, but I'm not convinced yet.

Is this the Paper you are referring to?

Structural acoustics of good and bad violins. Bissinger G.

[NewNewbie]

If density and stiffness of the good old ones are not exceptional that might indicate that these are not the key. If I recall correctly cross grain stiffness was mentioned in the above mentioned Strad articles as being less than expected.

Then there is the Density variation theory to consider.

Wood density holds key to Stradivarius sweet sound

"They found no significant differences between the median densities of the

modern and the antique violins but did discover far less variation between

wood grains of early and late growth in the old ones." - from above link

Oh and the Mushroom wood theory.

"Mushroom violin" outplays Stradivarius

Of course it could be that it is Stradivari himself who was more than expected?

[Don Noon]

Is this the Paper you are referring to?

Structural acoustics of good and bad violins. Bissinger G.

Nope. It's "The role of radiation damping in violin sound".

[JimMurphy]

It's "The role of radiation damping in violin sound".

The role of radiation damping in violin sound by George Bissinger

"Finally, a conjectured bridge resonance phenomenon, the so-called ‘‘bridge hill’’ augmenting the bridge–corpus energy transfer (thought correlated with enhanced acoustic output observed for good violins near 3 kHz) was recently shown to be incorrect. A possible alternative for acoustic enhancement seen near 3 kHz, based entirely on our damping analysis (additionally amplified by ‘‘holding/playing’’) arises from the ‘‘radiation damping/FRAD knee’’ shift observed between ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘bad’’ violins. Such a shift, independent of any manner of excitation, requires no ‘‘bridge–hill’’ or other enhancement mechanism."

[jezzupe]

Tangent or not, I agree with the violinist. I feel that wood improves with age, but more importantly a good sounding violin that is played often will sound better in time based on "elastic memory". This also relates to our age old discussion about violins "breaking in". If I have a thin piece of rib material and start to bend it back and forth like a coat hangar, at first, as long as I don't bend too much in either direction, the wood will be stiff, but as I work it back and forth, the wood will heat slightly and become more pliable, some of this is due to the heat, but more importantly it is due to the fibers stretching and maybe tearing a bit {like muscle tissue}. All bending has a breaking point, but, much like our own bodies, if we work at flexibility, we can achieve it, slowly. Wood is exactly the same way.

So, if every day I go to this piece of rib material, and I bend it, after sitting over night, it will be a little stiff from sleeping, but will be able to go right into "bend mode" and be able to hit its peak flexibility after just a few bends back and forth. If however I leave this piece for a long time, and do not bend it, over time it will become stiffer again. Violin music represents 95 possible notes deriving from the 21-note scale in five positions along the fretboard. For each one of these notes we could consider it a part of our body or a different muscle. Each individual note will excite the corpus in its own unique way. An open G string, think of it as bending over and touching your toes, and open A, think of it as reaching your arms over head, and so on, for each note we have a different "yoga" maneuver. A good violin that is constantly played, will remain flexible and ready to serve. I would not attribute this as a broad based explanation as to why these instruments{ the well know master ones}sound so good,but I certainly think it plays a role

[Anders Buen]

The role of radiation damping in violin sound by George Bissinger

"Finally, a conjectured bridge resonance phenomenon, the so-called ‘‘bridge hill’’ augmenting the bridge–corpus energy transfer (thought correlated with enhanced acoustic output observed for good violins near 3 kHz) was recently shown to be incorrect. A possible alternative for acoustic enhancement seen near 3 kHz, based entirely on our damping analysis (additionally amplified by ‘‘holding/playing’’) arises from the ‘‘radiation damping/FRAD knee’’ shift observed between ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘bad’’ violins. Such a shift, independent of any manner of excitation, requires no ‘‘bridge–hill’’ or other enhancement mechanism."

I think Bissinger now have included the effect of the bridge on violin sound in a more correct way now. In 2005 there was a large bridge trimming experiment conducted at the Oberlin violin acoustics workshop which Bissinger has reported from. His later articles are probably a better read than this, although there tend to be a summary of all his work in all of his JASA articles.

[scordatura]

This thread on too-low density spruce rings true with me. (pun ) I am now realizing that there is some kind of sweet spot with density. I don't have numbers yet, but it seems the high end of Engelmann is best.

Stay tuned.

Mike

I like this line of thinking...I think!

[JimMurphy]

I think Bissinger now have included the effect of the bridge on violin sound in a more correct way now. In 2005 there was a large bridge trimming experiment conducted at the Oberlin violin acoustics workshop which Bissinger has reported from. His later articles are probably a better read than this, although there tend to be a summary of all his work in all of his JASA articles.

Okay, thanks Anders. I'll have to track down some of his more recent articles.

Jim