The asymmetric nature of violins

[Craig Tucker]

It was brought to my attention via PM recently, that my observations regarding asymmetric qualities in violin construction might be just short of the mark. And rightfully so, because, truly the violin isn't an entirely symmetric beast.

My point in the thread that brought this question up, had to do mainly with visible qualities of the finished instrument - like outline, general geometry, intentional and unintentional design goals or parameters, and the like.

The asymmetric idea posed to me, had to do with thicknessing the plates.

Well, from *the makers* point of view, I agree with this idea. Slight variations in outline and the like are one thing - but variations in plate thickness are entirely another matter. The bass bar, the sound post, the bridge, the string weights, construction, materials and tension - all of these things introduce a substantive innate asymmetric nature or quality into existence within the instrument.

Thicknessing the plates, to me, is how I deal with the non-homogenous nature of the wood, the uneven spread and location of string forces, and presents a opportunity whereby one might gain a means to control the voice and response of the violin.

In posting, very often, the nature of the "asymmetry" mentioned isn't clarified, so, I usually answer such posts as I intuit what their intention is. But it is a subject matter that can easily have more than one level or implication, so, my answers are dependant on what I assume the author in question is referring to. It wouldn't surprise me to find that I have assumed incorrectly.

General thoughts on this matter, like which asymmetric details matter, and, are some specific asymmetric qualities merely incidental?

[Brad Dorsey]

...The bass bar, the sound post, the bridge, the string weights, construction, materials and tension - all of these things introduce a substantive innate asymmetric nature or quality into existence within the instrument...

Also the pegs.

[gowan]

Also the pegs.

Some aspects of asymmetry are important and some aren't. David Rivinus's instruments have shown that gross asymmetry in outline and general shape can work.

[JimMurphy]

Thicknessing the plates, to me, is how I deal with the non-homogenous nature of the wood, the uneven spread and location of string forces, and presents a opportunity whereby one might gain a means to control the voice and response of the violin.

...

General thoughts on this matter, like which asymmetric details matter, and, are some specific asymmetric qualities merely incidental?

Hi Craig,

By tuning the strings in perfect 5th symmetrical intervals, the early Cremonese made very clear their intention for how these fine bowed instruments should operate.

With respect to plate graduations, it's quite tempting to only 'see' asymmetry IF treating arching separately from the whole instrument design. When looking at Stradivari's graduation maps, it's just as easy to see symmetry as well as asymmetry. What was the intent??

The goal of all harmonic motion [or harmonic oscillation] in general is to get 'numbers' to certain places at very specific times AND it takes a high level of symmetry - and Geometry - to accomplish this objective.

My general thoughts on asymmetry?:

(1) Count bassbar design/placement as part of the asymmetry [which needs fixin']

(2) Make all 4 string-lengths equal [Yes, it IS possible with stringent set-up technique!]

(3) The more asymmetric plate graduation introduced, the more instrument response becomes incapable of producing that perfect blend of lows, mids & highs and clarity suffers as well.

Jim

[Matthias Lange]

By tuning the strings in perfect 5th symmetrical intervals, the early Cremonese made very clear their intention for how these fine bowed instruments should operate.

Sorry not clear to me. Could you explain it.

The goal of all harmonic motion [or harmonic oscillation] in general is to get 'numbers' to certain places at very specific times AND it takes a high level of symmetry - and Geometry - to accomplish this objective.

Maybe it's because English is not my first language, but it makes absolutely no sense.

To start with I don't think harmonic motion has a goal. It is just a process. Do you think speed of light has a goal?

As an example where asymmetry beats symmetry: Symmetric air modes inside the violin corpus are not very good at radiating sound.

Matthias

[Addie]

As I posted elsewhere, the Strad 'S' 1703 mold is definitely asymmetrical. Treble upper bout is slightly wider, and the 'C' bouts aren't the same. The difference is only a few millimeters, but it is there.

[Matthew Noykos]

Sorry not clear to me. Could you explain it.

Maybe it's because English is not my first language, but it makes absolutely no sense.

To start with I don't think harmonic motion has a goal. It is just a process. Do you think speed of light has a goal?

As an example where asymmetry beats symmetry: Symmetric air modes inside the violin corpus are not very good at radiating sound.

Matthias

I was confused too and English is my first language.

[Chad Sobodash]

I was confused too and English is my first language.

Me too. Is he trying to say that asymmetry in plate graduation and arching is bad for tone? Because ... well, that's just plain wrong.

[jacobsaunders]

General thoughts on this matter, like which asymmetric details matter, and, are some specific asymmetric qualities merely incidental?

If you look out of my window at all the crooked Baroque buildings from the 16th. & 17th. centuries, you wonder why the bank in the middle (built in the 1960's) looks so ridiculous. After a while you realise that it stands out like a sore thumb because everything is straight or 90°, the windows are exactly the same distance appart to the mm. etc. etc. whereas all the baroque ones are higgledy-piggledy in every respect. Symmetry/Asymmetry evidently wasn't an issue for a 17th. or 18th. Century artisan, rather a futile modern obsession.

[Craig Tucker]

Me too. Is he trying to say that asymmetry in plate graduation and arching is bad for tone? Because ... well, that's just plain wrong.

Well, it could be that many many facets of this subject will surface, (on all three sides of the fence) where things we take for granted, as stable facts or forgone conclusions, will turn out to be nothing more than arbitrarily adopted viewpoints.

If we can all manage to keep a level head about it, remain unruffled as well as tolerant, and realize that not only does the rubber hit the road here - but that there are no real hard or fast answers involved, there may be some real gems to consider - presented by the membership - I know I am already intrigued at some of the posts, and what the different comments say about what the different posters might think.

[Craig Tucker]

If you look out of my window at all the crooked Baroque buildings from the 16th. & 17th. centuries, you wonder why the bank in the middle (built in the 1960's) looks so ridiculous. After a while you realise that it stands out like a sore thumb because everything is straight or 90°, the windows are exactly the same distance appart to the mm. etc. etc. whereas all the baroque ones are higgledy-piggledy in every respect. Symmetry/Asymmetry evidently wasn't an issue for a 17th. or 18th. Century artisan, rather a futile modern obsession.

Excellent point. In my opinion it has nothing to do with their obvious attempt to be symmetrical, but it has to do with their methods, tools, and materials. Today, with much less effort we cannot get away form having and realizing a greater degree of accuracy or even symmetry.

You'd almost have to custom order everything in order to achieve any kind of random irregularity - that wasn't part of an intentional design to include irregularities.

Which, of course has its corollary in modern copyists in the violin making field.

[gowan]

Don't you have to do the graduations to suit the wood, at least to some extent? As Craig has said, wood is not a homogeneous material so there likely are variations in density in a plate. Wouldn't that lead to asymmetrical graduation?

As for asymmetry of existing buildings built 300 years ago or more, don't forget that buildings change as they age due to different shrinkage or expansion of components, presence or absence of weight stresses, settling of ground, etc. Existing old tools from 300+ years ago (squares, protractors, plumb bobs, etc.) seem to indicate that square and plumb were at least aims of the builders back then.

[jacobsaunders]

Don't you have to do the graduations to suit the wood, at least to some extent? As Craig has said, wood is not a homogeneous material so there likely are variations in density in a plate. Wouldn't that lead to asymmetrical graduation?

As for asymmetry of existing buildings built 300 years ago or more, don't forget that buildings change as they age due to different shrinkage or expansion of components, presence or absence of weight stresses, settling of ground, etc. Existing old tools from 300+ years ago (squares, protractors, plumb bobs, etc.) seem to indicate that square and plumb were at least aims of the builders back then.

With all due respect, you evidently don't have any 300+ year old buildings in America. Symmetry obviously wasn't an objective. The point is that they are wonderfully attractive, and the new bank dreadfuly ugly.

Having spent the past 30 years restoring old violins, I can't help but thinking that any asymmetry in the plate graduation could also have something to do with "being in a hurry".

[jacobsaunders]

Don't you have to do the graduations to suit the wood, at least to some extent? As Craig has said, wood is not a homogeneous material so there likely are variations in density in a plate. Wouldn't that lead to asymmetrical graduation?

As for asymmetry of existing buildings built 300 years ago or more, don't forget that buildings change as they age due to different shrinkage or expansion of components, presence or absence of weight stresses, settling of ground, etc. Existing old tools from 300+ years ago (squares, protractors, plumb bobs, etc.) seem to indicate that square and plumb were at least aims of the builders back then.

With all due respect, you evidently don't have any 300+ year old buildings in America. Symmetry obviously wasn't an objective. The point is that they are wonderfully attractive, and the new bank dreadfuly ugly.

Having spent the past 30 years restoring old violins, I can't help but thinking that any asymmetry in the plate graduation could also have something to do with "being in a hurry".

[dvsutton]

agree...what true artist sits around all day with a compass trying to draw perfect circle?

[Craig Tucker]

agree...what true artist sits around all day with a compass trying to draw perfect circle?

This guy does, but skip the compass...

[Don Noon]

Sorry I arrived late to the party of Murphy bashers... so I won't bother at this point.

My opinion is difinitely on the side of asymmetry being GOOD, acoustically... assuming you think more sound for less effort is good. If the violin were perfectly symmetric, then all of its structural modes would be symmetric. With the rocking nature of the bridge, many (or even all?) of these modes would be left/right symmetric, leading to acoustic cancellation of the sound from the left by that of the right. This would be most pronounced at the low to mid frequencies, but highs too would suffer, I think. So you would get all the pleasures of strong body modes and wolf notes, without much sound to show for it.

Personally, I have been going to very asymmetric graduations, and I think it works better.

[Craig Tucker]

Sorry I arrived late to the party of Murphy bashers... so I won't bother at this point.

My opinion is difinitely on the side of asymmetry being GOOD, acoustically...

Personally, I have been going to very asymmetric graduations, and I think it works better.

I happen to think this is the case also.

I have a difficult time seeing this as "Murphy bashing" though - it seems to be pretty well split down the middle so far.

[Ben Podgor]

I am not a violin maker, but please excuse me for even getting on this part of the board.

From the point of view of the user, I have three violins. Like the G, D, and A of all, but have a problem with the E. When you make your violin, are you also considering the ease of use. Some are easier to handle than others, yet you seem to be following the same specifications. I find this to be a very interesting topic and realize that my right to interrupt is limited. But your discussion of asymmetry does afect the things I am interested in. My violin teacher said that it was not the violin, but me.

Ben

[Michael Darnton]

What kind of problem with the E?

[Matthew Noykos]

Sorry I arrived late to the party of Murphy bashers... so I won't bother at this point.

I wasn't bashing at all, I just commented because I didn't understand the post.

This guy does, but skip the compass...

When did Charlie Sheen shave his head and start drawing circles for high school kids? Cool video CT!

[Ben Podgor]

What kind of problem with the E?

I am referring to the pleasing sound. Have tried diffent strings. Of course, I understand that this is a very personal thing, what may be pleasing to one person, may not be to another. But if you consider the fact that on three different violins the sound is "pleasing" on three strings but not on one, and each of the violins has a different voice. By the way, my violins are student violins, Probably the sound of the E string might be described as more shrill. I find it difficult to find the correct word for it.

Ben

[Chad Sobodash]

Just to mention, none of these seem symmetrical to me: http://www.bormanviolins.com/animations.asp

Well, it could be that many many facets of this subject will surface, (on all three sides of the fence) where things we take for granted, as stable facts or forgone conclusions, will turn out to be nothing more than arbitrarily adopted viewpoints.

If we can all manage to keep a level head about it, remain unruffled as well as tolerant, and realize that not only does the rubber hit the road here - but that there are no real hard or fast answers involved, there may be some real gems to consider - presented by the membership - I know I am already intrigued at some of the posts, and what the different comments say about what the different posters might think.

I'm of the mind that misinformation that can empirically be proven false should be stamped out like a flame under foot, lest it spread wildly.

[David Burgess]

Sorry I arrived late to the party of Murphy bashers... so I won't bother at this point.

I've mostly decided not to bother at all. For several years, we've been getting highly questionable dogmatic-style hints, but no further explanation when challenged, and no "proof of concept" instrument(s). And most of the ideas have already been tried and rejected. One time, I went as far as to say, "Put up, or shut up". I'll challenge the concepts once again now, because I'd prefer that people not be misled, or go chasing their tails.

Sorry Jim, you seem like a really great guy, and I appreciate your sense of humor, but are you ready yet to offer the slightest smidgin of practical proof for the concepts which you seem to be fixated on? Don actually tests his ideas, and reports back, whether the results are as expected or not. For me, his posts are one of the highlights of coming here.

What would you be willing to do to establish some credibility? Will you offer even one instrument, made or modified according to your concepts, to suggest that you know what's goin' on?

[Addie]

I take it we are discussing symmetry in geometry, not symmetry in music structure... and primarily reflection symmetry (side-to-side).

Posible types:

right and left sides of a plate: outline, arching, margins, thickness, f holes.

comparison of plates (belly and back): outline, arching, thickness.

right and left sides of garland.

right and left sides of neck, etc.