Oded Kishony Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 That's surprising to read, Oded, because you've talked quite a bit about the form of modal analysis you use yourself (string reciprocity). Oh oh, I've been caught. My objection is that formal modal analysis is far too complex, that there are other simpler ways to achieve the same end. Yes reciprocity is one and Oliver's mode sniffer another. I'm sure there are other methods as well. OK
Anders Buen Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 I remain skeptical. Is modal analysis being used for special cases like tonal copies (Schleske and Stoppani)or as a routine working tool? And I believe that there are simpler more direct ways to achieve the same ends. Such as Oliver's 'mode sniffer' a relatively simple technology with lots of potential. ....and then there are people who like to tell stories to impress their friends Oded Well, you have been at the Violin workshops, so you should at least know which people have been interested in the method, have learnt it and may use it, at least for those attending wile you were there. There are several groups that has followed Georges courses there, also now the last time with Michael Pyrkocz (two groups). I cound mention more than 10 makers I believe can use it only from these workshops, maybe there are more than 20. I do not know exactly how they use it in their making. Some probably use it in educational purposes, for experiments, and to get to know how things do vibrate. Terry Borman is pretty efficient with it, so he must be using it quite a lot. I once saw him do a modal analysis of a cello bridge. Some also use it in their marketing. There is also a former accessory maker working on a PhD using it for analyzing vibrations in tailpieces. It is used in research. You are sometimes asking strategic questions Oded. Can't answer for others but I am going to use it on backs on ribs and the assembled instrument on every instrument because I need the information on which modes I hear there. But I do not need to sell fiddles for the bread and butter. Modal analysis is a very powerful tool in the hands of a user with the necessary skills. I think it is pretty fun and makes it possible to get information I only could get in a laboratory with a large water cooled laser, a stabilized optics table and some complex electronics involving a camera (TV holography) in an academic environment. I now can get that on my living room table with a couple of transducers, the software and a laptop with a soundcard.
David Burgess Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 1. It's too strong from a static point. How so? What is the evidence that a violin is too strong? A fairly conventional violin seems to be capable of sounding like a good violin, which is what we want it to do. If I could make them even stronger, and still have them sound reasonable, I would consider that a worthwhile goal. 2. Guitar gets pinched once. Violin all the time. Still don't understand what you mean by this, or your point in comparing them. They behave very differently. I don't pinch either violins or guitars. Sheep maybe, if they're cute. 3. Too long a list. But I'd start with Carleen Hutchins. Basicaly anybody with an undergrad level of maths and physics who tries to solve a problem without being able to precisely define what the problem is. The armchair violin researcher goes around this by splitting the main problem into many useless subproblems and solving those. That goes nowhere. Carleen is old news, if she was ever news. Many of the people involved now are grad level, or grad teachers. Let me put it this way : it's STUPID to tune a fingerboard with 1 gram weight and then hang your arm on it. How have you come to this conclusion? I've heard several demonstrations where a small mass change at the end of the fingerboard produced a noticeable improvement, noticed by all in the room. The recognition that fingerboard frequency has an effect on sound isn't anything new, and not even controversial in most professional circles. It goes at least as far back as Nigogosian, from the Wurlitzer shop.
Carl Stross Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 1. It's too strong from a static point. How so? What is the evidence that a violin is too strong? A fairly conventional violin seems to be capable of sounding like a good violin, which is what we want it to do. 2. Guitar gets pinched once. Violin all the time. Still don't understand what you mean by this. I don't pinch either violins or guitars. Sheep maybe, if they're cute. 3. Too long a list. But I'd start with Carleen Hutchins. Basicaly anybody with an undergrad level of maths and physics who tries to solve a problem without being able to precisely define what the problem is. The armchair violin researcher goes around this by splitting the main problem into many useless subproblems and solving those. That goes nowhere. Carleen is old news, if she was ever news. Many of the people involved now are grad level, or grad teachers. Let me put it this way : it's STUPID to tune a fingerboard with 1 gram weight and then hang your arm on it. How have you come to this conclusion? I've heard several demonstrations where a small mass change at the end of the fingerboard produced a noticeable improvement, noticed by all in the room. 1. It never collapses while played. Conventional violins ( whatever that means ) do not sound like a Strad and do not "play" like a Strad. Not even close where it matters. But they might sound like good violins... 2. The guitar sound is defined after pinching the string. The violin's while is being pinched ( through the stick slip action of the bow ). I've never found sheep qute. It's just not me. 3. I believe you are wrong there. SOME of the people involved are "grad level" and those MIGHT not be armchair violin researchers. Due to your standing in the violin community you come in contact with the better ones ( and stay away from others ? ). But unless something massive happened over the past 9 years ( last time I read a "paper" ) the results of the research ain't looking great. Mostly beating around the bush. 4. That is not my point. MANY things will have some sound effect. So what ? Strads seem to have been able to cope with lots of different f/boards, bas bars, repairs, strings, fittings, etc etc etc. That tells some people that "The Secret" is not in minor mods like a gram here or a tenth of mm there. When even more factors are considered, like variations in shape, varnish loss, neck angle, etc it basicaly tells that "The Secret" is only in one place - the material.
David Burgess Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 1. It never collapses while played. I'd consider a violin's failure to collapse to be a plus, rather than a minus. 2. The guitar sound is defined after pinching the string. The violin's while is being pinched ( through the stick slip action of the bow ). I still don't understand the relevance of the guitar/violin comparison. Can you explain how it relates to the validity or non validity of modal analysis? 3. I believe you are wrong there. SOME of the people involved are "grad level" and those MIGHT not be armchair violin researchers. Due to your standing in the violin community you come in contact with the better ones ( and stay away from others ? ). But unless something massive happened over the past 9 years ( last time I read a "paper" ) the results of the research ain't looking great. Mostly beating around the bush. Yes, a great deal has happened in the last nine years. Some of it can still appear like beating around the bush, because the goal of some researchers is to understand violins (because they consider it a fascinating challenge), rather than to make them. Sometimes, it's up to the maker to recognize the applicability, and figure out how to apply it 4. That is not my point. MANY things will have some sound effect. So what ? Strads seem to have been able to cope with lots of different f/boards, bas bars, repairs, strings, fittings, etc etc etc. That tells some people that "The Secret" is not in minor mods like a gram here or a tenth of mm there. When even more factors are considered, like variations in shape, varnish loss, neck angle, etc it basicaly tells that "The Secret" is only in one place - the material. Strads cope with varying degrees of success. I've played some pretty awful ones. Also, what many people fail to take into consideration is that they usually have some of the best people working on them, who may go to great lengths to try to see that Strads live up to their name. The same techniques used on other fiddles, such as fingerboard frequency, string selection, experimenting with multiple bass bars, etc. may be applied to Strads to get them right. It's not like they're somehow magically immune these things, or will automatically sound good without attention to detail. I've spent more time and effort trying to get a Strad to sound its best, than with any other fiddle.
Melvin Goldsmith Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 1. It's too strong from a static point. How so? What is the evidence that a violin is too strong? A fairly conventional violin seems to be capable of sounding like a good violin, which is what we want it to do. 2. Guitar gets pinched once. Violin all the time. Still don't understand what you mean by this. I don't pinch either violins or guitars. Sheep maybe, if they're cute. 3. Too long a list. But I'd start with Carleen Hutchins. Basicaly anybody with an undergrad level of maths and physics who tries to solve a problem without being able to precisely define what the problem is. The armchair violin researcher goes around this by splitting the main problem into many useless subproblems and solving those. That goes nowhere. Carleen is old news, if she was ever news. Many of the people involved now are grad level, or grad teachers. Let me put it this way : it's STUPID to tune a fingerboard with 1 gram weight and then hang your arm on it. How have you come to this conclusion? I've heard several demonstrations where a small mass change at the end of the fingerboard produced a noticeable improvement, noticed by all in the room. 1. It never collapses while played. Conventional violins ( whatever that means ) do not sound like a Strad and do not "play" like a Strad. Not even close where it matters. But they might sound like good violins... 2. The guitar sound is defined after pinching the string. The violin's while is being pinched ( through the stick slip action of the bow ). I've never found sheep qute. It's just not me. 3. I believe you are wrong there. SOME of the people involved are "grad level" and those MIGHT not be armchair violin researchers. Due to your standing in the violin community you come in contact with the better ones ( and stay away from others ? ). But unless something massive happened over the past 9 years ( last time I read a "paper" ) the results of the research ain't looking great. Mostly beating around the bush. 4. That is not my point. MANY things will have some sound effect. So what ? Strads seem to have been able to cope with lots of different f/boards, bas bars, repairs, strings, fittings, etc etc etc. That tells some people that "The Secret" is not in minor mods like a gram here or a tenth of mm there. When even more factors are considered, like variations in shape, varnish loss, neck angle, etc it basicaly tells that "The Secret" is only in one place - the material. Hi Carl You make some good points.. However not all 'Strads' 'play like a Strad' In your point number4 your observation is very worthwhile but the highest value instruments do tend to have a sociological aspect to their current performance and that is that they have by virtue of their value more time spent on their adjustment and set up by the experts of the day than instruments of lesser financial value...Of all instruments a Strad is most likely to have had the micro adjustments you mention or even rather dramatic macro adjustments...In some cases it might take a year or more to make a Strad sound like a Strad.... I agree with your general theme that some old Cremonese are exceptional...A few that I have experienced have had an almost supernatural quality of sound that no other instrument has matched. I also agree that materials are important....I also think that there is still a huge amount to be learned about what the Old Cremonese were doing, how they worked. There is a tendency these days for luthiers to congratulate each other but I think this is a bad thing because there is something big more to learn for sure.
Carl Stross Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 1. So do I. But that has a certain chain of implications for the way it MIGHT work. 2. I can't - I'm afraid it might trigger more "papers". ( I'm not joking ). I am actualy. I simply don't want to talk about it. 3. I'm happy to hear that. I'll break my fast : please send me a paper you found really "meaty" with graduated level research. I shall read it carefully and comment on it in plain view on the forum. That of course, provided it does not fly way above my head into arcane areas of graduate maths... 4. I'm not talking better here. But you know that. ( Unless you found a way to "adjust" a normal fiddle into a Strad ). Strads are worked on by competent people - that's almost a given. But I don't believe that moving sound posts around or doing fancy cuts to bridges is part of the secret though it might bring minor improvments. But they won't strike at the core of the matter. 'Cause some of them have been cut smaller...Now what ?
Oded Kishony Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 'Anders Buen' Some also use it in their marketing. Well, now your talking!!! The right tool for the right job. Modal analysis is a very powerful tool in the hands of a user with the necessary skills. Yes, I agree. I just don't think it's a very useful or practical one for actual violinmaking. I think it is pretty fun and makes it possible to get information I only could get in a laboratory with a large water cooled laser, a stabilized optics table and some complex electronics involving a camera (TV holography) in an academic environment. I now can get that on my living room table with a couple of transducers, the software and a laptop with a soundcard. I think it often has far more information than you need. I'm sure MA has many uses for violinmakers and it is useful for tonal copies and as a diagnostic tool. I just think it is being oversold as a practical violinmaking tool. Last time I spoke with Terry Boreman he was not using MA in his routine violinmaking. Maybe that's changed. Oded
Oded Kishony Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 please send me a paper you found really "meaty" with graduated level research. Do I understand correctly that you have not read a paper in the last 9 years? Have you read any of Martin Schleske's papers? Can I assume that your "graduated level" is not English? (a typo, no doubt) Oded
Carl Stross Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 Do I understand correctly that you have not read a paper in the last 9 years? Have you read any of Martin Schleske's papers? Can I assume that your "graduated level" is not English? (a typo, no doubt) Oded 1. Exactly. But as I said I'll read a couple. If you have some Schleske paper you found important please send me a copy. Let's see, maybe a lot has changed. 2. Safely
Anders Buen Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 I think it often has far more information than you need. Glad to hear that you concern about the amount of information involved and our needs.
JimMurphy Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 Since 'guitar' has been mentioned, I wonder if Sacconi or anyone else peeked into Baroque guitars and found a plateau. Jim
Oded Kishony Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 Full text copies of some of Schleske's papers available on line here: http://www.schleske.de/en/our-research/publications.html Oded
Carl Stross Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 Full text copies of some of Schleske's papers available on line here: http://www.schleske.de/en/our-research/publications.html Oded Reading right now....Give me 10 min
David Burgess Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 2. I can't - I'm afraid it might trigger more "papers". ( I'm not joking ). I am actualy. I simply don't want to talk about it. This may get to the heart of the matter. Whenever discussions about the value of tech research come up, there seems to be a pattern in the positions. Those trashing it tend not to be well-versed or current in it (with the possible exception of Oded). I can certainly understand those who have no interest in it, or choose another path. An alternative to the "modern" world is the very thing which attracted many people to making in the first place. However, this is quite different from using uninformed arguments to assert that the tech is junk. Shoot, we have a bunch of people spending all kinds of money and all kinds of time, with solid educations, looking into this stuff, reporting at least some of the results. Our investment is little more than to become educated enough to understand what they're talking about. On this forum, Anders is an example. How much better does it get than that? I have one friend, a top-notch maker, who attended the Oberlin Acoustics workshop, and then abandoned that approach. It's not because he thinks it doesn't have potential, but because it goes counter to a basic philosophy of his: "Computers are a black hole which suck up your time." You may think you agree, but if you're reading or posting here, there's some stuff to sort out. He doesn't post or read.
David Burgess Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 Reading right now....Give me 10 min Don't neglect to read everything by George Bissinger. And a lot of great stuff has never been published on the internet.
James M. Jones Posted May 28, 2011 Author Report Posted May 28, 2011 This may get to the heart of the matter. "Computers are a black hole which suck up your time." You may think you agree, but if you're reading or posting here, there's some stuff to sort out. He doesn't post or read. I (A) strongly agree! I think the 3D animations are the greatest thing sence sliced bread... I may not understand what is going on but it's so nice to see that something is going on.. a visual demonstration of how the violin moves at least gives some idea of where one might go.. we as a community are on the cusp of great things here far beyond what Strad and the crew could measure and define .... Maybe...probably... MA is not a magic bullet.... but it constitutes a very important chapter in the book of violin acoustics,of that I'm sure .....and they are fun to watch
Carl Stross Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 Reading right now....Give me 10 min Read one about making "tonal copies". Not impressed. Sorry. Back to my fasting state.
Oded Kishony Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 Those trashing it tend not to be well-versed or current in it (with the possible exception of Oded). I'm not trashing high tech as a research tool, it's great (although widely misunderstood IMHO). I object to MA being sold as a violinmaking tool. Yes, you could cut F holes using CNC guided lasers but would you want to? I would not! Oded
David Burgess Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 Read one about making "tonal copies". Not impressed. Sorry. Back to my fasting state. The wording suggests a position, not a real evaluation. If this was an evaluation, can you offer reasons why you weren't impressed, or poke one or more holes in his arguments?
Oded Kishony Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 Read one about making "tonal copies". Not impressed. Sorry. Sorry's not enough, I want a critique of the paper, please. Oded
David Burgess Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 Sorry's not enough, I want a critique of the paper, please. Oded Yes, if you want to have credibility here, more will be needed. You've entered into a forum representing many brilliant people, from all walks of life. If you post ideas or opinions, expect that they will be tested. Mine certainly have.
James M. Jones Posted May 28, 2011 Author Report Posted May 28, 2011 Sorry's not enough, I want a critique of the paper, please. Oded reminds me of pushing a chain across the road.
Michael Darnton Posted May 28, 2011 Report Posted May 28, 2011 reminds me of pushing a chain across the road. That's called reverse engineering, assuming the chain started on the other side, in the first place.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now