Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

It could well be a posiblity but one should not generalize. I've just read Schelske's paper on tonal copies. I found no definition of "tone" and accordingly I can't quite grasp what a tonal copy is. There is some very low grade physics, a lot of unsupported statements and an incredibly important insight : plates don't want to bend where they're stiff and shift the bending where they are less stiff.....The reference section cites some colegues and no fundamental texts on the mechanics of solids or shells. But I have to believe the author has at least digested Lord Reyleigh's "Theory of Sound".

My ( personal ) interest is not in the loudness of violins but in their tone and it does seem to me that, sometimes, this difference is blurred if accounted for at all.

Posted

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?

Of course. Without a problem.

Posted

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.

And we shall do exactly that. Do you accept THIS particular paper as representative for his research ? Or would you like another one ?

It's your call...

Posted

It could well be a posiblity but one should not generalize. I've just read Schelske's paper on tonal copies. I found no definition of "tone" and accordingly I can't quite grasp what a tonal copy is.

I haven't read the referd to paper and might or might not,so I will not argue there valididy

that said

Tone is essintialy the fundamental note we hear COMBINED with it's partials in ratios and or percents, to give color or tambor,like the difference between a note on the violin and the same note from a trumpet have different tones.. a tonal copy would be an attemt to recreate the partials and ratio's of them in order to make them sound the same. loudness or amplitude is the amounty of tone presesnt. In my mind a violin has to be built stronger than a guitar because of the continous input from the bow. without mechcaicle damping from mass the partials would overrun the fundimental and create a muddy tone. ...Guys? Am I headed in the right direction here?

Posted
I've just read Schelske's paper on tonal copies. I found no definition of "tone" and accordingly I can't quite grasp what a tonal copy is.

I'm inclined to agree with you on that. He wants to imply that tone is defined by modes, and that if you copy modes you have copied tone, but I don't believe he ever establishes that this connection is accurate, especially at the levels of discrimination he's using. As it stands, it's depends heavily on the assertion that correlation proves causation, but he never proves either correlation or causation. Or maybe I missed that part. . .

It reminds me of Addie's overlays in the f-hole thread. The overlays "prove" the f-holes are almost identical, with maybe a 5% difference, overall. . . except for the fact that they totally are not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2cMtL06JgU

Posted

I've just read Schelske's paper on tonal copies. I found no definition of "tone" and accordingly I can't quite grasp what a tonal copy is. There is some very low grade physics, a lot of unsupported statements and an incredibly important insight : plates don't want to bend where they're stiff and shift the bending where they are less stiff.....

The body of Shleske's work isn't completely represented on his web site. A "tonal copy", as might be obvious from the title, is a fiddle which attempts to sound much like the one being copied.

If you've been here long, or been around musicians much, you'll realize that verbal descriptions of tone are kinetic and not largely agreed upon. That's one of the very reasons why researchers are attempting to define them with a higher degree of repetition and accuracy, sometimes with math and sometimes with graphs, and one of the ways they can add value to what we do.

Posted

"It would be very helpful to the violinmaker if psychoacoustical research gave some clues on how differences in the "acoustical spectra" of violins have to be interpreted to do justice to human sense of hearing"

The term "tonal copies" in the title of the paper is in quotes and Schleske clearly acknowledges the ambiguity of the term. (quote above)

Perhaps you missed this sentence since it's towards the end.

The stated purpose of the paper is (to) "describe some physical principles that determine the changes of violin modal patterns"

I think he fulfilled his stated objective admirably.

Oded

Posted

I'm inclined to agree with you on that. He wants to imply that tone is defined by modes, and that if you copy modes you have copied tone, but I don't believe he ever establishes that this connection is accurate, especially at the levels of discrimination he's using. As it stands, it's depends heavily on the assertion that correlation proves causation, but he never proves either correlation or causation. Or maybe I missed that part. . .

It reminds me of Addie's overlays in the f-hole thread. The overlays "prove" the f-holes are almost identical, with maybe a 5% difference, overall. . . except for the fact that they totally are not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2cMtL06JgU

No you didn't and now you've destroyed half my fun...But what it's even more interesting is that even if one EXACTLY reproduces all the mode shapes of a Strad for whatever freq or COMBINATION of freq there is still one thing to do before they'll sound identical.

Posted

I'm not going to defend every single thing that Schleske has written or that he's written the definitive paper on violin making. It's clear that his work is heads and shoulders above previous work.

I'll need more than just an argument by sneer to convince me that this is not a superior paper that meets it's stated (limited) objectives. Not someone's grandiose fantasies of what such a paper is supposed to prove.

Oded

PS perhaps you could point us to a paper you've published (preferably on violin acoustics)? I'd love to see what you do.

Posted

"It would be very helpful to the violinmaker if psychoacoustical research gave some clues on how differences in the "acoustical spectra" of violins have to be interpreted to do justice to human sense of hearing"

The term "tonal copies" in the title of the paper is in quotes and Schleske clearly acknowledges the ambiguity of the term. (quote above)

Perhaps you missed this sentence since it's towards the end.

The stated purpose of the paper is (to) "describe some physical principles that determine the changes of violin modal patterns"

I think he fulfilled his stated objective admirably.

Oded

If that was the objective, then it was achieved and the paper could've been much shorter as he states the obvious. He claims however to have constructed a tonal copy based on this.

Posted

I'm inclined to agree with you on that. He wants to imply that tone is defined by modes, and that if you copy modes you have copied tone, but I don't believe he ever establishes that this connection is accurate, especially at the levels of discrimination he's using.

That's pretty hard to do with text. Listen to some of his tonal copies, versus originals, and see what you think.

Posted
If that was the objective, then it was achieved and the paper could've been much shorter as he states the obvious. He claims however to have constructed a tonal copy based on this.

Damned with faint praise-nice.

Grace us with your wisdom, please, perhaps you could point us to a paper you've published (preferably on violin acoustics)? I'd love to see what you do.

Oded

Posted

I'm not going to defend every single thing that Schleske has written or that he's written the definitive paper on violin making. It's clear that his work is heads and shoulders above previous work.

I'll need more than just an argument by sneer to convince me that this is not a superior paper that meets it's stated (limited) objectives. Not someone's grandiose fantasies of what such a paper is supposed to prove.

Oded

And what you'll discover with some surprise is that not everybody is interested in convincing you of anything. I suggest you read the paper again and explain me what's NEW in it.

Posted

Damned with faint praise-nice.

Grace us with your wisdom, please, perhaps you could point us to a paper you've published (preferably on violin acoustics)? I'd love to see what you do.

Oded

I have never published a paper in violin acoustics nor I would ever do that. The only thing I've ever "published" was a book on mathematical methods suporting a course in solid mechanics.

Posted

And what you'll discover with some surprise is that not everybody is interested in convincing you of anything. I suggest you read the paper again and explain me what's NEW in it.

Down Boy... We're new here and their, (David and Oded) are not, like it or not they are our leaders... There are a lot of the most informed people who are directly connected with the most informed folks in the violin world.(or some thing like that??) If I could convince Oded of one thing that would be that I'm here to learn and that I respect the time, inteligence and commitment to exellence that is evident in the sharred respect among the Veterens...Our ability as Newbee's to participate in this type of Dialouge is an honor..not a right...No ones slamming you just challenging your comments....Respect

Posted
I suggest you read the paper again and explain me what's NEW in it.

This was a ground breaking paper in 1996 He was the first to introduce modal analysis to the violin making community. The section where he discusses the acoustical relationship between the free plates and whole corpus was revolutionary for it's time.

What he stated was not at all obvious to most violinmakers.

But who am I trying to convince? Certainly not the professional skeptic.

Oded

Posted

Not one of the people involved in modal analysis is using it for making their instruments, as far as I know. It has sometimes been used to analyze a problem instrument with some success, but I'm not convinced that some other simpler method could not have been just as useful.

I'm not advocating that modal analysis isn't interesting or of some limited use and I also love looking at the animations, but I'm convinced that modal analysis as a working tool is grossly overrated.

BTW from what I've seen violas are not simply scaled up violins.

Oded

We seem to agree

Posted

carl shouldnt you be busy repairing your 50$ violin and leave violin making topics to the makers???

lyndon, I don't know. I'm thinking of establishing a new trend were the consumer gets more involved.

Posted

What we often get here is people surfing for ultimate truth. The search can focus outside the boundaries of practical experience. Fiddle makers, arguably, are a bunch of dumbies, so I can understand why some would begin the search elsewhere. On the flip side, people can fixate on the opinions of dumbies with limited experience, talent and imagination, whose opinions can prevail from the preponderance, and who refuse to approach the boundaries. In my humble opinion, neither extreme is the best recipe for success.

I'll try to make some generalizations about the most successful makers I know. Some of these generalizations will break down, upon isolated examples to the contrary.

Most of them are information and learning whores. What they knew yesterday may not be the same as what they know tomorrow. A substantial number of them have outrageous senses of humor, sometimes manifest in a subtle and quiet manner. Most of them are quite willing to preface a response to a question by saying that they don't know much, if asked.

Posted
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...

Well you can break your fast by eating your own words .....99 paper with "meaty" graduate level research. Not much there that's very practical for me. I found Schleske's papers to be far more useful. After all, it's about violin making not about impressing arcane mathematicians.

I should add that Jim Woodhouse is a wonderful individual, always ready and willing to help a violin maker in search of a solution with useful and practical suggestions.

Oded

Posted

Unfortunately Oliver Rodger's papers aren't available on line but his work stands up after many years as some of the most reliable, useful and intelligent research on violin making done in the last 50 years. I constantly find myself looking up his papers.

Oded

Posted

If I could convince Oded of one thing that would be that I'm here to learn and that I respect the time, inteligence and commitment to exellence that is evident in the sharred respect among the Veterens...Our ability as Newbee's to participate in this type of Dialouge is an honor..not a right...No ones slamming you just challenging your comments....Respect

Smart man.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...