Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Secret Knowledge and violins


Craig Tucker
 Share

Recommended Posts

 Seems you have no faith in Johnmasters or Peter,  any particular reasons?

 

 

 

Of course : all I ever heard from those two were speculations. Not a shred of proof. For a few years by now we are waiting for Peter K-G to bless us with a sample of his "Soil tone". David Burgess even offered to pay for shipping costs to have one tested. I did , too. NADA. You know why ? Because they're crappy. For years by now, every now and then, Johnmasters pops around with his "idea" of finding an optimal shape of the arch and gets pissed with everybody who doesn't show enough interest. I'd say in some 10 years he had enough time to make a working model of his theory.

But he wants US to do that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 630
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

UNCLE DUKE: You can do this and also make any longitudinal arch with another spread sheet.

List distances from middle to ends. I took the geometric middle and said it was 7 inches to each end. You could easily measure from the bridge and have two curves.

Then make columes to make each distance to ends in decimal fractions of pi: x*pi/length. (A list of multipliers .000 to 1.000)

Then make a colume to raise this to any fractional power. Depending on spreadsheet, maybe have to use logarithms.

Then take cosine AFTER taking the power.

And multiply this by maximum height.

 

Uncle Duke, are you still breathing ? Say something !  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig may be like me and that would be we forget or mis-placed the info. for where the small hole is placed on the circle. 

 

Uncle duke,

 

The small hole is placed on the circle, for that particular position along the length of the instrument, always the exact distance it is from the bottom of the cycloid - or the arch you're making for that position on the plate -  to the top of the center of the arch, for that cross arch position...

 

In order to make a violin, I will say that you must have SOME idea of what it is you are going to make at the start. Right? Or why bother making it?

SOME established parameters, to guide your knife or whatever tool it is that you're using, to cut away excess wood.

And some way to arrive at that number or that amount of wood to carve away.

Simple- right?

No - not quite so simple.

In order to use or create cycloids you need a width and a height.

In order to have a width number, you need a hmmm, a pattern - a photo perhaps, or a drawing, giving the correct measurements for the "profile" of the violin - or the side to side measurement or 'number'. for that particular cross section. That's one number for the CC.

 

Then for your height measurements, you will also need a long profile of the violin you're building that will give you your second CC number needed to make the CC for that exact point along the profile.

 

So, the CC doesn't GIVE you either of these numbers. These are the two numbers that you'd have or need to either plug into the mathematical equation, or to  to get the hole in the circle in the right place, in order to make the cycloid you need.

 

You can make as many or as few as you think you might need as long as you understand how to arrive at any number in particular - you'd need TWO numbers to plug in to the rather simple equation - height and width.

 

Understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I understand Craig. 

 

  Tell me if I'm wrong but shouldn't I use only the half height difference coming up from the low point for the circle hole?  I haven't went back through last springs (2015) discussion yet to verify.  And for arch heights and low areas I was going to use an existing violin for the numbers I need for transverse. 

 

  Johnmasters left what I need for using whichever website he left us.  I'll see what I can do there, too.  He'll be back- can't stay away from a good thing for too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course : all I ever heard from those two were speculations. Not a shred of proof. For a few years by now we are waiting for Peter K-G to bless us with a sample of his "Soil tone". David Burgess even offered to pay for shipping costs to have one tested. I did , too. NADA. You know why ? Because they're crappy. For years by now, every now and then, Johnmasters pops around with his "idea" of finding an optimal shape of the arch and gets pissed with everybody who doesn't show enough interest. I'd say in some 10 years he had enough time to make a working model of his theory.

But he wants US to do that. :)

I never suggested I had proven something. There is a way to construct a nice longitudinal arch. It will be "nice" if it is more or less what you want.

I DID use these shapes to make my CNC violin.. just one. It turned out OK to my mind, but I cannot judge it as I no longer play. The reason I wanted an actual function for the longitude was that I needed numbers for the CNC.

OK, I am crappy, full of crap... But you read more into what I say than I intend. I don't suggest you try these ideas. Just that they are observations.

I am crappy, you are a poor reader and with too much imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I understand Craig. 

 

  Tell me if I'm wrong but shouldn't I use only the half height difference coming up from the low point for the circle hole?  I haven't went back through last springs (2015) discussion yet to verify.  And for arch heights and low areas I was going to use an existing violin for the numbers I need for transverse. 

 

 

Listen uncle duke,

 I always understand that you are as 'grabbing on' to the theory as much as I am.

I will get back to EXACTLY what I think you need, for these numbers, here in another post soon.

We good?

I have to leave right now, as I have some work to do, and must quit yacking for a while.

 

But your idea for arriving at the 'correct numbers' to use for arriving at the CC's for making a violin, is absolutely true -you certainly can use these two already established numbers to arrive at the or a CC for that position...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never suggested I had proven something. There is a way to construct a nice longitudinal arch. It will be "nice" if it is more or less what you want.

I DID use these shapes to make my CNC violin.. just one. It turned out OK to my mind, but I cannot judge it as I no longer play. The reason I wanted an actual function for the longitude was that I needed numbers for the CNC.

OK, I am crappy, full of crap... But you read more into what I say than I intend. I don't suggest you try these ideas. Just that they are observations.

I am crappy, you are a poor reader and with too much imagination.

 

Now I understand : you had an idea and wanted MN to figure out if it is right or wrong and the long arch "formula" was for your CNC machine you used once 4 years ago to make a violin you do not know if it is good or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get a 1mm thick plastic material from my local model making shop. It comes in A4 and A5 sheets, is soft to cut with a knife, has no grain, and snaps cleanly on the knife line. It's great for lots of things, including making templates. 

 

I made some cycloid templates with it. I'm very illiterate when it comes to maths on the computer, and to run up a pattern takes only a minute. 

 

Obviously, when you draw the curve, you roll the circle along a straightedge, and if it slips, the curve is wrong. I roll the circle hard on a single cut file to give the edge grip, rather like a milled coin, and likewise tooth the plastic straightedge. It works really well, so I wouldn't use cardboard.

 

 

On the shape at the ends of the long arch - I have always visualised the distortion here as resembling the S shape you snapped into a handsaw in order to make it sing ( and annoy your teacher). The shape coming into the top block must distort a little, pulled down by the block and pushed up by the arch, and quite a flat curve here can be very strong yet flexible. 

 

A bit unscientific I'm afraid, but as Carl rightly points out you must have a system, and mine is to visualise the way I feel the thing works, and to make it as beautifully as I can

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I understand : you had an idea and wanted MN to figure out if it is right or wrong and the long arch "formula" was for your CNC machine you used once 4 years ago to make a violin you do not know if it is good or not.

I did not expect MN to figure out anything. And I don't know if they would have the interest to do it. You are not being quite fair. I did make a decent CNC violin, but it looked much like others I had made with older shapes. Once these were scraped to look "nice" and even in the curvature, they were pretty much like the CNC violin.

And finally, for the last time, I was not asking if it was right or wrong. I was suggesting what I might do in some experiments with FEA.

And I have NOT done them yet. HERE THAT ?? IT AIN"T DONE YET AND I MAKE NO CLAIMS TO HAVING ANY PROPER ARCHINGS FOR Y'ALL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not expect MN to figure out anything. And I don't know if they would have the interest to do it. You are not being quite fair. I did make a decent CNC violin, but it looked much like others I had made with older shapes. Once these were scraped to look "nice" and even in the curvature, they were pretty much like the CNC violin.

And finally, for the last time, I was not asking if it was right or wrong. I was suggesting what I might do in some experiments with FEA.

And I have NOT done them yet. HERE THAT ?? IT AIN"T DONE YET AND I MAKE NO CLAIMS TO HAVING ANY PROPER ARCHINGS FOR Y'ALL.

 

Ha ha!

 

As I post about curtate cycloids - but have never claimed to use them, when making a violin!

 

I understand them, and I understand that many people posting about them, never have made, or used, or really understand them  - with some couple of exceptions.

It is interesting to see the amount of posts they generate by makers that realize that they are something that perhaps SHOULD be considered at least..

 

That I or anyone ever claimed anything for them, other than perhaps they should be looked at and understood?

Perhaps they should be considered for our work - in some very solid areas, as violin makers.

And perhaps not - you'll have tell me.

 

All anyone can do here, is suggest certain things that they find works or worked for them, or, even whatever they find interesting and "new".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible-Cremonese makers could deliberately vary  an arching shape while making, looking for something, and  knew that before the fingerboard was applied,  they could tap and work the inst  back into an acceptable condition if it didn't work.  What do we know about tapping and thinning a completed inst. Is it possible  individual shops had their proprietary procedures for a final adjustment.  Aren't there variations in these inst's sufficient to say something was tried?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, (talking about Cremona here,) the variations could be ones of execution, but guided by an idealization that was very deliberate.  For instance, we know why Strad's f holes are often irregular in orientation and placement on the table.  It was because he fixed their location with dividers, in relationship with fixed locations on the top edge work, and where these were deformed, so too the f hole placement.  That doesn't mean the mold itself wasn't symmetrical and carefully conceived?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible-Cremonese makers could deliberately vary  an arching shape while making, looking for something, and  knew that before the fingerboard was applied,  they could tap and work the inst  back into an acceptable condition if it didn't work.  What do we know about tapping and thinning a completed inst. Is it possible  individual shops had their proprietary procedures for a final adjustment.  Aren't there variations in these inst's sufficient to say something was tried?

I will try to be quite sincere and serious. Others can let me know if they have experience for an answer.

If one presses the thumb to check for stiffnesses in an unstrung violin body... one could get an impression of where things were stiffer. Maybe this would be where arching has a tighter curvature.

At any rate, can anyone tell if certain areas become stiffer yet in the violin as strung up.

This would be closely related to the FEA experiments I have been planning to do. Maybe the differences would be too small to feel.

But ........ I do not know and have never tried this. If one is sensitive enough, perhaps one could test a raw violin in some kind of manner. If possible, it might be an important way to fine-tune the carvings. Maybe start out with a slightly overthick body. After stiffer parts were scraped down, remove the top and do some adjustments to graduations.

Good thing for the placement pins at the ends of the plates. Maybe this was a useful reason to use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe that's why they were never used in Cremona in the first place?

 

Ha ha!

 

As I post about curtate cycloids - but have never claimed to use them, when making a violin!

 

I understand them, and I understand that many people posting about them, never have made, or used, or really understand them  - with some couple of exceptions.

It is interesting to see the amount of posts they generate by makers that realize that they are something that perhaps SHOULD be considered at least..

 

That I or anyone ever claimed anything for them, other than perhaps they should be looked at and understood?

Perhaps they should be considered for our work - in some very solid areas, as violin makers.

And perhaps not - you'll have tell me.

 

All anyone can do here, is suggest certain things that they find works or worked for them, or, even whatever they find interesting and "new".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe that's why they were never used in Cremona in the first place?

 

Yes.

Perhaps this is true

Though, just for arguments sake, I'll say that I have seen (or, read, actually) a good argument for their use, for this specific reason, that perhaps they were used in Cremona, and you're the first person I've heard say that they were NEVER used there.

 

I'm curious why you'd say this; have you tried them, and found them untenable?

Or are you simply commenting?

I'm not trying to start yet another CC argument here Torbjorn, I'm just curious if you've actually tried using them or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, yes I have read, quite comprehensively, about your own particular method for arriving at the shape(s) used for forming the plates in a violin, and I find your method quite personally distinctive and creative, and quite interesting also.

 

Though I find no similarities in design.

CC's define the outer surface alone - and says virtually nothing about the inner surface - whereas your own technique starts (if I'm not mistaken) by shaping the inside surface of the plates first - which then helps define the outer surface shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as "secret knowledge" and violins go...

 

Well, I am not going to stray off of the plate here on this one. There is no 'secret knowledge', regarding violins out there. In particular, regarding the making of them.

I believe you'll find; if you pursue and ask the most versed, and most rewarded, and the most popular, or knowledgeable people (makers) around, that they all - everyone of them, is willing to speak about exactly what they do, and how they do it.

 

The only real secrets around today, have to do with 'modern methods', assumed and held close to the vest, for market reasons.

 

 ... in fact, there is really "too much" knowledge out there for the general good of the violin making public or the amateur or beginner - in particular, if one attempting to learn on their own, I would say - especially if they are attempting to gather their knowledge from the internet.

Not only are the essentials there, but so is a bunch of nonsense.

 

So, go ahead and experiment. Use that ingredient that you're stuck on, in the varnish, and see for yourself how it works.

My best and only real advice to a novice or beginning maker is; to go to the people who you think do either the best work, or, who are the most competent in the field, and ask them your questions directly.

Everyone I have ever traced down and asked, has talked - some quite extensively - some not so much. But they all have given freely whatever I have asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...