What's missing?

[Don Noon]

In any case, keeping with the Stradivari sound as an example, are we hearing Stradivari's sound, or something else now that the instruments have undergone both natural and man made changes? 

 

Are we seeing THE Jennifer Lopez, now that she has undergone both natural and manmade changes?  Do we care all that much what she looked like before, or just what we see today?

I'm just stirring up trouble here, because as a maker of new instruments it is of definite interest what effects are due to various sources, of construction, materials, time, and adjustments.  My point here is that the DNA matters, age has great effects, and there's only a limited amount of adjustments that can (or need) be made if everything starts out good.

[MikeC]

What's missing is the quantum entangled nano crystal matrix of sugar molecules and of course a rattlesnake rattle  on the inside  

[Rick Hyslop]

Maybe if you guys weren't so busy with your heads buried in this thread you would already know the answer.

 

What's Missing ?

 

RESONATORS.

 

http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/331147-what-the-heck-is-a-resonator/

 

 

r.

[Lusitano]

What evidence?

 

The Stradivari varnish study, I believe it was widely discussed on here and that more than just strads were analyzed. I would ring Joe Robson for more information.

 

The findings busted some myths and a lot of mysticism to the dismay of many

[Doug Cotterill]

Don, if you don't believe that regraduating the plates changes the sound from the original, then there's not anything more I can say. Any change at all means it's not Stradivari's sound, but the person's who did the work. If age has great effects, then why do modern instruments get mistaken for Strads in blind tests? I believe new instruments can sound as good as very old ones.

 

As for Jennifer Lopez, I don't care what she looked like before, or today. 

[JohnCockburn]

The Stradivari varnish study, I believe it was widely discussed on here and that more than just strads were analyzed. I would ring Joe Robson for more information.

The findings busted some myths and a lot of mysticism to the dismay of many

I assume you've read pp 20-22 of the Brandmair/Greiner book (presumably the study you are referring to)? No? I can save you the bother if you like. It supports what I said in post 58.

[Michael_Molnar]

I assume you've read pp 20-22 of the Brandmair/Greiner book (presumably the study you are referring to)? No? I can save you the bother if you like. It supports what I said in post 58.

I have the book and second John's claim.

[Craig Tucker]

I think it's entirely possible that the cremonese used a chemical process to stain their wood.

 

Post #58...

 

For many years this was considered "the secret" with regard to what their tone was 'composed of' - or 'made from'.

Either this - perhaps a chemical process to treat or stain the wood prior to the varnish -  or, the formula for their particular varnish itself.

In fact this idea has certainly gone out of favor today, in respect to its popularity with makers, and I do not believe that their is much in the way of "proof" either way on this issue.

Researchers have come to various different conclusions, I believe - and people like Nagyvary may seriously want to know what was done, and claim many wild things were... but it (the it we're talking about here) remains a mystery.

Researchers like Martin Schleske on the other hand, actually do the time consuming research, regarding any and everything possible, in order to determine exactly what was done to or on Cremonese violins - and I believe that "what was done" is as "technically available", as it will ever be.

 

But is it what was done? 

Who knows? Thus the title - "What's missing?"

[La Folia]

But I am surprised by how, in blind tests, people expect a cremonese to sound sweet in a small room. It doesn't sound sweet at all, it sounds actually harsh and wolfy in a bedroom. I think this clip says much more than words, Benedetti meets Aly Bain, alpine spruce and scandinavian spruce, sound both good, but definetely different.

 

Well, let's not blame the violin here.  It's not actually necessary to bow so close to the bridge.  Is there any wonder that it doesn't sound so good?  Notice that she bows his violin quite differently.

[Don Noon]

But is it what was done? 

Who knows?

 

From my point of view, focusing on what was done is not the most effective way to find out what's missing with regard to tone.  There may have been many things that were done that have absolutely no relevance to tone.  There may have been things done that did have a real effect.  How can you determine the difference, if you can't accurately determine the difference in the result anyway?

 

I believe that to find what's missing, you first need to determine what the acoustic differences are, then find out what properties (wood, arching, tuning, etc.) might be capable of causing the difference.  Then you might have a boundary on the gazillion ideas about what's missing in the construction.

 

Notice that if it's age that's the missing factor, focusing on what was done has no hope of getting anywhere.... but you might determine that from the way I propose.

[Craig Tucker]

 I believe that to find what's missing, you first need to determine what the acoustic differences are, then find out what properties (wood, arching, tuning, etc.) might be capable of causing the difference.  Then you might have a boundary on the gazillion ideas about what's missing in the construction.

 

Notice that if it's age that's the missing factor, focusing on what was done has no hope of getting anywhere.... but you might determine that from the way I propose.

 

I asked a prominent scientist about the probability of their being a "gazillion ideas" regarding what was missing, and, was it possible that the number really was THAT LARGE, I mean, really...?

 - his reply was that it was limited to less than a half a gazillion ideas. (by virtue of the laws of thermodynamics. ;-)

So, an answer may not be all that difficult to come upon.

Half a gazillion - that's do-able, right?

 

Yes, but if it is age. Then many other violins will also show improvements in this arena, (because of their age) and they don't.

Age is something that I have come to look at; more and more objectively (I hope), and it seems  not to be a thing that is encompass-ing-ly given to improvement in 'violins in general' with regard to their tone(s) and their similarity to old Cremonese violins tones.

If it were age alone, then, all violins would improve with age in a like manor, no?.

And I believe that this is true, they do or they can improve with age. But only to a certain degree.

And (apparently) not in a "Cremonese" manor.

[Don Noon]

Have Stainer violins improved in a non-Cremonese manor, or what?  I've never heard one to know.

 

I just don't have enough experience with non-Cremonese 300 year old violins to have any idea if there is something different, not enough of them, or if it's all just mass hysteria about "the Cremonese" sound.

 

Just supposing... there is some treatment in Cremonese wood that needs aging to work... you still won't find out anything with trial-and-error, at least not in this lifetime.  You need to work with the Cremonese instruments as they are now, and work backwards through the physics.

[JohnCockburn]

Post #58...

 

For many years this was considered "the secret" with regard to what their tone was 'composed of' - or 'made from'…...

 

I think that if they did chemically stain their wood it's entirely possible that it was done purely for visual aesthetics. As indeed many makers do today. Nothing to do with snake oil-type claims about tonal improvements.

I am not claiming that chemical treatment is "what's missing". I'm responding to Lusitano's confident but ill-founded assertion that such treatments were definitely not adopted by the `Cremonese. On the contrary, the latest research suggests that they might well have been.

[Will L]

I thought that Sacconi wrote that Stradivari did have a coating of something on the interior of his instruments, but I have never been able to find the quote again, so perhaps I have a false memory.  Anyone know if there is such a quote?     

[Don Noon]

I recall hearing something about that too.  But that wouldn't survive regraduation, so only the untouched originals would have the Cremonese Sound.

[Peter K-G]

Casein/Lime glue size on the inside does not change the sound, but makes the instrument more stable to humidity changes

[Craig Tucker]

I thought that Sacconi wrote that Stradivari did have a coating of something on the interior of his instruments, but I have never been able to find the quote again, so perhaps I have a false memory.  Anyone know if there is such a quote?     

 

Well I just grabbed the book and opened it, and read the following, on page 104, there exists one example where Sacconi states;

 

"This serves to complete on the outside the process of hardening of the wood begun on the inside of the instrument by the sizing substance, this I have already spoken about."

And, if I remember correctly, he hasn't spoken of it "yet", but further on in the "varnishing" chapter...

 

Just saying...

He also talks about "ossification", or, hardening of the wood (by virtue of the properties of the varnish or the varnishing process) in order to facilitate the thinning of the wood, along with the strength needed to withstand the downward pressure of the bridge/strings.

 

I have to leave right now, but I will pick up my copy when I get back and read further, as I recall wading through some rather complicated and partially confusing Sacconi speaking about just such a thing also.

[John Harte]

Post #58...

 

For many years this was considered "the secret" with regard to what their tone was 'composed of' - or 'made from'.

Either this - perhaps a chemical process to treat or stain the wood prior to the varnish -  or, the formula for their particular varnish itself.

In fact this idea has certainly gone out of favor today, in respect to its popularity with makers, and I do not believe that their is much in the way of "proof" either way on this issue.

Researchers have come to various different conclusions, I believe - and people like Nagyvary may seriously want to know what was done, and claim many wild things were... but it (the it we're talking about here) remains a mystery.

Researchers like Martin Schleske on the other hand, actually do the time consuming research, regarding any and everything possible, in order to determine exactly what was done to or on Cremonese violins - and I believe that "what was done" is as "technically available", as it will ever be.

 

But is it what was done? 

Who knows? Thus the title - "What's missing?"

 

The following is worth reading: 

Schleske, M.: "On the Acoustical Properties of Violin Varnish". CAS Journal Vol.3, No.6, (Series II), November 1998.

 

Some background is outlined here:

http://www.schleske.de/en/our-research/introduction-violin-acoustics/wood-and-varnish-analysis/acoustic-analysis-of-violin-varnish.html

 

In spite of mentioning the above, John Cockburn's comments in Post #88 highlight what could well be the reasoning behind whatever was done.

[Craig Tucker]

 

In spite of mentioning the above, John Cockburn's comments in Post #88 highlight what could well be the reasoning behind whatever was done.

 

Absolutely.

 

Or not.

Again, I don't claim to know the answer.

But I do know that there are some questions, and what some of the questions are.

[Lusitano]

Drying oil "grounds", natural sunlight, good wood (as don proposed) + simple varnish applied in a simple yet masterful way + extreme care with setup and players + time = Strads

 

The evidence via spec analyzes nuked 3 misconceptions

 

1- They found TRACE peptids inclosed in the grounds most likely from the brush/hand of the varnisher and not hide glue or wt/e. They did find drying oils where you would expect a sealer coat

2- There was no trillion ingredient varnish placed in tons of layers on the instrument, they found 3 total layers (I believe) and trace mineral content.

3- The wood was "normal", aged naturally and presented a degree of decay without a massive layer of color on it

 

Personally, I believe people over complicate procedures and are far too passionate about their own methods being "right" to actually be able to discerne truth from their own theories. I also believe people will accept what they want to accept and I believe the mass hysteria and usage of excuses to justify the superiority of instruments X Y and Z is what makes a lot of these instruments well seen (Strads don't have faults, it's the 3 centuries of setup and maintenance that isn't correct, the cremonese are perfect and anyone who disagrees has no taste, Strads don't have faults, they have strong personalities. DG wasn't sloppy, he was "poetic", Bennedeti sounds harsh because she bows too close to the bridge as lord forbid a Strad be called "harsh"). I also believe people expect perfect renditions of what time does to an instrument in a ridiculously short amount of time while expecting no back lash from said processes. I also believe that luthiers in general are too close minded and into what they want to believe to actually be able to be unbiased to the point of seeing things and accepting things for what they are. I believe instruments no longer are valued for their true capabilities but more so based on brand value and marketing. 

 

In conclusion, I believe anyone remotely different or unafraid of speaking up, anyone who questions anything vernacular or tries to do any sort of unbiased research will be eaten alive if their findings go against the notions people hold onto so dearly. I also believe the luthier world (not attacking anyone in particular) is unorganized, full of hypocrisy ( Machold's statements pretty much sums it up) and constantly waring against it's own members and notions. 

[Violadamore]

Drying oil "grounds", natural sunlight, good wood (as don proposed) + simple varnish applied in a simple yet masterful way + extreme care with setup and players + time = Strads

 

The evidence via spec analyzes nuked 3 misconceptions

 

1- They found TRACE peptids inclosed in the grounds most likely from the brush/hand of the varnisher and not hide glue or wt/e. They did find drying oils where you would expect a sealer coat

2- There was no trillion ingredient varnish placed in tons of layers on the instrument, they found 3 total layers (I believe) and trace mineral content.

3- The wood was "normal", aged naturally and presented a degree of decay without a massive layer of color on it

 

Personally, I believe people over complicate procedures and are far too passionate about their own methods being "right" to actually be able to discerne truth from their own theories. I also believe people will accept what they want to accept and I believe the mass hysteria and usage of excuses to justify the superiority of instruments X Y and Z is what makes a lot of these instruments well seen (Strads don't have faults, it's the 3 centuries of setup and maintenance that isn't correct, the cremonese are perfect and anyone who disagrees has no taste, Strads don't have faults, they have strong personalities. DG wasn't sloppy, he was "poetic", Bennedeti sounds harsh because she bows too close to the bridge as lord forbid a Strad be called "harsh"). I also believe people expect perfect renditions of what time does to an instrument in a ridiculously short amount of time while expecting no back lash from said processes. I also believe that luthiers in general are too close minded and into what they want to believe to actually be able to be unbiased to the point of seeing things and accepting things for what they are. I believe instruments no longer are valued for their true capabilities but more so based on brand value and marketing. 

 

In conclusion, I believe anyone remotely different or unafraid of speaking up, anyone who questions anything vernacular or tries to do any sort of unbiased research will be eaten alive if their findings go against the notions people hold onto so dearly. I also believe the luthier world (not attacking anyone in particular) is unorganized, full of hypocrisy ( Machold's statements pretty much sums it up) and constantly waring against it's own members and notions. 

Nice rant.  Now go develop a method for producing batch quantities of genetically modified spruce and maple in vitro so we can go buy it at Home Depot in homogeneous, identical, 4 by 8 foot by 3 inch thick sheets ready to feed into the CNC miil.  Wouldn't that solve all our problems, as well as make repaneling my den a snap?  

[MikeC]

If the truth ever comes out no one will notice or everyone will say, "no that's too simple, that can't be it"  oh wait.. it already did.  

[Will L]

Well I just grabbed the book and opened it, and read the following, on page 104, there exists one example where Sacconi states;

 

"This serves to complete on the outside the process of hardening of the wood begun on the inside of the instrument by the sizing substance, this I have already spoken about."

And, if I remember correctly, he hasn't spoken of it "yet", but further on in the "varnishing" chapter...

 

Just saying...

He also talks about "ossification", or, hardening of the wood (by virtue of the properties of the varnish or the varnishing process) in order to facilitate the thinning of the wood, along with the strength needed to withstand the downward pressure of the bridge/strings.

 

I have to leave right now, but I will pick up my copy when I get back and read further, as I recall wading through some rather complicated and partially confusing Sacconi speaking about just such a thing also.

Yes, this is in Sacconi, and more on the "sizing" on page 100, stating that there were two coats on all the interior surfaces.  He says it is the same substance used on the exterior as a way of separating the "substance of preparation of the wood from the coloured varnish." 

 

Sacconi goes further, saying that "...one can notice its presence by dampening it and then testing the dampened area with one finger nail, particularly on the ribs where he used to put more of it because the were very thin."

 

 I stand corrected that I had never been able to find this, because I have the whole page marked up.  I had forgotten.   

 

Incidentally, someone who has had as much access to Strads and dGs as anyone in recent times told me that with Stradivari instruments not nearly as many have been messed with as we are led to believe.  I don't have the experience to agree or disagree. I'll leave it to him to make himself known if he wishes.

[Lusitano]

Nice rant.  Now go develop a method for producing batch quantities of genetically modified spruce and maple in vitro so we can go buy it at Home Depot in homogeneous, identical, 4 by 8 foot by 3 inch thick sheets ready to feed into the CNC miil.  Wouldn't that solve all our problems, as well as make repaneling my den a snap?  

 

Lord forbid I should ever go and try doing anything remotely scientific on anything violin related, never mind working to try and replicate such a thing, I'd be burned alive by the luthier inquisition as a tasteless heretic for committing such blasphemy! I've learned my lesson, spent way too much time trying to bust very wrong notions  about "species" to no avail as people haven't learned a damn thing and actually profess their notions above my own LOL Luthiers are ofc professionals in all areas of life sciences, so much so they are better Biologists/architects/physicists and chemists than actual chemists/physicists/architects and biologists.

 

If the truth ever comes out no one will notice or everyone will say, "no that's too simple, that can't be it"  oh wait.. it already did.  

 

Exactly People questioned and sought answers to what up strad/cremonese varnish, reports from very acclaimed folk came out explaining everything there is to explain via some very high tech research done in the most unbiased form possible, it was published, submitted to peer review, got the green light and still.... Luthiers have not learned a thing, they still ask the same questions and profess the same theories (which we know are not correct) and are still ofc asking the same damn questions

As I said above, luthiers are not much into truth, they're more into theory and personal methods, which is hilarious when you think about it as they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot as the most adamant of these luthiers are actually trying to reproduce Strad's varnish LOL. You literally have all the pieces, all you need is experimentation and application onto an actual instrument to see how it actually works yet not a single sole (apart from 1 person) is actually putting said findings to use. They instead are ofc going on with their theories and methods, even proclaiming their methods as THE methods to follow

 

How many people have tried reproducing the findings from said analysis on an actual violin? How many posts have people put up with questions about the findings so they could attempt to reproduce them? There is your answer

[JohnCockburn]

Lord forbid I should ever go and try doing anything remotely scientific on anything violin related, never mind working to try and replicate such a thing.....

How many people have tried reproducing the findings from said analysis on an actual violin? How many posts have people put up with questions about the findings so they could attempt to reproduce them? There is your answer

Oh, come on. Many posters on this forum have incorporated the Greiner/Brandmair findings into their work. Their findings are actually not a million miles away from the procedures that folks like Roger Hargrave, Neil Ertz, Melvin Goldsmith and others have developed and have been using for years. Like Eno's Fat Lady of Limbourg, "their sense of taste is such that they'll distinguish with their tongues..... The subtleties a spectrograph would miss......"

Speaking for myself, the only step that I use that is not broadly consistent with the most recent research in this area is the use of a mineral ground. I will continue to do so for practical reasons, not because I think it's the secret of stradivari.