What's missing?

[Carl Stross]

Thanks, John. I'll take a look at that later.

By the way (this is not addressed directly to you John), I'm all in favour of the view that is often put forward that the Cremonese were working craftsmen, with little time to waste, and that this should inform our speculation on their working methods. It would seem to me that the most simple and effective way to produce a highly coloured oil varnish is by using one or more pigments, and that the most simple and effective way to make that varnish look good over white wood is to stain the latter.

The other point is, of course, that surely it's highly unlikely that Strad, for example, used the same varnish process for all his instruments? I'm not one of the lucky chaps that sees Strads up close on a daily basis, but on my frequent visits to the RAM museum in London, I always find the difference in, say the Viotti and the Habaneck very striking in this respect. Same applies to the instruments in the big Ashmolean exhibition. Does anyone really think these were all varnished using identical materials and processes?

Feel free to treat this as a straw man argument. Knock it down, burn it, educate me.

 

From what I was told identical does not apply, but there is a common denominator not limited to violins. If the wood was stained, which seems probable, then the stain was not trivial. Again, a similar stain was used on other things besides violins throughout the 17th Century.

[Carl Stross]

what happened?

 

Nothing special. It "detected" the primary constituents of the "varnish system". I don't know what's the situation today, but in the '90s there was quite a bit of investigation into the varnish which was private and never published.

I suppose similar stuff happens nowadays - equipment is within easy reach and there is no shortage of samples.

[not telling]

Examples of articles in which particulate layers were found. Calcium carbonate, silicon, carbon black, iron oxide. Sometimes others.

No one is curious that suddenly there is zero evidence for this? Come on. I know these were yesterday's news but I'm not talking about studies done in the 1880's.

Guys were talking about the clear varnish ground in tbe '80's. But Sacconi saw the mineral layer in the '70's. I don't know what is actually the truth here but why accept the new study as though it answers all of the questions?

[Lusitano]

Yes, several studies of ground and varnish layers exist. Minerals were found in the earlier studies. I was referring to those. I don't have the Brandmair/ Greiner book. That's the thing now, huh. So they didn't see that layer? Why, pray tell, did multiple other studies find that calcium carbonate and iron oxide, etc.? And a dozen other minerals? Why is no one asking what the ...heck...is going on?

Also...I hope readers will agree that people like Andrew Dipper, Roger Hargrave, John Dilworth, and others are in the business of sharing real information. I know they are. They maybe don't share everything they know, but should they? I am very sure that luthiers who know what their hands are doing, and who read, have a major edge. To deny that is absurd imho.

As for Strad's varnish...

I have no idea just like everyone else. I've never smelled it or touched it when it was new. I don't think it's accurate to say that there's so little true information floating around, though. Some people know more than others. How am I representing myself as knowing more than nothing? I don't. I can point to those "some people" and say I'm going to read and try to understand the main ideas. I know how to do research. I get the sense that many professionals in this field do not read much.

 

Professionals of which field? The problem is that you are equating visual analysis by someone unversed in chemistry with the research done via cutting edge technology with professionals who make their living doing science...

 

I go by what the latest and most complete research tells me, and that would be the Ech's study. Again, I have no personal theories about anything varnish related, I really don't care about who is right or who is wrong or ego's and personal theory for that matter. All I know is, via very precise tools, and with very high grade imagery techniques produced with the aid of university institution's staff and funds we are able to SEE and analyze everything inside of the varnish and it ruled out a lot of stuff which people had been professing as truth for ages. Is it faultless? Absolutely not, it cannot tell us the method which strad used to only impregnate just 2 layers of wood cells BUT it's a hell of an improvement over "he said she said" and "I saw with my own naked eyes!" approach.

 

I don't mean to devalue the input mr Hargrave gives as I find it often times (if not all the time) agrees with what the research said! Apart from the mineral ground he pretty much said what was found on echart's study! In fact (as I'm sure he would never admit) is in fact pretty progressive with a lot of the things he says, look at his publications and see that there is a line which he tries extremely hard to push through - Do not overcomplicate, do not fall into cliches, do not listen to trends, do not "fix" what isn't broken and do use your head while actually focusing on the work at hand sans all the over the counter theories. 

 

People used to believe the wood was magically different in terms of structure and density from what is available today... People also used to believe the varnish was the "secret" to sound and had a very very rare amount of ingredients not available today... People believed a great many things which have been killed off LOL Simplicity I believe is absolute key, humility is what I believe will allow people to actually produce the cremonese varnish and knowledge is how I believe everyone will evolve and produce better instruments allied with experience and no fear of science!

[John Harte]

Examples of articles in which particulate layers were found. Calcium carbonate, silicon, carbon black, iron oxide. Sometimes others.

No one is curious that suddenly there is zero evidence for this? Come on.

 

From my reading it seems that Echard et al. and Brandmair have not dismissed the presence of particulates, only that they did not find a mineral rich layer where previously reported.  I am not surprised by these findings.

[Craig Tucker]

 

People used to believe the wood was magically different in terms of structure and density from what is available today... People also used to believe the varnish was the "secret" to sound and had a very very rare amount of ingredients not available today... People believed a great many things which have been killed off LOL Simplicity I believe is absolute key, humility is what I believe will allow people to actually produce the cremonese varnish and knowledge is how I believe everyone will evolve and produce better instruments allied with experience and no fear of science!

 

Yes.

And thus, other than "looks"... I often wonder exactly what 'people in general', are trying to "duplicate" with regard to such 'Cremonese' varnishes, and the various etc.'s that might accompany such a venture or such a quest. I believe that most makers don't have a clue as to what, if anything, works, is, or comes close to "Cremonese varnish".

And further, very commonly, my opinion is that whatever somebody decides on using, is most likely what they'll post about and what they will claim is the closest to being , hmmm, what's a good word to use? realistically duplicate-ive, perhaps.

Rare and hard to obtain ingerdients, is one popular avenue to travel down.

Cooking various things at various times - at various temperatures, and using odd mixtures and rare (perhaps antique) formulas, well, that's another road that's fairly common.

Then there's the research oriented crowd.

That's one - the reasearch road - is one that I looked hard at for many years, thinking that there would be an obvious answer there, coming down the pike. (no such luck (really)).

 

The facts as I see them, is that it really doesn't matter what one (anyone) uses as a varnish - or as a colorant. The simplest, or the most complex varnish formulas are all going to be shot down (here, in particular) for one reason or another by most makers. I do understand why.

And the results (of using anything) will also be challenged... I've decided that if I don't see and hear the violin in question, well, I ain't going to say much about the workability - both or either looks wise or tone wise.

 

The tone of the violin isn't going to be all that different, if and when a violin is "properly" varnished, with just about anything. (If you will consider that there IS a "proper way" to varnish, that is.)

Perhaps the greatest flaw I see when I look and contemplate what somebody is doing, and why they're doing it this (or that) way, is when the varnish layer is simply too thick - or, perhaps left either way too shiny, or it has not been rubbed out to an acceptable degree. But such incidents are usually an indicator of beginning varnish "mistakes".

 

no one seems to have "cracked" this particular facet of Cremonese making clearly, or with with any certainty yet -  though many have tried, and many have succeeded, (as can be found by reading such threads as this one.)

 

So, when it comes to varnishing, I do enjoy reading the various answers, the various researches and ideologies, it all makes for interesting (late night) entertainment - if nothing else. 

I will admit to being a solid pragmatist in this arena. The stuff - whatever stuff is used - can either be made to work well or easily, or it cannot - or perhaps it would be much more accurate to say that just about anything used, can be made to work well, with the right amount of practice. and/or colorants 

And what is it that you've used here, you might ask?

Well, that's virtually impossible to say after the fact of varnishing has been accomplished.

 

 

Can you tell what's been used by listening? Well, you tell me. Can you?

[MarkBouquet]

This is off the varnish/ground direction this discussion has tended towards, but this seems relevant to the original question. It's about Yamaha's wood research and treatment techniques. Has this been discussed on mn, and if so what do people think about it?

http://www.yamaha.com/about_yamaha/research/are/

[Craig Tucker]

This is off the varnish/ground direction this discussion has tended towards, but this seems relevant to the original question. It's about Yamaha's wood research and treatment techniques. Has this been discussed on mn, and if so what do people think about it?

 

Curious.

I would like to play one of their ARE violins...

There has often been the (mistaken) idea that "musical wood" somehow makes great musical instruments.

But the two things are often not connected in such a way as this.

Has anybody played one? 

[Craig Tucker]

 

Guys were talking about the clear varnish ground in tbe '80's. But Sacconi saw the mineral layer in the '70's. I don't know what is actually the truth here but why accept the new study as though it answers all of the questions?

 

The truth?

Interesting concept.

Honestly, we don't know exactly what "they" used, or exactly how they applied it.

There is no "truth" (no final, authoritative truth - at least) when it comes to answering this question - or questions like this, or along this line. The more you read, the more you study, the more you see, the more your knowledge and "research data" you accumulate.

Perhaps, the 'better idea' you might make in your conclusions about what "the Cremonese" may have used or what they did for their varnishing...

At least - pertaining to the (whichever one violin it is) specific violin in question, and its remaining varnish, and its accumulated revarnish/polish and whatever else, that may have been used or applied through the hundreds of intervening years, will remind you of something you have used yourself already?

 

Ok, my opinion only.

I have read much of the various different accumulated research. And much of the accumulated non-research related material that is also available. I don't feel a whole lot more educated about the actual composition of "Cremonese varnish", or its application,  than I did when I first started out making violins. Really, the practical information I have accumulated, has been experiential in nature. Doing the varnishing, that is.

 

Is "whats missing" in this arena?

I really do not know - it well could be.

But if it is, the presence of such a thing has byassed me totally (and, apparently -  everyone else also) 

[MikeC]

, other than "looks"... I often wonder exactly what 'people in general', are trying to "duplicate" with regard to such 'Cremonese' varnishes,

 

 

 

Perhaps the greatest flaw I see when I look and contemplate what somebody is doing, and why they're doing it this (or that) way, is when the varnish layer is simply too thick - or, perhaps left either way too shiny, or it has not been rubbed out to an acceptable degree. But such incidents are usually an indicator of beginning varnish "mistakes".

 

 

Hi CT

 

 What would you consider to be too thick?   Say in fractions of a mm?  

 

For me it's just the 'look'.   Some people have a talent for making things that sound good, some have a talent for making things that look good.   I am not the former for sure. 

[MarkBouquet]

Here's a link to a video of one person's reaction to a Yamaha A.R.E. processed violin. Admittedly this is corporate P.R., but it's interesting nonetheless.

http://m.usa.yamaha.com/products/strings/acoustic-violins/yvn500s.html

[MikeC]

.

[Don Noon]

After hearing blind comparisons at the VSA competition of the Jackson Strad vs. a Sam Z. copy, and the Titian vs. Collin Gallahue's gold medal winner, I have become fairly well convinced that "what's missing" is the question that needs to be asked about the old ones.  Then new ones had more of everything, to my ear.

 

That's not to say that they sound the same tonally; they don't.  And tone preference is personal.  But I think to define the difference in tone, you need to ask what is missing from the old ones that makes them sound the way they do.  Then you can investigate the cause of the missing power.

[Doug Cotterill]

Well, that's a very telling post, Don. While others are believing "age" was missing from new instruments earlier in this thread, it's probably "youth" missing in the old ones.

 

When things get old they wear out, materials degrade. Many of these poor old dears have been bastardized, repaired and restored so many times, it's hard to know what's what. I find it amazing they still work as well as they do (some of them extremely well) with all of their cracks and patches etc. Still people spend large sums of money on them, then go and wear them out some more. I'd like to see this money go to fine violin makers while they are alive, they are the ones bringing new generations of fresh, strong instruments into the world. The old violins have done an excellent job, I hope they can retire and have a rest before they are ruined.

[Craig Tucker]

After hearing blind comparisons at the VSA competition of the Jackson Strad vs. a Sam Z. copy, and the Titian vs. Collin Gallahue's gold medal winner, I have become fairly well convinced that "what's missing" is the question that needs to be asked about the old ones.  Then new ones had more of everything, to my ear.

 

That's not to say that they sound the same tonally; they don't.  And tone preference is personal.  But I think to define the difference in tone, you need to ask what is missing from the old ones that makes them sound the way they do.  Then you can investigate the cause of the missing power.

 

So, you're saying here that, in your opinion, the new violins are missing the, or perhaps an, element of "power" that some of the old violins still have?

Or are you saying the opposite?

Which ones, which group in your opinion, have an element of "power" that the other group might be missing?

Or were you speaking metaphorically about what might be missing from either group?

I'm sorry to be so dense here, but I read everything very literally these days, and there are a couple of three ways to interpret "exactly what you have said here in this post.

 

Then I am remembering that the title of the thread is; "Whats Missing?" and I realize why I'm asking what you think, might be missing, and exactly where it might be missing .

 

Thanks,

ct

[Craig Tucker]

Well, that's a very telling post, Don. While others are believing "age" was missing from new instruments earlier in this thread, it's probably "youth" missing in the old ones.

 

When things get old they wear out, materials degrade. Many of these poor old dears have been bastardized, repaired and restored so many times, it's hard to know what's what. I find it amazing they still work as well as they do (some of them extremely well) with all of their cracks and patches etc. Still people spend large sums of money on them, then go and wear them out some more. I'd like to see this money go to fine violin makers while they are alive, they are the ones bringing new generations of fresh, strong instruments into the world. The old violins have done an excellent job, I hope they can retire and have a rest before they are ruined.

 

The old violins HAVE done an excellent job, and many of them do "deserve" a retirement, and yet their value (generally) continues to rise, I believe.

 

Based on what, exactly?

Age?

Their tone?

Their ability to produce music in a certain (difficult to reproduce) manor?

[Carl Stross]

The old violins HAVE done an excellent job, and many of them do "deserve" a retirement, and yet their value (generally) continues to rise, I believe.

 

Based on what, exactly?

Age?

Their tone?

Their ability to produce music in a certain (difficult to reproduce) manor?

 

They have a superior and distinct tone and response to player's input which follows, "works with",  the music and inspires the player.  The truly gifted player, gets much more from them and the "robot" player sounds at least passable.

[Craig Tucker]

They have a superior and distinct tone and response to player's input which follows, "works with",  the music and inspires the player.  The truly gifted player, gets much more from them and the "robot" player sounds at least passable.

 

"robot player"

Guffaw!

 

See, your answer answers the question asked, without qualification.

Thanks for that.

So, (just to add qualification :-)) you're saying that the instruments in question do have something in their ability to produce a specific "gifted" or "superior" tone  - that many (perhaps all) newer instruments are lacking?

Why do you think this might be so?

Is there a "reason" that can be spoken of, why this is the case?

 

God - I do know that I sound like a broken record, but I do believe that there is a mystery here, that has not been unraveled to this day.

And - I believe that a full half of the problem we might be facing, is our collective ability to discern, or accurately define exactly what this quality, consists of.

I'm beginning to believe that perhaps this "quality" may simply disappear with the advent of time, and its innate quality or inevitability, to make such things happen.

?

[Don Noon]

They have a superior and distinct tone and response to player's input which follows, "works with",  the music and inspires the player.  The truly gifted player, gets much more from them and the "robot" player sounds at least passable.

 

I was of a similar opinion until I heard the A/B comparison for myself, using known good instruments.

 

I still believe there IS a distinct tonal difference, one that is visible in the measurements of Anders, Curtin, and myself... but "superior" is subjective and questionable, and from what I heard, and in talking to others who were present at the listening test, most listeners thought the new ones were superior.  The experience of the player is another matter, and I can't answer that one.

 

As to the measurable differences, there does seem to be a consistent difference in the middle (~600-1200 Hz) and above 4 kHz, with the old ones having less output in those regions.  So that's what I think the old ones are missing.

[Carl Stross]

 

 1. So, (just to add qualification :-)) you're saying that the instruments in question do have something in their ability to produce a specific "gifted" or "superior" tone  - that many (perhaps all) newer instruments are lacking?

 2. Why do you think this might be so?

 3. Is there a "reason" that can be spoken of, why this is the case?

 

 

 

1. Yes. But that doesn't mean there aren't new instruments which might be able to do that. But that doesn't say anything about new instruments as a category.

2. Because The Old Ones were capable to consistently achieve it and because "new Strads" do not happen by accident, it means they knew stuff we don't.

3. Not by me. As I do not make violins, all I could do is speculate and I don't like to speculate. ( OK, that's a lie... ) 

[Violadamore]

The old violins HAVE done an excellent job, and many of them do "deserve" a retirement, and yet their value (generally) continues to rise, I believe.

 

Based on what, exactly?

Age?

Their tone?

Their ability to produce music in a certain (difficult to reproduce) manor?

Above, beyond, and independent of any factors of historical value, playability, tone, and the like, which can to some extent be quantified, there's the matter of "there's a sucker born every minute" as well as "a fool and his money are soon parted".  The prices (if not the solid values) will continue to increase, until, of course, the day that they don't..................

[Carl Stross]

I was of a similar opinion until I heard the A/B comparison for myself, using known good instruments.

 

I still believe there IS a distinct tonal difference, one that is visible in the measurements of Anders, Curtin, and myself... but "superior" is subjective and questionable, and from what I heard, and in talking to others who were present at the listening test, most listeners thought the new ones were superior.  The experience of the player is another matter, and I can't answer that one.

 

As to the measurable differences, there does seem to be a consistent difference in the middle (~600-1200 Hz) and above 4 kHz, with the old ones having less output in those regions.  So that's what I think the old ones are missing.

 

Sure, "superior" is subjective and questionable, in general. I am not aware of any deviation from the party line, when it comes to Top Soloist. They seem not interested in Curtin's opinions and NONE of them has dropped his Strad / DG for a Curtin.

Should we go around the subject for a few pages, the most probable conclusion is that "we" do not hear what "they" hear and "we" listen the wrong way and to the wrong things. There is a VERY simple explanation as to why when "Fritzed",

the Old Ones keep on loosing but nobody who matters pays any attention. It's done for 150 years, it's time to move on...  

 

My opinion, which does not matter, is that new makers are doing Great and should keep on making the best instruments they can. Comparisons with Old Cremonas are utterly counterproductive.

[Marty Kasprzyk]

After hearing blind comparisons at the VSA competition of the Jackson Strad vs. a Sam Z. copy, and the Titian vs. Collin Gallahue's gold medal winner, I have become fairly well convinced that "what's missing" is the question that needs to be asked about the old ones.  Then new ones had more of everything, to my ear.

 

That's not to say that they sound the same tonally; they don't.  And tone preference is personal.  But I think to define the difference in tone, you need to ask what is missing from the old ones that makes them sound the way they do.  Then you can investigate the cause of the missing power.

I think the Jackson and Titian Strads should have been sneaked into the VSA competition.  I doubt they would have won a tone award so that would never be done.

[Craig Tucker]

  The prices (if not the solid values) will continue to increase, until, of course, the day that they don't..................

 

Much like tulips did once?

Interesting perspective. One where the "value" is entirely in the mind of the buyers and the sellers.

Of course, I have considered this aspect of the big picture also...

And, I'm not really in a position to know how much, or how little, this aspect of the big picture is applicable. But I'm not discounting that it may well be very applicable - and, well... in a very real way, this is exactly what 'this question' - (what's missing) is addressing.

[Carl Stross]

Much like tulips did once?

Interesting perspective. One where the "value" is entirely in the mind of the buyers and the sellers.

 

 

 

These are not tulips. Old Man Strad ain't making 'em anymore. This is not even a fine point.

The fact that anybody and his brother won Prix de Rome, didn't make a dent in Rembrand's value.