Bright Sound Tone

[Joe Wiese]

What  makes a violin sound bright?

My violins tend to consistently sound soft.  They are loud.  Richness of tone is good.  Response is good.

My measurements are not unique. 

String angle/neck set is good. 

Using European and American varieties of wood. Euro maple, Euro Spruce, Engleman, Big Leaf, Red Maple, Sitka. 

Back thickness  6mm- 2mm depending where.

Belly thickness 3.2- 2.5 depending where. 

Ribs 32-30mm depending

F hole 42mm from top eyes.

Assume I am not making any blatant mistakes, which I am sure I am not.

I am sure as can be this is not a set up issue.  I have had several other luthiers examine my work.

Yet I believe there is something I am doing in the construction which is making my violins sound soft. 

So... Exclude strings.  Exclude bridge.  Exclude sound post.  Exclude tailpiece.  Exclude tail gut. 

What makes a violin sound bright?   If you were going to build an extremely bright screechy violin, what would you do?

[Michael Appleman]

Joe, how many have you made and how long have you had them around after completing them to see how they evolve? I ask because I've observed that several that I made became brighter as the materials hardened over time, varnish and ground, of course, but I believe especially the wood itself, which I don't coat or seal on the inside, as it oxydized over several years. I have made violins that started out well-balanced and became screechy after 2-3 years, and others that started out a little "soft" that became "well-balanced." For a given design and set of wood, my screechier fiddles were the thicker ones. 

[Guest]

I think the wood properties of the individual plates as it relates to stiffness plays an important role. I've made fiddles with both thick and thin plates. Some were bright while others were not. I've experimented with different models and arching. So I think it comes down to type of arching, flexibility and stiffness of the wood itself. After that I that I would say how much damping is done to the wood in the finishing stage.

Joe...Just some thoughts....

Do you make more than one model? and have you experimented with different arching? Do you measure wood properties for stiffness/density? have you experimented with different graduations as it relates to stiffness and flexibility?

 

[GeorgeH]

13 hours ago, Joe Wiese said:

If you were going to build an extremely bright screechy violin, what would you do?

I would not bother. I'd buy one on eBay. 

[Joe Wiese]

More information so people can perhaps hone in an target weakness.

I have built 20 intstruments.   16 violins  3 violas, 1 cello.  

Arching Models and Experience:   I have a lot of "do it yourself" experimentation, along with some specific guidance from very knowledgeable people including organized workshops with known builders.  I have copied arching from the the Biddulph book.  I have used cycloids.  I have done it by eye.  All off these with varying accuracy from pretty bad to pretty good.  I have used primarily the Kemp body and Vieuxtemp body for all my violins.  I will try a Strad Titian next.

Wood density?  I have used such a wide variety of woods, sitka, engleman, Red maple, big leaf maple, and european on about half or better of what I have built from reputable suppliers. 

Aging/oxidation?  Yeah, I have thought that may be it.  My earlier instruments which have come back to me definitly sound different than when I first made them.  But..... if it were only aging then I should not be able to walk into a violin shop and pick up an instrument made 1-3 years ago and it be very loud and bright (not in a good way) 

Graduation?  I used tap tones earlier as I did not know what else to do.  Mode 5, mode 2 etc.  Real smooth graduation pattern.   I have the data still on audacity.  Now I look more of a general thickness pattern and don't care so much if I read at 2.4mm or 2.6. 

Varnish Grounds:  I have used International varnish, both shellac and oil.  I have been using Joe Robson's stuff lately.  I like it.  I'm not soaking my wood with any ground/ oil/ sealant that would dampen the sound.  Varnish layers are thin.  

I have had so much intentional, and unintentional, variation in wood, arching, etc that I believe there is something I am missing. 

Where does brightness come from?

F hole size?  - mine a bit tight, something I need to correct.

Back arching and thickness?

Attached are some pics of my recent work to give you an idea of what my work is like. Also, feel free to bash it.  Criticism is a good thing.  

[Dave Slight]

Hi Joe, 

What height are your plate archings?

[Joe Wiese]

In reply to Dave....

 

Arching height is something I had not kept careful track of in the past but have just started to observe.  That is a reflection of my combination of learning on my own with sporadic guidance.

Anyway...  I am pretty confident I have not gone over 15.5 on the belly.  Probably the same for the back.   For example, the violin in the white I just posted above, is now varnished and playable.  Once again, good sound.  Soft. 

I measured the total body thickness.  It was 61mm with a 30mm rib height.   That means my plates were about 15mm give or take. 

Arching height has been suggested to me from a very trusted source, and is actually next on my list to address.  I plan on taking my Kemp mold and put the belly arching at 16.5 and the back at 17mm.   Extreme?  Maybe, but at least I'll rule out if it is arching.    And, higher arching is the one variable I have not manipulated yet which makes it a good target to try.

 

 

[TimDasler]

In general a bright sounding violin is one whose upper frequencies are stronger than it's lower frequencies, and since you say it is powerful it seems to me that you want to knock down the lower frequencies a bit. Do your instruments tend to have strong wolfs? If you haven't noticed them, make sure you check above the octave of the lowest string (B-C# for violin, E-f# for cello). A wolf tells you that you have a relatively strong body resonance, stronger than what the string itself can sustain. The upper frequencies are harder to pin down the lower frequencies are fairly straightforward. 

If you want to knock down lower frequencies you'd be looking at stiffening up the body. It is possible that you tend to have loose soundposts in your adjustment, and if you didn't replace the post a time or two in the first year of the instrument's life, then you almost certainly don't have enough support. That can certainly be part of the problem. Assuming the adjustment is fine, though, you want to consider the overall stiffness of the body cavity. Consider the M2 and M5 shapes that end up making up the B1 modes of the assembled instrument. One reason that tap tones often don't correlate strongly to assembled body modes is that the stiffness of the rib structure isn't taken into account and the rib structure is stiffer than either plate. I haven't seen any good ways of quantifying rib structure stiffness, but I do pay attention to it. I think a straight, rigid rib structure set at a perfect 90 degrees to the plates jacks up the mid range (nasal) tone in particular. It is possible that you've gone too far in the other direction with a very flexible rib structure and thin plates, perhaps a weak bar. Those would all be factors that I would consider.

If you don't have wolf notes on most of these instruments I would suspect that the problem might not be in a strong low end, but in a weak high end. That question is a little more tricky to resolve. It is also possible that your issue is one of damping, not stiffness. Your varnish may be soft and heavy or you may be putting something in the ground that dampens high frequencies. Consider trying a something different here or perhaps get a couple white instruments and do one with your usual ground/varnish and try another following another process and see how dramatic the difference is. Of course you'd really need a larger sample size to get a strong sense of the tonal differences, but if it is dramatic I think you'll get some hint of it with a small sample size.

[TimDasler]

Since you also seemed to be interested in critiques I'd say that the woodwork looks good for the most part. It is clear that you're playing with different models as you mention, so I won't comment on stylistic choices that may or may not follow the intended model. It does stand out to me, though, that there appear to be some waves in the purfling channel. More so on the back, and much of it following the flame. I use a tight gouge in this area, then scrapers focusing on the high spots. The purfling channel and edge work are the only areas on the plates where I use sandpaper, and I finish with a tight roll of sandpaper that ends up looking like a cigarette butt. It resists the pull of the grain and gives you a little more control over the shape.

I also think the edgework is too crisp. I'd roll that a little more even if you aren't antiquing. Here are some closeups of the Messiah Strad, which is among the best preserved. Notice that there is still some crispness to the edge on the back, but that peak is a bit further in than yours, so the outer edge is not so square. There's also a more consistent gradual transition up from the purfling I think. There are parts of your purfling channel that are a bit abrupt coming up to the edge. That's also part of what gives the appearance of waviness in the channel. 

One last thing I notice is that the scroll is well carved, but has some kinks. You might benefit from adding one more scroll gouge to bridge between your flatter gouge and your more curved gouge. You don't necessarily need 7 gouges to do a scroll, but the closer your gouge is to the curve of the scroll the easier it is to prevent flat spots. Part of the appearance of the flat spot is also the result of the inside fluting. I bet it was less noticeable before the bevel, but you could have gone back and skimmed that with a gouge and scraper and evened out the appearance pretty quickly. Some of the bevel lower on the pegbox also contributes to an appearance of unevenness because it appears to change angle and/or thickness just slightly along it's path. It's hard to tell from the photo, but you may also want to flute a little deeper as you exit the pegbox and move up the scroll. Looks a little flat from the photo.

So, all that being said, it's nice work overall. I'm just trying to give you the kind of feedback that I know I'm always looking for. Help me see what I'm missing and make the next one better. Nice work!

 

 

[Don Noon]

For bright, my opinion:

-high, full arch

-slightly thick

-hard spirit varnish

-wait 100 years

[Ken_N]

Joe, I don't understand.  You WANT bright and screechy?  Why? To make you want to cut your ears off? Maybe what you are saying is that yours are richer in the low end, and the top end is lacking something?   I don't think a violin is like a guitar where the trebles need a lot of wood response to keep the note going; that's what the bow does. 

Do they have a complex sound,  or a plain string sound?  Most of mine are more complex, but one is really pure.  It has a stiff back and a light top.  Very easy to play, even for someone like me who doesn't play.  It does sound somewhat brighter, but with my bowing ALL of them sound bright and screechy on the E!  I've noticed that lighter strings made a huge difference on the  one with the light top and 18 mm arching.  Have you tried that?  Not mediums; softs.   It may seem counter-intuitive, but sometimes just trying things works.  

Are your bridges filtering out all of the high partials?  I don't know anything about that, I just cave until they look right.

Most of mine have high arches; I think they look cool. They are plenty loud enough. In my work. flatter Del Gesu arches do not seem much different to me.  They work too.  Maybe the could use more string tension.  As far as your work, it is far cleaner than mine!  

[Joe Wiese]

Tim...Spot on.   I was aware of much of that, thank you so much for the detailed critique. The worst thing you can do to someone who wants to learn how to build violins is tell them how pretty it is.  Critiques, right, wrong, opinionated is how we grow.      Many of those issues mentioned are part of the journey of craftsmanship I am still on.    Yes, I could use a couple more gouges specifically for scrolls.  I am lacking there.  It has been on my list for while. 

Ribs.  Thanks.  That may contribute to it.  Mine are thin.  1-1.1mm.  Ribs are an area that there seems to little information on their role in making the sound of the violin.  Often I have wondered if my ribs were too flexible creating "slop".  Taking away energy from the plates in the form of low frequency motion.  For sure in the future I'll try a fiddle at 1.2-1.3  with a thin top.  

 

Don:  Hi.  I have read  your posts often over the years and have always respected your level headed, logical thought process.  I agree on exploring a high arch and  100 years.  

 

Ken:  I want it bright simply because I can't do it yet. It is a riddle I want to solve.   It is about control and being about to add another acoustic tool to my kit.    If I can make one intentionally brighter (not necessarily screetchy, but I would be happy with that too)  then I understand one more component of instrument making and can incorporate that into whatever goal I want the end product to be. 

Mason:  the reason I say exclude all those other things is they have been looked at and changed many times on several violins by different luthiers.  We have changed sound of course with those variables but in all my instruments there is an inherent softness.  Thin bridge, Tall bridge,  kevlar tailcord, Bois Harmonie Tail piece, Eva Pirrazzi, strings, sound post adjustments, new sound post, nut slots, bridge string slots.    We have been around the block many times in many ways.  It is all leading to something inherent in the way I am building them.

The picture with the bridge is a viola.  I'll be honest, I don't know where I put that bridge at the moment because it is in the hands of a musician.  That photo was taken a while ago before I had really worked with set up.  More for show.  But, I do know I have tried bridges in front and behind the nicks more than once. Sound posts I tend to put in tight and near the feet.   Still soft. 

 

Nathan.... the biggest advancement in violin ever would be if we could get the terminology for sound standardized.  What fun would that be?   My violins will fill up a room pretty well. They are loud under the ear.  But it is almost like they are mini violas for lack of a better word.  Many other violins that I play have a higher timbre to the same note.  Otheres are more piercing.  Not that they always sound good, or carry.   Mine are almost like a loud stereo being played through a door.  Loud but not piercing.  I would say it lacks high end frequencies in the overall tone.  But, I am not sure of that in a scientific way.  My violins are not hollow, in fact they sound fuller than most.  My violins sound like you played with Eva Pirrazzi's your whole life and then someone put Obligatos or real gut on it. 

 

Thanks to all so far.  

 

 

Edited November 5, 2017 by Joe Wiese

[Mason]

On 11/4/2017 at 6:23 PM, Joe Wiese said:

I am sure as can be this is not a set up issue.  I have had several other luthiers examine my work.

So... Exclude strings.  Exclude bridge.  Exclude sound post.  Exclude tailpiece.  Exclude tail gut. 

Why would you exclude these important factors? You shouldn't assume it's not a setup issue  just looking at this photo I see there are some potential problems.

 

it looks like your bridge is south of the mensur, which I'd guess means your post is just as far south in relation to the bridge. The bridge also looks a little crooked and the top surface of the bridge isn't an even thickness, the edges are thicker than the middle  

Also, either the bridge isn't properly centered or the fingerboard or neck aren't straight, or possibly a combination of both.

Thats just what can be seen from this photo. 

I'd suggest learning to do a very precise setup before going and changing major aspects of construction, but 6mm does sound thick. Some violins it might work, but most instruments I measure come in somewhere between 4-4.5mm in the post area. Slightly thicker for some slab cut backs. 

[nathan slobodkin]

Joe,

You say that your instruments are soft yet loud. I don't really understand. Are you saying they are unfocused  or lack carrying power? Boomy or hollow sounding? Describing sound in words is very difficult but I am especially confused by your terminology.

[Emilg]

5 hours ago, Don Noon said:

For bright, my opinion:

-high, full arch

-slightly thick

-hard spirit varnish

-wait 100 years

Hi Don, i get the first 3, but do violins really get brighter in time? What could be the reason for that?

[Marty Kasprzyk]

6 hours ago, Don Noon said:

For bright, my opinion:

-high, full arch

-slightly thick

-hard spirit varnish

-wait 100 years

I would add using woods with a high speed of sound.

[FoxMitchell]

On 11/4/2017 at 7:23 PM, Joe Wiese said:

I am sure as can be this is not a set up issue.  I have had several other luthiers examine my work.

I wouldn't entirely discard setup as a possibility, as I have seen the differences that changing a tailpiece or a bridge and specially a soundpost can make.

Have you tried different strings? Put some Vision Titanium Solo or Warchal Brilliant (personally I prefer/recommend the Warchals) and see what happens? 

[Don Noon]

3 hours ago, Emilg said:

Hi Don, i get the first 3, but do violins really get brighter in time? What could be the reason for that?

The damping components of wood tend to disappear and/or polymerize into something harder.  In the shorter term, varnish hardens, and the wood settles into the stresses of the strings, also damping reduction factors.

[Joe Wiese]

Mason...   thanks.  I swear the finished instrument is better than what your seeing in that particular photo!   Fingerboard is centered fine.  It is just the angle of the photo.   Photo was supposed to look pretty not accurate.     But I’ll be the first to say I am weak on set up.  I have seen what minor adjustments can do to sound.  Would not have believed it if I did not see it.     I’m good enough to avoid bad beginner mistakes but not nearly enough to be good.   That is a problem I’m not sure how I’ll overcome in the future years as I’m not working at a shop.   Any suggestions on where to go for a go set up class?  Never the less I never saw a good builder who quit.  

Don....   I have a science background.  While I don’t understand or have proof.  Your ideas sound very plausible and probable.   Obviously old wood is different than new wood.  From there? Who knows?   

Edited November 6, 2017 by Joe Wiese
Thinking.

[nathan slobodkin]

Joe , when you say fills the room well how big a room are  you talking about? Have you tried them in any kind of performance hall? If they sound big under the ear but won't really fill a hall or be heard with other instruments then I guess you might try making them a bit thicker.

Also the type of wood is really important. You say you have tried Sitka which I would generally expect to sound as you are describing.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, nathan slobodkin said:

Joe , when you say fills the room well how big a room are  you talking about? Have you tried them in any kind of performance hall? If they sound big under the ear but won't really fill a hall or be heard with other instruments then I guess you might try making them a bit thicker.

Also the type of wood is really important. You say you have tried Sitka which I would generally expect to sound as you are describing.

Nathan,  can you expand your thoughts a little more about Sitka and why it would generally sound as the OP describes.

[Mason]

14 hours ago, Joe Wiese said:

Mason...   thanks.  I swear the finished instrument is better than what your seeing in that particular photo!   Fingerboard is centered fine.  It is just the angle of the photo.   Photo was supposed to look pretty not accurate.     But I’ll be the first to say I am weak on set up.  I have seen what minor adjustments can do to sound.  Would not have believed it if I did not see it.     I’m good enough to avoid bad beginner mistakes but not nearly enough to be good.   That is a problem I’m not sure how I’ll overcome in the future years as I’m not working at a shop.   Any suggestions on where to go for a go set up class?  Never the less I never saw a good builder who quit.  

while these observable setup idiosyncrasies might not be the cause of your sound issues, they might be preventing you from getting an accurate representation of the sound.

As far as the alignment issue I pointed out, the photo is obviously taken at an angle, but the strings are centered over the fingerboard. If you move the camera to a more straight on angle, where the strings are centered between the f-hole lobes, the strings will no longer be centered on the fingerboard. It might not be a big deal, but if I had the instrument in my hands it would be something that I'd try to figure out what is going on.

As far as setup classes I don't know of many with a focus just on setup, but workshops like oberlin would be worthwhile. You'd be able to pick the brains of dozens of people with lots of knowledge. There is no one ideal way to setup an instrument, but learning how to refine your skills would be worth your time. 

[Johnmasters]

I think that varnish and sealer alone are inadequate to finish the top.   The top is the major soundboard even though the back radiates.  The spruce has runout,  and the back flames are exagerated run-out.   I have been experimenting with fillers.  These block absorption of resinous or oleo-resinous materials into the wood.   The idea of using spirit varnish is consistent with the idea of a filler before an oil varnish.  That is because spirit varnish penetrates less and also will harden more than an oil varnish.  With fillers,  I get more overtones;   my instruments are bright,  but not screechy bright.

[nathan slobodkin]

20 hours ago, lpr5184 said:

Nathan,  can you expand your thoughts a little more about Sitka and why it would generally sound as the OP describes.

My experience with Sitka is very limited because the very few instruments I made with it sounded like I described to Joe; Big under the ear but with no real power . This was early in my making apprenticeship and the other guys in the shop basically said " Told you so". Other American spruces such as Englemann have proved far more successful for me.

[Don Noon]

2 hours ago, nathan slobodkin said:

My experience with Sitka is very limited because the very few instruments I made with it sounded like I described to Joe; Big under the ear but with no real power . 

Might this be due to Sitka tending to be higher density?