Sign in to follow this  
Andreas Preuss

Stradivari's secret was a concept?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Yes, there are examples with extreme trenches too. As I mentioned, they don't seem to have the sound and playing character that I personally am looking for, and since I don't purport to be a copyist, I can handle such things as I wish..

For sure, and I never meant to imply it's the only way to make a great sounding fiddle. That's probably not true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, David Beard said:

Hi Piolle,

Not sure we talking about the same aspects?  Certainly I respect individuality and style in the final outcome.  And, while I do aim to revive old ways, I repect modern making the takes a different road.

What I mean is CCs don't automatically give appropriate basic radii of curvature.  One has to know what you want and manipulate the CCs to get there. 

Hi David,

I didn't mean to especially advocate for the modern approach which I am not comfortable with...

I find much more interesting the ( let's say ) baroque style.

When I left the Newark violin making school which is a very respectful school, I had to re-think ( almost ) everything I learnt to make my method end to the sort of result and ( ideal ) style I wanted to get. Which is much closer to the baroque... though I am not a copyist

Most modern makers and schools use a method ( for example ) creating a narrow channel with the purfling at the lowest point of the fluting which end with an arch looking ...                  ...modern:D

But the starting point , after determining the height of the plate, is the type of channel, the rest has to blend together with it.

Sorry if I misinterpreted things and if we don't talk about the same thing.

My (first ) name is David , by the way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N. Amati 1666, later than the Alard. Significantly less dramatic than the Alard, too, but you can still see it. 

That said, it's this type of Cremona arch that I could see someone suggesting that the purfling sits at the bottom of the channel, especially taking into account the lighting, shadows, and how many pints had been binned.

IMG_20180727_134114~2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think that the position of the purfling (if uphill or flat) is then so relevant, as this depends on the thickness of the edge as well as on the depth of the channel that may vary.

I give more importance to the point of change of curve from concave to convex that results in a central arc more or less wide and more or less curved according to the max height of the arching.

I think moving this point have an huge effect on arching shape and stiffnes, more significant than the inclination of purfling.

I do not know if this fit with a cycloid or what other curve, but it's the first thing I consider when I try to understand a cross section of an arching.

1955906565_GuarneriIHS.png.04bcd29b736ec3f816b5cbb388656133.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Davide Sora said:

I do not think that the position of the purfling (if uphill or flat) is then so relevant, as this depends on the thickness of the edge as well as on the depth of the channel that may vary.

I give more importance to the point of change of curve from concave to convex that results in a central arc more or less wide and more or less curved according to the max height of the arching.

I think moving this point have an huge effect on arching shape and stiffnes, more significant than the inclination of purfling.

I do not know if this fit with a cycloid or what other curve, but it's the first thing I consider when I try to understand a cross section of an arching.

1955906565_GuarneriIHS.png.04bcd29b736ec3f816b5cbb388656133.png

Maybe not so important , but it is all related...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Torbjörn Zethelius said:

Scoop is easy. When looked at from the inside, the arch just blends together with the flat gluing surface. Problem solved. :P

solved only halfway, then you have to blend on the outside too.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, D. Piolle said:

Maybe not so important , but it is all related...

 

Yes, in violin making everything has its importance...;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Davide Sora said:

I do not think that the position of the purfling (if uphill or flat) is then so relevant, as this depends on the thickness of the edge as well as on the depth of the channel that may vary.

I give more importance to the point of change of curve from concave to convex that results in a central arc more or less wide and more or less curved according to the max height of the arching.

I think moving this point have an huge effect on arching shape and stiffnes, more significant than the inclination of purfling.

I do not know if this fit with a cycloid or what other curve, but it's the first thing I consider when I try to understand a cross section of an arching.

1955906565_GuarneriIHS.png.04bcd29b736ec3f816b5cbb388656133.png

Absolutely true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Torbjörn Zethelius said:

What goes on on the outside is the thicknesses. We don't need to worry too much about them. :rolleyes:

I tend to see it on the contrary, I'm definitely an "outsider", not an "insider":lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bill Merkel said:

I've never seen any 3D pics of fiddles.  Seems like they could be helpful

Lot of 3D real fiddles out there.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Darnton said:

Saying that, it's obvious, then, that you do not understand how they are used or generated.

That is right.  There are only two variables,  the radius of the rolling circle and the position of the locus generating point along the radius.  That is equivalent to knowing the width of a cycle of CC plus the maximum height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, D. Piolle said:

Hi David,

I didn't mean to especially advocate for the modern approach which I am not comfortable with...

I find much more interesting the ( let's say ) baroque style.

When I left the Newark violin making school which is a very respectful school, I had to re-think ( almost ) everything I learnt to make my method end to the sort of result and ( ideal ) style I wanted to get. Which is much closer to the baroque... though I am not a copyist

Most modern makers and schools use a method ( for example ) creating a narrow channel with the purfling at the lowest point of the fluting which end with an arch looking ...                  ...modern:D

But the starting point , after determining the height of the plate, is the type of channel, the rest has to blend together with it.

Sorry if I misinterpreted things and if we don't talk about the same thing.

My (first ) name is David , by the way...

Hi David,

To me, the thing often seems under focused on is the channel boundary.   By this I mean the point at which the arch regains the edge height.  The channel bottom is also an important choice, but not in forming the curvature of the central portion of the cross arching. That depends on the channel boundary.   

When you look at the earlier archings of the Amati family, the channel boundaries are chosen relatively wide, and the channel bottoms are placed basically midway the channel.  

In later Cremona work, there is some tendency to choose a little narrower channel boundaries, but not dramatically so.  On the other hand, there is a stronger tendancy to place the channel bottom closer and closer towards the edge.  Much of the differences in clasical arching boil down to this choice.

I think in the modern stuff you sometimes see an imitation of this later Cremona trend.  So makers place the channel bottom near or on the purfling.  But then if you don't pay attention to honoring a good channel boundary choice, it's then easy to have your arching rise up too immediately in a way that has nothing to do with old Cremona.

 

 

(To follow these things in full detail we have to recognize that final edge height is reduced slightly from the working edge height. And very often the channel boundary is properly calculated from the working height. Edge heights are a part of rib height. So 1/8, 1/9, 1/10, and similar.  The working heights are mostly one ratio thicker than the finals.  If you want to double check these methods high res 3d imaging is about the only way to do so.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Davide Sora said:

Lot of 3D real fiddles out there.....

Oh, yes, but the ones the shape of which is most interesting are not particularly affordable. Although, as another thread notes, it is always possible to get lucky at a flea market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, David Beard said:

Hi David,

To me, the thing often seems under focused on is the channel boundary.   By this I mean the point at which the arch regains the edge height.  The channel bottom is also an important choice, but not in forming the curvature of the central portion of the cross arching. That depends on the channel boundary.   

When you look at the earlier archings of the Amati family, the channel boundaries are chosen relatively wide, and the channel bottoms are placed basically midway the channel.  

In later Cremona work, there is some tendency to choose a little narrower channel boundaries, but not dramatically so.  On the other hand, there is a stronger tendancy to place the channel bottom closer and closer towards the edge.  Much of the differences in clasical arching boil down to this choice.

I think in the modern stuff you sometimes see an imitation of this later Cremona trend.  So makers place the channel bottom near or on the purfling.  But then if you don't pay attention to honoring a good channel boundary choice, it's then easy to have your arching rise up too immediately in a way that has nothing to do with old Cremona.

 

Thanks for your reply, David,

Agreed.

Then I think, we are talking about the same thing. More or less.

Like Davide said the point where the arch changes from convex to concave, makes a big importance in the style of the arch , and that depends ( of course ) of the channel boundary, so its width and depth ... and the height of the edge...

The channel bottom is ( depending on how you work it, the orientation of the gouge, the edge height... ) related to its width, boundaries and radius... and where the purfling lies depends also on that.

David.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Torbjörn Zethelius said:

Admit it Davide, you're just trying to get with the In crowd. :rolleyes: 

I'd like to,  but I've definitely been Out for too long....;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like the archings very much as an expressional thing, I doubt quite a lot about its importance for sound or better I should say

because of the very directional properties of wood growth the archings-effects on sound or even stability should be generally so complicated, that 

1) nearly nobody should be able understand it

2) "normal archings" known e.g. in architecture or in industrial concern should be not applicable in a senseful way for violin-arching

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Danube Fiddler said:

While I like the archings very much as an expressional thing, I doubt quite a lot about its importance for sound or better I should say

because of the very directional properties of wood growth the archings-effects on sound or even stability should be generally so complicated, that 

1) nearly nobody should be able understand it

2) "normal archings" known e.g. in architecture or in industrial concern should be not applicable in a senseful way for violin-arching

That's why we need good wood to start. There's no need to understand, but to do what works. If it works, it works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Danube Fiddler said:

While I like the archings very much as an expressional thing, I doubt quite a lot about its importance for sound or better I should say

because of the very directional properties of wood growth the archings-effects on sound or even stability should be generally so complicated, that 

1) nearly nobody should be able understand it

2) "normal archings" known e.g. in architecture or in industrial concern should be not applicable in a senseful way for violin-arching

A pretty agree with Torbjorn.  I'll add that you see people trying to understand Cremona arching because it's been demonstrated to work well.   But the aim is to understand what they did in the arches and how to do that now.  It isn't much aimed at an engineering understanding of why that sort of arching works well.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Delabo said:

If archings are not important to sound, why do Stainers with there high arching sound different to Cremona violins ?

There is so much more to Stainer's arching than "high"...

Even so, if we were to sit down together and listen blind to one violinst playing four good Cremonas and one good Stainer, I would defy you to pick the Stainer out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Torbjörn Zethelius said:

That's why we need good wood to start. There's no need to understand, but to do what works. If it works, it works. 

What is good wood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.