Bridge height with low arch, how high is too high?

[Michael Appleman]

Hello everybody! I've been too busy this past year to follow the forum much or do much violin making, but I've been getting a little time to get back into it lately and I thought I'd post this to see what some of your thoughts might be on the topic.

Last summer I finished a violin with very low arching. (As a matter of fact a bit lower and scoopier around the edges than I originally intended, but I got a little over aggressive in the rough out stage...I eyeball it at about 12mm finished up) After installing the neck with "traditional" overstand and projection values (7mm, 27mm) I found I had a string break angle over the bridge a bit flatter than I usually like coming in at over 161° at the d-string. The violin sounded ok, but darker and tubbier than what I consider useable by a serious player. As I usually do with my fiddles, I left it as is, playing on it and having it played on to see how it might evolve for a few months.

Around this time Don Noon posted his experiment about the effects of extremely flat string angles, so I thought what the heck, I'll just leave it as is. After a few months, I still found the violin disappointing, so I decided to try my own experiment and found that by attaching a string to the sides of the tailpiece at the playing string holes and wrapping it around the back of the violin, I could pull the tailpiece down to make the string break angle more acute (increase the down force). The result was that, yes, once I brought the angle down to 158°, I was getting the brighter "treble fizz" the violin had been lacking. I recognize that the pressure of the wedges on the ribs that I was using to tension the "pull down" string and its immobilizing effect on the tailpiece might have been contributing to the change in sound quality, but the result was so compelling to my ears that I decided to do a neck reset.

I finally got around to it last week and went about it with the goal to have a 158° break angle, and a minimum 4mm overstand, and the result is that I have a 35mm high bridge. A higher bridge might have an advantage in its greater lever effect between the strings and the feet, and that the relative differences in lever length between the inner and outer strings are diminished compared to a lower bridge, but the downside of course is that there's greater mass to swing around. I don't like my bridges to be too spindly, but I managed to get this one down to 2gr. The violin, by the way, is finally sounding good: still on the dark side, but within a "useable" range for a professional classical player. 

The questions I'd like to throw out to the forum are: what do you do with a neck set on a violin with very low arching? How low would you go with the overstand? How high would you go with the bridge? Any thoughts on the subject would be appreciated!

[Jim Bress]

If you don't want or like the look of a high bridge could you use a higher tension string to make up for the lower downward force from the less acute break angle?  Seems like just the fiddle that Julian Cooke is trying to make for a customer.

-Jim

[JacksonMaberry]

You can change a lot at the saddle, which is where I'd be tempted to begin. Then you only have to go slightly lower on the overstand, if it's necessary to mess with at all. 

[Brad H]

At 12 mm high and with pronounced scoop, it  doesn't sound like a particularly strong arch.  DId you leave the top thicker and/or do anything unusual with the bass bar?  I don't know how long it takes to materialize, but I have seen plenty of low arched violins and cellos with sunken arches on the bass side.

What are your string clearances?

[Christopher Jacoby]

A man I once knew would add height at the saddle of the tailpiece, exacting your string pressure with a secondary sharper break in angle there, and boosting some projection and sound. 

[jacobsaunders]

This theme has been discussed on Mn before, and I am not sufficiently a master of the search function to provide a link. Last time it came up, +I crossed swords with one of the Neanderthal Luddite faction over this, but I don't let myself get distracted by that.

 

I think. Michael, that you think far to much about this. If you consider the static of a low arch and a high arch, one should realise that a high arch is stronger. You can see this, driving along a motorway (for instance). A long low bridge requires a lot more reinforced concrete than a shorter high bridge. With the neck angle on a violin, if you stick to a regular (ca.) 27 bridge projection, and a 6mm “overstand” , this will automatically result in the string angle over the bridge being sharper on a high arch, and flatter on a low arch, which is exactly what the doctor ordered. If you don't like motorways, you can go looking at old baroque cathedrals (ten a penny here) where unbelievably filigree elements have held very high, and presumably heavy, roofs up for hundreds of years, and compare that to the town hall that was built as Klosterneuburg was a soviet occupied area.

[nathan slobodkin]

3 hours ago, jacobsaunders said:

This theme has been discussed on Mn before, and I am not sufficiently a master of the search function to provide a link. Last time it came up, +I crossed swords with one of the Neanderthal Luddite faction over this, but I don't let myself get distracted by that.

 

I think. Michael, that you think far to much about this. If you consider the static of a low arch and a high arch, one should realise that a high arch is stronger. You can see this, driving along a motorway (for instance). A long low bridge requires a lot more reinforced concrete than a shorter high bridge. With the neck angle on a violin, if you stick to a regular (ca.) 27 bridge projection, and a 6mm “overstand” , this will automatically result in the string angle over the bridge being sharper on a high arch, and flatter on a low arch, which is exactly what the doctor ordered. If you don't like motorways, you can go looking at old baroque cathedrals (ten a penny here) where unbelievably filigree elements have held very high, and presumably heavy, roofs up for hundreds of years, and compare that to the town hall that was built as Klosterneuburg was a soviet occupied area.

Jacob ,

I don't remember whether I was one of the Neanderthal Luddites you mention ( although the description fits me well) but although my own inclination is to assume that a stiffer or more massive instrument needs a higher string tension and force to drive it, there is at least one very fine maker who has suggested to me that higher tensions on the arch actually stiffen it and mean that thinner instruments with higher setups may act the same acoustically as heavier built instruments with less tension on them. This would all presumably depend on the actual shape of the arch and since I  never make low arches with scooped edges I am skeptical about the OP's violin turning out that well over time.

I think had I gotten distracted and taken an arch lower than planned. I would have bit the bullet and just chucked the plate and spent a few hours making  another. I have yet to get good results from adapting a plan to accommodate a mistake especially in such an early stage of the project. 

[PASEWICZ]

Michael,

Many years ago at the Oberlin set up/advanced topics workshop this was discussed pretty thoroughly.  I seem to remember a violin with an adjustable neck brought by a chap from the Reuning shop which was constructed to test these things.  Also, I recall a memeber of the same shop with pretty specific ideas on the subject that were backed up by many years of experience at the highest level.  Like Nate, I can not tell you if either of them are considered “Neanderthal Luddites”, although it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that other colorful names were not thrown at them after embarrassing those prone to such things.  Maybe someone remembers a little more about the Oberlin experience, or one of the people from that shop can chime in.

[jacobsaunders]

53 minutes ago, nathan slobodkin said:

Jacob ,

I don't remember whether I was one of the Neanderthal Luddites you mention ( although the description fits me well) 

no, I always enjoy reading your interesting comments