String break angle 158 degrees? Where does that come from???

[David Burgess]

If we are all missing the point (and some of us have been around fiddles a wee bit), could it be your communication which is lacking?

[sospiri]

12 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

If we are all missing the point (and some of us have been around fiddles a wee bit), could it be your communication which is lacking?

No, it's your reading comprehension. Neck angle is the point. It should be between 5 and 7 degrees. On old instruments with a high arching such as some Stainers, the necks in most cases were reset with a higher appui to accomodate these not too steep angles. In the case of those where the baroque configuration was kept, the original angle was correct.

If you've been doing it right for decades I can understand how you are puzzled by my attempts to point out the problem caused by others.

[Peter K-G]

22 hours ago, sospiri said:

From the Lady Blunt Stradivari?

YIKES! That's not right. That neck angle is too steep. If we use 80 degrees as the angle of the strings from bridge to nut, then the neck angle is 9 degrees from horizontal and that is too much. Even 8 degrees is too much. Maybe 7 should be the maximum?

The good news is that the original fingerboard was sold along with the violin so maybe David Burgess could reset it and put right what Vuillaume did wrong?

 

4 hours ago, sospiri said:

The point of this thread is to illustrate that the 158 degree string break angle seems to originate from the Lady Blunt. When Vuillaume reset the neck, he made the angle much steeper than any well known maker does now.

This violin was used as an example of measurements, but it's a bad example and should be discarded.

 

So Vuillaume F***ed-up with Le Messie and Lady Blunt

I think he did a great job with them, as he didn't do a neck mortise.

If you read through the "mud" (as you expressed) in the other thread, the conclusion was that it's almost impossible to not end up around 158 degree strings over bridge, if you use "de-facto" standard measures.

Have a long and rewarding thread

Peter

[sospiri]

Just now, Peter K-G said:

 

So Vuillaume F***ed-up with Le Messie and Lady Blunt

I think he did a great job with them, as he didn't do a neck mortise.

If you read through the "mud" (as you expressed) in the other thread, the conclusion was that it's almost impossible to not end up around 158 degree strings over bridge, if you use "de-facto" standard measures.

Have a long and rewarding thread

Peter

Peter, you need to rethink this. The Lady Blunt is an example of how not to do it. Hence the confusion. Because you picked an extreme example with a too steep neck angle. Yes Vuillaume got it wrong and most experienced luthiers have always used a shallower angle.

But thanks anyway, you really did help me understand the problem. I hope that doesn't come over as sarcasm because it's not meant to.

[David Burgess]

59 minutes ago, sospiri said:

No, it's your reading comprehension. Neck angle is the point. It should be between 5 and 7 degrees.

 

Between 5 and 7 degrees, relative to what?  And how did you come to choose that figure? Was it based upon learning experiences with hundreds to thousands of fiddles, or what?

[David Beard]

Sospiri, your premise is that the 158 guide originates with this illustration with the Lady Blunt.

Your premise is incorrect.

The 158 guide already existed in the community.

Later, someone badly superimposed this already exist guide on the Lady Blunt.

 

You've got it backwards.

Let it go.

[jezzupe]

I think Michael is saying that there are too many variables to have a "set' number that is a one size fits all measurement. All other variables must be taken into account in order to come up with the ACTUAL measurement that will work for THAT violin.

Sospri, I feel the issue here is that

1. You have come to think, via reading, that someone somewhere established a 'number" and that this number is "the" number that is the right one, quite simply thinking that there is ANY established benchmark figure is incorrect, oh there are many numbers on many websites telling what it is, but any fixed number will be incorrect, and or only apply to that original or that copy of the original or be that particular guys take on it, true captain's of the ship ALWAYS CROSS MEASUREMENT BRIDGES WHEN THEY GET THERE.

2. I think a much better approach to this is to somehow suffer through Michael's not suffering fools attitude and to try to really soak in what he is saying, quite simply you have been lead to believe that in any of this that there are hard and fast numbers, you refer to "pro's knowing what they are doing and knowing what the 'numbers are, that's not the way it is, "pro's" have figured out that there are no numbers, and that in a critical path kind of way that one part leads to another and that a combination of steps will eventually lead to the need to execute a cut, that "number" will be determined once all the previous "crossing of the bridge" steps  have been done, and therefore all those tiny benchmarks established together will give you the 'I'm now ready to figure out 'this" measurement, in this case the brake angle...

quite simply you are trying to learn from people who "think" they have it figured out, but probably really don't....or anyone who spits out a bunch of hard and fast numbers or information in general should be listened to with caution. Because unless you are using a CnC all the way through, there will generally be variation in the numbers.

I do want to speak for Michael, but what I think he is trying tell you is that you should let the violin you are working on tell you what the right numbers are and to not use figures from the net that might not apply....

 

To extrapolate on what I mean by 'let the violin you are working on determine the math" is;

first I would say, that virtually 99% of my work, from start to finish is done without the use of any type of indexed measuring device, simply gauges{ often slotted wood, wingnuts and bolts}, sticks with hash marks, things like that, numbers just mess everything up, but in all that of course the EYE is the best device you have

So in your case, there are so many variables, as Michael says, that could change that measurement that you would be much better off making a couple different adjustable/fixed gauges/jigs that can help determine the proper angle by simply acting as a "if the neck and fingerboard were on" type of visual actual chunk of wood that you can SEE with you EYES and then once set, if you must, just have to know, you can then measure it and find out what that actual angle is for that particular violin. After awhile I just stopped bothering with measurement, because it does not matter, all that matters is that it looks and feels right and does what it's supposed to do, 

All I know is when I hear numbers I want to hear model names and things like "copy" in there, because unless you are shooting for predetermined precise copy measurements, it doesn't really apply most times  

 

[Riodifirenze]

I think sospiri means that the "rule"(of 158°) can confuse beginners and amateurs starting in the violin tinkering world lookin around in the internet for info. 

 

 

[David Burgess]

14 minutes ago, Riodifirenze said:

I think sospiri means that the "rule"(of 158°) can confuse beginners and amateurs starting in the violin tinkering world lookin around in the internet for info.

I can understand that. Some internet stuff will fast-track you to Hell, and a small percentage is really good. Good sorting skills will be required.

[Evan Smith]

158 shouldn't confuse anyone,

Yes Really.

Take the bridge height, the saddle height, string clearance, use the fairly standard 158 degrees over the bridge and there are no choices left, unless the arch is stupid high or stupid low, at which point it would only serve as a hard lesson.

I fail to "Get" the point

One perception of Degree usage is attacked while another one is held in rigidity.

By the way, not all of the strings across a bridge are at the same degrees any way, it is just an average.

Sometimes I drop way below average when I start "over thinking" things, and for now I will refuse to consider this thread any more, like so many great men before me.

Evan

[jezzupe]

1 hour ago, Riodifirenze said:

I think sospiri means that the "rule"(of 158°) can confuse beginners and amateurs starting in the violin tinkering world lookin around in the internet for info. 

 

 

My god man, you know what this means ! someone's got to call the violin police!!!! law 157, not to be confused with 158, shall not be broken, I'll put in a call on a 156 to report a 157 on the 158 violation and hopefully we'll get a 10-4 good buddy back from the 187rd division, not to be confused with the 187th airborne, and that hopefully the internet scrubbers can work with guys at fakebook to make sure this dangerous hate speech is removed from the net for good

[Riodifirenze]

 

53 minutes ago, jezzupe said:

My god man, you know what this means ! someone's got to call the violin police!!!! law 157, not to be confused with 158, shall not be broken, I'll put in a call on a 156 to report a 157 on the 158 violation and hopefully we'll get a 10-4 good buddy back from the 187rd division, not to be confused with the 187th airborne, and that hopefully the internet scrubbers can work with guys at fakebook to make sure this dangerous hate speech is removed from the net for good

I know, I tried this all with some drawings, (my father is an architect and aeronautical engineer so I know something) and if all is in normal range it ends always  around 158.

With more arching height you get a little more angle and vice-versa, but these changes  are very small.

Ah, and my drawings where of baroque setups, which I am obsessed for like anything of the epoque.

[violins88]

Sospiri,

The most important thing is not the neck angle, from a physics viewpoint. The downward force is. Assuming string length and tension are standard, the 158 degree angle alone determines the downward force. 

Review your first engineering course in statics.

[Riodifirenze]

And Vuillame seems to have set the lady blunt with too much downward force.

I belive the rules or better said recommendations must notbe taken blindly in consideration, one must reflect things before applying them. 

 

[sospiri]

22 hours ago, David Beard said:

Sospiri, your premise is that the 158 guide originates with this illustration with the Lady Blunt.

Your premise is incorrect.

The 158 guide already existed in the community.

Later, someone badly superimposed this already exist guide on the Lady Blunt.

 

You've got it backwards.

Let it go.

Not really. I'm saying don't use the Lady Blunt as a guide because then neck angle is too extreme.

And in doing so, I want to know where this 158 degree angle came from?

 

You've misinterpreted.

Look again.

[sospiri]

22 hours ago, jezzupe said:

I think Michael is saying that there are too many variables to have a "set' number that is a one size fits all measurement. All other variables must be taken into account in order to come up with the ACTUAL measurement that will work for THAT violin.

Sospri, I feel the issue here is that

1. You have come to think, via reading, that someone somewhere established a 'number" and that this number is "the" number that is the right one, quite simply thinking that there is ANY established benchmark figure is incorrect, oh there are many numbers on many websites telling what it is, but any fixed number will be incorrect, and or only apply to that original or that copy of the original or be that particular guys take on it, true captain's of the ship ALWAYS CROSS MEASUREMENT BRIDGES WHEN THEY GET THERE.

2. I think a much better approach to this is to somehow suffer through Michael's not suffering fools attitude and to try to really soak in what he is saying, quite simply you have been lead to believe that in any of this that there are hard and fast numbers, you refer to "pro's knowing what they are doing and knowing what the 'numbers are, that's not the way it is, "pro's" have figured out that there are no numbers, and that in a critical path kind of way that one part leads to another and that a combination of steps will eventually lead to the need to execute a cut, that "number" will be determined once all the previous "crossing of the bridge" steps  have been done, and therefore all those tiny benchmarks established together will give you the 'I'm now ready to figure out 'this" measurement, in this case the brake angle...

quite simply you are trying to learn from people who "think" they have it figured out, but probably really don't....or anyone who spits out a bunch of hard and fast numbers or information in general should be listened to with caution. Because unless you are using a CnC all the way through, there will generally be variation in the numbers.

I do want to speak for Michael, but what I think he is trying tell you is that you should let the violin you are working on tell you what the right numbers are and to not use figures from the net that might not apply....

 

To extrapolate on what I mean by 'let the violin you are working on determine the math" is;

first I would say, that virtually 99% of my work, from start to finish is done without the use of any type of indexed measuring device, simply gauges{ often slotted wood, wingnuts and bolts}, sticks with hash marks, things like that, numbers just mess everything up, but in all that of course the EYE is the best device you have

So in your case, there are so many variables, as Michael says, that could change that measurement that you would be much better off making a couple different adjustable/fixed gauges/jigs that can help determine the proper angle by simply acting as a "if the neck and fingerboard were on" type of visual actual chunk of wood that you can SEE with you EYES and then once set, if you must, just have to know, you can then measure it and find out what that actual angle is for that particular violin. After awhile I just stopped bothering with measurement, because it does not matter, all that matters is that it looks and feels right and does what it's supposed to do, 

All I know is when I hear numbers I want to hear model names and things like "copy" in there, because unless you are shooting for predetermined precise copy measurements, it doesn't really apply most times  

 

No. You're missing the point too.

[sospiri]

21 hours ago, Riodifirenze said:

I think sospiri means that the "rule"(of 158°) can confuse beginners and amateurs starting in the violin tinkering world lookin around in the internet for info. 

Yes. And we need to have a neck angle guide too. So after some study and experimentation I can see that a good guide is 5 to 7 degrees.

[sospiri]

14 hours ago, violins88 said:

Sospiri,

The most important thing is not the neck angle, from a physics viewpoint. The downward force is. Assuming string length and tension are standard, the 158 degree angle alone determines the downward force. 

Review your first engineering course in statics.

Yes, I agree about downforce, but 158 degrees is a bit too specific. And the neck angle is something we shouldn't get wrong because it's a heck of a job putting it right again.

 

[Riodifirenze]

1 minute ago, sospiri said:

Yes. And we need to have a neck angle guide too. So after some study and experimentation I can see that a good guide is 5 to 7 degrees.

No it is around 84 degrees

 

 

[sospiri]

20 hours ago, Evan Smith said:

I fail to "Get" the point

Yup.

[sospiri]

18 hours ago, Riodifirenze said:

 

I know, I tried this all with some drawings, (my father is an architect and aeronautical engineer so I know something) and if all is in normal range it ends always  around 158.

With more arching height you get a little more angle and vice-versa, but these changes  are very small.

Ah, and my drawings where of baroque setups, which I am obsessed for like anything of the epoque.

It varies. Over 160 is probably just as good if not better.

For baroque instruments with a high arch the nut height (which is the really important point in all of this thread) is higher relative to the belly edge and that is something we should discuss.

6 hours ago, Riodifirenze said:

And Vuillame seems to have set the lady blunt with too much downward force.I belive the rules or better said recommendations must notbe taken blindly in consideration, one must reflect things before applying them. 

Was he exprimenting with the Lady Blunt or just being careless? Did he really think he could improve on Stradivari's design?

3 minutes ago, Riodifirenze said:

No it is around 84 degrees

Now, you're just confusing them even more.

[sospiri]

22 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Between 5 and 7 degrees, relative to what?  And how did you come to choose that figure? Was it based upon learning experiences with hundreds to thousands of fiddles, or what?

Relative to horizontal. To make it easier for you to understand.

I chose that figure because that's what you guys were taught all those years ago. You did it by eye and by feel without even knowig it was in that ballpark.

 

[Riodifirenze]

1 minute ago, sospiri said:

It varies. Over 160 is probably just as good if not better.

For baroque instruments with a high arch the nut height (which is the really important point in all of this thread) is higher relative to the belly edge and that is something we should discuss.

Was he exprimenting with the Lady Blunt or just being careless? Did he really think he could improve on Stradivari's design?

Now, you're just confusing them even more.

If I understand right you mean that the neck angle should prevail over the string angle which there are several other possibilities to influye on like saddle height, bridge height, etc. 

[Riodifirenze]

12 minutes ago, sospiri said:

For baroque instruments with a high arch the nut height (which is the really important point in all of this thread) is higher relative to the belly edge and that is something we should discuss.

How much higher? 

[sospiri]

22 minutes ago, Riodifirenze said:

If I understand right you mean that the neck angle should prevail over the string angle which there are several other possibilities to influye on like saddle height, bridge height, etc. 

Fingerboard angle would be a better description than neck angle. And yes string angle is critical for the downforce. But within the variables of string height above the fingerboard we can use relatively safe angles to avoid problems, then the player decides on the action or the luthier advises on the issue with input from the player.

Bridge height or more specifically string slot height, yes that's critical. Neck projection has been discussed in many threads and opinions vary, so I say 25 to 28mm is a good range. I also use 29 mm with a low action on an 8 degree neck where I planed the fingerboard to get it down from 31mm. It works very well and the bridge height is within Michael Darnton's ideal numbers.