Sign in to follow this  
sospiri

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

Recommended Posts

With the baroque setup it is very easy to adjust the projection changing the wedge, I guess that was the reason they where able to nail the necks on.

or was it the other way around? They nailed the necks and therefore they came up with the wedge to adjust the projection? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Evan Smith said:

A big problem with this is that as you decrease the angle of the neck you increase the overstand, which places a lot more force on the top than the normal string angle over the bridge does on an average fiddle with an average set up. The arch under the fingerboard will be more likely to rise prematurely and the neck will end up dropping too fast and too far because of the increase in the leverage of the neck, because of the high overstand, to accommodate a straighter neck angle to decrease the angle over the bridge to appease some primordal urge of some sort or other because there is a picture of an old fiddle on the internet net with some lines and numbers drawn on it because someone put it there just because they did because they wanted to and it all means nothing,

If there is a fear that a particular fiddle has a weak top, the overstand should be kept as low as is reasonable the saddle should be left highish, and the neck could be set to accommodate a lowish bridge if all of the above was warranted.

The 158 comes from centuries of successful set ups that work,,, and the success rates seems to revolve closely around those numbers, of course things can work fine outside those parameters.

Worrying about the neck angle while ignoring the overstand seems a bit eccentric.

I still don't get what it is you are trying to point out. There are literally trillions of pictures on the internet, I try not to loose sleep over them. You are free to put your own picture out there labeling the correct angles if it pleases you. I haven't figured out yet what you mean,

Shall we all start a petition to get it removed????

Evan  happy little camper and friends!

:):):):):):):):):)

I tried to dicuss these issues here and on another thread. Decreasing the neck angle and raising the overstand decreases the torque, so your hypothesis needs to be more developed more. Good luck to anyone who attempts that though.

The 158 thing is not a rule and nobody should say it is.

What I'm trying to point out is that Peter K-G used an extreme example and got the afterlenght angle wrong anyway, it's 15 degrees so the Lady Blunt is 155 degrees and Vuillaume is as much to blame as Peter K-G!!!. Yeah I know......but we can't have this sort of thing on Maestronet can we???

Shall we start a petition to have the original neck restored?

ABSOLUTELY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Riodifirenze said:

With the baroque setup it is very easy to adjust the projection changing the wedge, I guess that was the reason they where able to nail the necks on.

 

The same can be done with a modern setup, but it's not usually considered "best practice", and modern players often don't tolerate large changes in neck thickness well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, David Burgess said:

These basic setup dimension were around long before the Newark School.

 The differences between going too high or too low may not be readily apparent to an audience, but they are to a good player. This has largely to do with the envelope in which the instrument can be played.

Granted, it takes a pretty large change in string angle for a noticeable difference if both are played the same way. But the right angle enables a playing style which delivers more power, if the player knows how to use that.

Yes, and the Newark School carried on the tradition of doing it right.

 

The Cannon may be the source of the 158 degrees

I calculate the neck at 6.7 degrees add one degree for the string angle and the afterlength at 14.3 degrees

I'm using 25.5 for the projection and 30.5 for the height of the D string slot.

180 - (6.7 + 1+14.3) = 158

 

Il+Canonne.jpg

Edited by sospiri
Recalculation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Riodifirenze said:

Im still seeking for a suitable bass bridge... 

 

O. K. Jokes aside, 20 degrees is the total string angle over the bridge, which gives us something around 6-8 degrees for the string angle on the neck's side (from horizontal) and 12-14 degrees on the other side(horizontal again) the string angle is only 1-2 degrees more than the angle of the neck. 

I'm using 1 degree difference for string and neck angle. It is usually either slightly less or very close to this. So yes, usually 6-8 degrees.

For the afterlength I'm calculating from the D string slot, adding the arching height and subtracting the saddle height from that total. The strings follow the line of the saddle/tail gut exactly on a well made tailpiece. For the length we must measure the base length (opposite in trigonometry using the tangent) from the string slot to the saddle tip. This length is usually 15.5 centimeters. So these angles are usually 14- 15 degrees.

Share this post


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

I'd say DB is right about overstand existing on baroque fiddles - it just doesn't manifest in quite the same way. On a baroque fiddle, neck is placed in such a way that the overstand (usually but not always equal to the thickness of the edge) rises above the plane of the ribs. You can see this on the 1679 Stainer Hargrave wrote about and the one in the NMM, both in essentially original condition. On modern-setup fiddles, the overstand rises above the plane of the edge, instead. So it's a matter of which plane the overstand, er, stands over. 

And you were right about the 5 degree angle. You were the only one to give the right answer on the duck's arse thread which I had abandoned, so I did't say thank you.

The overstand issue, modern vs baroque is simply a matter of calculating the height above the body to the top of the fingerboard measured vertically. They should be about the same for a given arching height. But you both knew that anyway didn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

The same can be done with a modern setup, but it's not usually considered "best practice", and modern players often don't tolerate large changes in neck thickness well.

You mean the less skillful ones?? That's because their intonation sucks so they need reference points on the neck. That's also why they wiggle their fingers about so much, to try and find the note. ; )

My favourite players don't have this problem and don't overdo the vibrato.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Peter K-G said:

Unfortunately that won't always work on all violins for a modern player! 

I have done the same illustrations for high arch (ex Willemotte) and the neck would be way too thick, with a wedge.

It's the over-stand that is the key. 

Willemotte has about 3 (+) degrees less steep string angle and that is a lot

Vuillaume might be the source of the 158, if my calculation (recalculation) for Il Cannone is correct? A few posts above.

Share this post


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

Vuillaume might be the source of the 158, if my calculation (recalculation) for Il Cannone is correct? A few posts above.

From my calculations that guy would be Amati

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peter K-G said:

From my calculations that guy would be Amati

Or Gasparo da salo... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to resume, 

Neck angle = 5-6° or 85-84° at the heel. 

String angle  = neck angle + >1°

Overstand = wedge = overstand. 

String angle over the bridge = ??? 

 

Share this post


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

Neck angle = 5-6° or 85-84° at the heel. 

My 1710 Stradivari neck template uses a 7 degree angle.   Do you think that will be o.k. with sospiri?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, uncle duke said:

My 1710 Stradivari neck template uses a 7 degree angle.   Do you think that will be o.k. with sospiri?  

I don't know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 6:59 PM, Peter K-G said:

From my calculations that guy would be Amati

Please share your numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 12:13 AM, uncle duke said:

My 1710 Stradivari neck template uses a 7 degree angle.   Do you think that will be o.k. with sospiri?  

Stradivari neck template? Of an original neck from 1710

I would love to see that. Please share it with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 11:01 PM, Riodifirenze said:

Trying to resume, 

Neck angle = 5-6° or 85-84° at the heel. 

String angle  = neck angle + >1°

Overstand = wedge = overstand. 

String angle over the bridge = ??? 

 

I'm going with 5-7 degrees at the heel/neck plane. 4 degree would be better than 8 though.

Add one degree for string angle between nut and bridge.

Modern overstand seems to have been stardardised at 6mm, but variations done by competent luthiers and restorers who understand the overstand alteration of 1mm means more than 2mm at the bridge.

The afterlength angle is altered mostly by the bridge height.

So a discussion of bridge heights is needed to make any sense of these measurements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Severe case of cart before horse here.

These are the parameters that need to be observed ....

1. a bridge is a compromise between bow clearance over the c bouts, downbearing and damping - generally this means getting it as low as possible

2. overstand needs to be at least a minimum height for comfort of playing in high positions

3. overstand should not be too great or the neck will feel too chunky

4. (and this one is hotly debated here) nut should not be too high in relation to the plane of the belly or it will exercise too much torque on the top block and warp the belly

5. action should be high enough to be resistant and buzz-free but low enough not to slice your fingers up

Put all these together and what do you get? A string angle over the bridge of around 158. This is not a rule, merely an invaluable approximate starting point.

Rather than being some arbitrary imposition of a number on the process of making a violin, the convention of a 158 degree string angle is a result of observing other constraints and pursuing certain goals with regard to tone and playability.

 

The "Gand & Bernardel" approach with a dropped nut is a significant historic deviation from this otherwise generally observed pattern. With a conventional overstand this inevitably means a bridge that's a bit too high, resulting in what people erroneously describe as "the French sound". With a low overstand and a conventional bridge height it feels very uncomfortable in the high reaches of the fingerboard.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, martin swan said:

Severe case of cart before horse here.

These are the parameters that need to be observed ....

1. a bridge is a compromise between bow clearance over the c bouts, downbearing and damping - generally this means getting it as low as possible

2. overstand needs to be at least a minimum height for comfort of playing in high positions

3. overstand should not be too great or the neck will feel too chunky

4. (and this one is hotly debated here) nut should not be too high in relation to the plane of the belly or it will exercise too much torque on the top block and warp the belly

5. action should be high enough to be resistant and buzz-free but low enough not to slice your fingers up

Put all these together and what do you get? A string angle over the bridge of around 158. This is not a rule, merely an invaluable approximate starting point.

Rather than being some arbitrary imposition of a number on the process of making a violin, the convention of a 158 degree string angle is a result of observing other constraints and pursuing certain goals with regard to tone and playability.

 

The "Gand & Bernardel" approach with a dropped nut is a significant historic deviation from this otherwise generally observed pattern. With a conventional overstand this inevitably means a bridge that's a bit too high, resulting in what people erroneously describe as "the French sound". With a low overstand and a conventional bridge height it feels very uncomfortable in the high reaches of the fingerboard.

 

Excellent summary of some of the variables Martin.

Yes 4 is contentious because the forces exerted are so vastly complicated and a change here might affect tensions or compressions over there in ways we don't understand etc

I don't think 158 should be taken as a rule because it varies a few degrees. I would say the usual range is 157 to 160 and you and I and everyone else here will find violins in that range that we think are well set up and deliver what we expect of them.

Were Gand & Bernadel influenced by Vuillaume's neck set on the Lady Blunt?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of those Gand & Bernadel violins do indeed have an extreme neck angle and with a normal overstand. Very extreme.

I wish some of you could discuss this without making false assumptions about my intentions. Violins vary a lot in these variables don't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking through the Strad archive, there is a lot of variation in how the necks were reset. The position of the nut in particular varies a lot in relation to the body regardless of the overstand.

But we can't discuss it? Too controversial?

Come on fellas, someone has to ask these questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Violin shops have been tossing around these ideas for centuries, attempting to keep up with the demands of players. Just because you haven't been there, it doesn't mean this discussion hasn't happened, over and over. You, however, convinced of the correctness of your ideas, with apparently no experience (I'm guessing you don't work in a shop and probably haven't worked on instruments in a demanding setting, if at all---have you ever set any violin neck according to the usual professional standards, not in your basement?), choose to enter in and try to revamp concepts you clearly don't understand. And you wonder why you are getting a lack of interest?

I'd suggest you inform yourself about the history of neck setting and get a real understanding of the parameters, so that when you talk about the subject you make sense. As it stands, you really do not know what you don't know. I can't stress that last sentence enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Michael Darnton said:

Violin shops have been tossing around these ideas for centuries, attempting to keep up with the demands of players. Just because you haven't been there, it doesn't mean this discussion hasn't happened, over and over. You, however, convinced of the correctness of your ideas, with apparently no experience (I'm guessing you don't work in a shop and probably haven't worked on instruments in a demanding setting, if at all---have you ever set any violin neck according to the usual professional standards, not in your basement?), choose to enter in and try to revamp concepts you clearly don't understand. And you wonder why you are getting a lack of interest?

I'd suggest you inform yourself about the history of neck setting and get a real understanding of the parameters, so that when you talk about the subject you make sense. As it stands, you really do not know what you don't know. I can't stress that last sentence enough.

Trigonometry is confusing.

Jacob Stainer, Nicolo Amati, Antonio Stradivarius, Giuseppe Guarneri, Jean Baptiste Vuillaume...

just trying to dig where these cats heads were at man.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more calculations

With the Lady Blunt set up, using Peter K-G's measurements the neck angle nut to bridge is 9.8 degrees, so the strinag angles is about 10.8 degreese from horizontal and the afterlength 14. 8 degrees; string break angle 25.6 below horizontal or 154.4 degrees

With a baroque set up, if the nut was 10mm higher

as in these images:

https://www.smithsonianchambermusic.org/collection/violin-shop-amati-ca-1670

The string angle is nearly 3 degrees less

and with the tailgut level with the edging as in the baroque set up, the base of the triangle is about 5 mm longer and 6 mm lower, this gives an angle 1.5 degrees steeper so the total angle would be 24.5 degrees from horizontal or 155.5 degrees.

So the whole string break angle issue is as clear as mud. I just wish to clarify that situation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 6:13 PM, uncle duke said:

 a 7 degree angle.   Do you think that will be o.k. with sospiri?  

 

3 hours ago, sospiri said:

Stradivari neck template? Of an original neck from 1710

I would love to see that. Please share it with us.

You didn't say a 7 degree angle would be o.k. with you though. 

 

FYI, the template is just a plain jane piece of mylar or similar with a piece of paper glued to it.  At the time this neck template was available to me I was able to adjust percentages of the size in increments of one percent at a time.  Checking over and over again the figure for the angle turned out to be 7 degrees, not 5 degrees or 6 degrees though most makers are more than likely using 5 or 6 for their work and not 7.  You could use 0 degrees for your own work if you had a big enough neck block to carve into.

I thought this morning about making up a neck template real quick, just for shenanigins sake, then thought just to show the template I have already, then I thought I can't anyone see the peg placement locations so no, I won't show the template. 

One opinion of mine for the 158 is that someone may of just ran across a superior instrument or two at one time and came up with the jig that shows going over the fingerboard, over the bridge and going over the tailpiece showing what 158 is about.  That could also come in handy to convince a wary customer that a certain fiddle could use some work - look at this handy contrivance that reads 158 I'm putting over the instrument.  This should all come out to 158 but yours doesn't.  Do you want me to make this a better playing instrument for you etc, etc?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 11:22 AM, sospiri said:

The Cannon may be the source of the 158 degrees

I calculate the neck at 6.7 degrees add one degree for the string angle and the afterlength at 14.3 degrees

I'm using 25.5 for the projection and 30.5 for the height of the D string slot.

180 - (6.7 + 1+14.3) = 158

 

Il+Canonne.jpg

Re-re calculated. I used tan-1, should have used sine -1 for the nut to bridge doh!

So the neck is 8.6 degrees string angle about 9.6 degrees

My afterlength calculation used tan -1 which is correct.

180 - (8.6 + 1 + 14.3) = 156.9 degrees

I'm not caculating the low overstand because I'm calculating angles from nut the bridge, but guessing the nut is in line with the top of the ribs? This nut position varies a lot from one instrument to the other, there is no trade consensus or industry standard for the nut position/neck angle so can we discuss these issues in a civil manner please?

And if anyone has noticed any other mistakes in my calculations, please point them out. I will be grateful because this isn't an ego issue, it's a quest to work this stuff out.

 

 

 

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.