Sign in to follow this  
sospiri

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

Recommended Posts

Addendum to the above post:

A buddy of mine, who headed an automotive engineering department, was continually frustrated with employees who were only "book-learned", versus those who could problem-solve in a heartbeat (which could have stemmed from either a natural mechanical intuition gift, or experience), without needing to go through days of calculations.

Fabricate a few things yourself (you can start with something as simple as making a "Flintstone car" from Popsicle sticks and thread spools. Do they make "Erector Sets" anymore, or is everything now about how fast someone can type with two thumbs on social media?) Then re-read this thread, and I think it will make a lot more sense to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fellow MN posters and professional luthiers,

This thread started with  "YIKES! " (some years ago I would thought this had something to do with my contribution), it does not.

There is nothing "YIKES! " about The lady Blunt nor Il Cannone, they are rare and everyone that have been doing  (doing work) on them should  be given respect!

While I used The Lady Blunt as an example, the math is true though! Figure it out (all luthiers are doing it) 

String length -> nut to bridge (330/328 by mensur ~130+195 is they key). That´s why it is what it is. Make a top with 18 mm height and you are in for serious compromise (overstand and angle), if you want to have a bridge ~32 - 32.5 mm height.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lady-Blunt-Org-FB-questioingeverything.png.6d2eb9ab716ef29d5aeccb504ccbd9c8.pngI have done a lot of comparing by aligning an "imaginary original neck/FB". The conclusion is that ~1 - 1.5 degree at most, was the change, from old to modern and a little longer neck, and much longer FB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to have a lesson in  history - who did this to most of the old Cremonese violins?

I imagine that they were on another level than today's wannabe luthiers (maybe like me) 

Share this post


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

. Do they make "Erector Sets" anymore 

I think they still make Legos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter K-G said:

I would love to have a lesson in  history - who did this to most of the old Cremonese violins?

I imagine that they were on another level than today's wannabe luthiers (maybe like me) 

Vuillaume has two major legacies:

One was being a very effective self-promoter and salesman, who managed not only to integrate Strads and Guarneris into the then-thriving French "collectables" market, but used that to infer high value on his shops copies of those instruments as well.

The other is as a very talented restorer. With that too, I don't know how much that relied on him personally, and how much was due to some of the very talented Mirecourt workers he employed. At the very least, it seems like he knew how to recognize exceptional talent when he came across it, and hire them in.

Did Vuillaume "make" the famous people who came out of his shop, or did they make him? Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I will know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who did this to most of the old Cremonese violins?

Probably the Mantegazza brothers. Their shop was the pivot point in large-scale exportation of Italians to France &c. (after they'd modernized and "corrected" them).

FWIW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the issue of string angle over the bridge is very important.  Move on.

In the past I've made rather poor violins with the standard 158 degrees and now I'm making equally poor violins with a shallow string angle of only 170 degrees. 

Share this post


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

Addendum to the above post:

A buddy of mine, who headed an automotive engineering department, was continually frustrated with employees who were only "book-learned", versus those who could problem-solve in a heartbeat (which could have stemmed from either a natural mechanical intuition gift, or experience), without needing to go through days of calculations.

Fabricate a few things yourself (you can start with something as simple as making a "Flintstone car" from Popsicle sticks and thread spools. Do they make "Erector Sets" anymore, or is everything now about how fast someone can type with two thumbs on social media?) Then re-read this thread, and I think it will make a lot more sense to you.

Something tells me he's not going to suddenly see the light, David, it's pretty clear, even though your so good that your peers decided you couldn't compete anymore, you'll just never understand :rolleyes: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, martin swan said:

This is completely untrue - the French neck set really didn’t travel abroad at all, and it never became the standard method. It never even became standard in France or even in the Vuillaume shop.

Before getting yourself into a lather about the boneheadedness of absolutely everyone’s approach except yours, it would be a good idea to study a load of actual violins.

All of these numbers and angles are a matter of personal choice. What string angle you favour will relate to what kind of arching and thicknessing you favour. Lots of different approaches can  work, as long as they add up to a coherent system. Even the steep French neck set can be right for some violins.

Ultimately every good neck set is achieved by balancing an understanding of sound with an understanding of the needs of a player. Until you have control of both, all this indignant ranting is pretty pointless.

Optimal tone and optimal playability will always lead you to somewhere around 158 degrees, and it’s probably the best overall starting point, given the infinite other variables inherent in any individual violin.

Look at some violins and tell me what the composite angles are?

Look at the string angle from nut to bridge and the afterlength angle. Measure them and compare them to what was around before Vuillaume.

You will see some variety, but you will also see that some of those with a less steep neck/fingerboard angle also sound very good.

And yes, Vuillaume did change the angles slightly. But the composite angle may well have remained the same on some instruments that were given an new neck.

Share this post


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

Fellow MN posters and professional luthiers,

This thread started with  "YIKES! " (some years ago I would thought this had something to do with my contribution), it does not.

There is nothing "YIKES! " about The lady Blunt nor Il Cannone, they are rare and everyone that have been doing  (doing work) on them should  be given respect!

While I used The Lady Blunt as an example, the math is true though! Figure it out (all luthiers are doing it) 

String length -> nut to bridge (330/328 by mensur ~130+195 is they key). That´s why it is what it is. Make a top with 18 mm height and you are in for serious compromise (overstand and angle), if you want to have a bridge ~32 - 32.5 mm height.

 

Peter your math is incorrect. I have altered the first post.

I apologize because I recongnise that the photo angle gives us a wrong impression.

Can you apologize for your mistake?

Share this post


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

No, it is you who are missing the point. The neck angle has limited relevance without also knowing the many other factors which contribute to the best choice of string angle.

Already understood. Many of us have tried to help, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. If you are unwilling to "learn how to learn", our efforts will largely be wasted.

Sure, we can discuss it. But a true discussion is not you asserting via decree that your practice or definition is the only viable one.

It sounds like you have gotten trapped in a state of over-analysis paralysis. That's not a wholesale putdown, because I've spent some time there too. The first step to getting out of that trap is to learn to perceive when you are there. If you don't realize you are there, there will be little incentive to go somewhere else. ;)

The answer to good sound and playing qualities is not discoverable through a set of trigonometric rules. Instead, it is a somewhat fluid target defined by human preferences. These preferences are not uniform or universal, change with time, and there is no strict definition

While it may be possible to use trigonometry to describe many things, it can be unnecessarily complex-to-useless for things like teaching someone how to tie their shoes, or how to go up and down stairs.

Here's what I would suggest for you: Find an instrument which sounds and plays extremely well, in the opinion of the particular target group you are most interested in. Study that instrument (there's a good chance that it won't be the Cannone. or the world's most expensive Strad), and see what you can learn. Then find a few more such instruments, and try to determine if there are things which they seem to have in common. At some point in the process, also consult with experienced restorers to see if some of your conclusions you would like to try have known downsides.

So what am I missing? You are just restating what I've alread said.

Share this post


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

Lady-Blunt-Org-FB-questioingeverything.png.6d2eb9ab716ef29d5aeccb504ccbd9c8.pngI have done a lot of comparing by aligning an "imaginary original neck/FB". The conclusion is that ~1 - 1.5 degree at most, was the change, from old to modern and a little longer neck, and much longer FB

Some say the modern neck is more playable too. Is that true?

Share this post


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

Vuillaume has two major legacies:

One was being a very effective self-promoter and salesman, who managed not only to integrate Strads and Guarneris into the then-thriving French "collectables" market, but used that to infer high value on his shops copies of those instruments as well.

The other is as a very talented restorer. With that too, I don't know how much that relied on him personally, and how much was due to some of the very talented Mirecourt workers he employed. At the very least, it seems like he knew how to recognize exceptional talent when he came across it, and hire them in.

Did Vuillaume "make" the famous people who came out of his shop, or did they make him? Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I will know.

Is he the most important person in the history of violin making?

Would we be making such a fuss about Cremonese instruments if not for him?

Did he improve the neck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sospiri said:

Can you apologize for your mistake?

That's a great idea, let's make official

Please accept my sincerest appologies for the following mistake/error:

 

__________________________________________________________________

(fill in the mistake/error on the above line as I don't know what it is)

*) note: the appologizer can not be hold responsible for errors made by Pythagoras and Vuillaume

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sospiri said:

Is he the most important person in the history of violin making?

Would we be making such a fuss about Cremonese instruments if not for him?

Did he improve the neck?

Sospiri; Please read this if you haven't already.  Hargrave article  If you wish to delve into more history concerning the Cremoinese makers and changes to the setup of the violin neck, try reading the available translations of Count Cozio's notebooks.

Share this post


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

That's a great idea, let's make official

Please accept my sincerest appologies for the following mistake/error:

Much better in Latin when it is an official apology.

Something along the lines of "Mea culpa. Ego sincere et seq." or something to that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 5:09 AM, sospiri said:

Lady-Blunt-Stradivarius-Violin-of-1721-1

A reply for Peter KG's question to who started the neck work. 

My old repair manual menton that the English and French started the changes like what's pictured above.  The reasons were too low of projection on the older violins, a want of better looking wood for the handle and a need for more strength and more length because of the rising standard pitch.  The manual mentions the cutting of the nails and screws firstly, then adding more wood at the neck join for more length, then shows about the modern way of grafting a new handle with nice figured wood to the pear wood or other less figured wood pegbox and scroll.

I'm thinking Petherick didn't want to pay homage in his manual to Vuillaume for the new changes or he really didn't know who was the first individual to do so.   My guess would be Paul Bailly working under Vuillaume assuming he was working that long ago time wise.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2019 at 2:47 AM, sospiri said:

Some say the modern neck is more playable too. Is that true?

The modern neck shape took a good bit of wood out under the fingerboard, and approaching the body.  

So when you're reaching for very high positions, the thumb gets to travel further under the neck, and your hand gets to reach a good distance further up the fingerboard.

This is I think probably the main thing driving conversions.  You get a longer fingerboard, and due to neck root being thinned, you get to reach further up the mew fingerboard.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 1:16 PM, Peter K-G said:

That's a great idea, let's make official

Please accept my sincerest appologies for the following mistake/error:

 

__________________________________________________________________

(fill in the mistake/error on the above line as I don't know what it is)

*) note: the appologizer can not be hold responsible for errors made by Pythagoras and Vuillaume

 

Your string angle calculations for the Lady Blunt should be adjusted to take into account the perspective of the photograph.

And, yes, let's have a discussion about how Pythagoras would show us a correct construction schematic for the violin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 1:22 PM, Jeffrey Holmes said:

Sospiri; Please read this if you haven't already.  Hargrave article  If you wish to delve into more history concerning the Cremoinese makers and changes to the setup of the violin neck, try reading the available translations of Count Cozio's notebooks.

I do refer to it often. The drawings are rather vague. They are not really representative of different neck/fingerboard angles in the way I wish to describe them, i.e. as an angle we can measure before construction and a vertically positioned neck root/dovetail (or mortise if thas from Nottnum).

This last point is the thing that's really bugging me and is one heck of a can o worms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 5:24 AM, David Beard said:

The modern neck shape took a good bit of wood out under the fingerboard, and approaching the body.  

So when you're reaching for very high positions, the thumb gets to travel further under the neck, and your hand gets to reach a good distance further up the fingerboard.

This is I think probably the main thing driving conversions.  You get a longer fingerboard, and due to neck root being thinned, you get to reach further up the mew fingerboard.

The modern neck certainly looks cuter. It's nice to be able to play all the way to the end of the neck, but that far up, the thumb positon is irrelevant.

Players who use mainly one instrument will always have problems adjusting to another neck. And using the thumb as a guide for intonation suggests we might need to practice our scales focusing good intonation without this thumb guidance. I'm sure lots of top soloists learn things like this, it shows in their technique.

I agree the modern neck looks like a better design, but the configuration of the baroque neck can perhaps help us understand the rib taper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 1:06 AM, JacksonMaberry said:

And Luigi Tarisio, perhaps

And Count Cozio. But they were collectors. Vuillaume helped make the intruments household names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 11:09 PM, David Burgess said:

Addendum to the above post:

A buddy of mine, who headed an automotive engineering department, was continually frustrated with employees who were only "book-learned", versus those who could problem-solve in a heartbeat (which could have stemmed from either a natural mechanical intuition gift, or experience), without needing to go through days of calculations.

Fabricate a few things yourself (you can start with something as simple as making a "Flintstone car" from Popsicle sticks and thread spools. Do they make "Erector Sets" anymore, or is everything now about how fast someone can type with two thumbs on social media?) Then re-read this thread, and I think it will make a lot more sense to you.

David, you should know I fit into both camps, book learned and intuitive. That's why I'm asking awkward questions some people don't want to address.

My book learnin and my intuition tell me that lots of people here think they can disregard basic geometry, construction schematic and dare I say....

on second thoughts maybe I shouldn't?

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.