Sign in to follow this  
Julian Cossmann Cooke

Clamping the top to a rib garland with blocks at...

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, christian bayon said:

One of the advantage to taper the belly side on the upper part is to have a sharper angle of the strings at the bridge (imagine the upper nut 2 mm lower) and to rise the pressure on the bridge. A kind of "renversement avant la lettre"

Can't we get about any angle over the bridge we want, with the neckset angle, whether in the 1600's, or today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adherents to bridge pressure and string angle don't seem to be swayed by our experiments which indicate it's not a big deal.  I'd like to see someone produce and experiment showing that it is significant.

Share this post


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

Yes, they have the rib taper, but I don't think we have any way on knowing today whether this taper was done on the top or the back.

One theory has been that since the neck was nailed to the ribs, there probably couldn't have been perfect alignment between the bottom of the neck heel, and the bottom of the upper  block, so a little would need to be shaved off to get a good joint with the back.

I'm a bit more fond of explanations which have more to do with practical shop working methods, than those which rely on original violin design by Da Vinci, or space aliens.

Practical shop working methods seem to be most reasonable, the reason for which many details in the Sacconi book got revised by later makers making the test at the bench. (Not trying to minimize Sacconis achievements which eventually avalanched the research for a correct historical view on the construction methods)

Just flattening out that area after nailing the neck to the rib garland however does not remove so much wood and would not need the divider marks on the mould to lay out the difference. So I am scratching my head on this with no definite answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this in another thread that relates this topic. Bruce Carlson was brave enough and did pretty radical bend of back plate towards neck block...

 

Share this post


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

Can't we get about any angle over the bridge we want, with the neckset angle, whether in the 1600's, or today?

Today, yes, but in the XVII century, if you want an higher bridge, you´ll have an enormous fingerboard at the neck-root. Not nice for the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, christian bayon said:

Today, yes, but in the XVII century, if you want an higher bridge, you´ll have an enormous fingerboard at the neck-root. Not nice for the player.

I still don't see any reason why a maker in the 17th century couldn't get any angle desired.

If you are claiming that from a repair standpoint, the modern neck set is more easily adjustable than removing a top or back, and pulling nails, i would agree. That's very likely why the mortised neck replaced the the nailed neck, after something like two-hundred years of realizing that necks came down over time, and trying to figure out what to do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, christian bayon said:

Today, yes, but in the XVII century, if you want an higher bridge, you´ll have an enormous fingerboard at the neck-root. Not nice for the player.

Fitting baroque necks at a minimum of 87° helps too. I do them at 85° to good effect. The old folks wisdom that the baroque neck is set at 90° forces the use of an impossibly stout wedge, and playing in upper positions becomes problematic. 

Share this post


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

I still don't see any reason why a maker in the 17th century couldn't get any angle desired.

In this 1668 violin, it does not seem that set the neck with angle was the fashion of the time.

3H1A1131.JPG

Share this post


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

In this 1668 violin, it does not seem that set the neck with angle was the fashion of the time.

3H1A1131.JPG

Do we know how it was originally, prior to 350(?) years of string tension?

Share this post


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

I still don't see any reason why a maker in the 17th century couldn't get any angle desired.

If you are claiming that from a repair standpoint, the modern neck set is more easily adjustable than removing a top or back, and pulling nails, i would agree. That's very likely why the mortised neck replaced the the nailed neck, after something like two-hundred years of realizing that necks came down over time, and trying to figure out what to do about it.

Did the necks sink or were they made with a low angle?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 12:02 AM, Don Noon said:

Adherents to bridge pressure and string angle don't seem to be swayed by our experiments which indicate it's not a big deal.  I'd like to see someone produce and experiment showing that it is significant.

Consider me swayed.

Low angles, such as the example Christian posted work just fine. I think they sound and play slightly differently and I'm learning to like it. That's why I say anywhere from 5 to 7 degrees from horizontal is is good working range, with the 'modern' neck set usually around 7ish, but with many variations.

Are the variations deliberate, or just an accident caused the vagueness of using projection height as the main parameter in the neck set and ignoring nut height relative to the body?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sospiri said:

Did the necks sink or were they made with a low angle?

 

While there may be no way of knowing for sure, I think we can presume that they have sunken, since that's what necks do over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Burgess said:

While there may be no way of knowing for sure, I think we can presume that they have sunken, since that's what necks do over time.

I have only seen it happen when the mortise/neck root were carved below the standards required of what any decent wood worker would consider acceptable.

I reset two low angle violins, one late 19th century and the other early 20th century. I saw no evidence whatsoever of the neck having moved, but that they were set with a low projection.

I probably should have left them as they were because the sound didn't improve when I raised the projection from low to normal. And in future I will not be doing this again unless the projection really is unplayable.

But here in the UK, we don't have severe humidity changes in normal circumstances, so I am keeping on open mind as to how this may not be the same for a traveling musician in the US.

I like the idea of the humidity proof travelling case and will get to work immediately on producing a prototype within the next ten years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sospiri said:

I have only seen it happen when the mortise/neck root were carved below the standards required of what any decent wood worker would consider acceptable.

They will drop, even when the neck joint remains completely sound.

Unlike some materials, wood undergoes plastic deformation under load.

To illustrate, one can take a straight section of rib or lining stock, force it into a curved shape for a while, and when the force is removed, it will retain some of that curvature, rather than returning to its original shape.

Share this post


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

They will drop, even when the neck joint remains completely sound.

Unlike some materials, wood undergoes plastic deformation under load.

To illustrate, one can take a straight section of rib or lining stock, force it into a curved shape for a while, and when the force is removed, it will retain some of that curvature, rather than returning to its original shape.

I understand plastic deformation. Everyone does. Which is why I think it applies sometimes to the neck/fingerboard bowing over time, sometimes. But Jerry's argument on the other thread regarding compression/tension at the heel (if that was the point?) puzzled me.

Does my spuriometer need recalibrating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, christian bayon said:

In this 1668 violin, it does not seem that set the neck with angle was the fashion of the time.

3H1A1131.JPG

Sure looks like a 90° neck angle to me! I got my info on baroque necks from Hargraves articles on early instruments. I believe he mentions a Strad viola with an original neck with an 87° angle, and I have used that and 85°, depending on the height of the arch, to good effect. No player complaints, at any rate. Lets me make a slimmer wedged fingerboard also, which is comfortable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JacksonMaberry said:

Sure looks like a 90° neck angle to me! 

As well as a humongous overstand, and (probably) a low break angle over the bridge... if the bridge was normal height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

As well as a humongous overstand, and (probably) a low break angle over the bridge... if the bridge was normal height.

Due to the high nut height.

But what does it sound like? My guess, it sounds just fine.

Share this post


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

 But Jerry's argument on the other thread regarding compression/tension at the heel (if that was the point?) puzzled me.

Does my spuriometer need recalibrating?

I don't know. If you quote or link to the specific post, perhaps I can comment.

Share this post


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

But here in the UK, we don't have severe humidity changes in normal circumstances, so I am keeping on open mind as to how this may not be the same for a traveling musician in the US.

Where I live, I could have indoor humidity levels ranging from 5 to 100%  throughout the year, if I did not take steps to mitigate this.

Share this post


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

Do we know how it was originally, prior to 350(?) years of string tension?

The finger-board is original, so, pretty much the same of what we have today, or at least not very different!

Share this post


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

The finger-board is original, so, pretty much the same of what we have today, or at least not very different!

The fingerboard appearing to be solid ebony raises some questions about that, doesn't it?

I haven't examined the fiddle in person. so I don't know whether or not the fingerboard is solid ebony, or ebony veneered. Either solid ebony, or ebony veneered on all visible surfaces would raise some questions about originality,  wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Don Noon said:

As well as a humongous overstand, and (probably) a low break angle over the bridge... if the bridge was normal height.

As pedantic as it may seem, I think it's important to distinguish between overstand (the amount by which a modern neck stands over the belly edge) and the effective height and angle of a wedged board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly suspect that this fingerboard was a later addition, incorporating a lot more wedge and overstand to compensate for the neck angle having dropped.

Share this post


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

They will drop, even when the neck joint remains completely sound.

Unlike some materials, wood undergoes plastic deformation under load.

To illustrate, one can take a straight section of rib or lining stock, force it into a curved shape for a while, and when the force is removed, it will retain some of that curvature, rather than returning to its original shape.

or look at the many swaybacked roof lines in old wooden gable style houses and barns....the ridge beam was at one time straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.