H.R.Fisher

High density ?

Recommended Posts

  I have a piece of very dense spruce [   SG  50 ]. I want to use it and would like to know where I should be heading with it.  High arching,low arching,thin  or thick,etc?   Your expert opinions will be greatly appreciated.  Thanks   Henry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, H.R.Fisher said:

  I have a piece of very dense spruce [   SG  50 ]. I want to use it and would like to know where I should be heading with it.

I would be headed over to the bandsaw to cut it up into endblocks or bass bars.  But that's because I want loud, powerful, responsive soloist violins, and I don't think that spruce that dense would be appropriate for a top plate for my goals.

If I had to use it for a plate, I would use Marty's 65g as a reasonable plate weight, probably normal arch or maybe slightly higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might use it if it is lively and responsive.  Take a few  lighter piece to compare.  Put it up to your ear and tap and rub finger lightly on the other end.  If the taps are as loud and clear and ringy as the other pieces and when you rub your finger on it. the loudness  and clearity and sizzle of the sound is as good or better then the other stuff I would use it.  If it is duller or less clear or muted then make blocks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

65g

Maybe for one of your flat top violins:)

I would predict more probably around 75 g without bassbar for a normally arched top.

0.50 density spruce could be used with decent results if it has good vibratory qualities as Peter says , but I wouldn't use it.

Anyway, if you really want to use it, I would make very thin thickness and I would use a high arch to get structural strength, but there are conflicting opinions on these aspects  especially on arching  height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be interesting in terms of what type of player might prefer the sound of a denser top violins (if it is even possible to know or generalize).  Some players are more "in the string" (pressure)  players and some "on the string (speed) playing style.  

Share this post


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

I might use it if it is lively and responsive.  Take a few  lighter piece to compare.  Put it up to your ear and tap and rub finger lightly on the other end.  If the taps are as loud and clear and ringy as the other pieces and when you rub your finger on it. the loudness  and clearity and sizzle of the sound is as good or better then the other stuff I would use it.  If it is duller or less clear or muted then make blocks.  

8 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

.

   Thanks for all your responses.I think as per Davids advice I'll Go higher arching and perhaps thinner, not sure about no BB.I'll see how it works out with the modes as I proceed. It is very close grained with the wider grain to the center. When tapping it has a very clear bell ring to it. We'll See how it works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, H.R.Fisher said:

...not sure about no BB.

Davide meant just the weight of the top without the bassbar, of course one is glued on afterwards..:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, H.R.Fisher said:

   Thanks for all your responses.I think as per Davids advice I'll Go higher arching and perhaps thinner, not sure about no BB.I'll see how it works out with the modes as I proceed. It is very close grained with the wider grain to the center. When tapping it has a very clear bell ring to it. We'll See how it works out.

The problem with higher arching seems to be that cross stiffness will be relative low. 

I'd cut away as much as possible from the wide grain in the center because I look on the center strip of the top as the supporting beam.

Share this post


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

Davide meant just the weight of the top without the bassbar, off course one is glued on afterwards..:rolleyes:

Yes  of course.:unsure:

Share this post


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

Davide meant just the weight of the top without the bassbar, off course one is glued on afterwards..:rolleyes:

 

1 hour ago, H.R.Fisher said:

Yes  of course.:unsure:

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

65g

I'm sorry for the brusk response.  You had an interesting question and I should have given you a more serious reply.

I'm often too wordy so I just picked up something from page 6 of the attached paper.

If I was me I would use the same arch height and shape that I had used in the past so I could see the effects of using the really dense wood.

(the sentence was supposed to start "If it was me..." but I mistyped it as "If I was me..." which inadvertently revealed the deleterious effects of prolonged exposure to violin making frustrations on mental health.

Different plate thinning strategies 7_25_2019 .pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Melvin Goldsmith said:

A good high density piece of spruce is a better prospect  than most of the candidates hovering around in the safe but booring .38 range

A lot of low density spruce is quite weak and not a good long term prospect for a violin to last a lifetime or more. Low density strong wood is not so easy to find I think...great if you can get it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Melvin Goldsmith said:

A lot of low density spruce is quite weak and not a good long term prospect for a violin to last a lifetime or more. Low density strong wood is not so easy to find I think...great if you can get it!

Likewise, a lot of high-density wood, although strong, is a lot heavier than it needs to be.  All wood comes in a wide range of properties.  That's why I think it is important to know the stiffness of the wood as well as the density, assuming one wants maximum performance out of the violins they build.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes wood has defects that doesn't show up on simple sound of speed test. I guess you have to make a lot of tops before you can "sense" if the wood is good

I have started to look at/feel the shavings when I plane the wood and think I might have developed some feeling for what's good, but that's only some kind of intuition that could be wrong.

Another "intuition"  is lively is good, but can be misstaken by "hollow" lively which is not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that the only way to get anything ok out of such wood is to go overly thin in the "lungs" area of both the upper and lower bouts while maintaining a slightly thinner "skeleton"  than normal. I've learned that a piece of wood that does not have that great of qualities, unless has some over riding visual characteristic that makes me "have to" use it. That it's more trouble than its worth using wood that does not appeal to me in it's un-carved state and that all you will do is fight it during construction, and have a more than 50/50 chance of it sound so so...

It's just too much work for "meh", I'd rather use stuff that makes me feel good before I start and then be surprised if it doesn't sound good, than build with stuff that does not feel right and being surprised that it does sound good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DG and Strad didn't seem to mind using lighter wood: DG's was 0.38 on average, Strad average 0.39 but varying from 0.36 to 0.45 if i remember correctly. Probably the wood was a bit denser when used though..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Emilg said:

DG and Strad didn't seem to mind using lighter wood: DG's was 0.38 on average, Strad average 0.39 but varying from 0.36 to 0.45 if i remember correctly. Probably the wood was a bit denser when used though..

If your sources are the same I am thinking of I'd like a bit more verification on those densities

Share this post


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

DG and Strad didn't seem to mind using lighter wood: DG's was 0.38 on average, Strad average 0.39 but varying from 0.36 to 0.45 if i remember correctly. Probably the wood was a bit denser when used though..

 

40 minutes ago, Melvin Goldsmith said:

If your sources are the same I am thinking of I'd like a bit more verification on those densities

I'm not a big fan of low density wood, but considering that the weight of ancient instruments is always outrageously low (unattainable?), I find it very difficult to think that they used high density wood, even if at first it had to be a little denser but not by so much.

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.