Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Sound Post Technique


Shunyata
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Have you not also made many sexual innuendos?

Play in that minefield, and you will get what you get.

If things here were highly sanitized, probably neither you or I would be allowed to post here anymore. :lol:

 

48 minutes ago, martin swan said:

I am devastated, humiliated and deeply apologetic if I've offended Errol Flynn in any way.

[Wanders through the common room softly humming a traditional Scots tune about a prizewinner.]  Yup, I've been on my best behavior through all this, and haven't contributed a single one of the classic Mae West quotes that have been bouncing around in my brain.  However, David Niven's comments at the 1974 Oscars seem very apropos right now.  :ph34r::lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

An attempt to adjust this post thread in a useful direction.  

Many violin sound posts for sale are 6.2 mm in diameter.  I was taught to make 6.5 mm sound posts for violin, so that's what I do.  I remember a conversation where a larger sound post, e.g., 7.0 mm, can be used for certain therapeutic reasons.  While I generally capture useful tidbits from this person, going through my sound post notes I find no mention of the effects of various sound post diameters.  I must have been on the road when I read it.

Does anyone have any experience using different sound post diameters and their potential affects? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jim Bress said:

An attempt to adjust this post thread in a useful direction.  

Many violin sound posts for sale are 6.2 mm in diameter.  I was taught to make 6.5 mm sound posts for violin, so that's what I do.  I remember a conversation where a larger sound post, e.g., 7.0 mm, can be used for certain therapeutic reasons.  While I generally capture useful tidbits from this person, going through my sound post notes I find no mention of the effects of various sound post diameters.  I must have been on the road when I read it.

Does anyone have any experience using different sound post diameters and their potential affects? 

I make my own sound posts and think I have noticed a lack of power with an extra thin post, but never an issue with a slightly wider post. I would be surprised if a wider post caused any issues, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who disagrees. I aim for 6mm or just over. What are the therapeutic reasons you speak of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, bkwood said:

I make my own sound posts and think I have noticed a lack of power with an extra thin post, but never an issue with a slightly wider post. I would be surprised if a wider post caused any issues, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who disagrees. I aim for 6mm or just over. What are the therapeutic reasons you speak of?

I would hate to misquote a half remembered conversation.  I think Matt Nyokos was in the conversation, but I'm not entirely sure if the information came from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jim Bress said:

An attempt to adjust this post thread in a useful direction.  

Many violin sound posts for sale are 6.2 mm in diameter.  I was taught to make 6.5 mm sound posts for violin, so that's what I do.  I remember a conversation where a larger sound post, e.g., 7.0 mm, can be used for certain therapeutic reasons.  While I generally capture useful tidbits from this person, going through my sound post notes I find no mention of the effects of various sound post diameters.  I must have been on the road when I read it.

Does anyone have any experience using different sound post diameters and their potential affects? 

For Violin, I  most usually use a post with a diameter of 6.2 to 6.3.  Why?  Pretty standard size, often what was there before, and it seems to work well with the rest of my setup.  I can't remember using one smaller than 6.0, and in rare situations I have installed one as large as 6.5 (cause that's what was in the violin and the player liked the way it sounded).

There's always the case when one finds an unusual size post in a nice sounding violin, though. Causes one to pause for a moment.  The last was a twig of a post that was in a very nice sounding Vuillaume I acquired... that looked like it had been there for quite a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

In  the 1786 manuscript from Marchi of Bologna, he advocates that the post should have the same diameter, as the f-hole width. I can't think of a more up-to-date theory of the top of my head:rolleyes:

It's an age old question.  What came first:  the sound post diameter or the f- hole width.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a small lineage of makers here who habitually fit the largest post they could get in through the f-hole. Over the years I have replaced two or three dozen of these with more normal posts. My overall take is that these posts muted the violins very slightly, and replacing them with something normal has not been a move in the wrong direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Michael Darnton said:

There was a small lineage of makers here who habitually fit the largest post they could get in through the f-hole. Over the years I have replaced two or three dozen of these with more normal posts. My overall take is that these posts muted the violins very slightly, and replacing them with something normal has not been a move in the wrong direction.

I agree Michael luv, about the thicker posts being detrimental to the sound, dulling, in my experience of the D and A strings more so, in a set up on both violins of full size and violas too, which is close string to bridge height settings within correct parameters of width arch of bridge, even string width, for classic set up, more so with so called flatter arching pf bridge, nut for fiddle players who like ability to double stop, I find intonation problems in 3rd position even though scoop is correct on fingerboard and feet fit correctly etc. Steel strings, can compensate for lack of brilliance, but not in the region, of 3, 4, 5, 6, and the E string suffers from lack of resonance too much.

6.2 mm girth on newly made still sappy sound post is as useless as it gets for dynamics, resonance and projection and basically everything, especially when the fit is not cohesive to top and back plates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jacobsaunders said:

In  the 1786 manuscript from Marchi of Bologna, he advocates that the post should have the same diameter, as the f-hole width. I can't think of a more up-to-date theory of the top of my head:rolleyes:

 

4 hours ago, jacobsaunders said:

In  the 1786 manuscript from Marchi of Bologna, he advocates that the post should have the same diameter, as the f-hole width. I can't think of a more up-to-date theory of the top of my head:rolleyes:

It can't be the same width as the F hole, unless you enjoy spoiling F holes, as they taper at an angle inwards, if not already marred. So how does one fit a sound post which is as wide as an obtuse angled cut F hole, without forcing it in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, morgana said:

6.2 mm girth on newly made still sappy sound post is as useless as it gets for dynamics, resonance and projection and basically everything, especially when the fit is not cohesive to top and back plates.

Hmmmm....  Pretty much any post can be a detriment if the fit isn't cohesive.  I think I could find a great number of very fine players (of new or old instruments) that would disagree with the rest of the above statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, morgana said:

 

It can't be the same width as the F hole, unless you enjoy spoiling F holes, as they taper at an angle inwards, if not already marred. So how does one fit a sound post which is as wide as an obtuse angled cut F hole, without forcing it in?

Doesn't any taper the sides of the f hole factor into the width?  I think Jacob knows how to avoid spoiling a sound hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeffrey Holmes said:

Hmmmm....  Pretty much any post can be a detriment if the fit isn't cohesive.  I think I could find a great number of very fine players (of new or old instruments) that would disagree with the rest of the above statement.

The Messiah left F hole has been repaired. Now everyone can see the fluting on that violin, and it's called congruent angles, and very fine edging to make it stand out. It's called obtuse angle and also corresponding with the opposite, so the inside corresponds in angle measurements with and to the outside, at a a constant, within to without, in incremental angles along its edges.Both inside and out.

An oblique angle is more than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees. Yes? If a sound post is made 360 degrees in circumference of 6.2 mms and is straight edged to 90 degrees, the congruently oblique angles would have to allow for 6.2mms at the Apex. And also to insert with depth of belly length including the height at say two thirds of the length of sound post, so that works out at 3mms less circumference of soundpost to the ratio of widths inside and outside of the congruent oblique angle of the F hole. Meaning if the diameter of the sound post at it's point 2 thirds up of insertion is the same as the congruent oblique angle of 8.4mms apex insertion will not allow for it's ease, it will take a mms wood away, at insertion at least.

So that's why, basically. It's more complex obviously but I need a calculator and a rest, Jeffrey. And if the Messiah F holes are bigger than 8mms topside at Apex then give me a strip of pine and some super glue lol! I am confused now....I think a sound post should be put in by elves, in the night, very small elves or trained ants. Medication time.

And I don't understand what I have written either. I just know that I am still in love with you....x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Michael Darnton said:

There was a small lineage of makers here who habitually fit the largest post they could get in through the f-hole. Over the years I have replaced two or three dozen of these with more normal posts. My overall take is that these posts muted the violins very slightly, and replacing them with something normal has not been a move in the wrong direction.

This reminds me of what I read, that a slightly larger post can help with an overly bright/harsh violin. As a maker, I think my first step would be to reassess the bridge, then plate thickness. I guess that’s why it didn’t make it to my notes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, morgana said:

I agree Michael luv, about the thicker posts being detrimental to the sound, dulling, in my experience of the D and A strings more so, in a set up on both violins of full size and violas too, which is close string to bridge height settings within correct parameters of width arch of bridge, even string width, for classic set up, more so with so called flatter arching pf bridge, nut for fiddle players who like ability to double stop, I find intonation problems in 3rd position even though scoop is correct on fingerboard and feet fit correctly etc. Steel strings, can compensate for lack of brilliance, but not in the region, of 3, 4, 5, 6, and the E string suffers from lack of resonance too much.

6.2 mm girth on newly made still sappy sound post is as useless as it gets for dynamics, resonance and projection and basically everything, especially when the fit is not cohesive to top and back plates.

 

14 hours ago, morgana said:

 

It can't be the same width as the F hole, unless you enjoy spoiling F holes, as they taper at an angle inwards, if not already marred. So how does one fit a sound post which is as wide as an obtuse angled cut F hole, without forcing it in?

 

9 hours ago, morgana said:

The Messiah left F hole has been repaired. Now everyone can see the fluting on that violin, and it's called congruent angles, and very fine edging to make it stand out. It's called obtuse angle and also corresponding with the opposite, so the inside corresponds in angle measurements with and to the outside, at a a constant, within to without, in incremental angles along its edges.Both inside and out.

An oblique angle is more than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees. Yes? If a sound post is made 360 degrees in circumference of 6.2 mms and is straight edged to 90 degrees, the congruently oblique angles would have to allow for 6.2mms at the Apex. And also to insert with depth of belly length including the height at say two thirds of the length of sound post, so that works out at 3mms less circumference of soundpost to the ratio of widths inside and outside of the congruent oblique angle of the F hole. Meaning if the diameter of the sound post at it's point 2 thirds up of insertion is the same as the congruent oblique angle of 8.4mms apex insertion will not allow for it's ease, it will take a mms wood away, at insertion at least.

So that's why, basically. It's more complex obviously but I need a calculator and a rest, Jeffrey. And if the Messiah F holes are bigger than 8mms topside at Apex then give me a strip of pine and some super glue lol! I am confused now....I think a sound post should be put in by elves, in the night, very small elves or trained ants. Medication time.

And I don't understand what I have written either. I just know that I am still in love with you....x

Are these rants from a lunatic or strange form of humor ? Maybe the moderator will start doing his job and stop posts from these sorts of people. I can not contribute but I like to read the forum with out these constant disturbances from "jokers".

The competent contributors here not want to be subject to these  abuse from people hiding behind anonymous screen names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VicM said:

Are these rants from a lunatic or strange form of humor ? Maybe the moderator will start doing his job and stop posts from these sorts of people. I can not contribute but I like to read the forum with out these constant disturbances from "jokers".

The competent contributors here not want to be subject to these  abuse from people hiding behind anonymous screen names.

Hmmm. Guess you don't like my style much.  That's OK.  I'm comfortable with it and no-one else has stepped up.

I am sure you and others have very little idea of how and when I intervene.  I like it that way, but I assure you I do intervene.

My "job" is on a volunteer basis and has been for 2 decades. 

The choice for anonymity is not mine.  Take that issue up with the owners.

The choice to read and/or participate on this forum is yours.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...