Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

The Zuger theory


Andreas Preuss

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, Shelbow said:

That is probably the most important question that will be asked in this thread :lol:

I am actually pretty serious.

I have nothing personal against Robert Zuger, but I don't like if he tries to impose his ideas on other peoples thread and a sort of floods it with his repeating comments, even if you ask to be respectful.

Therefore here is the new arena to defend his theory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a theory. It's a structure and that structure has a function. That is what the site explain. It has not to be defendet at all. You can not defend a tetrapack or a kub or a boll. It simply is as it is. But it can be hard to find out the function that become produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read the website. I can see this could be applied to new making, I'm not sure the end result would be much like the accepted cremonese arching.

With some arching styles, it seems impossible to have this STL in the indicated regions, without abruptly changing the angles, limited in this sense, to only one arching style and height.

What would be great, is to hear from Zuger violin owners, and see how they felt it was improved over the violins they played previously.

It is a shame there are no pictures of any finished instruments on the website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, reguz said:

This is not a theory. It's a structure and that structure has a function. That is what the site explain. It has not to be defendet at all. You can not defend a tetrapack or a kub or a boll. It simply is as it is. But it can be hard to find out the function that become produced.

The problem is to know whether your tetrapak has anything to do with great violin tone and how to achieve it ...

The general consensus on this site is that it doesn't.

There are many ways that science can express the structure that is a violin, but ultimately we have to refer back to questions of aesthetic judgment and acquired taste. A fine violin is a cultural and historic construct, and the success of a violin maker can be measured only in terms of how well they can understand and serve that idea.

Science really doesn't help with this - you just need vast experience, great observational skills, great tool skills, and most importantly a willingness to listen to violins and violinists.

Any kind of dogmatic or "objective" scientific model is the opposite of what's required. So i'm afraid that for me you don't address any questions that would be interesting to answer, or that haven't been satisfactorily answered by generations of great violin makers. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reguz, I think that the basic problem you're going to run into here is that people already know from their own work that there are many things that affect how a violin works. When you suggest that it all just comes down to a couple of lines that don't go through areas that people already understand are important for specific reasons, it immediately suggests that you have oversimplified the problem in a way that bypasses all the other information we have, from our own experience.

This is like claiming that you have a soap that not only cleans, it improves your attention at work, makes your love life better, your car get better gas mileage, and fixes your relationship with your cat. When someone claims too much for something, people are inclined to reject it. And it APPEARS that you are too in love with your own idea to understand that it isn't the whole world of violin making.

In short, you need to narrow your claims down to what you specifically believe you can prove AND LESSEN YOUR INSULTS TO INDIVIDUALS before people will take you seriously, especially when you are directing your comments to an experienced audience of adults. In a word, sir, respect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a theory. It's a structure and that structure has a function. That is what the site explain. It has not to be defendet at all. You can not defend a tetrapack or a kub or a boll. It simply is as it is. But it can be hard to find out the function that become produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, reguz said:

This is not a theory. It's a structure and that structure has a function. That is what the site explain. It has not to be defendet at all. You can not defend a tetrapack or a kub or a boll. It simply is as it is. But it can be hard to find out the function that become produced.

The problem is to know whether your tetrapak has anything to do with great violin tone and how to achieve it ...

The general consensus on this site is that it doesn't.

There are many ways that science can express the structure that is a violin, but ultimately we have to refer back to questions of aesthetic judgment and acquired taste. A fine violin is a cultural and historic construct, and the success of a violin maker can be measured only in terms of how well they can understand and serve that idea.

Science really doesn't help with this - you just need vast experience, great observational skills, great tool skills, and most importantly a willingness to listen to violins and violinists.

Any kind of dogmatic or "objective" scientific model is the opposite of what's required. So i'm afraid that for me you don't address any questions that would be interesting to answer, or that haven't been satisfactorily answered by generations of great violin makers. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My criticism on the model is pretty simple: if there were on the entire arching surface only 4 straight lines, and Robert had found that they are without exception on all Cremonese instruments always in the same position I d say 'hey wait a minute...'

as a matter of fact there are many straight lines in a lean well designed arching reaching the border. So how do I know which is the right one?

In a previous discussion I showed Robert the picture of a violin back taken from an angle that you would see the wavy surface which makes it impossible to place anywhere a perfectly straight line with zero tolerance aberration. According to his theory this can't sound. The instrument was actually the Heifetz DG which is beyond doubt an excellent solo instrument. 

I presented as well the graph I had taken from the back of a plaster cast of the Sainton DG. As a matter of fact in one area you can't even find a straight line where it is supposed to be. 

Last not least I find the attempt to link the theory to Cremonese makers far fetched, even if one assumes that it was found by trial and error.

In any case. it is impossible that Cremonese makers were arguing with the logic of Isaak Newton. Makers of the 18th century certainly had a notion of what is 'force' but not in the sense that you could calculate it with some given parameters which is the necessary basis for Roberts theory. 

And in the end I don't see that soloists around the world are battling to get one of Roberts wonder violins. 

Thats all I have to say. 

Oh wait, Robert, one more thing: whatever you write in response, I am not going to answer because I heared it already a trillion of times.

Good luck in defending your theory!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Wood Butcher said:

Some things I'd like to know:

Is this just a theoretical model, or have violins been made from it?

Have any violins made using this method been sold to professional orchestral players?

I'd like to ask that as well. If the pyramid or octactahedron model (involving straight lines} is "the big deal", why is it not used everywhere  on a violin, rather than on a few carefully chosen points?

I do suspect (as others have already opined) that if a violin is constructed for optimum strength, it will emit little sound. Ya needs some floppy parts to move air, which happens to be the communication medium between a fiddle and our ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A google search was unable to turn up any Zuger violins. No photos of one, and none listed for sale anywhere, so now I'm confused.
Mr Zuger, do you make violins?

This is reminding me of the French guy, who seems to have made no violins prior to writing a book, and apart from the few featured in it, never made any more after it was published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Wood Butcher said:

A google search was unable to turn up any Zuger violins. No photos of one, and none listed for sale anywhere, so now I'm confused.
Mr Zuger, do you make violins?

This is reminding me of the French guy, who seems to have made no violins prior to writing a book, and apart from the few featured in it, never made any more after it was published.

Just don't mention his name, and absolument don't say it 3 times in a row.......  :ph34r::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Andreas Preuss said:

For any discussion about Robert Zugers (Reguz) findings please use this thread. 

Note to the administrator: Please feel free to close at any time without prior notice. 

Would there be any benefit to a Layman investigating this? If for no other reason then to expand awareness of varying theories? Or is this like phlebotomy?

edit: PHRENOLOGY 

In college station Texas is a maker by the name of Nagyvery(I think) Who had a theory about a certain treatment of the wood Strad used, And made a number of violence based on that theory, one of which was owned by a colleague of mine, and sounded quite good. But I have not heard mention of him in many years.

Edited by PhilipKT
Link to comment
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.



×
×
  • Create New...