Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Fingerboard top surface scooping.


Elie H.

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, DarylG said:

Could you explain why the fingerboard becomes convex as the humidity increases?

Because due to moisture absorption the free part of the fingerboard goes down, the opposite happens when the environment becomes dry (this is an effect that takes a few days, it is not immediate). The fingerboard will become convex (or if you prefer, a bump would form at the end of the neck, which is about halfway up the fingerboard) if it were perfectly straight at the start, if it were with a scoop it would flatten without becoming convex, hopefully. It depends on the starting conditions. On thin fingerboards these movements are usually more noticeable.

You can verify this with a simple "scientific" (:)) test, try to wet the fingerboard surface and see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 hours ago, Elie H. said:

I believe that what works for classical violin players should work for electric players , since most of them are classically trained. Maybe there's a distinction with fiddlers which prefer less scoop in general from what I understood. Thank you for your dimensions. very insightful. 

It is true that different players have different preferences, but I thought that maybe there's some scoop dimensions that would provide an optimal fingerboard for most players, leaving the customized solution for specific cases.

A fingerboard (or a violin) that is good for everyone I think is the dream of every maker:).

In my opinion, a fingerboard with a slightly differentiated scoop  is the most universal, but we are always in the field of preferences and opinions and I think it is impossible to get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Davide Sora said:

A fingerboard (or a violin) that is good for everyone I think is the dream of every maker:).

In my opinion, a fingerboard with a slightly differentiated scoop  is the most universal, but we are always in the field of preferences and opinions and I think it is impossible to get out.

Thank you for your insight on this topic! very helpful. 

Yes I think that it is difficult to find a universal fit and it's a matter of preferences otherwise we would have seen a supermajority in the study MJ performed :lol:,

Interesting though I have met some pretty advanced and exceptional violinists who were literally "magicians", they could perform so well on literally any generally properly set up instrument without having any playability issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Elie H. said:

Interesting though I have met some pretty advanced and exceptional violinists who were literally "magicians", they could perform so well on literally any generally properly set up instrument without having any playability issue.

Yep, this is one of the problems in establishing a standard.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, bungling_amateur said:

Thank you for this Marty, we have an old fiddle with a warped / twisted neck, I always wondered why it didn't seem to cause any problems with playability... perhaps this is one reason it is so nice to play!

P1120938.JPG

Great photo!  thanks

It shows the level bridge and level end of the fingerboard much better than my photo.  

I wonder what's the best amount of twist.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe what you are looking for is "catenoid" if your CAD system can create that shape. A section out of one is actually the ideal shape for a fingerboard.  Here's what one looks like.  This one is way to fat.  Imagine stretching this shape out very tall so the top is the radius at the nut, and bottom is radius at bridge...  It would be almost a cone. Almost. A cone with a little bit of a waste.  Then chop a section out of it, and wala.

catenoid.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 2/22/2021 at 7:27 PM, nathan slobodkin said:

Some one who worked for Carl Becker told me that he actually made the "radius" slightly flatter on the E side to give a more solid feel and prevent the fingers from sliding off to that side.

image.png.647ceabc1d7c27b1b23b5c12bd988387.png

Screenshot 2023-02-02 at 10.56.35 AM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jluthier said:
1 hour ago, Jluthier said:

image.png.647ceabc1d7c27b1b23b5c12bd988387.png

 

You can have any amount longitudinal scoop and lateral scoop that you want all the while still having a 42mm radius.

The attached photo shows my coiled up vacuum cleaner hose which has a constant radius along its length.  I suppose  I could slice it up to show various longitudinal and lateral edge scoops but I hope you can get the idea.

 

hose.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Michael Darnton said:

Did you really mean to say that the board is .5mm thick at the nut???? If so, I really doubt that Carl would have been the one to plane that--he should have absolutely insisted on a new board. So the Q is when did Carl last touch that violin?

Yes, that was a typo.  Thanks for pointing it out.  That would have been a really thin fingerboard! To my knowledge, the violin was purchased by my father in law in the early 60's and except for string changes has not had any work done on it.  Col Montgomery took very good care of it!  

17 hours ago, Strad O Various Jr. said:

i think he meant cm not mm

 Yes, .50 cm or 5.0 mm etc.  Thanks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha!  At first I could only see your vacuum hose and thought it was a pictorial comment on the value of my post (and that could still be right).  In answer to your actual comment, I think you are correct.  MJ Kwan has addressed this in detail.  It appears that the string surface scoop gap goal of 0.75mm, 0.50mm, and 0.25mm dictates a 38 mm radius, not the lateral scoop gap.  Thanks for putting me straight.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jluthier said:

 I should probably make a scoop micrometer like Davide shows in his video.  

 

Highly recommended. Easy to make and inexpensive, it makes this kind of measurement much easier, faster, and more accurate than the straightedge and thickness gauges method.

1363393500_DSC_5501ridReliefgauge.thumb.jpg.e1c4e48fdd3764c662072c96117b5fa2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2021 at 6:22 PM, David Burgess said:

A constant radius template does not cause scoop. A good player needs the scoop. Without it, the angle at which the string departs from the fingerboard will be too shallow in the lower positions, resulting in a less clean sound, and buzzing when bowing aggressively or playing pizzicato.

did you experience or assume this? Here in Munich are quite a few well respected luthiers who make the boards without scoop at all on the e, and almost no scoop on e. At least with the boards i did without scoop and pirazzi golds i was not able to produce buzzing. On the other hand it makes double stop intonation easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Michael Szyper said:

did you experience or assume this? Here in Munich are quite a few well respected luthiers who make the boards without scoop at all on the e, and almost no scoop on e. At least with the boards i did without scoop and pirazzi golds i was not able to produce buzzing. On the other hand it makes double stop intonation easier.

I’ve certainly experienced this!  It also give strong players much greater flexibility when playing hard without pushing the string into the fingerboard and choking the sound, not to mention a bit more latitude for wear.  I have NO doubt that having a well shaped scoop results in a cleaner sound, just as David has said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "scoop" is called relief among guitar or mandolin guys and is clearly necessary with some playing styles or techniques. You can test it easily on a guitar that has trussrod that controls amount of relief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Davide Sora said:

Highly recommended. Easy to make and inexpensive, it makes this kind of measurement much easier, faster, and more accurate than the straightedge and thickness gauges method.

1363393500_DSC_5501ridReliefgauge.thumb.jpg.e1c4e48fdd3764c662072c96117b5fa2.jpg

Thanks! I'll make one.

Where should the maximum amount of scoop be along the fingerboard--half way or some other fraction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Does the amount of scoop depend upon the height of the strings above the fingerboard at the nut end?

No, unless you go so low at the nut that you have to compensate with the scoop of the fingerboard to get the necessary elevation of the strings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Does the amount of scoop depend upon the height of the strings above the fingerboard at the nut end?

It could when playing an open string, but on a fingered note, the height of the nut would be mostly irrelevant, other than  for comfort and feel.

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...