Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Let's talk about Ground


joerobson

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, MANFIO said:

I don't want Strad's varnsih... I want the ground and varnish Andrea Amati used in the "CARLO IX" 1566 violin in the Cremona Museum...

Even if you had the exact materials and application, I think you'd have to wait 455 years for one of your instruments to look like that.  Assuming the wood you started with was similar, and your instrument lived a similar lifestyle, whatever that was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 323
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

28 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

Even if you had the exact materials and application, I think you'd have to wait 455 years for one of your instruments to look like that.  Assuming the wood you started with was similar, and your instrument lived a similar lifestyle, whatever that was.

Yes but, on the other hand, the "Messiah" looks quite new, the same for the "Alard" del Gesù, and others in mint condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No filler makes sense on hardwood, so all maple parts.

Filler makes sense on spruce parts.

(just my opinion)

Dosis is the key to make it look nice or ugly.

Scientific findings usually open only a very, very tiny window of the truth and we should be very careful to make generalizations from ONE research result. 

i take research results as idea driving fuel. 
 

Let’s stay on the ground. (Pun intended)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael_Molnar said:

I have two theories explaining Echard’s detection of linseed oil in the ground. The first is that he is detecting a thin emulsion of linseed oil and an organic medium used as a wood primer. The second is that his method of detecting linseed oil is being confused by an organic medium that interferes with forming the spectral profile he uses. 

I am waiting for confirmation of his detection by another research group using a different method if possible.

As for particulates in the ground, they are there in Cremonese violins because that was the standard artistic method of the day. I agree with Joe that they are not needed to get a great looking instrument. As I said before, are you trying to reproduce an historically accurate mock-up or a great looking instrument, perhaps better than Strad?
 

 

The best way to apply an oil ground is to rub very small amounts onto the wood. So the protein will be keratin from dead skin cells. 

Also I want to know why the Cremona researchers don't acknowledge his findings and insist on their own casein hypothesis?

Also, just listen to the difference in sound. It's night and day.

Yes, I want to reproduce the old ground.  The 'Varnish' layer or layers in my case will inevitability be different, so I'm going for looks and toughness and hardness, which hopefully add some brightness to the sound.

The bottom line is, either myself and Échard are delusional or we aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sospiri said:

So yes, an emulsion. Linseed oil and keratin.

Échard didn't find protein though and this also ties in with my hypothesis, since the amounts of keratin could be be very small.

Be careful.  'Didn't find' and 'proved none present' are completely different statements.    It's wrong to conclude the 2nd from the 1st.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, sospiri said:

Yes David, that's my point.

Sizings, stains, and mordents were frequently used in other artisan finishing methods of the time.

In fact, not sizing wood as a preliminary step would be unusual.

However, sizings didn't have to be protein.  Resins can and were also used to size.

My pointing being that in terms of historical context, saying that a protein size was never used would be a big claim, requiring strong evidence across many examples.  Wasn't used in some examples would be an easier claim, but still isn't something to claim without actual evidence. And, 'wasn't found' is not evidence at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt lots of methods were used and still are.

The Casein preparation may be very loud and projecting better than my method. 

I'm very interested in all the research and the different methods. Especially the ones that Échard hypothesises.

His research has been hugely inspiring to me. I tried to tell you all about this in 2017, but none of you showed much interest. I found this strange. And if you read the thread from December 2009 you might understand why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Don Noon said:

Even if you had the exact materials and application, I think you'd have to wait 455 years for one of your instruments to look like that.  Assuming the wood you started with was similar, and your instrument lived a similar lifestyle, whatever that was.

And yet some antiquers are fooling us, shame on them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sospiri said:

Echard's findings and other people's opinions and experiments over the last 200+ years.

This is far too broad to discuss in any coherent way.  Even discussing what researchers considering old Cremonese varnish systems have found in the last 20 years is hugely fraught.  Making sense of each individual study, the nature of the sample material and the analytical techniques involved and what they are capable of detecting or not is hard enough.  

Origin of sample material is fundamental and having micro-sample material has advantages.  Echard has been particularly well placed in this respect.  While Echard's findings may seem to be at odds with other research findings, reading his various studies and those of his colleagues and students can soften this impression.

I suspect that there is still a lot to discover in terms of what materials might or might not be present in old Cremonese varnish systems, where they are situated and in precisely what form.  And then there is the issue of how they might have got there.  (Application methodology and subsequent history is hugely significant.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Andreas Preuss said:

 

Scientific findings usually open only a very, very tiny window of the truth and we should be very careful to make generalizations from ONE research result. 

i take research results as idea driving fuel. 
 

Let’s stay on the ground. (Pun intended)

 

Well said Andreas.  The current scientific analysis has been a great help...particularly Brandmair and Echard.   Understanding that the materials we use are unchanged.  That puts the responsibility on us to use these materials in a way that accomplishes the task.

Each ground process and material will deeply effect your end result.

Under varnish oil looks different from proteins.  Varnish does something else.  Balsams are wholly different.   It takes eye training.

Another reason.to examine as many instruments new and old as possible. 

on we go,

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the consensus allow oil to permeate into the wood? 

As for myself I have always used eggwhite or sugar seal.  Both are water based thus leaving behind solids after water has dissapated.  I can't say if the first layers of oil do or don't make it through though - might have to send sample work to Stross/Sospiri et al for testing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, joerobson said:

Well said Andreas.  The current scientific analysis has been a great help...particularly Brandmair and Echard.   Understanding that the materials we use are unchanged.  That puts the responsibility on us to use these materials in a way that accomplishes the task.

Each ground process and material will deeply effect your end result.

Under varnish oil looks different from proteins.  Varnish does something else.  Balsams are wholly different.   It takes eye training.

Another reason.to examine as many instruments new and old as possible. 

on we go,

Joe

 I would be however interested to hear your opinion about the application of a different ground on different types of wood. (spruce and maple)

Just reading things about ancient wood technology and knowledge, it was all pretty detailed in terms what sort of wood was good for what purpose and we find also in some varnish recipes mentioned on which material it should be applied.

For this reason I am always suspicious about same procedures for maple and spruce when it comes to what goes directly into the wood. (Therefater it seems to be reasonable to apply the same color varnish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, sospiri said:

Also I want to know why the Cremona researchers don't acknowledge his findings and insist on their own casein hypothesis?

Researchers try to find something other researchers did not find so far. Therefore it is natural that research A is different parameters than research B. In serious research papers you find a long list of previous published materials and this is at least a reference to what has been taken into account for the research itself. 

Scientists usually don't apologize for or correct previously made mistakes. It would harm their reputation as a scientist. (Back in the late 1980s there was a scientist who discovered the astonishing number of 12 different layers on a Strad varnish, including a layer of pure soot! And this stirred up the violin world, making him the research hero! (Can PM you the name) I am still waiting for a correction of this finding because he presented layers of dirt and polish as Strads varnish. (I would call this scientific misrepresentation) The really funny thing about it is that in scientific terms you can base on this finding further research and claim it to be a sort of truth as long as there is no refute or correction to it.)

Another interesting thing about science is that, scientists (naturally) talk about the things they CAN find with a given method, but they don't talk about what they can't find. I see this as the assumption of a scientific mind that everybody must know what they can't find with a given method. However often this is not so evident for the laymen we are facing science. 

So I stopped to think about why research A is different from research B and why researcher A is not talking to researcher B to find out the reasons why there is a contradiction. I fact we can't expect them to solve problems we are facing in a workshop to build good sounding instruments. They can only give us clues what to do and eventually what to avoid.

6 hours ago, sospiri said:

The Casein preparation may be very loud and projecting better than my method. 

I would be interested to know more about this. Is it in your previous threads? (I might have missed it because I am participating here actively since 2018)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Andreas Preuss said:

Researchers try to find something other researchers did not find so far. Therefore it is natural that research A is different parameters than research B. In serious research papers you find a long list of previous published materials and this is at least a reference to what has been taken into account for the research itself. 

Scientists usually don't apologize for or correct previously made mistakes. It would harm their reputation as a scientist. (Back in the late 1980s there was a scientist who discovered the astonishing number of 12 different layers on a Strad varnish, including a layer of pure soot! And this stirred up the violin world, making him the research hero! (Can PM you the name) I am still waiting for a correction of this finding because he presented layers of dirt and polish as Strads varnish. (I would call this scientific misrepresentation) The really funny thing about it is that in scientific terms you can base on this finding further research and claim it to be a sort of truth as long as there is no refute or correction to it.)

Another interesting thing about science is that, scientists (naturally) talk about the things they CAN find with a given method, but they don't talk about what they can't find. I see this as the assumption of a scientific mind that everybody must know what they can't find with a given method. However often this is not so evident for the laymen we are facing science. 

So I stopped to think about why research A is different from research B and why researcher A is not talking to researcher B to find out the reasons why there is a contradiction. I fact we can't expect them to solve problems we are facing in a workshop to build good sounding instruments. They can only give us clues what to do and eventually what to avoid.

I would be interested to know more about this. Is it in your previous threads? (I might have missed it because I am participating here actively since 2018)

Yes there are publishing biases, and these are driven by the publishers (mostly). What researchers are striving to do is create new knowledge. Not confirm someone else's work. Also it is very difficult to publish non-significant findings. Knowing what doesn't work, or has no causal effect is very important, but you're unlikely to see it in a journal article unless the rest of the article is showing positive results with meaningful conclusions.

Letters of correction are made either by the researcher or in critical commentary by colleagues. You're unlikely to see these without being a subscriber to that publication.

Just as we have the VSA and Oberlin, and forums, Scientist have conventions, workshops, forums and working groups that are narrowly focused in their area of study. This is where information not ready for publication, and unpublished work is discussed, as well as the latest new discoveries (so long as you're giving away the information to someone that can beat you to publication).

The other venue that is free (mostly) of publication bias is in the grey literature. These are published works (research and reports) held within industry and institution. Unfortunately, access to the grey literature is limited for the general public. 

Bottom line, researches know much more than what they've published, because not all of the information is publishable. That doesn't mean it lacks importance. It's not that different from what top makers and restores know vs. what they've published. If you follow a particular researchers work (e.g., Echard, Brandmair, etc.), subscribe to the journals they publish in. Go to the convention they give presentations at. Even start correspondance with them if you have something in return to help their research.

Time for more coffee.

Cheers,

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Andreas Preuss said:

Scientists usually don't apologize for or correct previously made mistakes.

If this was generally true, I would not expect the technological advances we have seen over the past decades. I will not dispute that there are researchers more concerned with their reputations than the pursuit of truth. But at least in the areas of physics and materials research, the ones I am most familiar with, publishing error-free research and correcting mistakes borders on a psychological sickness.

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...