The Long Arch

[Andreas Preuss]

3 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Since no living person has seen any of these instruments when they were first finished, and we don't have any examples of these instruments which have never been under string tension, we simply don't know.

 

The closest we can get are the 1716 Medici Strad and the Messiah. (both seem to have a pretty round long arch with no flatness in the center) 

[Andreas Preuss]

17 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

I would be very interested to find out how that late Guarneri actually sounds, and get some kind of response plot from it.  These outliers can be very informative about how things work, and saves the effort of having to build one to find out.

Just reshape the arching of an existing instrument in a plaster cast. This will also take out of the equation uncertainties from different wood properties. My prediction on this is: no earthshaking differences if you flatten out the long arch under the fingerboard. 
 

Looking at other irregularities of late instruments by Guiseppe Guarneri del Gesu, I’d say he didn’t have complete control over what he was doing in details. And the fact that those instruments allegedly sound very good tells me that those details are not the important point to look for. During my experiments I arrived in between at a pretty weird top long arch, still I didn’t consider this as the main cause for sound malfunction. 

[Michael Darnton]

21 minutes ago, Andreas Preuss said:

The closest we can get are the 1716 Medici Strad and the Messiah. (both seem to have a pretty round long arch with no flatness in the center) 

That is certainly not what I see on the Messiah!

https://images.app.goo.gl/doAcxGR7yFdyd1BS7

[Davide Sora]

3 hours ago, David Burgess said:

The archings on the later Guarneris suggest that having come along late enough in the game to have had a chance to observe the shapes of instruments which had already been in use for a couple of hundred years, Del Gesu applied some pre-emptive top-distortion-reduction strategies. And that these may have been quite successful.

I also made the same assumption, it seems quite logical.

[David Beard]

5 hours ago, Davide Sora said:

I also made the same assumption, it seems quite logical.

It's not an issue of time, but of maker experimentation.

Del Gesu and then Guadagnini both at times exploring something getting closer toward the through arch for the top.  But never going as far as the later French and commercial makers.

Look at other Italian makers from same time and later.  Many did not experiment with rounding the top.  Montagnana, Seraphino, Peter of Venice, Bergonzi, etc.   So, it isn't a matter of age or time.

Also, some of the Italian makers that experimented toward a through archs also experiment with extremes the other way.  Guadagnini for example.

The correlation is to maker.  Not to time. Though, the fashion to experiment toward a through arch doesn't begin until mid 1700s, and isn't taken up earnestly until the French.

The period from 1800 to 1880 is very interesting this way.  We have many surviving examples instruments from differrnet schools.  And during this time, the new fashion was solidly used by some, and the old by others.  If you are willing to explore laying biases aside as best one can, you will find that current structure of these instruments depends on the makers choice, on the maker's approach, not the date.

[Dennis J]

Extended flat long arches can only be achieved by raising upper and lower bout heights. So the extremes are either a very high rounded or a very low, flat arching profile. Perhaps the ideal is somewhere between those two options.

[Marty Kasprzyk]

9 hours ago, David Burgess said:

The archings on the later Guarneris suggest that having come along late enough in the game to have had a chance to observe the shapes of instruments which had already been in use for a couple of hundred years, Del Gesu applied some pre-emptive top-distortion-reduction strategies. And that these may have been quite successful.

Do you think he made his tops thicker to also help reduce distortion?

[Andreas Preuss]

40 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Do you think he made his tops thicker to also help reduce distortion?

who knows? 
 
Some features of Guiseppe Guarneri del Gesus archings look pretty distorted. The area below the bass side f is on his late instruments always sunken in. I think it was already there when he made it. 
 

 

[Peter K-G]

What about the wood available for him?

[Andreas Preuss]

13 hours ago, David Burgess said:

The archings on the later Guarneris suggest that having come along late enough in the game to have had a chance to observe the shapes of instruments which had already been in use for a couple of hundred years, Del Gesu applied some pre-emptive top-distortion-reduction strategies. And that these may have been quite successful.

What is the estimated distortion on a baroque setup? 
 

I would think most of the very obvious distortions like a top sunken in around the bridge is rather recent. 

[David Burgess]

11 hours ago, David Beard said:

It's not an issue of time, but of maker experimentation.

Del Gesu and then Guadagnini both at times exploring something getting closer toward the through arch for the top.  But never going as far as the later French and commercial makers.

Look at other Italian makers from same time and later.  Many did not experiment with rounding the top.  Montagnana, Seraphino, Peter of Venice, Bergonzi, etc.   So, it isn't a matter of age or time.

Also, some of the Italian makers that experimented toward a through archs also experiment with extremes the other way.  Guadagnini for example.

The correlation is to maker.  Not to time. Though, the fashion to experiment toward a through arch doesn't begin until mid 1700s, and isn't taken up earnestly until the French.

My speculation is that both were factors. Being able to look back on violins up to two hundred years old, and noticing some common denominators (top arching distortions and neck projections dropping) would have provided greater incentive to tweak things around a bit, in search of solutions. Not by every maker, of course. Even today, makers have many different theories and approaches, and some notice things which others do not.

 

[David Burgess]

6 hours ago, Andreas Preuss said:

What is the estimated distortion on a baroque setup? 
 

Not too different from that of a modern setup. Without knowing the gauge (mass per unit length) of the strings used, and the local tuning (which varied by region), we can only speculate what the tensions and string loads were.

I suspect that one important reason nailed necks fell out of favor was the difficulty in resetting them when the neck angle changed.

7 hours ago, Andreas Preuss said:

I would think most of the very obvious distortions like a top sunken in around the bridge is rather recent. 

I don't see why. Violins (and violas) which are played much are in an especially challenging environment for wood, which becomes increasingly susceptible to bending and permanent distortion as moisture levels rise. The microclimate around the player's body, and particularly where the player exhales is very moist during playing. One can exhale on a hygrometer and see the numbers skyrocket.

Bruce Carlson has measured the weight gain and temperature increase during the short periods the Cannone is used for a performance.

[Andreas Preuss]

4 hours ago, David Burgess said:

I suspect that one important reason nailed necks fell out of favor was the difficulty in resetting them when the neck angle changed.

?

On a baroque setting it is much easier to raise the pitch by the fingerboard wedge.

————

For string tension I had made my own experiments. One thing is pretty clear to me, steel e strings are just a killer. Out of curiosity I tried to string up a violin without the back. The fingerboard drops considerably with tuning G D and A string but doesn’t go flat on the top. The E string alone just pulls down to the maximum and nothing can hold it. If you use a gut E string this doesn’t happen. 

[David Burgess]

13 minutes ago, Andreas Preuss said:

On a baroque setting it is much easier to raise the pitch by the fingerboard wedge.

The same can be done with a modern neck. But with either style, the neck/wedge/fingerboard starts to get pretty thick after raising it this way a few times, and the overstand changes (for better or worse)

 

21 minutes ago, Andreas Preuss said:

For string tension I had made my own experiments. One thing is pretty clear to me, steel e strings are just a killer. Out of curiosity I tried to string up a violin without the back. The fingerboard drops considerably with tuning G D and A string but doesn’t go flat on the top. The E string alone just pulls down to the maximum and nothing can hold it. If you use a gut E string this doesn’t happen.

Yes, steel E string tensions are quite a bit higher than any of the other three strings.

[Andreas Preuss]

3 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

The same can be done with a modern neck. But with either style, the neck/wedge/fingerboard starts to get pretty thick after raising it this way a few times, and the overstand changes (for better or worse)

The modern neck is not made for a fingerboard wedge from the beginning.

You could almost think that the baroque neck was made that way with a fingerboard wedge to adjust any neck dropping. Baroque necks are especially thick at the neck heel and you could also think this was done to have some meat to adjust the neck thickness after raising the wedge height if necessary.

Anyway, if we accept the fact that much of baroque construction method was done by trial and error then the observed dropping of the neck (as an error) would automatically get some attention in the construction method to solve the problem. And besides, why did it take 150 years to get to the better solution? 

[David Burgess]

1 hour ago, Andreas Preuss said:

The modern neck is not made for a fingerboard wedge from the beginning.

Whether the modern neck was made for this or not, it will accommodate a wedge just as easily as a baroque neck. It's mostly that wedges on modern necks have fallen out of fashion, and part of that has to do with the ease of resetting a mortised neck,  versus a through-neck or a nailed neck.

1 hour ago, Andreas Preuss said:

Anyway, if we accept the fact that much of baroque construction method was done by trial and error then the observed dropping of the neck (as an error) would automatically get some attention in the construction method to solve the problem. And besides, why did it take 150 years to get to the better solution?

Years one through ten, it probably wasn't much of an issue. Years ten through 30, it could probably have been dealt with by cutting down the bridge height. Years 30 through 100, it probably could have been dealt with using various fingerboard wedges.

By year 150 or 200 of these things going on, someone may have finally said (or thought) something along the lines of, "Houston, we have a problem". 

[jacobsaunders]

17 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

Whether the modern neck was made for this or not, it will accommodate a wedge just as easily as a baroque neck. It's mostly that wedges on modern necks have fallen out of fashion, and part of that has to do with the ease of resetting a mortised neck,  versus a through-neck or a nailed neck.

Years one through ten, it probably wasn't much of an issue. Years ten through 30, it could probably have been dealt with by cutting down the bridge height. Years 30 through 100, it probably could have been dealt with using various fingerboard wedges.

By year 150 or 200 of these things going on, someone may have finally said (or thought) something along the lines of, "Houston, we have a problem". 

I have often thought that the antique masters, particularly those making gambas, probably never imagined that people would still want to play their stuff 300 odd years later

[Don Noon]

40 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

I have often thought that the antique masters, particularly those making gambas, probably never imagined that people would still want to play their stuff 300 odd years later

Or even if they did imagine it, would they bother to do anything different, as long as no major problems developed while they still had their shop operating?  30 years sounds like a decent service life before needing major rework.

[David Burgess]

35 minutes ago, jacobsaunders said:

I have often thought that the antique masters, particularly those making gambas, probably never imagined that people would still want to play their stuff 300 odd years later

Yes, the forever-worship of of some of these instruments seems to have taken hold a bit later.

[Don Noon]

1 minute ago, David Burgess said:

Yes, the forever-worship of of some of these instruments seems to have taken hold a bit later.

And the extreme valuation that makes expensive restoration worthwhile.

[Andreas Preuss]

1 hour ago, David Burgess said:

Whether the modern neck was made for this or not, it will accommodate a wedge just as easily as a baroque neck. It's mostly that wedges on modern necks have fallen out of fashion, and part of that has to do with the ease of resetting a mortised neck,  versus a through-neck or a nailed neck.

Years one through ten, it probably wasn't much of an issue. Years ten through 30, it could probably have been dealt with by cutting down the bridge height. Years 30 through 100, it probably could have been dealt with using various fingerboard wedges.

By year 150 or 200 of these things going on, someone may have finally said (or thought) something along the lines of, "Houston, we have a problem". 

So why were modern necks longer and had a different profile? 
 

Necks sink in rather rapidly and then it slows down. 

[Andreas Preuss]

2 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Yes, steel E string tensions are quite a bit higher than any of the other three strings.

And it would be interesting who was the first to put a steel E string on the market.

[jacobsaunders]

23 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

And the extreme valuation that makes expensive restoration worthwhile.

Do you mean the old ones, or the new ones, after all, it seems like an awful lot of money to knock up a wooden box

7 minutes ago, Andreas Preuss said:

And it would be interesting who was the first to put a steel E string on the market.

I’m afraid I don’t know either, although I often shock people telling them that the first performances of the Mahler symphonies were played using blank gut E strings

[HoGo]

On 12/23/2021 at 4:16 PM, Don Noon said:

The Kreisler GdG is a nice example...

That is not Kreisler, Don. The LOC pics are mixed up with some other violin (presumably Strad). Kreisler doesn't have an ebony crown on button.

Good pic to see is pic of the three violins Vuillaume exhibited - Messiah, DU diable and one more Strad if I'm not mistaken and compare those pics to recent pics of the same violins. You can clearly see some diffference in top arch. I'm not at my computer so I cannot add the pics but they can be found online quite easily.

[Don Noon]

3 hours ago, HoGo said:

That is not Kreisler, Don. The LOC pics are mixed up with some other violin (presumably Strad). Kreisler doesn't have an ebony crown on button.

Good catch; I didn't noticer the LOC mixup.  But I see the other photos don't show an ebony crown.