string spacing angles from bridge to nut

[Marty Kasprzyk]

Does anybody have an idea why the strings on guitars are nearly parallel between the nut and bridge whereas the string spacing on violins are at a much steeper angle?

Is there a functional reason for this or is it another one of these "looks nice" things?  Apparently this has been happening for a long time.  Attached is a photo of a Stradivari guitar.

 

I would think it would be easier to learn string fingerings at all the various positions (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) if the strings were more parallel.

 

[Carl Stross]

Bowing needs more distance at the bridge than at the nut. The present distance at the nut is not ideal for all technical problems but it's close to an excellent average given the particular manner the left hand acts on the violin.

It's an excellent question.

[Violadamore]

Yup.  That and maybe preventing fingers hitting the wrong string when you're stretching way up the fingerboard. 

[Marty Kasprzyk]

Just now, Carl Stross said:

Bowing.

That's what I had first thought too but the same bowing angles can be maintained with a closer string spacing at the bridge if the bridge's radius of curvature is made smaller.

 

[Marty Kasprzyk]

3 minutes ago, Violadamore said:

Yup.  That and maybe preventing fingers hitting the wrong string when you're stretching way up the fingerboard. 

 

3 minutes ago, Violadamore said:

Yup.  That and maybe preventing fingers hitting the wrong string when you're stretching way up the fingerboard. 

Yes that's true but, in the other direction towards the nut,  a wider string spacing would help prevent fingers from hitting the wrong strings too.

[David Burgess]

8 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

That's what I had first thought too but the same bowing angles can be maintained with a closer string spacing at the bridge if the bridge's radius of curvature is made smaller.

 

If the bridge radius is decreased much, you run into c-bout clearance issues when playing the top and bottom strings.

[Carl Stross]

1 minute ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

 

Yes that's true but, in the other direction towards the nut,  a wider string spacing would help prevent fingers from hitting the wrong strings too.

Take Sevcik's Trill Studies in 1st and you'll immediately see you're running out of finger length and a wider distance at the nut becomes a liability. Same time, for many chords a wider distance ( and/or a flatter fingerboard ) would help a lot. For other chords, not. It'd a tricky one and I actually heard it discussed quite a bit. Many modern players, in particular tall ones ( boys and girls ) have hands so large with fingers so long, they might benefit from a fingerboard wider at the nut.

[Muswell]

On classical guitar you will be playing chords, or holding chord positions, all the way up the fretboard. If the strings are further apart than they need to be then some stretches will be more difficult but they must be far enough apart to avoid fouling adjacent strings. However, where the strings are plucked they need to be far enough apart to make both the main finger strokes possible, which is likely why the spacing goes from circa 44 to circa 59 for scale length 650.

[Andreas Preuss]

For violins mostly technical reasons seem to be responsible for the spacing between the strings at the top nut and the bridge.
 

A wider neck must be uncomfortable to hold. I can’t imagine how a wide neck  could work for pieces like Bach’s chaconne. 
 

For the acoustic one might wonder what would happen if strings have much less spacing on the  bridge  My guess would be that bass resonances get weaker.

[Marty Kasprzyk]

16 hours ago, David Burgess said:

If the bridge radius is decreased much, you run into c-bout clearance issues when playing the top and bottom strings.

That's what I thought too at first but I found if the bridge radius is decreased it should also be made slightly higher.  Then exactly the same bowing angles and c-bout clearance can be maintained.

Attached are: A scan of a typical bridge templet, a trace of its top shape, and a superimposed drawing showing the narrower string spacings (o) and smaller bridge radius (dashed line).

[Marty Kasprzyk]

31 minutes ago, Andreas Preuss said:

For violins mostly technical reasons seem to be responsible for the spacing between the strings at the top nut and the bridge.
 

A wider neck must be uncomfortable to hold. I can’t imagine how a wide neck  could work for pieces like Bach’s chaconne. 
 

For the acoustic one might wonder what would happen if strings have much less spacing on the  bridge  My guess would be that bass resonances get weaker.

I've always made my violins with standard neck shape but I don't understand why a neck's wider width at higher fingering positions is comfortable while if the same width is used near the nut it is then suddenly uncomfortable.

Maybe if it is different it must be bad.

I could file a new G notch on a bridge to give a narrower string spacing and see if I can detect a change in sound but I would perfer a good player to try this.

[Violadamore]

1 hour ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

I've always made my violins with standard neck shape but I don't understand why a neck's wider width at higher fingering positions is comfortable while if the same width is used near the nut it is then suddenly uncomfortable.

IMHO, because you don't play the whole concert way, way up there, and no, it's not as comfortable as the lower positions. 

[Carl Stross]

46 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

I've always made my violins with standard neck shape but I don't understand why a neck's wider width at higher fingering positions is comfortable while if the same width is used near the nut it is then suddenly uncomfortable.

In higher positions the hand aspect is very different. Somehow, it's more piano like, if that helps. There's a transition depending on the hand shape/size, it could be around 5th - you may remember that finding your "ground" at the start of the arpeggios in the Chaconne can be  uncomfortable. That's right in the middle of the transition for an average male hand. If you have the time and disposition I suggest you look over Sevcik's Trill studies ( both books ) - there you'll find many examples ( arguments...) of why things are as they are and there isn't that much space to tweak the, Though I think there might be some as it seems to me that the ideal hand size for violin is not what it used to be.

[David Burgess]

2 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

That's what I thought too at first but I found if the bridge radius is decreased it should also be made slightly higher.

Yes, the C-bout clearance can be maintained with a smaller radius bridge, if the bridge is extra-high enough.

2 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Then exactly the same bowing angles and c-bout clearance can be maintained.

I disagree that the same bowing angles will be maintained.

[Marty Kasprzyk]

50 minutes ago, Violadamore said:

IMHO, because you don't play the whole concert way, way up there, and no, it's not as comfortable as the lower positions. 

So why isn't the neck made narrower at the high positions?

[David Burgess]

20 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

So why isn't the neck made narrower at the high positions?

The greater difficulty playing in higher positions is not due to the neck width, in my opinion.

[Violadamore]

52 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

So why isn't the neck made narrower at the high positions?

Marty, why don't you put a copy of this thread on The Fingerboard. to gather more player responses?   I'm just "advanced".  I'd like to see what some of the serious, "I started at 5 years old", orchestral, contest, soloist, and teaching professionals have to say about this.  Whatever the makers and restorers tell you, the final jury is going to be the players. 

[chiaroscuro_violins]

/

[Evan Smith]

1 hour ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

So why isn't the neck made narrower at the high positions?

With the increase in string height there is the necessity of an increase in string distance apart from each other to allow for clean string manipulation. When pushing a string down in the upper positions, the D and A string are being pushed down between adjoining strings, the room is needed, as a player I can see in no other way.

In making mandolins I had an idea about all of this, most mandolins have flat fingerboards. I thought that a tight radius at the nut would be better because I disliked the fact that when the strings are fingered they are pushed down in between the other strings in  all positions. In the lower positions that necessitates pushing down upon and bumping more strings than desired, and because they are closer together, add the double strings ,,, THAT equates into a lot of extra work.

Making music should not be work.

I proposed making a tight radius at the nut to some pros and sellers of high end things,, Loyd Loars, etc. My idea was a tighter radius than ever heard of, and I was told "Won't work, it will feel like playing on a garden hose" I know that there is no problem playing all of the same things on a violin so I did it anyway. I used a compound radius so it ended up at 10.5 at the bridge, that is about tight a radius that can be flatpicked comfortably. It is difficult to flatpick outside of a certain range, too flat and there is a hole in the middle, too much radius and the outside strings are difficult to reach with a lump in the middle.

Absolutely everyone that has played this setup has loved it, it is comfortable, plays very clean, easy and very fast.

The string widths, and distances on all instruments are all optimized for optimal performance,,,

Evan

Will try most anything once, somethings twice.

 

[Carl Stross]

1 hour ago, Evan Smith said:

With the increase in string height there is the necessity of an increase in string distance apart from each other to allow for clean string manipulation. When pushing a string down in the upper positions, the D and A string are being pushed down between adjoining strings, the room is needed,

Excellent point. 

[Carl Stross]

2 hours ago, Violadamore said:

I'd like to see what some of the serious, "I started at 5 years old", orchestral, contest, soloist, and teaching professionals have to say about this.

What's wrong with us who started before 3 y/o ? Are we not "serious" ?

[Violadamore]

Just now, Carl Stross said:

What's wrong with us who started before 3 y/o ? Are we not "serious" ?

I decided to include "obsessed" with "serious". 

[martin swan]

As Evan says, when playing in high positions the very act of stopping the string to form a note moves the string physically far more than in low positions. So you need more spacing and clearance in order that the bow doesn't catch other strings.

[Andreas Preuss]

6 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

I've always made my violins with standard neck shape but I don't understand why a neck's wider width at higher fingering positions is comfortable while if the same width is used near the nut it is then suddenly uncomfortable.

Maybe if it is different it must be bad.

I could file a new G notch on a bridge to give a narrower string spacing and see if I can detect a change in sound but I would perfer a good player to try this.

In high positions fingers get very close to each other in string direction. For playing double stops you need space across the strings. 

[Andreas Preuss]

2 hours ago, Evan Smith said:

I proposed making a tight radius at the nut to some pros and sellers of high end things,, Loyd Loars, etc. My idea was a tighter radius than ever heard of, and I was told "Won't work, it will feel like playing on a garden hose" I know that there is no problem playing all of the same things on a violin so I did it anyway. I used a compound radius so it ended up at 10.5 at the bridge, that is about tight a radius that can be flatpicked comfortably. It is difficult to flatpick outside of a certain range, too flat and there is a hole in the middle, too much radius and the outside strings are difficult to reach with a lump in the middle.

Interesting idea. so this means that the fingerboard radius at the top nut is very tight and gradually becomes flatter towards the bridge, correct?

10.5 at the bridge? I don’t understand what you mean.