Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

wolves and tension


tartarine
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi I am in two minds about my cello repair:

Moitessier Cello , nicely made, nice varnish Label says 1885 ,

Two very bad wolves on D and A , un unsane projection of 89 at the bridge. Officially I though that pulling the tension down (Neck out and refit on 80, 82 ), should produce more wolves , so I don't know if it is not better to open the cello, make a little bar or patch where the wolves are, , adjust a new stronger bar to make more tension, try to take down the projection as much as possible with the neck/table further down

 I don’t want to put too much tension on the back though

What do you think ?

What would you suggest ?

At the moment I  have an amazing high bridge, so I could ,I guess ,cut it down just leaving enough clearance to play which would may be help me to determine whether the wolves are getting better or worth ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Darnton said:

 I have never heard the idea that a lower bridge makes more wolf.

If everything else remains the same, a lower bridge wil reduce the force excerted on the top plate. The idea is that less tension/force on the top plate frees it up to vibrate more freely, hence strengthening the wolf tone. Wether or not this idea has merit is beyond my knowledge, but I've heard about this idea very often. Also often in connection with string gauge choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. I have seen a few cellos with 89mm pitch. None of them have really worked well until the neck was reset. We are currently using 83 mm max, but with a 23 mm insert to compensate for that. We started doing that because Aubert Belgian bridges had grown to where they didn't fit 81 mm, but also saw an immediate improvement in sound and also playability with the 83/23 strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Darnton said:

 but with a 23 mm insert to compensate for that. We started doing that because Aubert Belgian bridges had grown to where they didn't fit 81 mm, but also saw an immediate improvement in sound and also playability with the 83/23 strategy.

I'm having difficulty to understand what an "insert" could possibly be.

I own a cheap chinese cello I use for teaching (can cycle with it in a gig bag and still feel relaxed). It has a 90 MM pitch and works ok. Not particularly great but also no weird instabilities, really, so I'm a bit surprised. Though the neck overstand is also somewhat high, so that may be compensating for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We use that for any cello through the shop but we don't deal in spanking fresh instruments.

My experience with new instruments is uneven as regards predicting drop. My own violins don't drop at all now. Before I attacked that problem they would drop 2 mm. So I think that's a personal thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2022 at 3:59 PM, baroquecello said:

I own a cheap chinese cello I use for teaching (can cycle with it in a gig bag and still feel relaxed). It has a 90 MM pitch and works ok. Not particularly great but also no weird instabilities, really, so I'm a bit surprised. Though the neck overstand is also somewhat high, so that may be compensating for it.

Yes, a high overstand can compensate for a high "neck projection", as far as reducing the downward force on the bridge, not that there aren't other things involved like the increased mass of a higher bridge.

7 hours ago, todd goldenberg said:

quick question

is the 83/23 the set up for a new cello.

do you allow for some settling in a new cello

I do consider some settling. The first time I used a cross-grain spline in a cello neck, I didn't know for sure if it would have any value or not. So I set the neck in about 10mm high, which had become my custom, since I considered 5-7m,m to be an average drop with either a fresh cello neck graft, or a new cello, over  span of about ten years, in a climate with high humidity cycling.

About ten years later, same cello, Rene Morel called me on the phone. "Davide, we have your cello in zee shop for a new breege. You has set zee neck too high, and we has to add wood to zee bridge feet". :)

That wasn't my first clue that this was working, but probably my first after ten years of a cello being on the East Coast.

But I still set in a new cello neck about 3mm high, because not all subsequent neck drop is due solely to bending of the neck heel.

While owners of older instruments may expect rather expensive routine maintenance, including periodic neck resets, it seems that owners of newer instruments do not, so I've put a lot of effort into trying to meet new owner's expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I insert a 1/2" dowell in the neck/root of a new cello.  You can set the overstand on the button--this dowell stabilizes the neck.

AS far as wolves on A and D, look for the resonance region on the treble side of the instrument.  If you use a Krentz unit, insert it below the soundpost and experiment with the position.  The wolf is probably on the G-string as well---fix that with a weight on the afterlength.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, David Burgess said:

>

While owners of older instruments may expect rather expensive routine maintenance, including periodic neck resets, it seems that owners of newer instruments do not, so I've put a lot of effort into trying to meet new owner's expectations.

Whenever something fails over and over again in the same way it means the original design/material choice is no ____ing good (unless you business is a repair shop).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mike_Danielson said:

I insert a 1/2" dowell in the neck/root of a new cello.  You can set the overstand on the button--this dowell stabilizes the neck.

AS far as wolves on A and D, look for the resonance region on the treble side of the instrument.  If you use a Krentz unit, insert it below the soundpost and experiment with the position.  The wolf is probably on the G-string as well---fix that with a weight on the afterlength.  

that is a good idea thanks

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually when I was studying violin making back in the 80s, we learned that the crux of the matter was the angle of the strings on the bridge , and only that was important and not the height itself, like you can have a 84 degree angle at 23/83, 24/84 aso

we talked a lot about Russell's experiment, and I never knew if he really was right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2022 at 3:04 PM, Melvin Goldsmith said:

I'd normally expect a cello to wolf around E to F# ....I would attribute weird notes on D and A to something loose and unglued

I agree with Melvin. This seems like it could possibly be a case of noticing “atypical structural detail A” and “unwanted musical effect X” and then assuming that A caused X.  

Correlation is not causation, as we all know. There are lots of red herrings in the musical instrument world — this could be one.

I would guess that an unglued part is a likely culprit, as Melvin said. Unglued parts can cause all sorts of weird resonances and tonal problems, and the notes the OP mentioned are not in the typical wolf range. 

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...