Graduations for Response to Hard Bowing

[David Stiles]

I am contemplating final graduations for my latest violin (no.4).   I am making it for an experienced player who has commented on my last violin that, though it is easy bowing and strong, it does not respond well to hard bowing.  It does not want to go louder.   I want to adjust for this in my current build however after reading lots, I am confused.  I have read that this sort of difference is epitomized in Strad vs Del Gesu. 

What should I do?  I have plates nearly complete.  I have made my arching is a little lower than previous as both the belly and back are slightly higher density.  I am currently at similar graduations to previous however have higher tap tones.  I am tempted to leave as is but would like some input.  I know than many here would recommend going as lighter than I am currently but is that what I need?

Here are my current numbers:  

Belly:  0.41g/cm3, arching 15.5mm, weight 73g with bass bar, 3.1mm centre, 2.2mm upper bout, 2.3mm lower bout, M1 94, M2 170, M5 369

Back: 0.63g/cm3, arching 15.3mm, weight 108g, 4.4mm centre, 2.2mm upper bout, 2.3mm lower bout, M1 108, M2 170, M5 372

 

[Mark Norfleet]

Working well for a strong player comes from sound adjustment in addition to being structurally up to the task.  Adjustment is far easier and faster to experiment with than graduations and arching.

Good Luck!

[The Violin Beautiful]

If you’re looking for more ability to dig in, the plate thicknesses you list seem on the thin side. I certainly wouldn’t want to take any more wood out.

Edit: Just saw Mark Norfleet’s comment. I agree that adjustment has a big impact, although I will say that a violin that’s too thin will limit what you can do to adjust. 

[Don Noon]

In isolation, the graduations might look thin.  But considering the relatively high density and plate weights, I'd think they're appropriate.  If the taptones were low, I might think again... but they don't look low to me.

[David Burgess]

7 hours ago, David Stiles said:

What should I do?

I would make the entire violin a bit stiffer than you normally do.

[Michael Szyper]

IMO your question is about vibrations. In the end there seems to be a hierarchy of influences which applies to most sound/vibration aspects

1.arching

2. arching

3. arching

4. Inner arching

5. setup/model/etc.

 

imo, plate weights, frequencies and thicknesses are only a result of wood and model choice as well as your arching concept.

[Marty Kasprzyk]

Glue a 20g weight on the top plate near the bridge.

[Davide Sora]

9 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Glue a 20g weight on the top plate near the bridge.

on which side?

[Michael Darnton]

13 hours ago, David Stiles said:

though it is easy bowing and strong,

This is pretty much the opposite type of making from what that player wants. Another way to say it is that your violin just dumps out everything it has to the first person who comes along with a bow, leaving nothing in reserve. As if the violin doesn't have volume and tone controls, but only an on/off switch. While great for beginners, kids, less sophisticated players, etc, who are lacking precise control (which is the largest market for new violins, so I can't knock having that goal), for someone more experienced this can make it hard to modulate volume and personality. 

By making a somewhat less efficient violin you can leave characteristics and volume somewhat more hidden, needing to be specifically dragged out by force when needed, which requires skill and intent. Usually this means making a violin heavier and more resistant, in just the right ways. (A violin which resists all efforts by anyone isn't a good thing, either.)

The making approach you've taken is the opposite of what does this. That's why I'm down on tuning, because in the examples I've seen it appears that what is accomplished is to make a violin which responds in a particular pre-programmed way, not able to be changed, with the maximum of resonance/ring/whatever, easily delivered. I've even heard tuners brag that you can't play their violin to sound ugly, that they have limited it to make only The Good Sound. Play it and you only can get what the maker intentionally built into it, and that comes pretty easily, but you're out of luck if you want something else. Good luck getting tuners to realize that, though--I've seen people grasp pretty hard to claim that their violin is sophisticated when it just isn't.

I also don't understand why you would use a later German graduation scheme--making modern German factory violins isn't most makers' objective. The plan used by the best historical makers is quite different.

[Don Noon]

6 minutes ago, Michael Darnton said:

...Usually this means making a violin heavier and more resistant, in just the right ways. ...

I picked out the one vaguely helful sentence out of a pile of descriptions of how bad everything else can be.  It would be even more helpful to give your opinion of what "in just the right ways" might be, rather than giving the impression of having the keys to success that nobody else has, and won't tell.  If you consider these to be trade secrets, fine... just say they are hard-earned lessons you don't want to divulge.

[Marty Kasprzyk]

I suggest using a thin 0.5mm thick steel disk having a diameter of 82mm bent to the same contour as the arch shape placed in the center point such that both bridge feet are resting on it.  This steel disk will add both stiffness and mass to the center area of the top plate.  Sort of a reverse of reverse graduation.

It should be glued in place with flexible contact cement which will make the steel disk act as a constrained viscous layer damper.  The greatly increased damping, mass and stiffness should make the violin harder to play.

 

[Don Noon]

Just now, Marty Kasprzyk said:

 should make the violin harder to play.

You could just save a lot of effort just by buying a "violin" from eBay.

[Marty Kasprzyk]

7 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

You could just save a lot of effort just by buying a "violin" from eBay.

That's what I think too.  If you've played only clunky instruments you are used to needing a lot of effort (resistance).   You then play a highly responsive violin you then get that "on & off" effect that Michael describes where you can't control the sound character much.

On the other hand if you've played only responsive violins you've developed a lighter playing technique and a heavily built instrument feels like it requires too much effort to get enough output.  But  some soloist like these clunky kind of instruments because it makes their playing look like an exciting athletic event in concerts.

Despite looking calm, collected and in control soloists are sometimes actually quite nervous.  They gain confidence from having a highly resistive instrument that can't be overpowered to produce a bad sounding note which would be a career disaster.

[Michael Darnton]

1 hour ago, Don Noon said:

I picked out the one vaguely helful sentence out of a pile of descriptions of how bad everything else can be.  It would be even more helpful to give your opinion of what "in just the right ways" might be, rather than giving the impression of having the keys to success that nobody else has, and won't tell.  If you consider these to be trade secrets, fine... just say they are hard-earned lessons you don't want to divulge.

Well, for a start, don't tune and don't make the top edges thin and the center thick (the mentioned German grads). I think I said that. Michael Szyper already said "arching arching arching" for me. I do have one single small trick I'm currently keeping mostly to myself, but complaining about ME not telling what I do in violin making? Well, that's just a clueless insult, Don. I have a 30+ year record (starting with over 40 articles for the Guild of American Luthiers, still available in their compendium books) of doing exactly the opposite, more than and earlier than just about anyone here.

The first violin I ever made which captured most of the aspects of a violin that I personally like and that has resonated with players over the years was a pretty close copy of the Cannone del Gesu, which included reverse engineering the archings to redraw what I think he originally did and simply using the grads as given in the Biddulph book.  That's an impressive enough violin that it doesn't need my "help", and I have not wandered far from the original since then, but over the years I've tried to bring what I learned from it into my other models as well, as appropriate.

I have mentioned that violin on and off here. And this was pre- CCycloid, too, so you needn't complain about that, either, Don. But when I went and made cycloid templates later for that model, guess what? Which is one reason that I do indeed harp on cycloids hoping to find people who are capable of hearing the message.

 

[Michael Darnton]

35 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

 But  some soloist like these clunky kind of instruments because it makes their playing look like an exciting athletic event in concerts.

Ha! I have actually sat in on the private lessons of one of the most famous of modern teachers telling their students "They paid a lot of money for that back row seat [from where they can barely see you moving] and they want to see you working for it" to players who looked  too comfortable. I also saw Reba McEntire on a winner's episode of one of those Got Talent shows attempting to instill that expansive mode in the young singer on stage while she was in the middle of her song in front of several thousand people, on the new Grand Ole Opry stage--the same problem of reaching the back, visually. So there's that. A violin doens't have to *be* difficult to make it *look* difficult, and the opposite.

When I was a kid my first teacher was a bob and weaver, but my second said "The real trick is to make it look like what you are doing, hard though it looks, is the easiest thing in the world for you because you are SO skilled." Don't hear too many people complaining about Heifetz in this regard. :-)

 

I see Marty typing while I'm editing and rewriting.. . .. ..  or maybe he changed his mind.

[JacksonMaberry]

6 hours ago, Michael Szyper said:

IMO your question is about vibrations. In the end there seems to be a hierarchy of influences which applies to most sound/vibration aspects

1.arching

2. arching

3. arching

4. Inner arching

5. setup/model/etc.

 

imo, plate weights, frequencies and thicknesses are only a result of wood and model choice as well as your arching concept.

If we could pin individual posts, this would be a strong candidate 

[Anders Buen]

15 hours ago, David Stiles said:

Here are my current numbers:  

Belly:  0.41g/cm3, arching 15.5mm, weight 73g with bass bar, 3.1mm centre, 2.2mm upper bout, 2.3mm lower bout, M1 94, M2 170, M5 369

Back: 0.63g/cm3, arching 15.3mm, weight 108g, 4.4mm centre, 2.2mm upper bout, 2.3mm lower bout, M1 108, M2 170, M5 372

That is a stiff top. 

[Michael Darnton]

Further on one point: I see a tendency of some makers, especially beginners, and I went through a period of this myself, to try to bring thin grads of the upper and lower bouts, both top and back, out as far as possible, At the extreme this can result in 2.5mm or less grads all around just inside the linings and blocks, end blocks especially, with a rapid hooked rise and graduation jump inside up right next to the linings and blocks. And this is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do.

I think the idea is that they think that this will involve more area of the top in the vibration, that the farther from the bridge the thinner is has to be because vibrations are worn out by the time they get there, to maximize what they see as the vibration of the whole top by making the perimeter especially flexible. And because the bridge is pushing down in the middle, let's make that area extra strong to resist it. This is precisely the wrong way to think of it, and not what you see in the best and Cremonese violins.

[David Burgess]

3 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

 If you've played only clunky instruments you are used to needing a lot of effort (resistance).   You then play a highly responsive violin you then get that "on & off" effect that Michael describes where you can't control the sound character much.

On the other hand if you've played only responsive violins you've developed a lighter playing technique and a heavily built instrument feels like it requires too much effort to get enough output.  But  some soloist like these clunky kind of instruments because it makes their playing look like an exciting athletic event in concerts.

I'd describe it differently. Lightly built violins tend to give all they have with very little effort, but tend to have little reserve to go beyond that. So cutting off that upper end removes about 20-50% of the color and dynamic possibilities available from a more sturdily built violin.

I've built lots of both.

[David Burgess]

4 hours ago, Michael Darnton said:

The making approach you've taken is the opposite of what does this. That's why I'm down on tuning, because in the examples I've seen it appears that what is accomplished is to make a violin which responds in a particular pre-programmed way, not able to be changed, with the maximum of resonance/ring/whatever, easily delivered.

Hmmm, I've met lots and lots of makers who use various types of tuning schemes, have heard and played their fiddles, and haven't found that stereotype to true at all. Maybe you need to increase your sample size??

The upcoming VSA Convention will offer an opportunity to try maybe 300+ instruments, and talk to many of the makers about what they do, and why they do it. Surely you will not miss such an opportunity to expand your knowledge base?

[Anders Buen]

5 hours ago, Michael Darnton said:

Further on one point: I see a tendency of some makers, especially beginners, and I went through a period of this myself, to try to bring thin grads of the upper and lower bouts, both top and back, out as far as possible, At the extreme this can result in 2.5mm or less grads all around just inside the linings and blocks, end blocks especially, with a rapid hooked rise and graduation jump inside up right next to the linings and blocks. And this is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do.

I think the idea is that they think that this will involve more area of the top in the vibration, that the farther from the bridge the thinner is has to be because vibrations are worn out by the time they get there, to maximize what they see as the vibration of the whole top by making the perimeter especially flexible. And because the bridge is pushing down in the middle, let's make that area extra strong to resist it. This is precisely the wrong way to think of it, and not what you see in the best and Cremonese violins.

Otto Möckel seen to have a similar idea, to use stiff borders. I have been working on flat plates and their mode shapes related to their effective masses. The way the edges are fixed play a role. Eg clamped edges give a smaller first mode shape, but a lower effective mass than simply supported plates where the edges are free to «tilt» over the edge. The result is probaly a louder resonance.

Bernahrd Richardson describes this in one of his later articles on the guitar, which do have almost flat plates. The above experience made me understand his idea on this. And I think your comment here support the same idea, although it is not described in acoustic terms.

I think George Stoppani may have informatiuon on this as he do measure mode properties on violin plates on «pinned» edges, almost immobile. One shoould see effects from a stiffer edge region on these mode shapes.   

Edited October 16, 2022 by Anders Buen
Clarified a little on the boundary conditions

[Michael Darnton]

It's been some many years since Jeff Loen published his book of violin charts and posited the idea that Cremonese instruments were thinner in the middle than around the edges. This was known before the book, at least in the shop I worked in, because it's pretty obvious if you have a big pile of charts as many expensive shops do, but after Loen's book I'd have thought that everyone would have gotten the message. But I guess not. And then there's the crowd that thinks the Cremonese weren't that good, so why bother to pay attention to what they did. . .

https://web.archive.org/web/20211204065708/http://www.kenmoreviolins.com/Abstract.htm

[David Stiles]

I am grateful to have received so many good responses here.  Thank you everyone.  So much to unpack but it seems I am generally on the right track in wanting to build a slightly stiffer instrument. 

I note Michael Szyper's and others comments regarding the importance of arching. I made every effort to make what to what I perceive as correct, but this seems so subjective.  This violin has lower arching and not as full as I have made previously.

Setup & adjustments will come soon, and I have no idea what I would do differently there. I need to explore that.

I hope I have learnt Michael Darnton's lesson about trying to take graduations too close to the edge and avoided doing that.  My edges are around 3.2mm under the purfling with thinnest areas starting about 20-25mm in, further near platforms.   The areas of thinnest graduations do not cross the centreline, where I have kept it a little thicker.  

This top is a lot stiffer, particularly across the grain than my last one. This may be due to the particular timber but probably more to do with arching.  It does look stiff as Anders' commented so there may be scope to thin further.   

Can I get to a more uniform Cremonese graduation scheme?  It is very interesting that Michael Darnton raised this point.  I would like to know how this reconciles with the common advice to keep areas around soundpost & F holes thicker.  By the time one leaves these areas thick, say 3mm, there is not much area left in the centre that can be thinned.  Is there a middle ground compromise between uniform graduations and this?  

 

[Michael Darnton]

The only reason to make the edges of the f-hole 3 mm is to have them not look thin. That only needs to happen for the 5mm or less immediately around the opening. I was taught to treat that area completely independently. For the post an area about 25mm diameter with a gentle approach is sufficient.

I think you got yourself into this mess by trying to tune. If you ignore that aspect you can make the plate as thick as you need to do the job you want it to do. If you want power and tonal density. . . well, there's a reason they don't make gongs out of brass foil.  I have made tops as thick as 4 mm and the violins work fine and are still responsive. Who knows or cares what their "tuning" is? The trick to making a thick violin is an arching that works. At the risk of triggering Don, curtate cycloid cross shapes accomplish this beautifully and they were a big step up in my results because they relieve graduations as a means to make the arching move. This is only for the cross arches; long ones are figured differently.  That's a complex discussion that may yield to a site search on google. I'd also encourage you to stop think of the modern modal method of thinking of violin movement, and try to think of it the way they would have 400 years ago. Big difference; big advantage, in my opinion. A bridge makes the most noise when you rub the top sideways, not fore and aft. Think about that.

[Don Noon]

21 minutes ago, Michael Darnton said:

The trick to making a thick violin is an arching that works. At the risk of triggering Don, curtate cycloid cross shapes accomplish this beautifully...

I don't disagree that cycloid crossarching can work, and my arching probably isn't far from a cycloid.  I get triggered at the semi-religious attachment to cycloids when: 1) There are examples of violins that work fine and deviate from cycloids if you look with an unbiased eye, and 2) There is no supporting theory for why that particular mathematical curve should be the ultimate crossarch.

31 minutes ago, Michael Darnton said:

I'd also encourage you to stop think of the modern modal method of thinking of violin movement...

Oddly, I agree with that.  Violin vibration behavior is exceedingly complex, and chasing modes (and taptones) is most likely to lead to strange places that have nothing to do with good sound and playability.  Researchers at the top levels haven't gotten any great breakthroughs that I'm aware of.  But as a retirement challenge, I'm going to stick with it, and I think there are some areas where understanding the physics of vibration might help a little.  And understanding the limitations is even more important.