Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Is the research on violin acoustics a viscious circle?


Andreas Preuss

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Dwight Brown said:

 ( ... )

”Hi, I’m Dwight and I have a viola problem”

DLB

I may do it for my seventieth birthday, all present are invited for a concert and dinner at The venerable Hoffbrau on Joe Maddy Parkway, concert and dinner is on me

Are you teaching up there now?

Been threatening to visit Maestro Raguse for a dozen years. ( His bows are a serious value again. ) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 390
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, GoPractice said:

Are you teaching up there now?

Been threatening to visit Maestro Raguse for a dozen years. ( His bows are a serious value again. ) 

No, I'm not even good enough to be the squirrel trainer  but I love it so. I'm right here in Buda,TX hanging out with my fellow budists , my teacher David Holland is still up on two legs and often uses his Raguse bow. Doug told me a great story about it once. I do own a Raguse violin bow that I really think it is excellent.

One of these days I will become an International diamond theif, contribute a billion dollars to the endowment and talk them out of a cabin on Green Lake. A born again Neanderthal like myself has to have an ambition.

DLB

(Dinner, Lunch, and Breakfast!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Andreas Preuss said:

True enough, and with a clear mind one might also say research goes ‘ad absurdum’ trying to explain something what can’t be explained. And this is part of the reason that it circles around itself.

There is imo a huge unexplored field of violin acoustics if we simply accept the idea, that a violin mustn’t be patterned after classic Cremonese models.

dia

"This one clearly sounds best"

why?

"because everyone thinks so" :lol:

Well I do wish there was a "mouthpiece" element to the violin like the saxophone, when a sax guy wants a new sound they just swap out the mouthpiece and instantly one can have a dramatically different sound , unlike the incremental slight nuance changes from say a string swap.

I guess I would say that I started {still do to some extent} only make "non traditional" instruments {I have made 2 standard/traditional instruments} but the rest have been "different"

I do admit that I "belong" more in guitarlandia more than violinworld, simply for the fact that "different" is embraced more and there is more acceptance and spectrum in general

Who would have thought that joining a club that builds replica model T's would look at you funny if you put on mag rims

I gave up on starting the WAVA {weird ass violin association} for fear that Marty and myself would be the only ones in the club, alternating, year after as "gold medal winner"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Christian Pedersen said:

I think the limitations of the current state of acoustics is the larger hurdle. 

2 hours ago, Andreas Preuss said:

Hmmm. Do you really think so? Which limitations? Methods and equipment have gone to a level which it is un-believable. The ‘hurdle’ is in our heads believing in an idea of the ‘perfect violin’ which in reality is not perfect. (Otherwise there wouldn’t be so much contradiction about it.) 

I see a few high hurdles to understanding the acoustics in a complete way.

1.  The state of finite element models that match an actual instrument's vibration behavior is not good.

2. Mapping those vibrations into how the instrument is heard by audience and player is also not good.  Similarly, how those vibrations reflect back to the player through the strings and bow is mediocre.

3.  People judge the good or bad of all of this.

 

Those first two hurdles I think could be overcome if you stand on a very high pile of cash... which is a huge hurdle in itself.  The last hurdle is undefinable and changing, so you can never clearly get over it.  So you just have to get over the idea of getting over it, even though it may be of some benefit to try and get close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, David Burgess said:

I would question that as well.
Example: While re-enactments of battles fought decades or centuries ago are popular tourist attractions, the weapons used are no longer effective, compared to modern weapons. Nostalgia, and "how things useta was", does maintain a strong niche though.

I would hate to get shot by a .69 caliber lead ball from a musket though!

DLB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bill Merkel said:

Good luck even hearing one, much less seeing one do this...

https://youtu.be/QAymAftD8AQ?t=146

Maybe the secret of Strad is he is seen and heard...

Seems to be the case -

I understand that there was a double blind experiment in Paris some years ago with interesting results.  I wonder what would happen if, for a period of, say, a year, only modern violins were used in top competitions and professional performances...?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jezzupe said:

I do admit that I "belong" more in guitarlandia more than violinworld, simply for the fact that "different" is embraced more and there is more acceptance and spectrum in general

Violinworld has academic roots.  Some kinds of different aren't going to be embraced, you're right.  The same thing keeps hospitals and music less deadly than they could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bill Merkel said:

Violinworld has academic roots.  Some kinds of different aren't going to be embraced, you're right.  The same thing keeps hospitals and music less deadly than they could be.

Ah yes, academics and science, those who don't watch tv know how well that worked out, both for tone and ending up dead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jezzupe said:

Well I do wish there was a "mouthpiece" element to the violin like the saxophone

That’s the setup for a violin.

 

7 hours ago, jezzupe said:

I do admit that I "belong" more in guitarlandia more than violinworld, simply for the fact that "different" is embraced more and there is more acceptance and spectrum in general

Sometimes I peeked into the guitar world and honestly I got very jealous. There are really creative guys out there and they get honored by top guitarists for their innovative approach. (I forgot all the names, but I am sure you know them.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Andreas Preuss said:

That’s the setup for a violin.

 

Sometimes I peeked into the guitar world and honestly I got very jealous. There are really creative guys out there and they get honored by top guitarists for their innovative approach. (I forgot all the names, but I am sure you know them.) 

 Classical guitar makers? classical guitarists are as conservative as the classical violinists.

If you want to move away from the traditional models you would probably need to move away from classical string players.

The symbiosis between the classical sound and the classical models is total. Same with bows.

It’s partly to do with norms of sound and playability but there’s also a massive cultural component.

Does the desire to innovate really come from a need to produce a better instrument or is it to do with differentiating yourself from other makers in a very crowded and competitive field?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, martin swan said:

 Classical guitar makers? classical guitarists are as conservative as the classical violinists.

If you want to move away from the traditional models you would probably need to move away from classical string players.

The symbiosis between the classical sound and the classical models is total. Same with bows.

It’s partly to do with norms of sound and playability but there’s also a massive cultural component.

Does the desire to innovate really come from a need to produce a better instrument or is it to do with differentiating yourself from other makers in a very crowded and competitive field?

 

The classical guitar scene is split from what I have observed, there are traditionalists and there are those that follow the work of some of the contemporary makers. It's quite common (even in more conservative making), to see carbon fibre reinforcements in the neck and other areas of classical guitars as well as experimental bracing patterns. You do also see modifications to the profile of instruments for ergonomic reasons in some cases.

A lot of professionals have now moved on to instruments of the types developed by Matthias Dammann in Germany and Greg Smallman in Australia. Via modern construction techniques, both of these makers have been able to successfully improve the projection and power of the classical guitar, albeit in different ways. Dammann's construction is extremely light, often with lattice structures or other complex top constructions using composite materials. Smallman's instruments on the other hand also employ a complex internal structure but are extremely heavy. Both achieve a similar outcome.

Both types of making achieve great power and projection, but in my opinion it's often at the expense of sound quality or warmness of sound. However, for a modern player projection is a crucial element which drives their decision of which guitar to purchase. 

Many modern makers are now seeking a balance between traditional construction and the work of Dammann and Smallman.

The construction methods of Dammann and Smallman are notably quite a divergence from the work of Ramirez, Hauser I and Torres of which we would now consider traditional classical guitar construction.

You will find that John Williams, arguably one of the most famous classical guitarists alive today (or of all time) uses a Smallman guitar to great effect in concerts venues across the world.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: I was clearly speaking from a position of ignorance! Thanks for enlightening me.

OTOH the classical guitar was an instrument in dire need of adaptation to the exigencies of playing concertos against symphony orchestras in a big hall. The violin didn’t/doesn’t have that problem, or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that the most revered of the Cremonese makers went through this process a few hundred years ago, and concert soloists are already well served.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, martin swan said:

:lol: I was clearly speaking from a position of ignorance! Thanks for enlightening me.

OTOH the classical guitar was an instrument in dire need of adaptation to the exigencies of playing concertos against symphony orchestras in a big hall. The violin didn’t/doesn’t have that problem, or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that the most revered of the Cremonese makers went through this process a few hundred years ago, and concert soloists are already well served.

Yes, the classical guitar is somewhat behind in those terms and is trying to catch up.

Essentially we are seeing what happened with the electrification of steel strung guitars in the 1940's/50's, but the classical guitar equivalent (but without amplification and making adjustments acoustically instead). Of course you can get classical guitars with pickups, but this is not really acceptable at the high levels of concert playing.

The development of the electric guitar pickup/electric guitar came about because of the need for guitars to be heard in the big band ensembles. This need to be heard with or above other instruments is also driving the changes in the construction of classical guitars.

These changes to modern classical guitar construction allows musicians to play with a wider group of instruments and play a wider range of repertoire and still be heard. Or at least heard a bit better than before....

We have to give credit to Andres Segovia and the maker Ramirez (along with Torres and Hauser I etc), for bringing the guitar to the concert hall and proving that it was a viable concert instrument. However, the classical guitar still had limitations in terms of projectionthat . This is what makers like Dammann and Smallman have been trying to address. Arguably quite successfully. I am sure that makers will continue to adjust the classical guitar for a good while longer before we reach some kind of peak in power, projection and tonality.

I deal with a lot of these instruments quite regularly and try to speak to players when I can. I personally favour the sound of the traditional classical guitars, but I cannot deny the power of the modern ones. When I was studying guitar making we were taught in a traditional manner, however we were aware that there were makers experimenting with alternative construction methods. These seem to have really taken off in popularity in the last 15 years or so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shelbow said:

The construction methods of Dammann and Smallman are notably quite a divergence from the work of Ramirez, Hauser I and Torres of which we would now consider traditional classical guitar construction.

They still LOOK like traditional guitars.

Most violinists in my limited experience don't know and don't care what goes on inside the instrument, as long as it looks like a traditional violin and sounds good.

16 hours ago, Bill Merkel said:

Maybe the secret of Strad is he is seen and heard...

Only the good ones.

A large part of the secret is building over 1,000 instruments, so even a small percentage of great ones will get you seen and heard at high levels.  Not all Strads are seen and heard; probably most of them aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

They still LOOK like traditional guitars.

Most violinists in my limited experience don't know and don't care what goes on inside the instrument, as long as it looks like a traditional violin and sounds good.

 

Largely but not entirely, for some makers there are slight differences externally, but yes it's not wildly different in most cases.

Weight is a key factor. Some of the Smallman guitars weigh over double the weight of a normal classical guitar, yet professional musicians still use them. The weight difference is extremely noticeable.

I expect a professional violinist might be a bit concerned if they were given a violin over double the weight of a normal instrument.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

They still LOOK like traditional guitars.

Most violinists in my limited experience don't know and don't care what goes on inside the instrument, as long as it looks like a traditional violin and sounds good.

Only the good ones.

A large part of the secret is building over 1,000 instruments, so even a small percentage of great ones will get you seen and heard at high levels.  Not all Strads are seen and heard; probably most of them aren't.

We can’t really use the same argument for del Gesu …

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

Not that Strad was a hack, but you could probably make the argument based on percentage of output that pros want to play, that Strad was not exceptional.  He just made a ton of 'em.

Maybe Guarneri was exceptional.

He seems to have served a very long apprenticeship. I'm sure he was vastly experienced before he became a maker in his own right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Andreas Preuss said:

That’s the setup for a violin.

 

Sometimes I peeked into the guitar world and honestly I got very jealous. There are really creative guys out there and they get honored by top guitarists for their innovative approach. (I forgot all the names, but I am sure you know them.) 

Yes well I should have stated "steel string acoustics" classical guitar people are just as "intense" :rolleyes: as you violin people :lol:

but back to Violinworld, one thing I do ponder is, lets just say there was some massive AI breakthrough in acoustics where suddenly anything you wanted could be achieved by building it out of wood, keeping in mind we have synthesizers, effects processors, amplification, eq's and all that jazz as "tone embellishment" add ons as sonic references of "all the things you could ad on"

What would "you"{anyone} make it sound like or do differently ? "ya I want it to sound like a Strad, but, just with "more" ? :lol:...

or would it just simply be the ability to do "it" repetitively?

I mean a set up is important and can alter the sound, but imo, in ways that only the owner/player and perhaps their luthier can perceive {not saying that extra goodness would not positively effect performance} but a good or altered set up is no way near as dramatic of a change as going from a C4 Yamaha to an Otto Link, for example, or say changing pick ups in an electric guitar.

In the mean time, if I really want to alter the violin sound I just process it or play it on a keyboard

But as Don eludes to with Strad and output, and well it's something I've said from the get go...violin making is not about science...it's about how much you bench

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...