Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Better bridge?


hnryhouuu

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Davide Sora said:

Which of the two makes your violin sound better? That's the best bridge:)

I’ve yet to try the new bride tmr…

id predict the new bridge to make my violin sound more powerful, resonant, more bright in the e string BUT less deep and darkness in the G string.

the old aubert sounds warm, Has a dark and powerful G string but harmonics does not pop out and e string sounds mellow, not crisp enough. Also not resonant enough and not loud enough

My violin has a sweet sound in nature, not necessarily bright or loud.

which sound signature will you probably choose from such description?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you mean by sound signature, but if you're referring to bridge, not knowing the properties of the materials and how they compare between the two, it is not possible to say which is better based only on how they are cut. However, from the design of the cuts I would prefer the Milo Stamm, even if I would have kept the space above the heart a little less wide, the lower arch a little lower and therefore the legs a little thicker, and I would have cut the ankles slightly thinner. Do you have any idea what the rocking frequency of the two bridges is, and what the weight is? Without precise information it is difficult to make any guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were both bridges cut by the same person?  There seems excessive wood in several places on both bridges including the ankles and in the areas affecting the flexibility of the waist.  Both areas can affect projection and response of the instrument.  The better bridge is the one that sounds and plays better.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark Norfleet said:

Are you sure that increasing flexibility of the waist and ankles would improve the overall sound?

We have experimented at the shop with ankle thickness and I feel relatively confident that in many cases thinner ankles improve projection.  We go for around 3.6 mm ish.  The shape of the curves likely influence things as well. 
 

the waist is probably more a complex issue.  Current thinking ( open to change) is that there is a dynamic of resistance and then a smooth letting go.  So the waist should resist moving up to a point, and then freely let go once that threshold is met.  So it is not an issue of flexibility as such but several related factors.  This at least is the current idea. Without having the bridges in hand to flex and hear it is impossible to know, but the visual impression makes me wonder if there bridges possess these qualities 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As beginner amateur I tried to carve most expensive Milo Stamm Royal on very cheap chinese violin. It turned out the wood was too dense for such  violin, making the sound more firm but at the same harsh by having too much high frequencies on all strings. So I had to carve again lower price Milo Stamm Standard with less dense wood and the sound was good this time. I used parameters from this page. https://trianglestrings.com/carving-a-violin-bridge/ 

I experimented a lot also on cheapest bridges how the sound changes when carving certain areas to have less excess of wood. Including trying to cut arms totally, which was not a good idea. In the end the most good effect usually had carving out wood around waist and ankles.  Tried to even carve out more than it is recommended by the website trianglestrings. I don't know what's the science behind it but maybe it's like other says probably increasing flexibility of how the bridge rocks thus maybe the bridge carries frequencies better. It's also important to carve ankles from inside not outside, to make thighs look relatively longer otherwise the effect on sound is worse, at least in my expriments.  I don't understand how carving the area around the heart helps though by explaining it through physics.

On trianglestrings.com they recommend waist 14.75-15mm and ankles 4.2mm . You could measure and check how much excess of wood you have compared to their recommendation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pianootaku said:

On trianglestrings.com they recommend waist 14.75-15mm and ankles 4.2mm . You could measure and check how much excess of wood you have compared to their recommendation.

I would prefer a slightly wider waist and slightly narrower ankles, but perhaps these two aspects could somehow compensate for each other, who knows? It would be interesting to measure the rocking frequency to see if any effect can be recognized

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Davide Sora said:

I would prefer a slightly wider waist and slightly narrower ankles, but perhaps these two aspects could somehow compensate for each other, who knows? It would be interesting to measure the rocking frequency to see if any effect can be recognized

Does the rocking frequency really  give you useful information in terms of how it plays or sounds? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see a universally-accepted model for the bridge. In my model, the bridge is a filter and I aim for zero flexibility and zero weight as a start, adjusting from there if/as necessary. . . assuming a wood bridge in the standard model and material.... I might feel differently with other materials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Darnton said:

It would be interesting to see a universally-accepted model for the bridge. In my model, the bridge is a filter and I aim for zero flexibility and zero weight as a start.

In my “mental model” the bridge is also a filter.  And the flexibility is not that it is overly “flexible”  but the right kind of flexible.( at a micro level)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mark Norfleet said:

I am not.

Does wood behave differently at a “micro” level than it does at a macro level?

When you were saying the bridge snapping…. Now I am really confused.  Again I am thinking you are joking, but if the bridge rocks too much on a large scale it can break, but at a smaller scale lucky the bridge remains intact ☺️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peter Lynch said:

Does the rocking frequency really  give you useful information in terms of how it plays or sounds? 

To me, it is a bit of both but the complexity of the age, design of the instrument matters.

Zero flexibilty was mentioned here. When learning/ experimenting on my own instrument, I have made several bridges on dozens of instruments to better achieve what might work for students. Way more lazy now. But starting at the ( known ) blank is interesting simply because I have a mental reference. At one shop, I did not follow shop protocol ( a photo ) and worked towards what I thought was a better output over several attempts ( on a newly delivered instrument ) and was sorted yelled at. The owner likely did it for show as I made the bridges on my own time, but it becomes a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peter Lynch said:

the bridge resists rocking and then let’s go where it smoothly rocks.

A violin bridge has a rocking motion whenever it is played, at any frequency. Changing the frequency at which the bridge itself resonates in its rocking mode can alter sound and playing properties quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The esoterica of bridge and for some, fingerboard tuning is a regular ordeal however they do it. The customer is always the most consequential part.

My thoughts are that where the micro and macro of the bows stop, the bridges take over. After reading Beament, it confirmed what was felt.

The dilemma of the shop is the economics of time + cost of materials. Given a particular analysis, the formula becomes times x cost. Many of us have the limitations of either the instrument or the customer. Both might have to be a bit flexible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading Professor Beament, my shallow analysis is all me. I am the limitations. But that confirmation mattered. It was an important book. The arts require books but they are limited due to restricted knowledge and exception. And the that we are so individual like wood.

Thus felt much more comfortable and validated in discussing how parts behave.

Without getting, again, into the esoterics, there are bridges that work in a linear manner for a learned player. The profiles of bridges also matter. I generally do not make totally flat bridges, but they can get thinner with a well constructed instrument. And this is me. The hierarchical levels of all this are discussed with friends but far more complex than sitting poolside with drinks because some players have very difficult instruments to play and some have relatively easier ones. We best understand that cards we are dealt.

Yes, the Stamm bridge on the left "looks" better but does it play better? Photos, photoshop, weights, frequencies all matter. But for the hobbist, hey, "high five!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peter Lynch said:

Does the rocking frequency really  give you useful information in terms of how it plays or sounds? 

 

37 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

A violin bridge has a rocking motion whenever it is played, at any frequency. Changing the frequency at which the bridge itself resonates in its rocking mode can alter sound and playing properties quite a bit.

I agree with David, the differences are noticeable, but establishing in advance what they will be is a little more difficult, especially if you make a bridge for a new instrument without having a previous bridge as a point of comparison. But an important difference is the one that is perceived by the player, and in my experience, a higher rocking frequency (stiffer bridge) is more appreciated by soloists or high-level violinists, while a lower frequency (less rigid, easier to play) is appreciated by violinists who have less technical needs or with lesser needs for a cutting and projecting sound

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Davide Sora said:

 

I agree with David, the differences are noticeable, but establishing in advance what they will be is a little more difficult, especially if you make a bridge for a new instrument without having a previous bridge as a point of comparison. But an important difference is the one that is perceived by the player, and in my experience, a higher rocking frequency (stiffer bridge) is more appreciated by soloists or high-level violinists, while a lower frequency (less rigid, easier to play) is appreciated by violinists who have less technical needs or with lesser needs for a cutting and projecting sound

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...