Is this arching wrong ?

[Dr. Mark]

1 hour ago, LCF said:

When I say 'forget about the theoretical models" it is of course only a short-term plea to look at photos and listen to the conclusions  of skilled observers.

My bad.  You know, it's all so horrible...

[sospiri]

7 hours ago, LCF said:

There seems to be an assumption in this theory that the two sides of the top would respond equally to the static string tension. But of course the presence of bass bar mandates that any possible 'ideal' arching pattern  should differ from one side to the other because the stresses have a different pattern thus the deflections will be different. 

Forget about theoretical models. From direct photographic observation and from the  knowledge of experts we see that no matter where an instrument is held or thrown,  in photos of classic instruments taken in side view one frequently sees a bending up of the whole instrument referenced along the edge of the top plate, one bump up in the centre of the upper bout and one in the lower bout and a dip around the bridge area matched by a bulging out of the back under the soundpost.

It is a falsehood to make a direct connection between the response of the violin body to static string loading forces and torques in a lengthways direction as opposed to the way that oscillating forces are applied to the soundboard via the bridge  --- these are a very complex combination of downwards forces and crossways torques. 

The observations of Andreas Preuss, that rib stiffness is a hugely significant factor in tonal outcomes underlines how relatively unimportant this theory of stl  is. 

 

Let's move on. 

Not until you or Andreas explain why his pet hypothesis is correct. Until then it's just more speculation. 

[Don Noon]

2 hours ago, Sapiens said:

Before it dies out, anyone up to sum it up in a few words?

1 hour ago, David Burgess said:

I could, but it should probably be left to someone more euphemistic and tactfully delicate than I.

Static loads in a violin have no significant influence on the vibration and sound. No amount of repetition will make it otherwise.
 

I must admit that for my own mental well-being, I have blocked a certain poster, and therefore may have missed something new or different. But I doubt it. And, as usual, all of this stuff is tangential to the original post.

[GoPractice]

5 hours ago, Dr. Mark said:

[Mr. Kasprzyk]

Frankly I admire your work and the direction you've taken.  I'd jump right in if I was less paranoid, and ergo conservative with regards to where I expend my time and energy.  So a question from this conservative perspective: is the general consensus that your creations have the tone and projection that's accepted by, or better, desired by professional players of the standard repertoire?  Another related question: do they sell, i.e. have you established a reasonably robust market for your instruments (or do you care lol)?

I admire it too.

Be less paranoid.

The "rep" which is all we know is centuries thick, like igneous rock.

The better "rep" might stand ( s ) out like winter grain. Given different instruments would the rep be different? Not arguing the evolution of instruments. I do believe that composers reacted to tone and what spoke to them. Since I do not have a concrete voice as to what it is that triggers our brains but the wails of a child and the urgency of warfare, the scope of arguments be inclusive.

I do trust what we know of our physical sciences. Given a school of Kasprzyk. But of Reguz and many others, until we meet and try, I will not know. And that is the luxury of my own edification. Why has not the instrument physically evolved? Look, I have played and performed on the the Shawm and the Sack- Butt.

There was a time when my passions where in city planning and living life. I still occasionally attend planning commission meetings not because I rent. It is necessary for people to live better lives.

Not everyone needs a Strad tho some might deserve.

My rant perhaps is regards to a bias, not an exploration, and not necessarily that of yours. And in no defense of Maestro K and nor yours. 

And I want this argument to be valid. I have played/ performed Mozart on non- traditional instruments to mixed review. The fact that I was not Quartered makes me think that it is not un- reasonable. No desire to drive a wedge into stone, either.  If a gifted child in nowhere plays the first 17 notes of the Mozart oboe concerto on a plastic recorder well, it is not a mistake in the grand scheme of things.

I yearn for the cognate of sound. Thus this site is awesome and your posts and mine.

[GoPractice]

Every child needs an engineer.

[David Burgess]

I very much admire what Marty does, too. It just doesn't happen to be my segment of the market, nor that for which I am best trained.

[LCF]

1 hour ago, sospiri said:

Not until you or Andreas explain why his pet hypothesis is correct. Until then it's just more speculation. 

I trust that his observations about rib thickness are honest and correct since I am only a part time hacker, scraping in the dark. Also I was attemping a point that IF ribs are important in some way (yes/no?), there is no obvious direct relationship between arching parameters vs rib parameters. But trying to be brief. Fail. 

In the ( theoretical)  Gough paper linked by Marty "A violin shell model" there is an interesting section on the "rib coupling coefficuent".  He derives different whole body mode outcomes depending on that model coefficient.

 

Since you ( was it you?) mentioned the strengthening effect of the blocks etc in the C bouts I have been wondering uf that is an area where extra rib thickness might be more important. The shape of that area of a violin seems aimed at making things structurally stiffer. 

I promise I will post no more replies here. Start a new thread maybe?

[Marty Kasprzyk]

6 hours ago, Dr. Mark said:

[Mr. Kasprzyk]

Frankly I admire your work and the direction you've taken.  I'd jump right in if I was less paranoid, and ergo conservative with regards to where I expend my time and energy.  So a question from this conservative perspective: is the general consensus that your creations have the tone and projection that's accepted by, or better, desired by professional players of the standard repertoire?  Another related question: do they sell, i.e. have you established a reasonably robust market for your instruments (or do you care lol)?

Total failure so far: I have yet to have a famous soloist who uses an old Strad or DG ect. offer to buy one of my instruments. 

These players may say they like sound and projection of mine but I sense mine have to be vastly superior over what they are using for them to change to something new.  Equally good isn't good enough and I doubt big improvement can come with historic designs and materials so I'm trying very different things.

 

[Andreas Preuss]

1 hour ago, sospiri said:

Not until you or Andreas explain why his pet hypothesis is correct. Until then it's just more speculation. 

I can somehow see what is the idea of reguz but still didn’t get a precise answer (picture) on what exactly is the difference in the sound between violins following the principles of reguz and those which don’t.  On the other hand I know that musicians are sometimes attracted by ‘disfunctional’ instruments because flaws have a certain ‘personality’ and therefore an instrument which functions 100 percent smoothly (which seem to be reguz’ goal) is to them not always the most interesting one.

Last not least it doesn’t interest me not so much any more, because I am now more into exploring new construction methods which can hopefully give Violinmakers a better approach to ‘design’ the overtone spectrum. And beware, the last thing I’d do is to build a theory on such thing. It’s by far more convincing if one can demonstrate what constructional alteration has which effect on the sound. So on this background I am a kind of sitting back and enjoying the conversation taking place.
 

I also do know that reguz is a person difficult to talk to, because he sounds very often as if he is very angry and upset. (I don’t know if this is actually always the case) I believe this is partly because English is not his native language and it also seems to me that his comments are written hastily with no efforts to correct obvious grammatical or orthographic mistakes or to care about the general tone. But this shouldn’t be any reason to ridicule or despise him. He has to say something. 

[Dr. Mark]

2 hours ago, GoPractice said:

Every child needs an engineer.

lol - and visa-versa I suppose...

 

[Marty Kasprzyk]

12 minutes ago, Dr. Mark said:

lol - and visa-versa I suppose...

 

I are a injuneer and I no you can't push a rope and F= ma.

[Anders Buen]

23 hours ago, Peter K-G said:

Why is this still an issue? It has been countered many times, that it depends on the viewpoint. Please explain as clear as possible what you mean. There has been thousands of post back and forth on this and it's not going to end before you explain clear and simple.

The other explanation would be that you have some disorder and can't look at things from different views. But I still believe you are sane.

Please don't post the same images and texts over again. Maybe you can continue with my question earlier

 

Is This what you want to discuss?

 

 

Intriguing anminatin! How did you make that?

[reguz]

To Peter and Anders I say look at the movements in the animation.

 

 Support the end blocks just as Gough Stoppani and Goli do and hold by gravitation the and blocks down on on the support. What then becomes moving structure is the center that move up/down. The complete structure thus moves down and is hold at the support.

 

I claim the result is not possible producing on a violin free violin in space and it's that we must discuss.

How do we make our observation.

There is no sense looking at circumstances that cannot arise on the hold instrument as they do. They move the complete instrument by its string load that bend the end blocks up and thus move the complete structure down.

 

I have shown by a Holographic investigation that it are the end blocks moving. Also in the master 

dissertation where deflection becomes produced based on FEA show this. Is all this wrong? I say no. What you can do is giving a verifiable explanation on your opinion.

There is only one answer on this question. Is it what Gough ; Stoppani and Goli do correct and is it me that is wrong.

[Peter K-G]

8 hours ago, Anders Buen said:

Intriguing anminatin! How did you make that?

Those are images from Robert's website. I'm trying to find out if we are missing something, due to communication problems. Everyone should be able to imagen focusing on the blue lines and make them the point of view.

This would give a different animation, but the result would be the same.

Another observation is that others tend to describe endblocks as turning inwards. Robert seems to have the opinion that they don't.

[Anders Buen]

30 minutes ago, Peter K-G said:

Those are images from Robert's website. I'm trying to find out if we are missing something, due to communication problems. Everyone should be able to imagen focusing on the blue lines and make them the point of view.

This would give a different animation, but the result would be the same.

Another observation is that others tend to describe endblocks as turning inwards. Robert seems to have the opinion that they don't.

Did yopu make the animation? I am interested in the tool to make it.

I am not interested in the theory behind the phenomeon described there. 

[David Burgess]

51 minutes ago, reguz said:

Is all this wrong? I say no. What you can do is giving a verifiable explanation on your opinion.

Initially, you are only about 60% wrong, but this gets pushed up to about 95% wrong by your perpetual insistence that only your chosen frame of reference is "correct". Verifiable alternate explanations have been given many times in this thread alone (including one or two from me), but you choose to ignore them, so that's on you.

At this point, I don't think anyone else can "fix" you, without you having at least some minimal level of motivation to fix yourself.

[Dr. Mark]

41 minutes ago, Peter K-G said:

Another observation is that others tend to describe endblocks as turning inwards. Robert seems to have the opinion that they don't.

I haven't found (free) access to the paper, so I'm going to assume that by 'endblocks as turning inward' you're referring to vertical rotation.  If not, take your preferred form of vengeance.

It seems that there would have to be a rather delicate balance of moments to avoid at least some rotation, and I'm rather skeptical.

[Dr. Mark]

8 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

At this point, I don't think anyone else can "fix" you, without you having at least some minimal level of motivation to fix yourself.

Welp, no-one ever said that honesty was all soft and cuddly.  Don't think that by this that I'm criticizing in any way - in fact your approach may be the best therapy available.  I'm just musing on the vicissitudes of life as we know it.

[David Burgess]

19 minutes ago, Dr. Mark said:

Don't think that by this that I'm criticizing in any way - in fact your approach may be the best therapy available. 

I am somewhat torn between the approach I have taken, and that of sending Reguz some drop-bottom onesie-footie Teddy-Bear-styled sleepwear, lest he be lashing out due to a lack of love or cuddling.

[Andreas Preuss]

1 hour ago, reguz said:

 

To Peter and Anders I say look at the movements in the animation.

 

You mean this, I suppose:

A few things I want to comment on this simplified diagram. As such it is correct but: 

1. In the diagram the bridge stands in the center of the long arch. In a real violin this is not the case. When it is off Center it makes a difference.

2. The neck is missing. That’s another important structural element in the violin which creates a leverage at the top block. 

3. without a bass bar it would maybe look like this, but again this is not the case. In fact I think it is much more important what happens at the bass bar side, because we know that a violin without bass bar does not function at all.

If you ask me, the few asymmetric features on an otherwise symmetric designed violin make everything work well. 

[Anders Buen]

2 hours ago, reguz said:

To Peter and Anders I say look at the movements in the animation.

I am not interested in the content of this, only the method to make such an animation, apparently out of drawings.

[Peter K-G]

1 hour ago, Dr. Mark said:

I haven't found (free) access to the paper, so I'm going to assume that by 'endblocks as turning inward' you're referring to vertical rotation.  If not, take your preferred form of vengeance.

It seems that there would have to be a rather delicate balance of moments to avoid at least some rotation, and I'm rather skeptical.

Yes, that would be the term, most people use here (vertical rotation). To me rotation means, well rotation, so in my simple mind nothing is rotating.

That's how easy things can be misunderstood.

Don't know if by paper you mean the images i posted. They are from Rober's (reguz) website.

[Peter K-G]

18 minutes ago, Anders Buen said:

I am not interested in the content of this, only the method to make such an animation, apparently out of drawings.

I would use GIMP

[Dr. Mark]

2 hours ago, Peter K-G said:

Yes, that would be the term, most people use here (vertical rotation).

Phew! Good that I was clear enough.  I looked at what I wrote and was thinking 'Jeez, what am I trying to say here?'

[reguz]

10 hours ago, Anders Buen said:

I am not interested in the content of this, only the method to make such an animation, apparently out of drawings.

Look at the Terry Borman animation. Count down the shown movements  with a factor 100. What remain on the end blocks. Look at Martin Schleske showing how he measure frequency movement. This shows how Stoppani works and show movement on violin structure related to fix support 

Maestro 3.docx