Loudness vs.string tension

[LCF]

3 hours ago, Dr. Mark said:

You may consider:

V: Who? Who is but the form following the function of what, and what I am is a man in a mask.

Since you said that you're not a math person, and indicated that you don't know what tensors are, how can you judge if you're looking at a mask, i.e. the validity of statements made about them?

Evey: Well, I can see that.

V: Of course you can. I”m not questioning your powers of observation, I”m merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is.

...or in our case, remarking on the paradox of someone who has admitted lacking knowledge asserting that statements about tensors and tensor algebra are true or false.

Where does the problem arise?  It might be something easily rectified.

 

 

'Tensor' is one of those words associated with the desperate hand flapping which happens  when people get frustrated with technical complexities but mayhaps one could think of the totality of Maestronet as a living breathing tensor. 

[Dr. Mark]

25 minutes ago, LCF said:

'Tensor' is one of those words associated with the desperate hand flapping which happens  when people get frustrated with technical complexities

Everyone likes to toss math/physics terms around.  If people who are interested in violins start using math/physics terms we'll know we're in real trouble.

I like Flamenco and miss Paco de Lucia.  Let's break out the Margaritas:

 

[Marty Kasprzyk]

13 hours ago, LCF said:

Hi Anders, not wanting to veer off the topic too far but I made my first rough HF when I was a teenager after being loaned a record of Sigbjørn Bernhoft Osa. I took the neck off a German trade fiddle and made a neck for it with a straight 8 peg pegbox. I had a lot of fun but wasn't connected with any traditional players or makers, or even Norwegian people. They tended to keep a low profile here, but probably I did that before you were born!

Back on topic: I'm thinking about the light soundboard/light stringing approach versus one of the other instruments I play, gadulka. That has three mains and 10 sympathies and goes to the other extreme with very heavy strings and very heavy soundboard, and a through post like Marty's violas. The top string looks like piano wire. It's not a quiet instrument! I played acoustically with other unamplified instruments for a dance in a room with about 100 people dancing around us.

So there's that for a data point. 

Marty, how about making a d'Amore small viola version with a few symps? I'd like to see you pull that off with your neck+fingerboard+tail combination. 

I deliberately did not say small Viola d'Amore there.

 

 

The one piece neck/fingerboard/tailpiece assemby with their attached strings is bolted onto the body so its easy to switch back and forth with different assemblies. I've made two 5 string violas but I haven't tried using more strings such as Hardangers or Viola d'Amores.

My recent violas are getting so small they could be used as either violins or violas with different choices of strings. So they really don't know how to identify themselves and they are inadvertently caught up in the recent transgender transition controversies.  At least mine are easily reverseable if later on they change their minds.

 

[Aston4]

6 hours ago, Deo Lawson said:

Heavy strings are louder. This is why all the modern synthetics are going tighter, tighter, tighter...

 

Think about steel strings: highest tension with the most mass per unit length. We all know steel strings are the loudest, from experience. A nylon string guitar cannot come close to a steel string, for example.

Evah Pirazzi measure out just as loud as steel strings on a violin I tried both on, when measuring dB only, not breaking it down by frequency.  Maybe steel feels louder, but EPs are objectively just as loud.

[Aston4]

6 hours ago, Deo Lawson said:

double post

 

 

 

[Aston4]

6 hours ago, Deo Lawson said:

triple post!

 

[Aston4]

46 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

The one piece neck/fingerboard/tailpiece assemby with their attached strings is bolted onto the body so its easy to switch back and forth with different assemblies. I've made two 5 string violas but I haven't tried using more strings such as Hardangers or Viola d'Amores.

My recent violas are getting so small they could be used as either violins or violas with different choices of strings. So they really don't know how to identify themselves and they are inadvertently caught up in the recent transgender transition controversies.  At least mine are easily reverseable if later on they change their minds.

 

I applaud you for trying to step out of the box.

[Aston4]

I would like to see the math, for anyone who wants to throw some down.  I can often slog through it if I feel like it.  If I don't feel like it, can just skip.

[Dr. Mark]

38 minutes ago, Aston4 said:

I would like to see the math, for anyone who wants to throw some down.  I can often slog through it if I feel like it.  If I don't feel like it, can just skip.

Which math?

[Marty Kasprzyk]

7 minutes ago, Aston4 said:

I would like to see the math, for anyone who wants to throw some down.  I can often slog through it if I feel like it.  If I don't feel like it, can just skip.

Some people like to make math complicated but one simple thing helpful for violin makers is if your variable (plate weight for example, whatever) is in the numerator or upper part of an equation (above the / line) or in the  denominator or the lower part of an equation (below the / line) if you want more or less of something.

Sort of like telling Roman gladiators:  thumbs up or thumbs down. 

[Aston4]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Mark said:

Which math?

I don't know any more!  Whatever y'all are PMing each other about.

[Dr. Mark]

1 hour ago, Dr. Mark said:

Which math?

1 hour ago, Aston4 said:

I don't know any more!  Whatever y'all are PMing each other about.

lol.

[LCF]

5 hours ago, Aston4 said:

I would like to see the math, for anyone who wants to throw some down.  I can often slog through it if I feel like it.  If I don't feel like it, can just skip.

Musical acoustics is a big hamburger and it doesn't matter much where you start nibbling but once you start you are better off to keep your head down and keep chewing and digesting. There are no secrets.  Pick a starting point and follow it through.

Read the books.

Look at this site and read all then follow the references and work through them too. 

https://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/basics.html

 

 There are other university sites with good educational content. 

[LCF]

4 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Some people like to make math complicated but one simple thing helpful for violin makers is if your variable (plate weight for example, whatever) is in the numerator or upper part of an equation (above the / line) or in the  denominator or the lower part of an equation (below the / line) if you want more or less of something.

Sort of like telling Roman gladiators:  thumbs up or thumbs down. 

Nice clean lines.

[iNeedAnswers]

22 hours ago, VicM said:

From that it looks like you have no idea what you talking about. I will ask former member here to explain and I will PM you the explanation. Maybe youneedanswers.  My advice to you is to not beat the scientific drum here because some of the people who read, KNOW.

I am happy to be shown what is wrong about my description

There are multiple ways of defining them, via multi dimensional lists, via maps of n vectors to a single vector, of course with specific properties in addition. 

I always feel that multi dimensional arrays are the description easiest understood by people not working with them, but I might be completely mistaken there, I don't do that a lot. 

Generally they are called multi linear, (obvious from the mapping), but that assumes scalars inside the vectors. In physics we put in the tensor what ever we like, which is when we are nitpicking a tension field instead, but commonly only referred to as tensors still. They can have dependencies on the vectors between each other, so they are not necessarily multilinear anymore. I am pretty confident, to really analytically describe the top plate of a violin in action this would happen. 

I talked about levels of generalization, this is kind of a backwards argument to skalars being defined as tensors of degree zero. Vector (lists) degree 1, matrixes degree two and so on. Usually it is only called tensor at the third degree though. Maybe that did sound strange, I don't know, but I'd argue that tensors can therefore be called generalizations of the others.

I struggle to know which level you want to discuss this at. Of course we can just go to straight mathematical definitions as well, but I felt this is not really the target audience.

Tensors are not a buzz word to sound smart, they are a very basic concept of how to describe things. It makes physics and geometry much much easier, even if not always more intuitive. I did not name drop them with no reason, they are by far the easiest tool to describe material properties in a model such as postulated earlier here by the one I originally answered to. A material that has grains where it has some behavior along, and other behavior in the two other perpendicular directions. This is what a tensor in its easiest application is for. If we follow such a model, we either get a huge set of very hard to understand behaviors, ignore the other directions falsely (which was done here) or we just use a tensor to combine them into one elegant math problem. It still assumes properties I am pretty convinced wood does not have , but it would be the correct way of formalizing the postulated model. Not doing this shows a lack of formal training and gives wrong results as instead of coping with the complexity it was just ignored instead. Not in terms of a simplification but in terms of ignorance.

The word "tensor" may sound big because it is not commonly taught in school, but it really isn't a big deal in terms of complexity. It is a pretty intuitive step from matrixes. However, it is a big deal in terms of notation. Just as matrixes pushed quantum mechanics a lot in the 20th century, because more elegant notation allows easier formalization, which allows easier results.

I am not a fan of arguments from authority, but I would be surprised to learn something new about tensors in general, let alone in this context. 

I know, I cannot provide a working model for a violin either, that doesn't mean I cannot see one being amateur work. 

And again, I am happy to be shown what exactly was wrong about my statement. I did go into a bit more detail in my pm, but didn't get an answer. I don't need approval from people I don't know in the internet and I actually feel that this discussion went way too far already. Those hints were really more to the one who postulated where to start looking at, as going into details would be way to sophisticated here but ignoring the obvious falseness of the model felt wrong too. I get now that calling myself having worked in this area long was unnecessary, in my head the emphasis was really more about me saying that I am not a violin maker and therefore do not have practical experience in making violins. Obviously, you got it the exact opposite way with emphasis on the science part.

But yeah, I am a physicist, no violin maker, so my point of view is from this direction, which may or may not add some interesting views. I am sure as hell not running around and telling people that make violins how to do their job or pretend I know more about violins than they do. 

 

Edited April 8 by iNeedAnswers
Small add about attempt

[Dr. Mark]

So my take is as follows - referring to violins:

1. For a given set of strings at given tension and with a standardized input, measured and perceived loudness will vary among different instruments, ceteris paribus.  Mucking with the sound post, bridge fingerboard, tailpiece - can also affect loudness

2. For a given instrument, set-up, and using a standardized input, both string tension and string type can affect measured and perceived loudness.

...?

[VicM]

51 minutes ago, Dr. Mark said:

So my take is as follows - referring to violins:

1. For a given set of strings at given tension and with a standardized input, measured and perceived loudness will vary among different instruments, ceteris paribus.  Mucking with the sound post, bridge fingerboard, tailpiece - can also affect loudness

2. For a given instrument, set-up, and using a standardized input, both string tension and string type can affect measured and perceived loudness.

...?

In usu meo crassiores violae clarius chordis chalybeis sonabunt. Hoc in studiis meis milliens animadverti, cum pecuniam novam Pirastro seu Dominant emendum habuimus pro nostro consueto loco.

[iNeedAnswers]

@Dr. Mark this rather obviously is true.

 

On 4/2/2024 at 2:31 AM, Aston4 said:

Loudness vs string tension.  That is the equation showing the energy of the string, and how string energy changes with mass of string, length of string, frequency of the wave, and tension of string.  It is all interrelated.  It hurts the brain a little to go through the linked explanation, but understandable if you can recall first semester calculus and physics.

 

Here is the kicker: the elastic constant of the string, plays a huge role, just as if it were a spring.  Different strings will have different elastic constants, and so different tensions on different strings at same lengths and tensions and masses will behave differently, and have different energies, because of their different elastic constants!!! 

 

This is the ACTUAL ANSWER.  It is not speculation.  It is physics.

I took the time to read through it. While it seems to be right, it does not give a lot of insights into violins at all. So it is right, but barely applicable, because it looks at uncoupled strings by themselves, while they are part of a coupled system in the violin. What it does give you is an upper limit of energy transferable towards the violin via the strings, but that's about it, from what I see. 

[Aston4]

8 minutes ago, VicM said:

In usu meo crassiores violae clarius chordis chalybeis sonabunt. Hoc in studiis meis milliens animadverti, cum pecuniam novam Pirastro seu Dominan emendum habuimus pro nostro consueto loco.

Demons have joined the thread.

[Aston4]

2 minutes ago, iNeedAnswers said:

@Dr. Mark this rather obviously is true.

 

I took the time to read through it. While it seems to be right, it does not give a lot of insights into violins at all. So it is right, but barely applicable, because it looks at uncoupled strings by themselves, while they are part of a coupled system in the violin. What it does give you is an upper limit of energy transferable towards the violin via the strings, but that's about it, from what I see. 

So it does not answer, well, the question of "Loudness vs. Tesion" in the context of a bowed stringed instrument?

[VicM]

2 minutes ago, Aston4 said:

Demons have joined the thread.

Quomodo aliud possum tam gloriosum quam DrMark sonare?

[iNeedAnswers]

Just now, Aston4 said:

So it does not answer, well, the question of "Loudness vs. Tesion" in the context of a bowed stringed instrument?

I don't think so, no. It is a bit tough to decide how applicable it really is. We do know, that no string can transfer more energy into the violin than shown here, so it does have some application of course. 
To make it a bit more intuitive: string tension does not only affect the string itself, but the instrument as well. I think this seems rather intuitive, as we change the load on the top, the soundpost, etc. It also kind of pulls at the ends of the violin at the anchor points of the strings. 
This for sure will introduce different effects. The amount of energy transportable by the instrument itself is also not unlimited. Now we would need to find out how strong and limiting those effects are in comparison to those in the strings. 
So, a higher tension string will allow more energy flow and therefore more loudness, but will the violin maybe allow less due to the other effects? The equation is an indicator, but no definitive answer. 

[Dr. Mark]

2 hours ago, VicM said:

In usu meo crassiores violae clarius chordis chalybeis sonabunt. Hoc in studiis meis milliens animadverti, cum pecuniam novam Pirastro seu Dominant emendum habuimus pro nostro consueto loco.

That's impressive.  Thank goodness for on-line translators. (later) Perhaps that's information that Mr. Kasprzyk can use.

2 hours ago, VicM said:

Quomodo aliud possum tam gloriosum quam DrMark sonare?

Sorry, I usually only write Latin phrases when writing them is what I would otherwise write in my...writing...hmmm.  Old habits die hard - but I hope that the appropriate use of a concise phrase is nothing to be embarrassed about...

 

 

[Dr. Mark]

1 hour ago, iNeedAnswers said:

@Dr. Mark this rather obviously is true.

Talk is cheap.  Prove it.

 

[LCF]

5 hours ago, VicM said:

In usu meo crassiores violae clarius chordis chalybeis sonabunt. Hoc in studiis meis milliens animadverti, cum pecuniam novam Pirastro seu Dominant emendum habuimus pro nostro consueto loco.

Should that not be " ex loco consueto nostro."?

 

As I learned in school, 'the ancient Latin language is dead as dead can be. It killed the ancient Romans and now it's killing me.'

 

I have only two additional things in reply. Please stick to the OP if it is at all possible, and noli pascere troglodytae.