String height with more or less fb scoop

[Charlie Van Damniels]

Hey everyone, first time poster, long time lurker. 
 

I was wondering what folks do in regards to string height at the bridge end when you put more scoop in vs when the fingerboard has less scoop. In my mind I think the strings should have less height at the bridge end if the fb has more scoop. 
 

thanks in advance for any input. 

[Sean Couch]

I am a new maker currently working on varnishing violin #2. I am not any kind of authority on the subject, but the way I understand it, is that the scoop should not affect the string height at either end of the fingerboard.

In my mind’s eye, the scoop does not extend to the ends of the fingerboard (fb). I would think that the maximum depth of the scoop should be around the center, or maybe skewed a bit towards the nut or bridge, but it should stop before the ends of the fb.

I put the max scoop in the center. Idk if that is correct or not, but with the gauge I made to measure the scoop, that is how mine works. My gauge measures the difference of the center of the fb with respect to its ends.

[David Burgess]

6 hours ago, Charlie Van Damniels said:

In my mind I think the strings should have less height at the bridge end if the fb has more scoop. 

Yes, you can get away with less bridge height when the fingerboard has more scoop, with no greater propensity to buzz, and without sacrificing the cleanliness of tone which comes from a greater "break angle" between the string and the fingerboard. This setup will give a higher break angle between the string and fingerboard where it really matters, while producing a lower break angle where it is already too high to matter.

That's the technical end of it.
Individual player preferences vary on this stuff. Sometimes, they have formed firm conclusions based on  just and only what they think or feel or believe, based on past flawed input, so one might either need to go along with exactly what they want, or try to gently seduce them back into reality. 

[Charlie Van Damniels]

Thanks very much for the replies. That’s what I was thinking with the break angle in particular. But also was curious about right hand pizzicato for the player and if it would feel weird or off putting. Also for context I shoot for an even scoop down the length of the board with more scoop on the bass than the treble. 

[Victor Roman]

3 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Yes, you can get away with less bridge height when the fingerboard has more scoop, with no greater propensity to buzz, and without sacrificing the cleanliness of tone which comes from a greater "break angle" between the string and the fingerboard.

Interesting : I thought that if the scoop is too much it'll cause buzzing or at least make the string sound false. I thought to avoid buzzing the fingerboard should be slightly convex instead of the norm i.e. concave.

[nathan slobodkin]

13 minutes ago, Victor Roman said:

Interesting : I thought that if the scoop is too much it'll cause buzzing or at least make the string sound false. I thought to avoid buzzing the fingerboard should be slightly convex instead of the norm i.e. concave.

No.

[Victor Roman]

4 minutes ago, nathan slobodkin said:

No.

Thank you. To be honest, I do not understand the actual technical reasons for that. I thought the scoop was there to make the string feel more uniform under the finger. It seems I might have been wrong.... Why having the fingerboard approach the string quicker would be better than the other way around ? Could you please explain ?

[nathan slobodkin]

1 minute ago, Victor Roman said:

Thank you. To be honest, I do not understand the actual technical reasons for that. I thought the scoop was there to make the string feel more uniform under the finger. It seems I might have been wrong.... Why having the fingerboard approach the string quicker would be better than the other way around ? Could you please explain ?

If the fingerboard was convex the string would hit on the bridge side of the finger for all notes lower than the center of the convexity. I am probably not the best person to explain the exact engineering but can assure you that the standard methods which have evolved over centuries really do work best.

[Victor Roman]

17 minutes ago, nathan slobodkin said:

If the fingerboard was convex the string would hit on the bridge side of the finger for all notes lower than the center of the convexity. I am probably not the best person to explain the exact engineering but can assure you that the standard methods which have evolved over centuries really do work best.

I thought the center of the convexity would be at the nut and from there on the fingerboard curves slightly downwards.

[Brad Dorsey]

5 hours ago, David Burgess said:

...you can get away with less bridge height when the fingerboard has more scoop, with no greater propensity to buzz...

But, I think, only up to a certain point.  I imagine that, if you scooped finger board too much and lowered the bridge too much, at some point the strings would buzz against the bridge end of the board.

[The Violin Beautiful]

If there’s a deep scoop in the fingerboard, it makes the strings feel higher as you go toward the middle. If the bridge is a standard height, the strings will feel comfortable at the nut and bridge ends but will feel very high in anything above second position.

Lowering the bridge will eliminate the feeling of excessive height at the middle, but it brings the strings down lower throughout the rest of the fingerboard. The difference is felt less at the nut because the nut is at the narrow end if you consider it as a rough triangle formed between the fingerboard, string, and bridge. The difference is therefore more noticeable at the bridge end, where the high positions will feel quite low and buzzing will be more likely in passages that feature playing in that region. As the bridge is cut lower, the sound also changes, gradually losing focus and clarity, akin to the effect of a dropping projection.

If there is a shallow scoop, the strings will feel lower especially in the middle of the fingerboard but distributed throughout most of its length (apart from at the nut and the bridge ends). It will often cause the strings to feel much lower in the middle of the fingerboard than anywhere else, and if the repertoire being played involves passage work in this region, the violin will feel nearly unplayable. A bridge cut to taller heights  will make the middle more comfortable for playing but will raise the heights at the nut and bridge. If the difference is great enough it will make the instrument difficult to play. Where a low bridge would render the instrument muddy, a high one would render it shrill and strident, again akin to a modification in projection (in this case setting it too high).

If the adjustments made are fairly minor (0.5 mm or less) the instrument’s sound will not change much, although the feel under the fingers will be more apparent. I find that a difference in 0.25 mm is appreciable in string height for playability.

For players who don’t shift out of first position, these differences are less noticeable in terms of feel under the fingers. In that situation, nut height will make a much bigger difference unless the bridge is so low that it causes buzzing in first position; clearance problems in the middle will go unnoticed if a player is not venturing there.

The reason for the fingerboard’s concavity is that it must be shaped according to the vibrating arc of the bowed string. The crest of the wave is roughly in the middle of the fingerboard, so the fingerboard is scooped out in a smooth arc that is deepest in the middle accordingly. A flat or convex fingerboard will buzz excessively because the string will strike it as it vibrates in many areas along its surface. The amount of scoop needed is dependent on the string itself, thus less is needed under the E, which is thinner and strung at higher tension. 

[Michael Darnton]

Ignoring the practicalities from the player's point of view, guitar people worked out the [technical] necessities a long time ago. Hideo Kamimoto wrote a definitive article about it 20 or 30 years back. Guitar people have the advantage that they can throw one pole of an ohm meter on the string and move the other along the frets to see precisely where buzzing is happening, and that answered a lot of questions. That's what his article is about, the shape that gives equal buzzing on every fret from one end of the board to the other when the instrument is played at the buzz limit, basically.

@The Violin Beautiful laid the practicalities out well from the player's POV, as I have understood it. It's a mistake to think that you know better than the people who use them. :-) I tried the flat board thing for a short while and immediately heard about things being mushy in the middle of the board, for instance. A lot of what we do isn't to have to lowest possible action without buzzes, it's about keeping players in their zone of comfort.

That ignores the fact that with many shops as soon as you bring an instrument in they're going to declare all previous work as done by apes and offer to do it "correctly" at some great cost. You really can't stay ahead of that situation by doing good work. My first experience with that was what Bob Bein called "the local  expert" who declared one of my cello boards "wrong" and then had to ask for a new one because he'd planed his way through an entire NEW board trying to make it "right".  Quality shop there.

[Victor Roman]

8 hours ago, The Violin Beautiful said:

If there’s a deep scoop in the fingerboard, it makes the strings feel higher as you go toward the middle. If the bridge is a standard height, the strings will feel comfortable at the nut and bridge ends but will feel very high in anything above second position.

Lowering the bridge will eliminate the feeling of excessive height at the middle, but it brings the strings down lower throughout the rest of the fingerboard. The difference is felt less at the nut because the nut is at the narrow end if you consider it as a rough triangle formed between the fingerboard, string, and bridge. The difference is therefore more noticeable at the bridge end, where the high positions will feel quite low and buzzing will be more likely in passages that feature playing in that region. As the bridge is cut lower, the sound also changes, gradually losing focus and clarity, akin to the effect of a dropping projection.

If there is a shallow scoop, the strings will feel lower especially in the middle of the fingerboard but distributed throughout most of its length (apart from at the nut and the bridge ends). It will often cause the strings to feel much lower in the middle of the fingerboard than anywhere else, and if the repertoire being played involves passage work in this region, the violin will feel nearly unplayable. A bridge cut to taller heights  will make the middle more comfortable for playing but will raise the heights at the nut and bridge. If the difference is great enough it will make the instrument difficult to play. Where a low bridge would render the instrument muddy, a high one would render it shrill and strident, again akin to a modification in projection (in this case setting it too high).

If the adjustments made are fairly minor (0.5 mm or less) the instrument’s sound will not change much, although the feel under the fingers will be more apparent. I find that a difference in 0.25 mm is appreciable in string height for playability.

For players who don’t shift out of first position, these differences are less noticeable in terms of feel under the fingers. In that situation, nut height will make a much bigger difference unless the bridge is so low that it causes buzzing in first position; clearance problems in the middle will go unnoticed if a player is not venturing there.

The reason for the fingerboard’s concavity is that it must be shaped according to the vibrating arc of the bowed string. The crest of the wave is roughly in the middle of the fingerboard, so the fingerboard is scooped out in a smooth arc that is deepest in the middle accordingly. A flat or convex fingerboard will buzz excessively because the string will strike it as it vibrates in many areas along its surface. The amount of scoop needed is dependent on the string itself, thus less is needed under the E, which is thinner and strung at higher tension. 

 

56 minutes ago, Michael Darnton said:

Ignoring the practicalities from the player's point of view, guitar people worked out the necessities a long time ago. Hideo Kamimoto wrote a definitive article about it 20 or 30 years back. Guitar people have the advantage that they can throw one pole of an ohm meter on the string and move the other along the frets to see precisely where buzzing is happening, and that answered a lot of questions. That's what his article is about, the shape that gives equal buzzing on every fret from one end of the board to the other when the instrument is played at the buzz limit, basically.

@The Violin Beautiful laid the practicalities out well from the player's POV, as I have understood it. It's a mistake to think that you know better than the people who use them. :-) I tried the flat board thing for a short while and immediately heard about things being mushy in the middle of the board, for instance. A lot of what we do isn't to have to lowest possible action without buzzes, it's about keeping players in their zone of comfort.

That ignores the fact that with many shops as soon as you bring an instrument in they're going to declare all previous work as done by apes and offer to do it "correctly" at some great cost. You really can't stay ahead of that situation by doing good work. My first experience with that was what Bob Bein called "the local  expert" who declared one of my cello boards "wrong" and then had to ask for a new one because he'd planed his way through an entire NEW board trying to make it "right".  Quality shop there.

Thank you for your explanations and I will try to make sense of it all. I spent an hour or so trying among 3-4 violins and I was not able to find a relation between the "buzzing" and the scoop. I find it slightly more physiological ( if I may say so ) to have some scoop. Not much, just a bit. Makes the feel of the string more comfortable somehow. Otherwise, one violin with dead straight figerboard and 6-4mm G to E height at bridge end shows zero buzzing and has the cleanest fifths.

Thank you, again !

[Charlie Van Damniels]

Thanks for the replies. And sorry for the delayed responses. My responses have to be reviewed by a moderator before it’s posted for now.

These are all really good points. I think I’ll try to lower them a bit at the bridge. I figure it’ll make it a more pleasant playing experience but also I know violinists are super tuned in to nuance and may not prefer it.
 

also

3 hours ago, Michael Darnton said:

Ignoring the practicalities from the player's point of view, guitar people worked out the necessities a long time ago. Hideo Kamimoto wrote a definitive article about it 20 or 30 years back. Guitar people have the advantage that they can throw one pole of an ohm meter on the string and move the other along the frets to see precisely where buzzing is happening, and that answered a lot of questions. That's what his article is about, the shape that gives equal buzzing on every fret from one end of the board to the other when the instrument is played at the buzz limit, basically.

Can this article be found online? I found other people talking about him but I didn’t find the article. Is it in the book “complete guitar repair”?

[FiddleDoug]

On 10/6/2025 at 7:47 PM, Victor Roman said:

 I thought to avoid buzzing the fingerboard should be slightly convex instead of the norm i.e. concave.

Hundreds of years of experience have proved that doesn't work.

[The Violin Beautiful]

Fingerboard scoop is one of the aspects of setup that I examine closely when looking over a customer’s violin. A long time ago I nicknamed my straightedge “The Teller of Truths” because it reveals quite a lot in its application. Ideally I’m looking for a smooth arc that feathers out at the nut and bridge ends. One of the most common issues I encounter, especially with factory setups, is a hump in the board in first position or right be the opposite end that’s caused by bad plane or sanding technique—the tool is used in a manner that cuts the very ends of the board down, causing high spots in front of them. While a hump is less obvious to a player at the bridge end, a hump by the nut completely changes the feel under the fingers and it can lead to buzzing and excessive string wear.

I also come across boards from time to time that are scooped in irregular manners. Sometimes it’s a scoop that is much deeper closer to the nut and much shallower toward the bridge, sometimes it’s a scoop that is almost uniform in depth except for the ends, which are exaggeratedly high. It can be a well-shaped arc that’s uniform depth for all strings, making the G comfortable but the E like a canyon. It can be a scoop that appears to be in reverse—deep at the E and shallow at the G. Or there can be a hump right in the middle that’s caused by poor work or by warpage. Or the scoop can just be too deep or too shallow.

I like to use the straightedge to check the board before cutting a new bridge because the shape of the board and its scoop will have a considerable impact on the feel of the strings at standard heights. As an example, I have a customer who buys violins from a contemporary maker and brings them to me for adjustment before playing them. The maker always puts a very deep scoop in the board, and as a result, the player feels that the strings are far too high at standard measurements. Years ago we established the heights that the player prefers for these violins, so I know exactly how much I should lower the bridge every time one comes in. He doesn’t want the fingerboards planed because he’s trying to keep the cost down, so we work around that handicap. 

[VicM]

1 hour ago, FiddleDoug said:

Hundreds of years of experience have proved that doesn't work.

I don't think so. There are two different issues and one of them likes flat boards. Or maybe even, convex.

[Mark Norfleet]

56 minutes ago, VicM said:

I don't think so. There are two different issues and one of them likes flat boards. Or maybe even, convex.

Please elaborate.  What are the “two different issues”?

I’m having a hard time imagining how a longitudinally flat or convex fingerboard would buzz less than one with a well done concave shape, at least in the first octave.

[HoGo]

Longitudinally convex can play without buzz, but the strings will be extremely high above board in upper positions. I've seen this in some poor mandolins and guitars with backbowed necks (due to construction problems or overtightened truss rod) without setting proper relief (forward bow or concavenes along board) they can only play well in first position, then the action will rapidly go too high and playability and intonation will suffer badly (OK, intonation is not problem on fretless violins where you can adjust).

On electric guitars proper relief is even more important especially when player does wide string bending in middle of board. Without perfect relief setup the strings will simply lay across upper frets when bent.

[Mark Norfleet]

I guess I was limiting myself to considering normal playability requirements.

[HoGo]

Some folks like it the hard way

 

[Victor Roman]

4 hours ago, FiddleDoug said:

Hundreds of years of experience have proved that doesn't work.

It could be. Unfortunately, it's not an aspect I payed sufficient attention to. But it is never too late to learn. Thank you for your reply.

[Victor Roman]

46 minutes ago, Mark Norfleet said:

I guess I was limiting myself to considering normal playability requirements.

Possible...

One deplorable "feature" of some East European school of violin playing was having the strings very high over the fingerboard. This can produce very good effect but it will hurt finger joints, long term. I taught for a short period at the Romanian institute Mr. Mashek ( VicM ) graduated from and I remember not being able to pick up a student's violin and examplify a passage - strings were horribly high, for me. I notice same habit with some ( otherwise excellent ) Russian players. 

[Victor Roman]

1 hour ago, HoGo said:

Longitudinally convex can play without buzz, but the strings will be extremely high above board in upper positions. I've seen this in some poor mandolins and guitars with backbowed necks (due to construction problems or overtightened truss rod) without setting proper relief (forward bow or concavenes along board) they can only play well in first position, then the action will rapidly go too high and playability and intonation will suffer badly (OK, intonation is not problem on fretless violins where you can adjust).

On electric guitars proper relief is even more important especially when player does wide string bending in middle of board. Without perfect relief setup the strings will simply lay across upper frets when bent.

I play some guitar and understand what you are saying. On a violin you want the string to lift up cleanly from under the finger or the notes will be muddy intonation wise. You hear this all the time even with tier 1 soloists...

[Mark Norfleet]

1 hour ago, Victor Roman said:

Possible...

One deplorable "feature" of some East European school of violin playing was having the strings very high over the fingerboard. This can produce very good effect but it will hurt finger joints, long term. I taught for a short period at the Romanian institute Mr. Mashek ( VicM ) graduated from and I remember not being able to pick up a student's violin and examplify a passage - strings were horribly high, for me. I notice same habit with some ( otherwise excellent ) Russian players. 

I wonder why/how that “feature” was established…

I guess I’m lucky that the Russian and Eastern European players I work with are content with modern Western setup conventions.