What happens when a maker tries to put their perception into words?

[Yoshiharu Ito]

Hi all,

 

I recently had a conversation with an acoustics researcher about measurement and observation. His view was that measurement and visualization can supplement human perception and sensation.

This led me to a question. When a violin maker attempts to put into words what they perceive during the making process, does that act of articulation transform tacit, embodied knowledge into something closer to data and observation? Or does it remain a fundamentally different kind of knowing?
As makers, how do you experience this relationship between measurement, language, and perception?

[Brad Dorsey]

It's hard to put it into words.

[Davide Sora]

Perception is based on sensations, so I'd say it's very difficult, if not impossible, to translate into words and quantify in numbers. It's a bit like musicians' (or luthiers') descriptions of sound. There's no common, universal language or accurate measurement systems, so I don't think descriptions can ever be universally valid and comprehensible.

[Violadamore]

12 hours ago, Yoshiharu Ito said:

Hi all,

 

I recently had a conversation with an acoustics researcher about measurement and observation. His view was that measurement and visualization can supplement human perception and sensation.

This led me to a question. When a violin maker attempts to put into words what they perceive during the making process, does that act of articulation transform tacit, embodied knowledge into something closer to data and observation? Or does it remain a fundamentally different kind of knowing?
As makers, how do you experience this relationship between measurement, language, and perception?

IMHO, as I have said on MNet before, it would help communication about violins as an acoustic tool as well as about the crafting of them, if those communicating about them adopted a more varied and precise technical vocabulary to describe them.  The Japanese vocabulary used to describe nihonto by the Japanese sword crafting and appreciation community is an excellent example of the sort of subtle and precise vocabulary that needs to be created to adequately describe violins for clear communication about them within the violin specialist community.

Other examples of descriptive technical vocabularies, similar to what I'm suggesting we need, would be those adopted by several of the natural sciences to convey researchers' observations, or those used by various branches of engineering, but I figured that you might be more likely to be familiar with some nihonto terminology.  Many of its expressions have become idioms in conversational Japanese. 

Because an adequately expressive vocabulary does not yet exist for violin communication, I feel that your question, as asked, might remain unanswered.  

[Don Noon]

16 hours ago, Yoshiharu Ito said:

As makers, how do you experience this relationship between measurement, language, and perception?

The answers will vary according to the individual.  As someone who has spent more of his life buiding aerospace mechanisms than making violins, I have a decidedly engneering approach, with measurements guiding my building rather than any perceptions experienced during the making process.

I know makers tap the wood to listen to the ring... that is essentially perceiving damping, which is something I measure.

Some makers I have heard rub the wood and listen for a lively rustle... that is most likely related to the wood's radiation ratio, which is something I measure.  Maybe damping as well.

Most makers will in some way measure the density of the wood they use (as I do), but maybe some just feel the heft and get some sense of what they're working with.

Then others pay attention to how the wood carves... crisp, buttery, chippy, whatever.  That might mean something to them, and might be a result of some of the measurable properties, but it's not something that I'd use to make decisions about what to do.  

You can smell the wood, or lick it and taste it, and maybe some makers find that stimulating.

Yes, there's enjoyment is watching wood peel off in clean curls with nicely sharpened tools, and watching the shape of a violin come into being, and the occasional annoyance of fixing a screw-up.

[Yoshiharu Ito]

5 hours ago, Davide Sora said:

Perception is based on sensations, so I'd say it's very difficult, if not impossible, to translate into words and quantify in numbers. It's a bit like musicians' (or luthiers') descriptions of sound. There's no common, universal language or accurate measurement systems, so I don't think descriptions can ever be universally valid and comprehensible.

Thank you, Davide. I agree.

But do you think the act of trying to put perception into words actually changes the perception itself?

[Yoshiharu Ito]

5 hours ago, Violadamore said:

IMHO, as I have said on MNet before, it would help communication about violins as an acoustic tool as well as about the crafting of them, if those communicating about them adopted a more varied and precise technical vocabulary to describe them.  The Japanese vocabulary used to describe nihonto by the Japanese sword crafting and appreciation community is an excellent example of the sort of subtle and precise vocabulary that needs to be created to adequately describe violins for clear communication about them within the violin specialist community.

Other examples of descriptive technical vocabularies, similar to what I'm suggesting we need, would be those adopted by several of the natural sciences to convey researchers' observations, or those used by various branches of engineering, but I figured that you might be more likely to be familiar with some nihonto terminology.  Many of its expressions have become idioms in conversational Japanese. 

Because an adequately expressive vocabulary does not yet exist for violin communication, I feel that your question, as asked, might remain unanswered.  

Thank you for the example of nihonto — I actually attended a sword appraisal event in Japan recently and felt many parallels with violin making.

I understand that embodied and tacit knowledge is difficult to put into words. That is exactly why I feel that refining our vocabulary, while valuable, may still leave something essential beyond language.

Do you think a more precise vocabulary would help us communicate about perception, or would something always remain beyond words?

[Yoshiharu Ito]

1 hour ago, Don Noon said:

The answers will vary according to the individual.  As someone who has spent more of his life buiding aerospace mechanisms than making violins, I have a decidedly engneering approach, with measurements guiding my building rather than any perceptions experienced during the making process.

I know makers tap the wood to listen to the ring... that is essentially perceiving damping, which is something I measure.

Some makers I have heard rub the wood and listen for a lively rustle... that is most likely related to the wood's radiation ratio, which is something I measure.  Maybe damping as well.

Most makers will in some way measure the density of the wood they use (as I do), but maybe some just feel the heft and get some sense of what they're working with.

Then others pay attention to how the wood carves... crisp, buttery, chippy, whatever.  That might mean something to them, and might be a result of some of the measurable properties, but it's not something that I'd use to make decisions about what to do.  

You can smell the wood, or lick it and taste it, and maybe some makers find that stimulating.

Yes, there's enjoyment is watching wood peel off in clean curls with nicely sharpened tools, and watching the shape of a violin come into being, and the occasional annoyance of fixing a screw-up.

Thank you, Don. This is fascinating.

Maybe I should try licking the wood 

But do you think something is lost when perception is translated into measurement?

[Don Noon]

5 hours ago, Yoshiharu Ito said:

But do you think something is lost when perception is translated into measurement?

As far as how the final result performs, no.  How the maker feels about what he's doing, perhaps, depending on the person.

However, it is common when doing measurements to get obsessed with them and build to measurements that "should be best", and fail to properly evaluate the result to make corrections.  Then something is definitely lost.

[Yoshiharu Ito]

1 hour ago, Don Noon said:

As far as how the final result performs, no.  How the maker feels about what he's doing, perhaps, depending on the person.

However, it is common when doing measurements to get obsessed with them and build to measurements that "should be best", and fail to properly evaluate the result to make corrections.  Then something is definitely lost.

That makes sense, Don. Maybe it's not measurement itself, but the obsession with it, that closes off perception.

[Michael Darnton]

I do a ton of adjustment these days and players are sometimes reluctant to tell me what they think is wrong because they think their language is unique to them. And they're often correct, but I've been in this business for 45 years so I've heard it all and can usually sort it out.

One of the more interesting aspects of it that I've noticed is that words I've made up for what I hear can often be the opposite of what they're feeling, and so when I hear a new word I always take that into account, and it's also changed a lot about how I hear violins.

[Yoshiharu Ito]

34 minutes ago, Michael Darnton said:

I do a ton of adjustment these days and players are sometimes reluctant to tell me what they think is wrong because they think their language is unique to them. And they're often correct, but I've been in this business for 45 years so I've heard it all and can usually sort it out.

One of the more interesting aspects of it that I've noticed is that words I've made up for what I hear can often be the opposite of what they're feeling, and so when I hear a new word I always take that into account, and it's also changed a lot about how I hear violins.

Thank you, Michael. So even with more precise vocabulary, the gap between words and sensation remains — it varies from person to person.

[Shunyata]

I used to work in the food industry.  There they have “sensory panelists”.  
 

These are people who have been trained to evaluate taste.  They are given reference samples at different concentrations and trained to give a standardized name to the flavor element and a standardized scale for the intensity of the flavor.  They are specifically trained to isolate these components and intensity when incorporated in a mixture of flavors.

This also requires ongoing training and recalibration… people’s perceptions drift over time.

This is a highly rigorous, quantitative  way of tasting that has nothing to with what we normally mean by taste.  But it allows food scientists to clearly understand the flavor components of a food and engineer precise alterations to their recipes.

This is the level of training needed to provide sound evaluation for luthiers.

[Dr. Mark]

To carry some of the above ideas a bit further:

I say a light is green.  You say a light is green.  I measure the wavelength to be 520 nanometers.  You measure the wavelength to be 520 nanometers.  In my brain I see ...green.  In your brain you see what I would call blue.  What test or measurement could we make to determine if we see the same color?  At the point where the difference in our perception, however great, has no discernible effect, it doesn't matter.  Gimme the blue pill.

When we develop a common language, those things that can't be differentiated can receive a common term and description.  If a conflict occurs, i.e. something new is introduced or ambiguity arises in some term of perception, it can sometimes be resolved and that resolution indicated by new terms.  Common language is key.

Science and scientific measurement is our best attempt to quantify and standardize perception.  Mathematics is it's language.  At present, because of limited interest, low funding, and the complexity of the undertaking, providing a complete description of stringed instrument behavior and it's connection to perceived sound and emotional response is a pipe dream.  However, it's the only road we can take that will lead to such a solution.

But good discussion and communication are really not much different IMO.   Science is founded on the concurrence of perceptions, and mathematics is just the decontextualized abstraction of rational argument.

[Pluto Vermin]

15 minutes ago, Shunyata said:

I used to work in the food industry.  There they have “sensory panelists”.  
 

These are people who have been trained to evaluate taste.  They are given reference samples at different concentrations and trained to give a standardized name to the flavor element and a standardized scale for the intensity of the flavor.  They are specifically trained to isolate these components and intensity when incorporated in a mixture of flavors.

This also requires ongoing training and recalibration… people’s perceptions drift over time.

This is a highly rigorous, quantitative  way of tasting that has nothing to with what we normally mean by taste.  But it allows food scientists to clearly understand the flavor components of a food and engineer precise alterations to their recipes.

This is the level of training needed to provide sound evaluation for luthiers.

Music has lost sight of taste.

[Bodacious Cowboy]

16 hours ago, Yoshiharu Ito said:

Thank you, Davide. I agree.

But do you think the act of trying to put perception into words actually changes the perception itself?

Ask Heisenberg.

[Yoshiharu Ito]

15 minutes ago, Bodacious Cowboy said:

Ask Heisenberg.

I'm not that familiar with Heisenberg — could you tell me more?

[Violadamore]

32 minutes ago, Yoshiharu Ito said:

I'm not that familiar with Heisenberg — could you tell me more?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg  He enunciated the "uncertainty principle".  I feel that @Bodacious Cowboy is being humorous.  

 

2 hours ago, Dr. Mark said:

Science and scientific measurement is our best attempt to quantify and standardize perception.  Mathematics is it's language. 

One of its languages, yes, but not principally so in many branches of observational natural science.  For example, much of biology (botany is an excellent example) in particular, has extremely precise specialized structural vocabularies to describe specimens.  Field geology (to cover a lot of specialties with a single vague term) would be another good example. 

One familiar with a discipline and its specialized terminology can read an enormous amount of data from a single glance at something (and then transmit what they saw in a publication), but math usually has little to nothing to do with it.  The vocabularies are passed on to students by memorization and examination of visual examples.  

[Davide Sora]

9 hours ago, Yoshiharu Ito said:

Thank you, Davide. I agree.

But do you think the act of trying to put perception into words actually changes the perception itself?

I don't think it can change the perception for those who try to translate it into words, but it can certainly be different for those who have to do the reverse process, that is, translate words into perception.

[MANFIO]

I love the japanese idea of "inner attitude", as well as the 職人気質), ものづくり and こだわり. 

[Riccardo964]

Whenever I'm working, I listen to music, starting to embed in my shapes the likeness of sounds.

Cheerios,

Riccardo964

[Dr. Mark]

20 hours ago, Violadamore said:

One of its languages, yes, but not principally so in many branches of observational natural science. 

True enough - my bias showing.

[Don Noon]

On 6/2/2026 at 10:30 PM, Yoshiharu Ito said:

I recently had a conversation with an acoustics researcher about measurement and observation. His view was that measurement and visualization can supplement human perception and sensation.

This led me to a question. When a violin maker attempts to put into words what they perceive during the making process...

As and acousitcs researcher and maker,  perceptions during the making I don't think matter much to the acoustic performance in the end... but evaluating what you've made is where different perceptions and conflicting vocabulary come in.

When I play or listen to a violin, the acoustics researcher part of me listens for where the major resonances are, their relative strength, power and balance in general frequency bands, evenness of the response, dropouts, etc*.  I have yet to have even pro players give feedback that is directly useful in determining what to do next to improve things, but have to translate what they say (as best I can) into what needs to be done as far as wood selection, arching, graduations, etc.

For example, when asked for details of specific things that are good, or could be improved, a pro player said, "It does what I want it to do."   Well, that's very gratifying, but doesn't help much for making improvements.  I have to go back to the acoustics measurements and look for areas to tweak that I think might work better.  So far, that process seems to end up working.

*I can still put that line of observation aside and just enjoy the music... unless there is something obviously off about the violin.

[Yoshiharu Ito]

13 hours ago, MANFIO said:

I love the japanese idea of "inner attitude", as well as the 職人気質), ものづくり and こだわり. 

Thank you, MANFIO.

Traditional craftspeople are continuously declining in Japan, so it genuinely means a lot to me to hear those words from a maker like you.

[Yoshiharu Ito]

25 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

As and acousitcs researcher and maker,  perceptions during the making I don't think matter much to the acoustic performance in the end... but evaluating what you've made is where different perceptions and conflicting vocabulary come in.

When I play or listen to a violin, the acoustics researcher part of me listens for where the major resonances are, their relative strength, power and balance in general frequency bands, evenness of the response, dropouts, etc*.  I have yet to have even pro players give feedback that is directly useful in determining what to do next to improve things, but have to translate what they say (as best I can) into what needs to be done as far as wood selection, arching, graduations, etc.

For example, when asked for details of specific things that are good, or could be improved, a pro player said, "It does what I want it to do."   Well, that's very gratifying, but doesn't help much for making improvements.  I have to go back to the acoustics measurements and look for areas to tweak that I think might work better.  So far, that process seems to end up working.

*I can still put that line of observation aside and just enjoy the music... unless there is something obviously off about the violin.

That's really fascinating,Don.

is this really translation of what a player perceives, or something closer to reconstruction of that perception in the maker’s mind?