People who make their F holes far too narrow to fit a sound post into.... Why?

[Nick Allen]

As you can sort of guess, I'm currently fitting a post into a really expensive modern violin. And the F holes are less than 6mm wide at the notches.  

Now we've all been there, and cursed the maker's name while trying to stab the post while it's in the lower eye, also trying not to mung the edge of the eye. And we just suffer through it to make it happen. It takes longer to fit a post and is just annoying, frankly. 

When I make a fiddle, I make sure that I can at least slip a 6.5mm post through. I prefer to use 6.2 but that's not important here. 

Is there some kind of acoustic or historic reason for this? Am I crazy for being driven crazy by this? Probably? 

I understand that it's not a big issue for makers who make 10 sound posts per year, but it's a major annoyance for people who have to do ten sound posts per week. 

I can't tell if I'm just venting or curious or both...

[Dorisch]

I know of a funny story where a maker cut open the f holes of another makers violin “to let the sound out”.

I actually own this violin, but the original maker made a new top for it.

[lorenzo fossati]

I can tell what I think about it, I try to make the sp entrance as narrow as possible, but able to fit a 6,3 mm soundpost, because I think a wide enough post acts nicely on the sound of the instrument, compared to a sp with a smaller diameter. If such smaller diameter posts would sound better to my ear, I think I will make the entrance narrower, because I like it more aesthetically and I like to keep the low air resonance as low as possible. Probably is a maker's choice, if a 6 does not enter, it is meant to be with lesser diameter post!

[Nick Allen]

44 minutes ago, lorenzo fossati said:

I can tell what I think about it, I try to make the sp entrance as narrow as possible, but able to fit a 6,3 mm soundpost, because I think a wide enough post acts nicely on the sound of the instrument, compared to a sp with a smaller diameter. If such smaller diameter posts would sound better to my ear, I think I will make the entrance narrower, because I like it more aesthetically and I like to keep the low air resonance as low as possible. Probably is a maker's choice, if a 6 does not enter, it is meant to be with lesser diameter post!

I can understand that you have a thought out reason, which I can respect. 

Do you, and other makers for that matter, not expect someone to drill through your narrow F hole in frustration with a 6.5mm post in the future? Or is it just not a concern? Idk. 

Also, is your line of thinking that narrower holes and a skinny post are better for sound? 

[Christian Pedersen]

1 hour ago, Nick Allen said:

As you can sort of guess, I'm currently fitting a post into a really expensive modern violin. And the F holes are less than 6mm wide at the notches.  

Now we've all been there, and cursed the maker's name while trying to stab the post while it's in the lower eye, also trying not to mung the edge of the eye. And we just suffer through it to make it happen. It takes longer to fit a post and is just annoying, frankly. 

When I make a fiddle, I make sure that I can at least slip a 6.5mm post through. I prefer to use 6.2 but that's not important here. 

Is there some kind of acoustic or historic reason for this? Am I crazy for being driven crazy by this? Probably? 

I understand that it's not a big issue for makers who make 10 sound posts per year, but it's a major annoyance for people who have to do ten sound posts per week. 

I can't tell if I'm just venting or curious or both...

Nick, I'm with you!

I've not heard actually heard a violin that I thought sounded better with an overly thin soundpost. 

I think too often novice makers will trace their f-holes with an outside template and then cut to the line making the f-holes much too thin.

--Chris 

[lorenzo fossati]

8 minutes ago, Nick Allen said:

I can understand that you have a thought out reason, which I can respect. 

Do you, and other makers for that matter, not expect someone to drill through your narrow F hole in frustration with a 6.5mm post in the future? Or is it just not a concern? Idk. 

Also, is your line of thinking that narrower holes and a skinny post are better for sound? 

Maybe my english is so bad, but I wrote the opposite, that I agree with you that a beefy soundpost is better to my ear! I was just saying that maybe the narrower ff opening is a maker's choice, so if he likes small diameter posts, why not?

[Marty Kasprzyk]

Making the f hole narrower reduces its area which lowers the A0 frequency a few Hz which makes the violin sound slightly deeper on some low notes.

[David Beard]

2 hours ago, Nick Allen said:

 

Is there some kind of acoustic or historic reason for this? Am I crazy for being driven crazy by this? Probably? 

An historical reason is that some Amati and early Strad violin examples did this.

More precisely, the Cremona methods traditionally sized the soundhole stem width in the area around the notch as a fraction of an oncia.  The most common violin sizes were 1/8, 1/7, and 1/6.  Since 1 oncia ~= 39.75mm, the 1/8 size ~= 4.97mm, which is too narrow for common size post widths.

[Will Turner]

46 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Making the f hole narrower reduces its area which lowers the A0 frequency a few Hz which makes the violin sound slightly deeper on some low notes.

Interesting.  I am constantly learning about all the additional methods of tuning an instrument that I had not considered before.  Thanks!

[Bodacious Cowboy]

I've only done it once - copying a  Bros Amati viola with narrow f-holes. Probably would make the effs wider than the original were I to do it again.

Having said that -  I don't find fitting a post through the lower eye much slower than the usual way. It's just a knack that takes a bit of thought and practise. 

[Brad Dorsey]

They do it because they’re idiots.  At least that what I think when I’m making a post for one of their instruments.

[Don Noon]

1 hour ago, Bodacious Cowboy said:

Having said that -  I don't find fitting a post through the lower eye much slower than the usual way. 

I do that all the time.

[Will Turner]

I guess the question is if the narrow f-hole is a better result for the A0 frequency, or if it just was a result of the practice for some luthiers to fit the sound post through the lower eye?

An investigation of the f-hole shape’s influence on the modal response of the violin - https://acta-acustica.edpsciences.org/articles/aacus/pdf/2024/01/aacus240054.pdf

 

[Nick Allen]

1 hour ago, Bodacious Cowboy said:

 

Having said that -  I don't find fitting a post through the lower eye much slower than the usual way. It's just a knack that takes a bit of thought and practise. 

Ugh. I know. 

Problem is, this particular violin has a tiny lower eye and shallow ribs, so you can't even fit it through the lower eye! Like, they eye is physically wide enough to fit the post, but there's not enough depth to angle the sound post in anyways. 

I determined that this violin does not deserve a normal sound post and just planed two flats on either side of the post and slipped it in that way...

[Bodacious Cowboy]

14 minutes ago, Nick Allen said:

Ugh. I know. 

Problem is, this particular violin has a tiny lower eye and shallow ribs, so you can't even fit it through the lower eye! 

That sucks.

[martin swan]

For me the problem with narrow f-holes is getting a post out, not fitting a new one.

It's do-able with cunning and infinite patience, but if there was someone nearby who I could murder I would do it ... and if it was the violin's maker then all the better ....

[lorenzo fossati]

What diameter was the original soundpost?

[martin swan]

Just read Joseph Curtin's article on soundposts in the latest issue of the Strad.

It seems we can stop worrying about the width of the soundpost, also the density of the material! And there's no reason why the soundpost needs to be round either ...

[Blank face]

I would also think that the association thick and round post equals thick and round sound is more a psychological phenomenon than an acoustical.

A round and wide diameter reduces the load per mm2 on the plates and prevents cracking, but this effect isn’t that great that it would be that much of a difference as long as the post has a good enough fit. And if someone feels their violin doesn’t sound well enough with a post which can be inserted without damaging the f hole should think about buying another one.

[jacobsaunders]

While I agree with both Martin and BF above, I could note that many of my fathers early (50s & 60s) violins had fholes of about 5,8mm, many of which have suffered attrition in the intervening years from peoples soundpost setting efforts, so it would seem a good idea to make your new making fholes wider than 6mm for the sake of the long term survival of your instruments. Incidentally Marchi in his manuscript specified that the with of the f determines the diameter of the post

[David Beard]

2 hours ago, jacobsaunders said:

of about 5,8mm

Just to note, that's expanded only about .12mm from the historical 1/7 o size that is seen on a fair number of classical Cremona examples.

[The Violin Beautiful]

As thicker soundposts are becoming more standard, I think it makes sense for new makers to take this into account. If a post has to be thinned out to accommodate a narrow ff opening, it tends to come with a tonal detriment.

Historically, there wasn’t so much standardization, so a variety of sizes is unsurprising. Now that setup is far more standardized, there is more of an expectation that a new maker will think about it in the design and execution of the work. When a new instrument has a narrow ff opening, it just comes off as unprofessional, like the maker didn’t put enough thought into the making or didn’t realize the common size for a soundpost. I think that every new maker should keep in mind that an instrument will likely worked on by several luthiers over the course of its life. Making things that are harder to work with is more likely to cause problems, or for those who aren’t willing to work around the complication, it will result in the instrument being modified to accommodate common practices—if you don’t make the opening at least 6.5, there’s a good chance someone else will, using one of several methods, and it may not look pretty.

Incidentally, I’ve been hearing about a setup specialist whose signature move is to “darken up” violins by putting a viola post in. I wonder what he does with a small ff. 

[Mike_Danielson]

If you have been in the business for a few years, you know that there are makers that just build instruments--they are not particularly skilled in setting them up.  That is a bit strange, but it is a reality.  The OP has one of those instruments.

We see instruments all the time in which some luthier has taken the o'knife out and adjusted the f-hole so the post will fit.   The  f-hole can have a certain butchered look, but the soundpost can be inserted easily--and we all thank this mysterious luthier that did the dirty in the distant past.

Suggestion--adjust the f-hole (with a knife) and blame an earlier luthier for the  work.

[lorenzo fossati]

So if a maker cuts a 6 mm wide opening makes a wrong thing, but the luthier that wants to fit a 6,5 into it, widening the entrance (instead of using a 6 mm one, as the opening dictates)is the hero of future generations?

[Blank face]

8 hours ago, Mike_Danielson said:

and we all thank this mysterious luthier that did the dirty in the distant past

Maybe except those restorers who would have to set it back close to the original condition, who will swear on the butchers.