I agree with your statement that absolute thicknesses and symmetry has mislead a lot of violin makers. As you pointed out…lots of old master violins with thicknesses all over the place 🤭 Just general thickness profile is enough 😄
The violin is not supposed to be a symmetrical instrument. Sounding good, and sounding different are two different things. Performing well and performing differently are also different. Arching, stiffness and density have to be balanced in order to get the desired result, and due to the nature of the four strings being of different diameter, tension, and pitch, the instrument must be adjusted asymetrically in order to accommodate these differences, as well as balance the various modes. What worked for the Kreisler might not work on the instrument you're working on, but it is useful to know how the Kreisler was approached.
Thank you for your answer. I think, if I ever get to cutting and carving, I will do my work so it produces the sound I am listening for, which I won't know until I hear it.
I was taught by using Tap Tones (from holding at nodal points), so I guess this is another method of finding the ideal tone while carving. Others use light to check the density of the plate visually. No piece of wood is the same, so I agree the thickness should only be a guide, not the "be all & end all" of making a good violin.
I don´t really believe in methods, where you shave off some tenth of millimeters to get the perfect tap tone on a free plate and then glue it to a rib construction of thousends of time the weight and stiff it up into a totally new system. What I think this system does, is to form an arching, outside and inside on both plates, that has equal properties in supporting all adjecent parts along the arch. Unfortunatelly, we live in a time where numbers are king. Everything has to be measured and presented with a number. These scratch tones can be heard but does not give a number, since they can´t be recorded. Therefore it is rejected. I use the "light method" to find areas to check a second time.
If you use the scratch or rub test on wood surfaces you can try this test also . Cut a piece of wood with a coarse (sharp} tooth saw .check the scratch note /tone. Now cut the wood with a sharp fine tooth saw.The pitch changes because the surface fibres microcopically , are different sizes . Strad used a pointed tool to press into the wood to get the thickness . Producing many violins made that useful . Amati used to keep his plate thickness nice and even . So surely the minor variations are not that important . Having a thicker middle ,tapering out to the edges makes sense .
The punch tool used by Strad is a good tool to reach the plus-sized thickness that determines when to start being careful. If I am right, this is far to coarse method to reach the final inner arch. As for Amati, he certainly was not at the "symetric" side. The thicknesses vary a lot from side to side and also from different instruments. Of course this can be made by later "tone-pro´s" that thought they knew better and shaved off some wood.
I am very impressed by Your method. I tried to use it when making my latest violin. But I failed. It was too difficult. With my left ear I can't hear high frequencies but my right ear can. If I shut off one ear with hearing protection and listen to the scratch noise with only one ear, and then do the same with the other ear, I have the feeling the scratch noise is not the same. This idea using only one ear came to me lately. Maybe I should try again making a new violin only using my right ear. I think I should have the possibility to learn the method as I am capable of tuning my own piano fairly well? Anyone with ideas?
Hi, I am about to make a video about using the side of a finger nail instead of the pad of the finger. In my point of view, it makes a more distinct sound. It also concentrates the area to a smaller spot.
If I said that, I was wrong. Starting thickness of a violin should be about 3,5 for the top and 5,5 - 6 on the back. For cello I would say 6 for the top and 8 for the back. Center starting thickness. In the upper and lower bouts it can be thinner. Always check with the tapping tone to be sure before removing wood.
I don´t see it like that. I choose my wood from being straight, fairly light, fast sounding (Lucchi meter) and nice figure. Age can be added but it is not of a big importance as I see it. To be dependant of thickness measures is in my eyes a wish to controlling the making by numbers. Look at all the measurements from old violins. Since they differ so much, it would mean that Strad picked very different types of wood. The thickness is just a number. What counts is to have the same pitch tone all over, inside and outside on both plates. If you say no to that, I urge you to try another method. Best Peter
@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892 Thanks for this. It is enlightening. I bought a 30 year old maple-pair, which was precut, and after carving the two glued halves, it turned out, that no matter how much or little I carve, their sound is different. One has a background tone of a B, and the other of an E. The E is on the light-string side. So no matter how much I carved, and shaped it, their sound is truly differing by two whole notes. They appear to be from the same source, but since they came in two pieces, I had to conclude that they were from two different sources. I am wondering if this will have a negative effect on the purity of the sounds? It is interesting that it was exactly B on the thick string side (G and D) and an E on the light strings (D and E), as both B and E have no sharps. What are the implications of making a violin with two different halves?
@@sergiomanzetti1021 Hi Sergio! I don´t record the tones like you seems to do. Therefore I can not answer you. I see more of a lodspeaker membrane of a very complex form which makes the inner and outer arching of the plates important to be correct. As I have mentioned, this is my theory and belief, not a proven law. I do not see a problem using two halves from different trees, unless they are very different in charachter.
@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892 Thanks Peter. They are exactly the same in terms of wood pattern, porosity and density, but their underlying tone is hence different. Can you say something about the importance of the height of the ribs? If the ribs are lower at the lower end of the violin, and higher at the upper end (inverse to Stradivarius), by 1 mm, would you think it could impact the violin negatively? Thanks, have a good Sunday in Sweden. Greetings from France
@@sergiomanzetti1021 If you go for using them, you get feedback of if it changes anything. What I could think of, is that there might be some uneveness on some notes... As for the ribs, I don´t see big turnouts going a mm up or down. I make them 31,5 at the under block and lower corners, then taper it down to 29,5 at the top block.
good night master. Greetings from Brazil to all of you. Please what book is this that appears in your video with thickness measurements etc. ???? Is it easy to buy one of these?thank you very much
Thanks! It is a book by a maker in the US by the name of Jeff Loen. He is about to release a new book in this manner soon. You can contact him on jloen@aol.com or mailto:jloen@aol.com
What result have you come to in your experiments regarding the fact that the thickness of the plate would be visually determined according to how light passes through different areas? When the wood is denser at some area - and transmits light less well, is that point processed thinner than other area that is less dense and transmits light better? So the goal is to make plate show light all over with the same intensity from every point of it. Have you researched this and found it to be a false path?
Hi MR, It is very common to search for visual ways to to the making. Looking at numbers, arch templates and like your question, light transmision. However, this method is based on hearing. The visual aspect is a bi-tool as to see an obvious bulge etc. that has to be examined by listening and then taken care of by removing wood. Also the method you described can be of help in the same way, - holding it to a lamp and see if there are spots that are darker. However I never take wood away until I have examined it by hearing and then decided that there is a reason for shaving off material. I think the method you described is featured in a book by a former principal of Mittenwald school, Aschauer or Leonard. I don´t remember which one.
@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892 As luthiers are making acoustic instruments, it surely makes sense to use an acoustic method for plate tuning? Any method involving light, measurements and the like is another large step removed from the desired result. This doesn't make much sense - why not work directly with the sound?
exactly. the see trough test is a 1st and gives a reference but the 2nd test must be the listening and only then it needs to be shaved. not alone by see through. (sounds logic) because if the listening test says its ok, then there's no need to shave even if the light test says: "bulge"@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892
As I see it, the fixation in numbers may be barking up the wrong tree. The method I try to give a shot, is more about forming an outer and an inner arching. What we see as "thicknesses" is what is left in between and therefore not what to strive for to be a specific number. Also, the box construction gives so much stability to the plates, that they can stand quite "thin" areas without crashing. A lot of Strads etc. show that even thicknesses down to 1.4 - 1.5 still works in a professional violin. I don´t say that this is optimal but more a fact.
@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892 Yes, we agree, your explanation is better than mine. As a acoustic guitar builder, I have used some of the same principles you mention here with great success. I actually build with very high arches on my guitars which requires consideration relative to thickness due to the stiffness realized due to arching and rim attachment. So while they are 2 different instruments, similar concepts abound
Sorry, I dont make guitars. The method I am talking about is about how archings are formed, not thicknesses. There is a Romanian guitar maker, who is very much into my method, named Constantin Dumitriu. Maybe he can answer your questions. Best/Peter@@jpjay1584
Well, you can’t just look at the thickness alone, of course they varies, as the masters matched thickness to each piece of wood with various density, weight and stiffness.
Well, how do you know what the old masters had in mind when they constructed their instruments. I always take a step back when people say that Strad did this or that. What I am saying is that the variations in thicknesses goes pretty much against what schools and "violin icons" tell. For example, read Sacconi´s book.
Yes. When it comes to thicknessing, the goal is to find the same pitch on the outside as the inside. Hearing these "pitch tones" correctly takes practice and I recommend that you follow your graduation work with a thickness gauge, to avoid disasters. Especially in the beginning of trying the method.
As I see it, there is an impossible task to have every spot perfectly tuned to the rest of the plates. There might be some "natural tuning" when the instrument is played that works as a final tuning. What people call playing in period. What I try to do, is getting it as good as it gets. Remember, the tuning is about the surface, not the stiffness. There will be smart people in the future that maybe can answer these questions with more substance.
i think they had a way to quickly assemble the instrument and string it up and play it. And they tuned the instrument by taking it back apart and removing material to achieve the sound they were after and they knew which areas to remove material to achieve the sound for each string until they got it perfect which would result in various thicknesses. I refuse to believe that these old masters just got lucky with some of these instruments that they sound so good. I dont see anyone thinking this way. It would be the ultimate way to tune. Assemble. Play. Disassemble. Remove material / tune. Reassemble. Check. Repeat until sound is perfect. Makes sense to me.
If you open up a violin to adjust it by removing material, you have to be pretty sure where to work and what that does to the sound. However, that operation may or may not cure the problem but it will also create new tensions and problems that wasn´t thare before. You also have to bare in mind that taking a violin apart is doing quite a bit of harm to the violin, each time you do it. It is not a zipper that you can open and close just like that. The method I try to describe is a way to make the outer and inner archings work together as a unit. If you acheive that, there will be no need for opening the violin for more wood to be adjusted.
Scratching the surface with your finger and listening to the frequency, has nothing to do with the plate thickness. It has to do with the smoothness and humidity of the surface. Slightly damp in one side, and then do the scratch test again.
I've seen a copy of the book. As Peter is arguing, all it really proves is that the measurements of the old Cremona violins are all over the place, suggesting strongly that they were using other methods. Also, I've been told that calipers were not a common tool in their workshops - though I haven't verified that claim myself.
I am a retired oboist from Boston. The best oboes were made by Alfred Laubin, of which I owned several. After he passed away his son Paul, took over the business and the oboes we’re not of the same quality that his father made. When Al passed away, he took along with him many secrets. I know something about what I’m saying.
Yes, of course. I was just trying to be funny. There is definitely a point that you have. Even if Mr Stradivari had given all his info to us like I try to do, the results would vary a lot depending on what is happening in a persons brain processing and executing the given information. Also there are factors, not thought about like storage, chemicals, tools etc. that gives a whole new basis of how the outcome will be.
Thickness is a tool through which you achieve a result and not the result. I think you are looking at thicknesses from the wrong point of view. Thicknesses are important and must be adjusted "differently" for each piece of wood because each piece of wood is different. Different specific weight, different density of the rings, etc. This is why both Stradivari and Guarnieri have those "particular" profiles of thickness that differ from violin to violin.
Hi Emiliano! I totally agreed with you in this for many many years. I looked into thicknes patterns, learned from making icons, read books etc. However, this method was out there in parts and I got curious. Making my instrument # 158 was the first attempt to do anything in this way. It came out not too bad. Since then, I have discovered more and more, both how to expand the method but also I found logical explanations of strange features in the old masters work, such as the back plug and the different stop lenghts on the F-holes etc. (Now I am on # 450) Many makers have written me and thanked me for the method. Most of them are amateurs making some of their first instruments but also there are pro´s that thanked me for it and claimed that they were for the first time following a path instead of guessing how much or where to take away material. They also say that there is a major improvment in their making. As an experienced maker like you might be, I understand that it feels very awkward to step aside from what has been tought in violin making schools for so long time. It definitely takes courage and will to seek a new way. If it feels too scary, I definitely urge you to stay in your method. (But this one is better :) )
author, you are wrong. I hope you are convinced of this by yourself by finishing this instrument. With this approach. everything will change when you glue the springs and the effective cutouts. but the end result is a coating that turns into hardness and concentration of sound. experience comes with researching the material, it is always different and the approach is different and the thicknesses are different and the soils are different, everything is varied and the sounds of Italians in different violins are different. Even Stradivarius’s violins all sound different. search and you will find
I may be wrong. I try very hard not to think I am the smartest guy in the room. However, I am trying to explain a method, where the archings are vital to form into giving the same sound when tuned in all places. Varnishing does very little to the arch, so this is not affecting the result of the method. Sorry but I don´t understand what you mean by "springs that are glued" and "effective cutouts".
I agree with your statement that absolute thicknesses and symmetry has mislead a lot of violin makers. As you pointed out…lots of old master violins with thicknesses all over the place 🤭
Just general thickness profile is enough 😄
The violin is not supposed to be a symmetrical instrument. Sounding good, and sounding different are two different things. Performing well and performing differently are also different.
Arching, stiffness and density have to be balanced in order to get the desired result, and due to the nature of the four strings being of different diameter, tension, and pitch, the instrument must be adjusted asymetrically in order to accommodate these differences, as well as balance the various modes.
What worked for the Kreisler might not work on the instrument you're working on, but it is useful to know how the Kreisler was approached.
Thank you for your answer. I think, if I ever get to cutting and carving, I will do my work so it produces the sound I am listening for, which I won't know until I hear it.
I was taught by using Tap Tones (from holding at nodal points), so I guess this is another method of finding the ideal tone while carving. Others use light to check the density of the plate visually.
No piece of wood is the same, so I agree the thickness should only be a guide, not the "be all & end all" of making a good violin.
I don´t really believe in methods, where you shave off some tenth of millimeters to get the perfect tap tone on a free plate and then glue it to a rib construction of thousends of time the weight and stiff it up into a totally new system. What I think this system does, is to form an arching, outside and inside on both plates, that has equal properties in supporting all adjecent parts along the arch. Unfortunatelly, we live in a time where numbers are king. Everything has to be measured and presented with a number. These scratch tones can be heard but does not give a number, since they can´t be recorded. Therefore it is rejected. I use the "light method" to find areas to check a second time.
Thank you Sir Westerlund!!! This is by far the most interesting video I have ever seen. God bless you! From Lima Peru
Thanks!
My teacher told me this in 1994!
You are right Sir!
This is a high-quality unintentional ASMR video.
If you use the scratch or rub test on wood surfaces you can try this test also . Cut a piece of wood with a coarse (sharp} tooth saw .check the scratch note /tone. Now cut the wood with a sharp fine tooth saw.The pitch changes because the surface fibres microcopically , are different sizes . Strad used a pointed tool to press into the wood to get the thickness . Producing many violins made that useful . Amati used to keep his plate thickness nice and even . So surely the minor variations are not that important . Having a thicker middle ,tapering out to the edges makes sense .
The punch tool used by Strad is a good tool to reach the plus-sized thickness that determines when to start being careful. If I am right, this is far to coarse method to reach the final inner arch. As for Amati, he certainly was not at the "symetric" side. The thicknesses vary a lot from side to side and also from different instruments. Of course this can be made by later "tone-pro´s" that thought they knew better and shaved off some wood.
I am very impressed by Your method. I tried to use it when making my latest violin. But I failed. It was too difficult. With my left ear I can't hear high frequencies but my right ear can. If I shut off one ear with hearing protection and listen to the scratch noise with only one ear, and then do the same with the other ear, I have the feeling the scratch noise is not the same. This idea using only one ear came to me lately. Maybe I should try again making a new violin only using my right ear. I think I should have the possibility to learn the method as I am capable of tuning my own piano fairly well? Anyone with ideas?
Hi,
I am about to make a video about using the side of a finger nail instead of the pad of the finger. In my point of view, it makes a more distinct sound. It also concentrates the area to a smaller spot.
The texture of the wood will change the sound also when doing the brushing a cross test. sweeping a cross the grain of the wood or with the grain .
Maybe so, but go back and forth until you have a clear view of where to take off material.
Listen three times, check twice, carve once very small.
@@patriciajrs46 Yes - the speed he that he is carving in the video is scary. I guess that decades of experience build your touch and confidence!
On the bottom of the violin you indicate starting with 3.5mm. On the bottom of the cello, what measure do you indicate to start with? 5mm?
If I said that, I was wrong. Starting thickness of a violin should be about 3,5 for the top and 5,5 - 6 on the back. For cello I would say 6 for the top and 8 for the back. Center starting thickness. In the upper and lower bouts it can be thinner. Always check with the tapping tone to be sure before removing wood.
@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892 Perfect ! Thank you very much for the guidance!
The wood quality, age and elasticity determines the optimal thickness, which one obtains from the sound of the plate.
I don´t see it like that. I choose my wood from being straight, fairly light, fast sounding (Lucchi meter) and nice figure. Age can be added but it is not of a big importance as I see it. To be dependant of thickness measures is in my eyes a wish to controlling the making by numbers. Look at all the measurements from old violins. Since they differ so much, it would mean that Strad picked very different types of wood. The thickness is just a number. What counts is to have the same pitch tone all over, inside and outside on both plates. If you say no to that, I urge you to try another method.
Best
Peter
@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892 Thanks for this. It is enlightening. I bought a 30 year old maple-pair, which was precut, and after carving the two glued halves, it turned out, that no matter how much or little I carve, their sound is different. One has a background tone of a B, and the other of an E. The E is on the light-string side. So no matter how much I carved, and shaped it, their sound is truly differing by two whole notes. They appear to be from the same source, but since they came in two pieces, I had to conclude that they were from two different sources. I am wondering if this will have a negative effect on the purity of the sounds? It is interesting that it was exactly B on the thick string side (G and D) and an E on the light strings (D and E), as both B and E have no sharps. What are the implications of making a violin with two different halves?
@@sergiomanzetti1021 Hi Sergio! I don´t record the tones like you seems to do. Therefore I can not answer you. I see more of a lodspeaker membrane of a very complex form which makes the inner and outer arching of the plates important to be correct. As I have mentioned, this is my theory and belief, not a proven law.
I do not see a problem using two halves from different trees, unless they are very different in charachter.
@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892 Thanks Peter. They are exactly the same in terms of wood pattern, porosity and density, but their underlying tone is hence different.
Can you say something about the importance of the height of the ribs? If the ribs are lower at the lower end of the violin, and higher at the upper end (inverse to Stradivarius), by 1 mm, would you think it could impact the violin negatively? Thanks, have a good Sunday in Sweden. Greetings from France
@@sergiomanzetti1021 If you go for using them, you get feedback of if it changes anything. What I could think of, is that there might be some uneveness on some notes...
As for the ribs, I don´t see big turnouts going a mm up or down. I make them 31,5 at the under block and lower corners, then taper it down to 29,5 at the top block.
good night master. Greetings from Brazil to all of you. Please what book is this that appears in your video with thickness measurements etc. ???? Is it easy to buy one of these?thank you very much
Thanks! It is a book by a maker in the US by the name of Jeff Loen. He is about to release a new book in this manner soon.
You can contact him on jloen@aol.com or mailto:jloen@aol.com
What result have you come to in your experiments regarding the fact that the thickness of the plate would be visually determined according to how light passes through different areas? When the wood is denser at some area - and transmits light less well, is that point processed thinner than other area that is less dense and transmits light better? So the goal is to make plate show light all over with the same intensity from every point of it. Have you researched this and found it to be a false path?
Hi MR,
It is very common to search for visual ways to to the making. Looking at numbers, arch templates and like your question, light transmision.
However, this method is based on hearing. The visual aspect is a bi-tool as to see an obvious bulge etc. that has to be examined by listening and then taken care of by removing wood. Also the method you described can be of help in the same way, - holding it to a lamp and see if there are spots that are darker. However I never take wood away until I have examined it by hearing and then decided that there is a reason for shaving off material. I think the method you described is featured in a book by a former principal of Mittenwald school, Aschauer or Leonard. I don´t remember which one.
@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892 As luthiers are making acoustic instruments, it surely makes sense to use an acoustic method for plate tuning? Any method involving light, measurements and the like is another large step removed from the desired result. This doesn't make much sense - why not work directly with the sound?
exactly. the see trough test is a 1st and gives a reference but the 2nd test must be the listening and only then it needs to be shaved. not alone by see through. (sounds logic)
because if the listening test says its ok, then there's no need to shave even if the light test says: "bulge"@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892
thank you ! Awesome , I do the same with my flutes , great video ! Use the Ear !!! :o)
I would say that plate thickness absolutely matters, but what thickness, where, is the ultimate question that only the luthier can determine.
As I see it, the fixation in numbers may be barking up the wrong tree. The method I try to give a shot, is more about forming an outer and an inner arching. What we see as "thicknesses" is what is left in between and therefore not what to strive for to be a specific number. Also, the box construction gives so much stability to the plates, that they can stand quite "thin" areas without crashing. A lot of Strads etc. show that even thicknesses down to 1.4 - 1.5 still works in a professional violin. I don´t say that this is optimal but more a fact.
@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892 Yes, we agree, your explanation is better than mine. As a acoustic guitar builder, I have used some of the same principles you mention here with great success. I actually build with very high arches on my guitars which requires consideration relative to thickness due to the stiffness realized due to arching and rim attachment. So while they are 2 different instruments, similar concepts abound
what thickness would you recommend for a hollow body electric guitar? (or semi hollow) @@ggergg6423
Sorry, I dont make guitars. The method I am talking about is about how archings are formed, not thicknesses. There is a Romanian guitar maker, who is very much into my method, named Constantin Dumitriu. Maybe he can answer your questions. Best/Peter@@jpjay1584
thanks@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892
Thank you!!!
Well, you can’t just look at the thickness alone, of course they varies, as the masters matched thickness to each piece of wood with various density, weight and stiffness.
Well, how do you know what the old masters had in mind when they constructed their instruments.
I always take a step back when people say that Strad did this or that.
What I am saying is that the variations in thicknesses goes pretty much against what schools and "violin icons" tell.
For example, read Sacconi´s book.
Every piece of wood is different. Density is not linear.
Thickness is done by ear...
where to I buy Thickness Graduation Maps Classic Violins, Violas and Cellos?
I got mine from a friend named Jeff Loen at Kenmore violins. Otherwise The Strad magazine has got a lot of posters including thickness maps.
Can a person just tap the wood, and use her own ears, and decide what thickness is a good one?
Yes. When it comes to thicknessing, the goal is to find the same pitch on the outside as the inside.
Hearing these "pitch tones" correctly takes practice and I recommend that you follow your graduation work with a thickness gauge, to avoid disasters. Especially in the beginning of trying the method.
@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892
Thank you very much.
Interesting but what happens when the varnish is applied onto the bottom?
As I see it, there is an impossible task to have every spot perfectly tuned to the rest of the plates. There might be some "natural tuning" when the instrument is played that works as a final tuning. What people call playing in period. What I try to do, is getting it as good as it gets. Remember, the tuning is about the surface, not the stiffness.
There will be smart people in the future that maybe can answer these questions with more substance.
Makes sense.
i think they had a way to quickly assemble the instrument and string it up and play it. And they tuned the instrument by taking it back apart and removing material to achieve the sound they were after and they knew which areas to remove material to achieve the sound for each string until they got it perfect which would result in various thicknesses. I refuse to believe that these old masters just got lucky with some of these instruments that they sound so good. I dont see anyone thinking this way. It would be the ultimate way to tune. Assemble. Play. Disassemble. Remove material / tune. Reassemble. Check. Repeat until sound is perfect. Makes sense to me.
If you open up a violin to adjust it by removing material, you have to be pretty sure where to work and what that does to the sound. However, that operation may or may not cure the problem but it will also create new tensions and problems that wasn´t thare before. You also have to bare in mind that taking a violin apart is doing quite a bit of harm to the violin, each time you do it. It is not a zipper that you can open and close just like that. The method I try to describe is a way to make the outer and inner archings work together as a unit. If you acheive that, there will be no need for opening the violin for more wood to be adjusted.
🤣🤣🤣
Scratching the surface with your finger and listening to the frequency, has nothing to do with the plate thickness. It has to do with the smoothness and humidity of the surface.
Slightly damp in one side, and then do the scratch test again.
Where can I get the measure book?
The author is Jeff Loen
@@westerlundsviolinverkstada9892 The name of the book?
@@patriciajrs46 Thickness graduation maps
I've seen a copy of the book. As Peter is arguing, all it really proves is that the measurements of the old Cremona violins are all over the place, suggesting strongly that they were using other methods. Also, I've been told that calipers were not a common tool in their workshops - though I haven't verified that claim myself.
I wish Mr. Stradivari we’re here to comment on your theory
Well, I had a talk with Kurt Stradivari and he agreed totally. :)
I am a retired oboist from Boston. The best oboes were made by Alfred Laubin, of which I owned several. After he passed away his son Paul, took over the business and the oboes we’re not of the same quality that his father made. When Al passed away, he took along with him many secrets. I know something about what I’m saying.
Yes, of course. I was just trying to be funny.
There is definitely a point that you have. Even if Mr Stradivari had given all his info to us like I try to do, the results would vary a lot depending on what is happening in a persons brain processing and executing the given information. Also there are factors, not thought about like storage, chemicals, tools etc. that gives a whole new basis of how the outcome will be.
I was just about to ask the question "who is Kurt Stradivari?"
Thickness is a tool through which you achieve a result and not the result. I think you are looking at thicknesses from the wrong point of view. Thicknesses are important and must be adjusted "differently" for each piece of wood because each piece of wood is different. Different specific weight, different density of the rings, etc. This is why both Stradivari and Guarnieri have those "particular" profiles of thickness that differ from violin to violin.
Hi Emiliano! I totally agreed with you in this for many many years. I looked into thicknes patterns, learned from making icons, read books etc. However, this method was out there in parts and I got curious. Making my instrument # 158 was the first attempt to do anything in this way. It came out not too bad. Since then, I have discovered more and more, both how to expand the method but also I found logical explanations of strange features in the old masters work, such as the back plug and the different stop lenghts on the F-holes etc. (Now I am on # 450)
Many makers have written me and thanked me for the method. Most of them are amateurs making some of their first instruments but also there are pro´s that thanked me for it and claimed that they were for the first time following a path instead of guessing how much or where to take away material. They also say that there is a major improvment in their making.
As an experienced maker like you might be, I understand that it feels very awkward to step aside from what has been tought in violin making schools for so long time. It definitely takes courage and will to seek a new way.
If it feels too scary, I definitely urge you to stay in your method. (But this one is better :) )
author, you are wrong. I hope you are convinced of this by yourself by finishing this instrument. With this approach. everything will change when you glue the springs and the effective cutouts. but the end result is a coating that turns into hardness and concentration of sound. experience comes with researching the material, it is always different and the approach is different and the thicknesses are different and the soils are different, everything is varied and the sounds of Italians in different violins are different. Even Stradivarius’s violins all sound different. search and you will find
I may be wrong. I try very hard not to think I am the smartest guy in the room.
However, I am trying to explain a method, where the archings are vital to form into giving the same sound when tuned in all places. Varnishing does very little to the arch, so this is not affecting the result of the method.
Sorry but I don´t understand what you mean by "springs that are glued" and "effective cutouts".
Pseudo-science.