I just watched every video and I have to say that I am absolutely astonished with your procedures. I love the mantra that you follow to accomplish such a high level of quality. Thanks for sharing, maestro. Keep giving us more of your expertise. Those who, like I do, live isolated from any source of tuition in violinmaking. do absolutely appreciate the efforts of masters like you.
Quite fascinating Peter, and they work well with my brain as they just seem to make sense compared to copying some pattern/template. I look forward to testing this process out and appreciate you sharing your knowledge.
Thank You so much. I acquire old, inexpensive (often severely damaged) student violins, and repair them as a hobby. They are always solid wood (no plywood) and are usually more than 70 years old. I am of course, confined the wood I have, and the forms created by some Italian, or Spanish, or German factory worker many years ago. But, I have found, using your techniques, I can repair them and greatly improve their tone by the tiny changes to the thickness of the plates, and revisions to the bass bar and sound post based on your theories. They may never be great, but they transform from rather poor to quite good. I am completely ignorant to the methods of Stradivari, but I now firmly believe that the sound of the wood must govern the build, and not some "magic" formulae. The proof of the soup is in the taste. Thanks again. I am now going to watch your entire series from the beginning.
Many thanks Peter. Fascinating process matching the acoustic qualities of scratching and tapping with the thicknessing..Thank you so much for this wonderful insight.
Hi Peter, Thank you for an exciting, interesting, absolutely phenomenal video series. In addition, overturning completely credible as the results speak for themselves with a range of well-sounding instruments. I get incredibly eager to test my hearing and scratch some wood myself. Thanks!
Thank you for demonstrating this again. I am practicing the technique, getting my hearing attuned to the various tap tones. I found it a bit confusing at first but am getting better. So thank you again and looking forward to future videos.
There are several ways to determine arching height, but the quickest is to divide the length of the body by 12. A violin body length of 356 mm \ 12 = 29.66 mm, which will be the height of the ribs. I think most makers would round this up to 30 mm. Divide the rib height by 2 to get the arching height = 15 mm. Top and back arch heights are the same to start with. Violins vary a lot, and rib heights of 31 or 32 mm are common, but I have also seen them as low as 27 mm. I think once the mathematical answer is known, then the maker will alter dimensions to meet the demands of tuning and arching for his particular pieces of wood and his model. For cellos, the body length is divided by 12 like the violin, but the answer is *multiplied* by 2 to get the rib height (750 mm / 12 = 62.5 * 2 = 125). My school notes give the cello rib height as 115 - 118 mm. To get the arching height the original *unmultiplied* result (62.5 mm) is divided in half to determine the arching height of 31.25 mm. My school measurements show the arching height for cellos a few mm lower, but in the end this will be at the maker's discretion, how sharp his plane is, and whether he is having a good day or not. A wonderful series. I have enjoyed watching it, and even after many, many years in the craft i find I can still discover new ways to do things. Congratulations!
Thanks for your thoughts, Robert. I know there are many theories behind every aspect of the making. My method of finding the arching height fascinates me, as it seems to depend on the model as well as the actual properties of the current piece of wood I am using. If the same mould is used for two violins, there can still be a small difference in arcing height. I want to believe that this accoustical way of determine the height is in line with setting the accoustical limits for the instrument. Looking at the old masters, you can find the same discrepancy between instruments made on the same moulds. If they were mathematically calculated, I guess they would not differ.
Thank you for your kind reply, Peter. I know it takes you away from your bench, so it's much appreciated. The mathematical way serves best only as a quick guide. I think of it not as a destination, but more like a point of departure. I have been at this game too long to be a slave to a number. There are many aspects of violin design that can be expressed as a ratio or even a fixed number, but, as you know, when you examine the dimensions of many old violins, that exact number or ratio is almost never found. Yet among young makers I have heard arguments over the body length. One says it should be 355; the other says oh, no! It should be 356! One can hardly imagine a violin maker of earlier times looking at a very beautiful piece of well-aged maple and saying "Oh, this is a millimeter too short, so I guess I will just throw it away."
Very nice seeing more videos from you! :-) I've been wondering, do you have any method for determining the rib height, or do you simply go with 32mm? And what about cellos? Cheers, Tobias
Hi Tobias! No I haven´t solved that yet. I go for copying in that matter. I am eager ears if someone have a solution to it, though. I guess there is a "rule" for it to be found.
Yes, I guess so. I have a feeling that the height should actually be determined after the archings are done. I'm convinced that the volume pumping through the Fs is crucial for the bass frequencies... Maybe you can even match the frequency of the tone when blowing over the F to that of the plate? On my one that I showed you it's pretty close actually, with 32mm ribs I believe. But honestly, I'm happy to vary the height to have some control over the tonal characteristics other than model and wood selection. Your system seems effective, but it does take that control away by claiming that an "optimal" arching exists. Speaking of which... I saw a Ruggeri cello the other day, and it had a very similar deep channel of both top and back to what I got using your system. I'd never seen that before on a cello, so I was quite surprised to stumble upon something similar to mine on one of the first Cremonese master instruments I've studied somewhat carefully. Not proof that it works as such, but a funny coincidence at least. I'd love to see pictures of some of your archings from the player's perspective if you have them and would like to send them on messenger. I've had a few thoughts going in to my next one soon, and I would love to see what you arrive at :-) Best regards, Tobias
Muito interessante sua teoria / método. Resolve mistérios envolvidos aos grandes mestres. Será que depois deles se perpetuou e se perpetuará um metodo errado de construir? Vou intentar traduzir. Very interesting your theory. Resolv misthery envolving great masters. Is it possible that after masters , a wrong method in perpetuum occur? Your videos can change this perhaps.
I don´t claim to have found "Strad´s secret". I am just fascinated by this method, as it brings the same "result" without slavishly copy. I still think that there are many more things to find on this path.
Hi! That is not important. You only aim to have a flat surface along the arching top that you can test for tone. After this, the actual arching starts based on the height you just established.
I just watched every video and I have to say that I am absolutely astonished with your procedures. I love the mantra that you follow to accomplish such a high level of quality. Thanks for sharing, maestro. Keep giving us more of your expertise. Those who, like I do, live isolated from any source of tuition in violinmaking. do absolutely appreciate the efforts of masters like you.
Quite fascinating Peter, and they work well with my brain as they just seem to make sense compared to copying some pattern/template. I look forward to testing this process out and appreciate you sharing your knowledge.
Thank You so much. I acquire old, inexpensive (often severely damaged) student violins, and repair them as a hobby. They are always solid wood (no plywood) and are usually more than 70 years old. I am of course, confined the wood I have, and the forms created by some Italian, or Spanish, or German factory worker many years ago. But, I have found, using your techniques, I can repair them and greatly improve their tone by the tiny changes to the thickness of the plates, and revisions to the bass bar and sound post based on your theories. They may never be great, but they transform from rather poor to quite good. I am completely ignorant to the methods of Stradivari, but I now firmly believe that the sound of the wood must govern the build, and not some "magic" formulae. The proof of the soup is in the taste. Thanks again. I am now going to watch your entire series from the beginning.
amazing sharing, thank you for your generosity!
Many thanks Peter. Fascinating process matching the acoustic qualities of scratching and tapping with the thicknessing..Thank you so much for this wonderful insight.
Hi Peter,
Thank you for an exciting, interesting, absolutely phenomenal video series. In addition, overturning completely credible as the results speak for themselves with a range of well-sounding instruments. I get incredibly eager to test my hearing and scratch some wood myself. Thanks!
Thank you for demonstrating this again. I am practicing the technique, getting my hearing attuned to the various tap tones. I found it a bit confusing at first but am getting better. So thank you again and looking forward to future videos.
Thank you very much, Peter. I watched the whole series and I am totally thankful for giving away your knowledge. Grüße aus Deutschland ;)
Thanks, Lorenz!
Thank you Peter :-)
There are several ways to determine arching height, but the quickest is to divide the length of the body by 12. A violin body length of 356 mm \ 12 = 29.66 mm, which will be the height of the ribs. I think most makers would round this up to 30 mm. Divide the rib height by 2 to get the arching height = 15 mm. Top and back arch heights are the same to start with. Violins vary a lot, and rib heights of 31 or 32 mm are common, but I have also seen them as low as 27 mm. I think once the mathematical answer is known, then the maker will alter dimensions to meet the demands of tuning and arching for his particular pieces of wood and his model.
For cellos, the body length is divided by 12 like the violin, but the answer is *multiplied* by 2 to get the rib height (750 mm / 12 = 62.5 * 2 = 125). My school notes give the cello rib height as 115 - 118 mm. To get the arching height the original *unmultiplied* result (62.5 mm) is divided in half to determine the arching height of 31.25 mm. My school measurements show the arching height for cellos a few mm lower, but in the end this will be at the maker's discretion, how sharp his plane is, and whether he is having a good day or not.
A wonderful series. I have enjoyed watching it, and even after many, many years in the craft i find I can still discover new ways to do things. Congratulations!
Thanks for your thoughts, Robert.
I know there are many theories behind every aspect of the making. My method of finding the arching height fascinates me, as it seems to depend on the model as well as the actual properties of the current piece of wood I am using. If the same mould is used for two violins, there can still be a small difference in arcing height. I want to believe that this accoustical way of determine the height is in line with setting the accoustical limits for the instrument. Looking at the old masters, you can find the same discrepancy between instruments made on the same moulds. If they were mathematically calculated, I guess they would not differ.
Thank you for your kind reply, Peter. I know it takes you away from your bench, so it's much appreciated.
The mathematical way serves best only as a quick guide. I think of it not as a destination, but more like a point of departure. I have been at this game too long to be a slave to a number. There are many aspects of violin design that can be expressed as a ratio or even a fixed number, but, as you know, when you examine the dimensions of many old violins, that exact number or ratio is almost never found. Yet among young makers I have heard arguments over the body length. One says it should be 355; the other says oh, no! It should be 356! One can hardly imagine a violin maker of earlier times looking at a very beautiful piece of well-aged maple and saying "Oh, this is a millimeter too short, so I guess I will just throw it away."
Very nice seeing more videos from you! :-)
I've been wondering, do you have any method for determining the rib height, or do you simply go with 32mm? And what about cellos?
Cheers, Tobias
Hi Tobias! No I haven´t solved that yet. I go for copying in that matter. I am eager ears if someone have a solution to it, though. I guess there is a "rule" for it to be found.
Yes, I guess so. I have a feeling that the height should actually be determined after the archings are done. I'm convinced that the volume pumping through the Fs is crucial for the bass frequencies... Maybe you can even match the frequency of the tone when blowing over the F to that of the plate? On my one that I showed you it's pretty close actually, with 32mm ribs I believe.
But honestly, I'm happy to vary the height to have some control over the tonal characteristics other than model and wood selection. Your system seems effective, but it does take that control away by claiming that an "optimal" arching exists.
Speaking of which... I saw a Ruggeri cello the other day, and it had a very similar deep channel of both top and back to what I got using your system. I'd never seen that before on a cello, so I was quite surprised to stumble upon something similar to mine on one of the first Cremonese master instruments I've studied somewhat carefully. Not proof that it works as such, but a funny coincidence at least.
I'd love to see pictures of some of your archings from the player's perspective if you have them and would like to send them on messenger. I've had a few thoughts going in to my next one soon, and I would love to see what you arrive at :-)
Best regards, Tobias
@@Tostra1997 I read and article regarding rib height and it suggested the ribs should be no more than the combined arching heights.
Muito interessante sua teoria / método. Resolve mistérios envolvidos aos grandes mestres. Será que depois deles se perpetuou e se perpetuará um metodo errado de construir? Vou intentar traduzir. Very interesting your theory. Resolv misthery envolving great masters. Is it possible that after masters , a wrong method in perpetuum occur? Your videos can change this perhaps.
I don´t claim to have found "Strad´s secret". I am just fascinated by this method, as it brings the same "result" without slavishly copy. I still think that there are many more things to find on this path.
Please, if you can tell what is the width of the blade from the planer with which you give the height of the back of the violin?
Hi! That is not important. You only aim to have a flat surface along the arching top that you can test for tone. After this, the actual arching starts based on the height you just established.