I would say that while there's no significant differences in sound, the big difference is that one-piece backs are more a bit more more aesthetically pleasing and more prestigious. They used to be more common on old instruments, but as old growth, quality wood has become more scarce, most makers opt for the equally-as-good but cheaper option of using two-piece backs. A big hunk of high quality tone wood is going to cost more than two smaller pieces. It's ultimately a practical cost saving decision. So while there's no functional differences between the two, modern day players with one-piece instruments have bragging rights that their instrument is made in a more old-fashioned way and that it was made out of more valuable material. It's *aesthetic* AND *pretentious* , everything that us string divas aspire to be. That's why, if you have a one-piece back, it's your *duty* to show it off as frequently as possible, because the world needs to know that you really are better than everyone around you.
Hello! As a luthier student at the Violin Making School of Cremona, I asked my school masters about this very question, and they explained that there is indeed a difference between a one-piece and a two-piece back. The difference primarily lies in the rigidity of the center joint. In a two-piece back, the center joint is slightly more rigid than the rest of the back. This added rigidity comes from the glue absorption and the glue itself, resulting in a defined zone of stiffness along the joint. In contrast, a one-piece back is more uniform, without a pronounced rigid center. It has a more consistent flexibility throughout, which can be both a challenge and an opportunity during the construction process. While a two-piece back offers greater predictability-thanks to its symmetry and the rigidity of the center joint-a one-piece back requires a more experienced hand, particularly during the thicknessing process, where flexibility and rigidity must be carefully assessed. Ultimately, neither option is inherently better or worse. These are just properties to consider in the later stages of construction, such as arching and thicknessing. A two-piece back might be easier to work with due to its predictability, whereas a one-piece back demands more skill to manage its unique characteristics.
@@nestorvassiliou4955 Fascinating, thank you for writing all that! In light of the structural differences, it is interesting that seemingly no one can identify the two types by sound alone. PS - I envy you studying in Cremona! My life situation (wife, kid, house, day job) precludes me from study in a “proper” environment.
@@BrianTimmonsTX The influence of this parameter is probably among the least significant compared to others like arching, thickness, and so on. However, if you were to compare two violins with exactly the same arching and identical specifications in every other aspect, there would almost certainly be a difference. What kind of difference that would be is difficult to predict, and I doubt anyone could determine it without actual testing. The rigidity in the middle will undoubtedly affect the sound, but it’s not something I would consider a primary concern. Studying in Cremona is definitely a fantastic opportunity. These days, with the wealth of information available online, it’s possible to learn a great deal about violin making independently. I know I did before starting at the school. Like you, I made a violin on my own beforehand-it turned out okay, all things considered. If there’s any way I can help-whether by answering questions or offering advice-please don’t hesitate to ask. P.S. If you haven’t already, I recommend checking out the Maestronet Forum. It’s an excellent resource with many talented and highly esteemed makers who can offer valuable insights. It’s a fantastic place to deepen your understanding of all things related to violin making.
Some old violins even have a three piece back. There are a couple of strads that look one piece but have wings glued to the lower bouts to get that little extra width
@@erlixerlix7573 Unless it’s maker specified it as a one piece front, I doubt it. You want a bookmatched front because the resonance patterns are symmetrical. It may LOOK like one piece due to a well executed glue joint in the center.
@BrianTimmonsTX It is actually one piece, there is no glue joint. It is probaby more than 200 years old but the master is unknown. Not a particularly expensive instrument though.
I own three violins. One is a one piece back and is blond (Whitish not stained), the other is two piece with traditional staining, the third is a carbon fiber. I believe it's the taste and experience along with instrument care, not so much the technique of building. The best tip is to play them before buying. It's all about what plays well for you.
Absolutely. The care of an instrument is crucial to its longevity and ability to play well. To the extent that instruments have different character, it's mostly down to the choice of wood, coupled with the luthier's ability to use the wood's characteristics to achieve the ideal result.
@@bryantcochran5065 In principle, yes. There are always exceptions depending on the quality of the wood. But yes, generally, quarter cut wood is more stable than slab cut.
I would say that while there's no significant differences in sound, the big difference is that one-piece backs are more a bit more more aesthetically pleasing and more prestigious. They used to be more common on old instruments, but as old growth, quality wood has become more scarce, most makers opt for the equally-as-good but cheaper option of using two-piece backs. A big hunk of high quality tone wood is going to cost more than two smaller pieces. It's ultimately a practical cost saving decision.
So while there's no functional differences between the two, modern day players with one-piece instruments have bragging rights that their instrument is made in a more old-fashioned way and that it was made out of more valuable material. It's *aesthetic* AND *pretentious* , everything that us string divas aspire to be. That's why, if you have a one-piece back, it's your *duty* to show it off as frequently as possible, because the world needs to know that you really are better than everyone around you.
@@andreweth8301 Nailed it. I saw a recent video of maker Sofia Vettori French polishing a new CELLO with a one piece back. I mean, damn.
Hello! As a luthier student at the Violin Making School of Cremona, I asked my school masters about this very question, and they explained that there is indeed a difference between a one-piece and a two-piece back.
The difference primarily lies in the rigidity of the center joint. In a two-piece back, the center joint is slightly more rigid than the rest of the back. This added rigidity comes from the glue absorption and the glue itself, resulting in a defined zone of stiffness along the joint.
In contrast, a one-piece back is more uniform, without a pronounced rigid center. It has a more consistent flexibility throughout, which can be both a challenge and an opportunity during the construction process. While a two-piece back offers greater predictability-thanks to its symmetry and the rigidity of the center joint-a one-piece back requires a more experienced hand, particularly during the thicknessing process, where flexibility and rigidity must be carefully assessed.
Ultimately, neither option is inherently better or worse. These are just properties to consider in the later stages of construction, such as arching and thicknessing. A two-piece back might be easier to work with due to its predictability, whereas a one-piece back demands more skill to manage its unique characteristics.
@@nestorvassiliou4955 Fascinating, thank you for writing all that! In light of the structural differences, it is interesting that seemingly no one can identify the two types by sound alone.
PS - I envy you studying in Cremona! My life situation (wife, kid, house, day job) precludes me from study in a “proper” environment.
@@BrianTimmonsTX The influence of this parameter is probably among the least significant compared to others like arching, thickness, and so on. However, if you were to compare two violins with exactly the same arching and identical specifications in every other aspect, there would almost certainly be a difference. What kind of difference that would be is difficult to predict, and I doubt anyone could determine it without actual testing. The rigidity in the middle will undoubtedly affect the sound, but it’s not something I would consider a primary concern.
Studying in Cremona is definitely a fantastic opportunity. These days, with the wealth of information available online, it’s possible to learn a great deal about violin making independently. I know I did before starting at the school. Like you, I made a violin on my own beforehand-it turned out okay, all things considered.
If there’s any way I can help-whether by answering questions or offering advice-please don’t hesitate to ask.
P.S. If you haven’t already, I recommend checking out the Maestronet Forum. It’s an excellent resource with many talented and highly esteemed makers who can offer valuable insights. It’s a fantastic place to deepen your understanding of all things related to violin making.
@ I lurk on MaestroNet already. I’m active on Graham Vincent’s FB discussion group. Very good bunch of folks over there, too.
@ Also, thanks for your offer of help, that’s very kind of you!
Thank you for the info I love the way you describe things!
@@lioraartemis7486 That’s very kind of you to say! Cheers.
Some old violins even have a three piece back. There are a couple of strads that look one piece but have wings glued to the lower bouts to get that little extra width
@@TXCrafts1 True! More common in larger instruments.
My brothers violin does not only have a one piece back but it actually has a one piece front as well. Very close grained too.
@@erlixerlix7573 Unless it’s maker specified it as a one piece front, I doubt it. You want a bookmatched front because the resonance patterns are symmetrical.
It may LOOK like one piece due to a well executed glue joint in the center.
@BrianTimmonsTX It is actually one piece, there is no glue joint. It is probaby more than 200 years old but the master is unknown. Not a particularly expensive instrument though.
@ Ah, so more of a folk instrument. That might explain it.
Why is a double bass better than a violin? - It burns longer.
@@roysutton9592 Certainly a good argument during a cold weather survival situation. 😄
Lol
@@roysutton9592 😂
Interesting stuff .. although I play bass mostly I’ve always been interested in the construction of all wood instruments 🤘👍
@@gertimmons5483 Hey, nice surname you’ve got there. 😀
@ 😀thank you Mr Timmons, all the way from Kildare Ireland 🇮🇪
@ Nice, Texas here!
@ I’ve been to Texas and loved it, I have family in Louisiana.
@ Awesome! I’ve made it abroad to Britain and Wales, but Ireland remains on my to-do list.
I own three violins. One is a one piece back and is blond (Whitish not stained), the other is two piece with traditional staining, the third is a carbon fiber. I believe it's the taste and experience along with instrument care, not so much the technique of building. The best tip is to play them before buying. It's all about what plays well for you.
Absolutely. The care of an instrument is crucial to its longevity and ability to play well. To the extent that instruments have different character, it's mostly down to the choice of wood, coupled with the luthier's ability to use the wood's characteristics to achieve the ideal result.
Found you on imgur, loving these vids :)
@@NekoKotorii Awesome, glad you’re enjoying these!
A one piece back isn't as stable as a two piece back can be.
@@bryantcochran5065 In principle, yes. There are always exceptions depending on the quality of the wood. But yes, generally, quarter cut wood is more stable than slab cut.
Cool