Violin Forum/Message Board

[catbrain]

my 1-st violin i used the Bruce Ossman book and used his top map, which I think was thick at the edges and had sort or concentric rings that grew thinner
as it got closer to the center. not circles but rectangles with oval corners.
The sound turned out nice IMHO.

2-nd violin--- I used the map from the book "violinmaking step by step" from
Strobel. It used the reverse ( sort of)---- thinner around the edge and gradually thicker as you get to the center. This violin sounds good but is very loud-- maybe not quite as easy to play. I had to work with the setup a long time to get it to play easy- but I finally got there. The first one played easy from day one and had an easier touch under the bow.

Do these two opposite looking thickness approaches separate makers into two
main camps ? (in terms of how we imagine the top plate moving )

The thin at the edges and thicker toward the center style---- is that trying to emulate a speaker cone--- where you are trying to have a stiff, rigid majority
in the center that moves in phase and the narrow edge serves as a membrane area that encourages all the flexing there ???? It would seem that this geometry would force the whole rigid center to move in phase and be less likely to break down into smaller local frequency dependent radiating areas. So like if its going to radiate- the whole area radiates- and you get a huge sound volume because of this large area. But maybe a plainer less complicated sound because of fewer frequencies involved.......

This would seem to jive with my first instrument being easier to play and having a richer more pleasing quality of sound----- and the 2-nd being a bit harder to get the sound out but being a very loud instrument.

as a side note---- my first instrument was somewhat of an exercise in learning how all the tools worked. The top plate was out of accidently quarter cut spruce 3/4 inch board from the box store. ( I look for 12 inch wide boards that have the core of the tree going right down the center. These boards are usually scrap for construction as there are often cracked down the center. But about 1 in 10 of these can have nice grain and lengths of over 14 inches with no side limbs. and strangely--- my first one started out only 3/4 inch thick- but ended having a higher arch on the top- following Ossmans arching--- it was so thick the violin case wouldnt quite close on it ! But overall it had a great sound even though it was a bit frankensteiny in the looks department. Also I used a shellack finish on the back which turned out very beautiful...... though many say its too hard.

anyway- it seems like that most of the graduations I see here are thin in the center....... is the other way that Strobel shows an outlier in yalls opinion ?

Tim

[MikeCooper]

I think a uniform membrane is a generally good thing to go for but from the few thickness maps I've seen of Strad and Guarneri they seem to often have a bit of thinning in the center.

Your observations are interesting in that it kind of matches up with the description in the booklet of Antonio Bagatella published in 1787

He describes a uniform thickness as il voce umana (the human voice) a nice sound. And il voce argentina (silver voice) thicker in the center and louder.

[John Cadd]

I can refer to an Edgar Russ video as he has a good reputation . He talks with one maker who used to be a cellist and now makes cello plates with a computer controlled milling machine . The interesting thing he said was --When he copies a well known maker`s thicknessing you can recognise the tone character of that maker . --So that is enough of a guide line to keep it interesting .

[Michael Darnton]

Thicker towards the center of the top is a mainly German idea possibly drawn from an engineering perspective to put the strength where the force (bridge) was, thinning as it was dispersed wider over the whole of the top farther from the bridge. What it actually does is add a mute directly under the bridge to match the similar one you might put on the top of the bridge, with slightly similar (but different) results, and this is possibly why historically German violins haven't been perceived as being all that desirable, reminding us that the violin is definitely not an engineering project.

The earliest Amatis were also that way, thick in the middle, but in a long and broad (invisible but measurable) spine running from end to end, but that was soon abandoned and most Cremonese violins appear to make some very casual attempt at equal thickness, with a lot of them, the best makers, being slightly thinner in the center. My experience with that strategy has been good.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[catbrain]

Thanks to you both for the info-----

I may now order the Bruce Ossman book again ( i gave my first copy away-)
(just for the map)

I was pretty happy with the sound it made.

Tim

[John Cadd]

If you look at the backs of famous violins the post activates a thicker area which moves the thinner areas. Compare that with the top . The sound post has a thicker patch which is surrounded by thinner areas .Does that make any more sense ? Or just copy the famous models .

[Michael Darnton]

Yes, backs are different, different rules. Another discussion. Usually on the best violins the thick spot is not actually at the post, and when it is, the result isn't good. The typical late 1800s French violin with the sound that people love to hate and call "French" is thickest on the post at the back, and contributes to that sound.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[John Cadd]

Yes the back workd in a rocking motion .That`s my guess just looking at the pictures. The inside of Heifetz` violin shows a healthy looking sound post patch .But the original question might find the soundpost patch the best explanation . The tones from German through French and Italian come down to a basic sound of OHH, EEE and AHHH .The last one is Italian . That description was in an old violin book .It might have a point . They did not tell us about thicknesses though .
But Strad magazine should tell us more ways to avoid things we don`t want . Posters about Best Factory School Violins and how to churn them out as fast as possible . It has a funny side to it .

[John Cadd]

Just to keep it all in focus, I mentioned the post acting on a thicker part of the back ---without saying to put the ---thickest part ----exactly beneath the sound post .That would be very difficult if you look at the Titian model .
But the topic got diverted to the Back . The Top question is still hanging like an unprotected pawn .
Don`t dismiss Engineering . Mr Darnton wrote in praise of an Engineer who showed the benefit of designing a bassbar to be the most efficient shape to take bridge pressure . Diagrams were included .
To be honest I always thought a new violin had a thicker area of wood above the sound post .I have always called it a soundpost patch without needing any repairs .But I might be totally wrong . Who else makes new violins with thicker areas there ?

[John Cadd]

I bought a famous little book this week .I had read it years ago but it had some very relevant information about violins. "Notice of AnthonyStradivari " by FJ Fetis which cost about £4 .50
In the final chapter Fetis tells of the repairs he did on Paganini`s Canon violin.While the violin was open he measured eveything he could to reproduce the famous violin. Paganini was very impressed how well the copy sounded and that violin was passed to Sivori who was Paganini`s only pupil . That was in 1838 .I don`t think he was telling porkies but many today would say so . So copies worked in those happy days .