Adjustment for optimising violin sound quality

[Michael G. Kramer]

While talking to my friend Darren Briggs , who is a player with
several community orchestras in Southern California and owns several
violins, the subject arose of the Texas Physicist who claims to be
able to (by various adjustments) raise any mediocre sounding violin to
an optimum which will rival really fine sounding instruments .

We then started talking about the general subject of violin
adjustments capable of truly improving the sound of a troubled
instrument or making significant enhancements to the sound of an
ordinary one.

Ive heard of using thick softer bridges to ameliorate and improve the
sound of harsh sounding violins but there are so many things do-able
to alter sound quality.. sound post adjustments and selection, use of
fine strings of course, and many other things.

Has the process of adjustment to raise or optimise the tonal calibre
of a violin been written about much and can you recommend any
resources for this very useful subject?

I would presume that this issue is part of the final phase in the
description of the construction of the instrument but I'm unsure about
whether we are talking about quite the same thing ( though maybe we
are.)

Surely some wise luthiers have set to paper good information about
rescuing the tone of a violin which on the surface seems sound but
needs ( or could in any case benefit from )serious improvement in
sonority assuming significant improvements are even possible.

I have heard great leaps forward myself from the mere changeout to
decent strings (an obvious process) but I would hope there exist good
secrets, procedures , adjustments, rules of thumb or written
collections of plausible ideas on the business of violin tonal
optimisation.

Have any of you a general approach to the process of adjustment for
improving the sound of a violin? What articles or books cover this
well? What is your opinion about how much can be accomplished with
adjustment?

[jeff]

I've read "Violin Making - as it was and is" by Ed. Heron-Allen and he
speaks of how selection of wood for back neck sides and belly, sound
post, bass bar and everything right down to the varnish used can have an
appearant affect on the sound of a violin.

Post by Michael G. Kramer
While talking to my friend Darren Briggs , who is a player with
several community orchestras in Southern California and owns several
violins, the subject arose of the Texas Physicist who claims to be
able to (by various adjustments) raise any mediocre sounding violin to
an optimum which will rival really fine sounding instruments .
We then started talking about the general subject of violin
adjustments capable of truly improving the sound of a troubled
instrument or making significant enhancements to the sound of an
ordinary one.
Ive heard of using thick softer bridges to ameliorate and improve the
sound of harsh sounding violins but there are so many things do-able
to alter sound quality.. sound post adjustments and selection, use of
fine strings of course, and many other things.
Has the process of adjustment to raise or optimise the tonal calibre
of a violin been written about much and can you recommend any
resources for this very useful subject?
I would presume that this issue is part of the final phase in the
description of the construction of the instrument but I'm unsure about
whether we are talking about quite the same thing ( though maybe we
are.)
Surely some wise luthiers have set to paper good information about
rescuing the tone of a violin which on the surface seems sound but
needs ( or could in any case benefit from )serious improvement in
sonority assuming significant improvements are even possible.
I have heard great leaps forward myself from the mere changeout to
decent strings (an obvious process) but I would hope there exist good
secrets, procedures , adjustments, rules of thumb or written
collections of plausible ideas on the business of violin tonal
optimisation.
Have any of you a general approach to the process of adjustment for
improving the sound of a violin? What articles or books cover this
well? What is your opinion about how much can be accomplished with
adjustment?

[Bill Shurben]

Hi Michael,
I'm in the process of making my second violin. This one using
the proper tone wood. Before I started on the finishing carving of the back
and front to the correct thickness I thought I should understand more about
the process of checking the Tap Tones of the front and back .
I found an excellent article on the WEB "Instruments of the Violin Family"
by A.H. BENADE a physicist. The two most important factors are i. correct
resonance frequency of the air within the body and ii. the correct resonance
frequency of the Wood. Making significant changes to these resonances would
involve disassembly of the instrument.
You can find the article by searching the WEB using Goggle.
Bill Shurben

Post by Michael G. Kramer
While talking to my friend Darren Briggs , who is a player with
several community orchestras in Southern California and owns several
violins, the subject arose of the Texas Physicist who claims to be
able to (by various adjustments) raise any mediocre sounding violin to
an optimum which will rival really fine sounding instruments .
We then started talking about the general subject of violin
adjustments capable of truly improving the sound of a troubled
instrument or making significant enhancements to the sound of an
ordinary one.
Ive heard of using thick softer bridges to ameliorate and improve the
sound of harsh sounding violins but there are so many things do-able
to alter sound quality.. sound post adjustments and selection, use of
fine strings of course, and many other things.
Has the process of adjustment to raise or optimise the tonal calibre
of a violin been written about much and can you recommend any
resources for this very useful subject?
I would presume that this issue is part of the final phase in the
description of the construction of the instrument but I'm unsure about
whether we are talking about quite the same thing ( though maybe we
are.)
Surely some wise luthiers have set to paper good information about
rescuing the tone of a violin which on the surface seems sound but
needs ( or could in any case benefit from )serious improvement in
sonority assuming significant improvements are even possible.
I have heard great leaps forward myself from the mere changeout to
decent strings (an obvious process) but I would hope there exist good
secrets, procedures , adjustments, rules of thumb or written
collections of plausible ideas on the business of violin tonal
optimisation.
Have any of you a general approach to the process of adjustment for
improving the sound of a violin? What articles or books cover this
well? What is your opinion about how much can be accomplished with
adjustment?

[Michael Darnton]

Post by Bill Shurben
I found an excellent article on the WEB "Instruments of the Violin Family"
by A.H. BENADE a physicist. The two most important factors are i. correct
resonance frequency of the air within the body and ii. the correct resonance
frequency of the Wood.

No--I'd offer that the most important factor is to listen to violin
makers who build violins about building violins, not physicists who
make comments like this. :-)

--Michael

[Roland Hutchinson]

Post by Michael Darnton

Post by Bill Shurben
I found an excellent article on the WEB "Instruments of the Violin
Family" by A.H. BENADE a physicist. The two most important factors
are i. correct resonance frequency of the air within the body and ii.
the correct resonance
frequency of the Wood.

No--I'd offer that the most important factor is to listen to violin
makers who build violins about building violins, not physicists who
make comments like this. :-)

However, if you are going to listen physicists anwyay, the late Prof.
Benade is one of the better ones you could listen to on the subject of
musical acoustics. He practically wrote the book. Actually, he DID
write the book.

[Mark J. Howell]

I am a beginning viola student who has been trying to make up for 40 years
of musical ignorance. Part of my self assignment has been to read Benade's
book "Fundamentals of Musical Accoustics" (2nd Rev. Ed.). And I have found
that it is an interesting introduction, and that it contains technical
errors. In other words, it should not be considered an ultimate technical
resource, but maybe an introductory path with some missteps along the way.

-Mark Howell

Post by Roland Hutchinson

Post by Michael Darnton

Post by Bill Shurben
I found an excellent article on the WEB "Instruments of the Violin
Family" by A.H. BENADE a physicist. The two most important factors
are i. correct resonance frequency of the air within the body and ii.
the correct resonance
frequency of the Wood.

No--I'd offer that the most important factor is to listen to violin
makers who build violins about building violins, not physicists who
make comments like this. :-)

However, if you are going to listen physicists anwyay, the late Prof.
Benade is one of the better ones you could listen to on the subject of
musical acoustics. He practically wrote the book. Actually, he DID
write the book.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.

[PeteSchug]

Post by Roland Hutchinson

Post by Michael Darnton

Post by Bill Shurben
I found an excellent article on the WEB "Instruments of the Violin
Family" by A.H. BENADE a physicist. The two most important factors
are i. correct resonance frequency of the air within the body and ii.
the correct resonance
frequency of the Wood.

No--I'd offer that the most important factor is to listen to violin
makers who build violins about building violins, not physicists who
make comments like this. :-)

However, if you are going to listen physicists anwyay, the late Prof.
Benade is one of the better ones you could listen to on the subject of
musical acoustics. He practically wrote the book. Actually, he DID
write the book.

I read "Horns, Strings and Harmony" back around high school and Benade is
one of my heroes or maybe mentors, but the quote seems to be a quick summary
of the discoveries of the Catgut Acoustical Society, given without
attribution. In other words Benade was saying something that he could
probably only back up with another quote, almost certainly not personal
research.

Since even Carleen Hutchins admits to having made instruments that met all
the criteria set forth as desirable and yet somehow managed not to be very
good instruments, there is more to violin making than you can sum up by
stating what the two most important factors are.

As for the body resonance, it is very close to the same for all 4/4 violins.
The only factors that affect it are size of the cavity, almost identical for
all violins, the size of the f-holes, also almost identical and the
flexibilty of the wood, once again, not much room for change there, so the
first factor is almost a non-factor, but a given. There is not much room to
move the air resonance. As for the pitch of the tap tones, most people try
to get that into a certain range, but once the plates are glued on you no
longer have the same pitch and resonance of the free plate, so you really
don't know where you are.

No personal experience on the next matter, but I have heard that not all the
great instruments of the golden age of Cremona, on the occasions when they
have been disassembled for repair or restoration have exhibited a clear cut
tap tone close to some ideal. Instead they seem to have a range of tap
tones.

If this is true, then you can make a good violin based on rather a broader
range of specifications than it might seem from the writings of researchers,
but what the actual details of the work are, nobody really knows for
certain.

BTW, an additional thought. All these ancient violins were originally played
at pitches different than modern violins, and then suddenly had different
necks grafted on, the scale was lengthened and the pitch was also raised,
(when it would have gone down due to the scale change) yet the good violins
continued to sound good and all the instruments we make today are based on
the body size of instruments made for a different set of initial conditions.

In other words: Benade was quoting people he respected, but they, by their
own admission (or at least Carleen Hutchins admission, and she founded CAS)
don't have all the answers. (yet?)

Just the ramblings of someone with a lot of personal curiousity on the
subject.

Pete

[Roland Hutchinson]

Post by PeteSchug
BTW, an additional thought. All these ancient violins were originally
played at pitches different than modern violins, and then suddenly had
different necks grafted on, the scale was lengthened and the pitch was
also raised, (when it would have gone down due to the scale change)
yet the good violins continued to sound good and all the instruments
we make today are based on the body size of instruments made for a
different set of initial conditions.

Not to mention that most of them have also survived such things as new
bass bars, soundpost patches, relinings -- and I suspect in more cases
than you would like to think about, actual regraduation!

[Michael Darnton]

Post by Roland Hutchinson
Not to mention that most of them have also survived such things as new
bass bars, soundpost patches, relinings -- and I suspect in more cases
than you would like to think about, actual regraduation!

So much for the concept that they owe their qualities to plate tuning, I'd say.

--Michael

[Tho X. Bui]

Post by PeteSchug
BTW, an additional thought. All these ancient violins were originally played
at pitches different than modern violins, and then suddenly had different
necks grafted on, the scale was lengthened and the pitch was also raised,
(when it would have gone down due to the scale change) yet the good violins
continued to sound good and all the instruments we make today are based on
the body size of instruments made for a different set of initial conditions.

One should not forget also that good composers are very well aware of
the characteristics of instruments (e.g.,Mozart is known to make
effective use of the viola's accoustic deficiency).

It's to some degree a matter of chicken and egg thing. On a modern
stage, playing loud rock-pop, a feed back prone traditional instrument
is more of a handicap than an advantage.

Playing classical music, if you show up with any thing that doesn't
sound _and_ look like an Amati pattern, you'd be sent home by the
conductor. Classical musicians are known for their conservativeness in
choosing instrument, and I suspect that it is probably is the right
thing to do, since they are after all, playing conservative music.

Tho

[Roland Hutchinson]

Post by Tho X. Bui
One should not forget also that good composers are very well aware of
the characteristics of instruments (e.g.,Mozart is known to make
effective use of the viola's accoustic deficiency).

What "deficiency" would that be? The fact that it doesn't sound like a
violin?

[Tho X. Bui]

Don't have the article right now for reference, will need to look it up.
But it has to do with the size of the instrument not effective at
producing the max volume and projection at its frequency range. The
author changed the size of instrument to make it louder, but resulted in
a different sets of resonant frequencies, which emphazizes the wrong
notes when playing some of the classic works. I'll try to find the
article--probably by Hutchins.

"Deficiency" was meant in the physical efficiency sense, not the musical
sense.
Personally, I love the viola: it burns soooo much longer :-)

Tho

Post by Roland Hutchinson

Post by Tho X. Bui
One should not forget also that good composers are very well aware of
the characteristics of instruments (e.g.,Mozart is known to make
effective use of the viola's accoustic deficiency).

What "deficiency" would that be? The fact that it doesn't sound like a
violin?

[PeteSchug]

Post by Tho X. Bui

Post by PeteSchug
BTW, an additional thought. All these ancient violins were originally played
at pitches different than modern violins, and then suddenly had different
necks grafted on, the scale was lengthened and the pitch was also raised,
(when it would have gone down due to the scale change) yet the good violins
continued to sound good and all the instruments we make today are based on
the body size of instruments made for a different set of initial conditions.

One should not forget also that good composers are very well aware of
the characteristics of instruments (e.g.,Mozart is known to make
effective use of the viola's accoustic deficiency).
It's to some degree a matter of chicken and egg thing. On a modern
stage, playing loud rock-pop, a feed back prone traditional instrument
is more of a handicap than an advantage.
Playing classical music, if you show up with any thing that doesn't
sound _and_ look like an Amati pattern, you'd be sent home by the
conductor. Classical musicians are known for their conservativeness in
choosing instrument, and I suspect that it is probably is the right
thing to do, since they are after all, playing conservative music.
Tho

I think I read that Luis and Clarke have a couple of their instruments in
BSO. That sound's pretty radical. (Luis and Clarke make carbon fiber celli.)

Pete

[John F]

Post by Michael Darnton
No--I'd offer that the most important factor is to listen to violin
makers who build violins about building violins, not physicists who
make comments like this.

I would hope we would take all contributions into account, being mindful
of the perspective from which each comes.


John

[Michael Darnton]

In an ideal world, yes, but physicists have very consistently done
extremely poorly with the violin. I have a friend (not a violin maker)
who maintains that when you get advice from sources which have
demonstrated themselves to repeatedly give bad advice not only are you
most likely to continue to get bad advice from them, but since you've
found it necessary to ask, you aren't in any position to evaluate the
advice you get, which makes you doubly vulnerable. He suggests that
when you want an answer you go to someone who knows what he's talking
about. That sounds best to me. In the present instance, numerous real
life examples through four hundred years of violin making disprove
Bernade's theory.

--Michael

Post by John F

Post by Michael Darnton
No--I'd offer that the most important factor is to listen to violin
makers who build violins about building violins, not physicists who
make comments like this.

I would hope we would take all contributions into account, being mindful
of the perspective from which each comes.
John

[John F]

Post by Michael Darnton
In an ideal world, yes, but physicists have very consistently done
extremely poorly with the violin.

Which all goes to show that the science of violin making lags way behind
the science of nuclear physics. Most areas of study have moved to the
point that personalities and authorities are no longer relevant and the
accepted wisdom of the field is derived from a consensus based on peer
reviewed research. The art of violin making has few accepted criteria
on which to base any reproducible research and the outcomes are
subjective to the point that a true understanding of the physics
involved is still a long way away. Still, I hope lots of physicists
publish books on the subject however much they fall short of reality
since that can only encourage others to refute them by doing better
research.

John

[Michael Darnton]

Post by John F
Most areas of study have moved to the
point that personalities and authorities are no longer relevant and the
accepted wisdom of the field is derived from a consensus based on peer
reviewed research.

You're joking, right?

[John F]

Post by Michael Darnton

Post by John F
Most areas of study have moved to the
point that personalities and authorities are no longer relevant and the
accepted wisdom of the field is derived from a consensus based on peer
reviewed research.

You're joking, right?

Not one bit. That's how science works these days.


John

[Michael Darnton]

Post by John F

Post by Michael Darnton

Post by John F
Most areas of study have moved to the
point that personalities and authorities are no longer relevant and the
accepted wisdom of the field is derived from a consensus based on peer
reviewed research.

You're joking, right?

Not one bit. That's how science works these days.
John

So when a good new idea comes up if it's a good one everyone just says
"Oh, great--he's such a brilliant guy, it doesn't matter that he's
such a jerk! Why didn't we think of that before," and hops on the
bandwagon. What a great business--just like San Francisco in 1965. I
don't believe a bit of it. :-)

--Michael

[deloid]

Post by Michael Darnton

Post by John F

Post by Michael Darnton

Post by John F
Most areas of study have moved to the
point that personalities and authorities are no longer relevant and the
accepted wisdom of the field is derived from a consensus based on peer
reviewed research.

You're joking, right?

Not one bit. That's how science works these days.
John

So when a good new idea comes up if it's a good one everyone just says
"Oh, great--he's such a brilliant guy, it doesn't matter that he's
such a jerk! Why didn't we think of that before," and hops on the
bandwagon. What a great business--just like San Francisco in 1965. I
don't believe a bit of it. :-)

Michael- This is not a flame but hopefully a constructive comment for your
growth. Having read your notes on this forum the violin forum and your
comments on your web page it is clear you are dedicated and talented.
Your method of choosing one model to copy is fine. I think your comments to
others have a touch of defensiveness because science means change and you
are a strong believer (from your notes) that the best violins were made in
the 17th &18th centuries and cannot be beat yet. In a romantic way it would
be nice to think that the strads can never be equaled but they will (and may
have) and with continuing studies of art/science will likely be surpassed. I
admire your bond to the past. I had the same feelings when Roger Maris had
his home run record broken; when Babe Ruth's record was broken. I silently
thought it was unfair because times had changed, rules were different,
training different. But times change.
Art and science are strongly bonded. Most artists use science, many
scientists become artists.
What John said is true and beautifully stated:

"Most areas of study have moved to the
point that personalities and authorities are no longer relevant and the
accepted wisdom of the field is derived from a consensus based on peer
reviewed research."
This does not mean follow every new idea...it says nothing about
personality. It states that we shouldn't change our ways because of
personality/fame but because of evidence (well studied and accepted by most
as well studied) that a change is beneficial.
There is nothing wrong with your methods as there is nothing wrong with
innovation. I personally lean toward the past for its romance but
acknowledge and appreciate new ideas.

Respectfully


Dean Lapinel

[Ken Moore]

Post by Michael Darnton

Post by John F
Most areas of study have moved to the
point that personalities and authorities are no longer relevant and the
accepted wisdom of the field is derived from a consensus based on peer
reviewed research.

You're joking, right?

I'd say there was a difference of degree, not kind, at least in effect:
most sciences have a core of consensus, but the interesting areas at the
boundaries are full of contention. The personalities and authorities
are slightly less visible, as anonymous referees, in most sciences than
in a craft like that of the luthier, but they are effectively in control
of what gets into the "peer-reviewed" journals. Unorthodox views can
get expressed elsewhere, notably on the internet nowadays.

"Science progresses funeral by funeral".

I can't remember who first said that, but it is worth remembering.

[d***@gmail.com]

There are too many variables for simple solutions, but in essence the number one factor in violin sound is the musicianship of the violinist. Secondly, the quality and/or composition of the strings. Lastly the violin itself. Double blind studies show that professional musicians often choose modern instruments over expensive antiques.

That being said violinists I believe will do their best when playing on older instrument for no other reason than reverence for an instrument made at the time Beethoven wrote his violin concerto or the like. This is subjective, personal and intuitive all qualities difficult to define and certainly non scientific.

Again volin playing is not an exact science, that murky full sound with lots of overtones is what some violinists want while others prefer a dry non-vibratory quality and even appreciate a gritty attack. The composition itself is something to consider in what sound should be sought.

And then there is the factor of accident. I once had a painted white cheap Chinese violin that sounded wonderful when playing Bach. Every note with metal strings was bright and clear but it was not as satisfactory for romantic music. I made a big mistake in lending the violin to a student who then took it to Nashville and was never seen again. I don't have all the answers and I have been playing in symphony orchestras since age 12 (I am now near 80) and I admit that I got into violin repair and experimentation because I was never happy with the repairs done by non playing experts.

As an aside I had a friend spend two years duplicating what he said was Paganini's violin. I didn't have the heart to tell him how terrible was the sound he created. Darren Briggs

[Ken Moore]

Post by Michael Darnton
No--I'd offer that the most important factor is to listen to violin
makers who build violins about building violins, not physicists who
make comments like this. :-)

Wouldn't it be a good idea to listen to the violins built by the maker
before listening to the maker (or at least before believing him/her)?

[Michael Darnton]

Post by Ken Moore
Wouldn't it be a good idea to listen to the violins built by the maker
before listening to the maker (or at least before believing him/her)?

Certainly. How do Bernade's violins sound?

[Roland Hutchinson]

Post by Michael Darnton

Post by Ken Moore
Wouldn't it be a good idea to listen to the violins built by the
maker before listening to the maker (or at least before believing
him/her)?

Certainly. How do Bernade's violins sound?

Don't know. I do know that major woodwind manufacturers made use of
his discoveries in the acoustics of wind instruments, which was the
field in which he made major and pioneering original contributions.

I agree with Pete that what was quoted from Benade on violin acoustics
sounds like a precis of Hutchins' work done for a tutorial/popular
article rather than something from his own research.

[Ken Moore]

Post by Roland Hutchinson
Don't know. I do know that major woodwind manufacturers made use of
his discoveries in the acoustics of wind instruments, which was the
field in which he made major and pioneering original contributions.

I have been trying to match the sounds of real instruments by electronic
synthesis, partly to find out what makes them sound like they do. My
trumpet and woodwind sounds, for which Benade was one of my guides, are
plausible; my violin sound is way off, even though I had more data and
matched the parameters I was looking at just as well as on the wind
instruments. I conclude that brass and woodwind behave pretty much like
Benade says they do, but I can well believe that strings don't, at least
not totally.

[Carl Witthoft]

Post by Michael Darnton

Post by Bill Shurben
I found an excellent article on the WEB "Instruments of the Violin Family"
by A.H. BENADE a physicist. The two most important factors are i. correct
resonance frequency of the air within the body and ii. the correct resonance
frequency of the Wood.

No--I'd offer that the most important factor is to listen to violin
makers who build violins about building violins, not physicists who
make comments like this. :-)
--Michael

OK, here's another physicist's comment :-)

The most important thing is the function R(f,a)
where R is resonance, f is the frequency and a is the amplitude.
What you need to do now is decide whether R should be flat or "lumpy"
:-)

Carl

[Tho X. Bui]

Post by Michael G. Kramer
While talking to my friend Darren Briggs , who is a player with
several community orchestras in Southern California and owns several
violins, the subject arose of the Texas Physicist who claims to be
able to (by various adjustments) raise any mediocre sounding violin to
an optimum which will rival really fine sounding instruments .
...

I was able to improve the sound of my own violins simply by giving them
to some else (anyone else?) to play.

Tho

[Steve & Gianna]

You would enjoy the red books by Ed Campbell of The Chimneys.

http://www.thechimneysviolinshop.com/

Steve

Post by Michael G. Kramer
While talking to my friend Darren Briggs , who is a player with
several community orchestras in Southern California and owns several
violins, the subject arose of the Texas Physicist who claims to be
able to (by various adjustments) raise any mediocre sounding violin to
an optimum which will rival really fine sounding instruments .
We then started talking about the general subject of violin
adjustments capable of truly improving the sound of a troubled
instrument or making significant enhancements to the sound of an
ordinary one.
Ive heard of using thick softer bridges to ameliorate and improve the
sound of harsh sounding violins but there are so many things do-able
to alter sound quality.. sound post adjustments and selection, use of
fine strings of course, and many other things.
Has the process of adjustment to raise or optimise the tonal calibre
of a violin been written about much and can you recommend any
resources for this very useful subject?
I would presume that this issue is part of the final phase in the
description of the construction of the instrument but I'm unsure about
whether we are talking about quite the same thing ( though maybe we
are.)
Surely some wise luthiers have set to paper good information about
rescuing the tone of a violin which on the surface seems sound but
needs ( or could in any case benefit from )serious improvement in
sonority assuming significant improvements are even possible.
I have heard great leaps forward myself from the mere changeout to
decent strings (an obvious process) but I would hope there exist good
secrets, procedures , adjustments, rules of thumb or written
collections of plausible ideas on the business of violin tonal
optimisation.
Have any of you a general approach to the process of adjustment for
improving the sound of a violin? What articles or books cover this
well? What is your opinion about how much can be accomplished with
adjustment?