Theory
Violin making today has so many theories that it makes the whole pursuit of violin making very difficult for many. Even experienced violin makers are dealing with plenty of nebulous and confounding theories bandied about today on message boards and anywhere violin makers meet. I feel frustrated for the newbies out there as this crowd think mostly sends them down the wrong road. Several wrong turns on that road and they end up with the poor tonal results that most people achieve. They then quit. Yet, they could have achieved great things and enjoyed the pursuit of violin making! With this page, I want to talk frankly about some of the potential wrong turns that any violin maker, new or old, can make.
Having talked with hundreds of violin makers over the last decade, I have gleaned quite a bit about what they think, and how they operate. Their methods are correct for them. I am speaking from the point of view of trying to achieve great sound, as fast as possible. Maximum satisfaction for the typical violin maker. I do understand that not everyone is hell bent on getting the answer right away. For most however, they would love to have clean answers. If you are one looking for clean answers out of the nebulous cloud that is violin making theory, then read on.
Wrong Turn Number One
“Every piece of wood is different”
One of the most astounding things is that I learned is that even to right now in 2012, even high level violin makers do not record the density of their top and back plate woods. Typical spruce used can have a specific gravity of .3 to .45. So, what if a violin maker orders a top and it is .35, and builds a violin. Then he has another top and it is .44, and builds a violin. The percentage difference in density is over 25%, yet the range is not super extreme. People are using these density woods all the time for violin tops. What does a 25% density difference do to cross grain stiffness? Or, any other property of making sound? The variable of density was not controlled at all. What is the 3rd violin going to be? The data is clouded. All kinds of conclusions are made, but are they correct?
Think about this. A 25% increase in density of .44 SG spruce would be .55 SG….which is typical Bosnian Maple density. Spruce tops are being used that are within 25% of the density of maple. No one would use maple as a top. One thing about the conventional wisdom in the violin making crowd is that many believe that “every piece of wood is different”. That is why many of them have never tested the density of their wood. Let me be clear, there are good people, phenomenal violin makers that can say that truthfully. They have the knowledge to treat their wood that way. Specifically, there are a bunch of them in Ann Arbor Michigan. Several of those Ann Arbor guys are noted as the best in the world. Their implicit hidden unarticulated knowledge of how to use each piece of “different” wood is not knowledge of nearly everyone else. They know it, it came from experience. In time, after many violins, you might get there. (there are also many other highest level violin makers scattered throughout the world that could do this, not just in Ann Arbor. many of them my customers)
Here is my conclusion after 260 violins. If you control the variable of density to a range of say .34 to .37 or .37 to .40 SG for spruce, every piece of wood is the same, not different. This allows you to actually make more correct conclusions than incorrect. You progress tonally with each violin. Using the cliché that “every piece of wood is different” only wastes time and makes a mess of people that do not know what they are doing. Most violin makers that believe “every piece of wood is different” and do not know what to do with that piece only perpetuate that notion in the violin making world. Every violin they make is different tonally, and not necessarily better! They are getting nowhere. It is a circle for them. Their finished violin results reinforce their thought that all their colleagues as well believe, “every piece of wood is different”. It is the constant refrain. Let the variables be the thicknesses of the wood. Wood can be the same! Release yourself from this notion and start making better sounding violins!
Note: wood that is very similar in density, quarter cut, grain spacing, would be “the same”. The final violins will all have different “voices”, but be tonally more pleasing as you progress. This is easier than rocket science. Just control variables. Variable control also includes things like arching, rib height and thickness, block height, body width, body length and of course plate thickness. Dimensions are a key. Control your dimensions. Sure, arching is going to vary a bit. Violins are hand carved. Rib thickness is complete control. 1.3mm? 1mm? If you are seeking tonal perfection, build the same plan several times.
Ok, we got that out of the way. Onward.
Wrong Turn Number Two
“There is a secret that Stradivari and other Masters knew”.
Hogwash. Strad and those guys were just good. Hell, when you have a dirt floor, crap in an outhouse and use candles for light, you know the earth pretty well. You understand the things you make with your hands, the materials you use. The intestine strings and split bolts. Your focus is not your iphone or FaceBook. You need to make the next violin sound damn good so you can feed your household. All day, all night. You have complete focus on your craft. Simple as that.
It is obvious that earthly knowledge and the focus that they had gave them great results. Perhaps a trick or two, but today people are making violins just as good tonally as these masters without the “secret”. Have you ever seen the focus and the subtle way that the best in the world carry themselves? They are enlightened in their craft. Their wisdom is evident, but not. The best in the world are focused, in a world of unfocused people. They have the answer, and have achieved the top of their craft by sorting through the unfocused data and making concrete decisions. They did this by understanding that there are many solid answers in violin making.
Now, think of the violin makers you know that are not at the top. Hmmm. They are always pontificating some theory to the next poor bastard violin maker (maybe you) whose brain is taking notes. After hearing “leave it heavier in the soundpost area” for the 3rd time, it becomes a fact. Or, “2.7mm at the f-holes is way too thin”. Or, my favorite “graduations don’t matter that much, there are thick del Gesus and thin Strads, and that proves you need to look elsewhere”.
This last one, "there are thick del Gesus and thin Strads" is the creator of the nebulousness of violin making facts that most people subscribe to. It is the bane of their violin making careers, but they do not know it. Every possible true fact is now not necessarily true about violin making because of this simple “fact”. In this case, intuition tells us that graduations should matter, maybe the most of anything, but the “fact” of thick del Gesus and thin Strads just proves that violins are just too complicated to figure out! You see, by taking away the obvious answer to great tone we can continue to believe there is some magic somewhere else in the violin that we can find earth shattering good tone with thick and thin plates, but we do not need to decide now, because the thicknesses are now not the answer. I was told this early on. I believed that there was actually a thicker plated del Gesu, but it did not stop me from throwing out that piece of data. It turns out, del Gesu's "Cannon" violin from 1743 is the "thick" violin referred to. The rest are "thin". Anyway, this "thick violin" was measured in 1937 with a maximum top plate thickness of 4.3mm. More recently, it was measured with a maximum top plate thickness of 3.4mm. Wow, the establishment cannot even tell us the correct maximum thickness of the top plate of this famous violin! I have looked at the diagrams for the Cannon. The thick spots are in the middle of the plates, the rest of the plates are normal, or "thin".
All answers about violin making now become nebulous. This “there are thick del Gesus and thin Strads” somehow explains on a deep and obvious level that we are dealing with something extraordinarily complicated here. That is the thoughtful conclusion of many. However that is the wrong road taken, into an endless loop. Using this thinking there will always be someone telling you that your observation is incorrect because he is trapped in the loop. Finally, you may end up believing it too and be trapped in the loop. Forget the nebulous cloud of theories where there is nothing solid to hang on to. Make the switch. Thicknesses of the plates are the answer. If you do not believe me, ask if you can measure with a Hacklinger guage the plates of any of the fine contemporary makers' violins. Also, ask the violin makers in Ann Arbor to make you a thick top plated (3mm or more all over) violin sound good. It is likely even they cannot. If a violin maker does not get over the “thick and thin” plate issue they will be wasting time.
Wrong Turn Number Three
“Just another quack that thinks he knows Strad’s secret. Dismiss anything that he says.”
Need I say more? It is very similar to problem number two. Conventional wisdom is that nobody knows profound things about making great sounding violins, and if they claim some answers, they cannot be true. Every year or two there is some quack claiming they have found the secret of Strad. Almost always, their new found “secret” is wrong. These quacks have cried wolf so many times that now real breakthroughs or useful information is barely debated and discarded quickly. The loop will never end, except for those at the top that have found the answer. The loop can end for you too, if you choose to sort it out. There are firm answers out there. There are a two of them on this website. The two most important.
Violin makers "share" information somewhat freely. What you do with it makes the biggest difference. If the freely "shared" information is generalizations, forget about it. If it is defined quantitatively, consider the source, and perhaps try it. You can verify the source has made great sounding violins by one of 3 ways: The source sells their own violins for a price $5,000 or more, you have played violins made by the source, or the source has some verifiable award for tone in a violin. Without that, you are entering the loop of nonsense by listening to most shared information. Unless you have one or more of those three, don't listen. Your time is valuable, do not waste it building crummy sounding violins!
The bottom line to fix Wrong Turn Number Three is seek out quantitative information from qualified sources, use common sense, focus on dimensional consistency, materials specifications and graduations. Or, try what I have discussed on this website and achieve a real breakthrough.
One last thing on theory. If I were to speak at a violin convention, and tell the audience that the 2 keys to making great sounding violins were the best wood and the thickness of plates, I would be treated as just another quack. Very few struggling violin makers have tried to actually control variables and focus on plate thicknesses. That is what I had 260 violins built for. To test the plate thicknesses. The data is completely conclusive!
Epiphany Number 1
I must tell you this story to add context and basis to what I have learned and concluded. I had an epiphany a few months after I had these conversations. I will tell you what it was, right after the story.
It was 2007. I had started my violin project (having violins made for me with my wood, in China). Having them made in China would allow me make many violins very quickly with dozens of permutations. Anyway, my hypothesis was that graduations were the key to good sound. Specifically, I believed the top plate thicknesses were the ones that were critical. Knowing some top violin makers, I called 3 of them on the phone and asked them if they would draw me a map of "proper" plate thicknesses. I told them that I was not looking for anything proprietary, just something to get me started. Two of these makers are judged as the best in the USA, or if you had to name 5 of the best in the USA, these two would be in there. The third was a maker in Chicago, making world class sounding violins. In a way, when I asked each of them, I felt a reluctance to ask, but asked for the graduation thoughts anyway.
None of the three would draw me a map. They insisted on plenty of verbal advice and each of them gave me generalizations, like 3mm at the sound post and thinner in the upper and lower bouts etc. I really did not have anything to work with from these inquiries. I could not deduce what the thicknesses should be from these conversations. I would have to guess. So, in Generation 3, I drew maps of the thicknesses that I thought might work. Today, I know that 3 tenths of a millimeter makes a huge difference. These early maps that I drew were slightly too thick for good to great sound. I had based the maps somewhat on the conversations I had with those three top level professionals. When I got to Generation 5, I learned that generalizations about graduations were the heart of the problem. Great sounding violins need precision in the thickness of the plates. I said I would tell you what my epiphany was, so here goes.
It was many months later. The data from my violins was showing that graduations of the top plate were having drastic effects on sound. All of a sudden I realized the reason that none of those three would draw me a map with thicknesses because there was a good reason not to. That reason is this: If they are completely honest and draw me a map with "proper" graduations, it is the answer to great sound. If they draw something other than the the right answer they would be doing me a disservice and sending me the wrong way. All three being honest, honorable men, none of them would want to deliberately send me on a wild goose chase. They did not want to give the answer, as that is what their careers are built on. On the other hand, they did not want to be mean, or waste my time.
The epiphany was this: Graduations are the key to great sound. They could not draw me the maps because they would be giving me the answer to great sound. It is that simple.
All the data you need to see to conclude that graduations are the key to great sound is by looking at the average plate graduations of Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu. Guess what. After Generation 5, I located these average plate graduations of Strad and del Gesu (see them in the products I sell). The thicknesses that I had narrowed my search down to were almost exactly like the Strad and del Gesu graduations! I had come to the thickness conclusions without knowledge of these documents. We are talking about 2 tenths of a millimeter making a difference in the sound of violins. 4 Tenths of a millimeter was a huge amount. This is why many people never get great sound. They listen to the generalizations about thicknesses and invariably miss by just a few tenths of a millimeter. Extraordinary sound can not be created when plates are left too heavy, even by less than 1/2 of a millimeter. Hold your fingers 1/2mm apart. Hard to do isn't it. That is the difference we are talking about.
I know most people will think this is hogwash. That is not my problem, it is theirs. If they are not making great sounding violins, they should listen, and just try what I suggest on the Specifics Page. If they are making great sounding violins, they know what I just described!
