| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ollieken
Super Member
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 281
Location: New Brunswick Canada
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 1:21 pm Post subject: Bridge Weight |
 |
|
Hi Lumuel on a post in the Musician Forum you say that the weight of the bridge is part of a set up What would you call a decent weight ?
Just wondering Ken
Last edited by ollieken on Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chad48309
Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Posts: 110
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's not so much weight as mass, which is entirely dependent on the qualities of the wood, the playing style, the strings, and the top. It's extremely specific to the situation and application.
_________________
-C.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actonern
Super Member
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 444
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemuel
Site Admin
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 515
Location: Mt. Elgin, Ontario
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Still being an apprentice under Leif Luscombe, I can only share from limited experience.
What I've done for full size violins is thin the bridge to approximately 2.4 grams before working on bridge height and cut outs. By the time everything is done, the bridge is about 2.1 grams. Any finishing touches (if any) are done with a file after testing with the violin...so it appears that 2 grams is a ballpark figure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemuel
Site Admin
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 515
Location: Mt. Elgin, Ontario
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad48309 wrote: | | It's not so much weight as mass, which is entirely dependent on the qualities of the wood, the playing style, the strings, and the top. It's extremely specific to the situation and application. |
Chad,
I would be interested if you could share what dependencies you have in mind when it comes to bridge setup, the playing style in particular. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chad48309
Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Posts: 110
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lemuel wrote: | | Chad48309 wrote: | | It's not so much weight as mass, which is entirely dependent on the qualities of the wood, the playing style, the strings, and the top. It's extremely specific to the situation and application. |
Chad,
I would be interested if you could share what dependencies you have in mind when it comes to bridge setup, the playing style in particular. |
Well, what type of wood you're using and its quality (hardness, tightness of grain) will have an impact on your sound. For instance, it's my opinion that a harder, denser wood (ideally maple) should be used for a classical setup using gut strings or synthetic strings, because its density and rigidity will transmit vibrations more effectively.
However, the key role of the bridge is to act as sort of a gateway for the sound of the strings. If we cared only about transmitting vibration, the bridge would be a solid mass with no carvings. This is not the case, because not all vibrations should be transmitted from the strings to the top. Some are good, some are bad. The bridge acts as a sort of filter, allowing the good vibrations (Beach Boys quips incoming) to reach the top unabated, while dissipating the bad ones. The best way to control this is not by adjusting the weight (which means you could simply shave material off anywhere), but to adjust the mass in certain locations and across the entire bridge.
Playing style comes into play when a specific sound is required. I know a group of lo-fi and noise genre players who only use cedar bridges to get a watery, muddy tone (needing to replace them frequently due to breakages). I know many steel-string country and celtic players who reduce the mass on the bridge a great deal to get a thin, airy sound.
By removing mass in key areas of the bridge, each string can be adjusted to allow certain amounts of vibration through to the top. Simply adjusting it for weight, while important, is much less of a factor in the way it transmits vibrations.
At least, this is my opinion. I'd like to hear from others as to what they think about this.
_________________
-C.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemuel
Site Admin
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 515
Location: Mt. Elgin, Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad48309 wrote: | ....Well, what type of wood you're using and its quality (hardness, tightness of grain) will have an impact on your sound. For instance, it's my opinion that a harder, denser wood (ideally maple) should be used for a classical setup using gut strings or synthetic strings, because its density and rigidity will transmit vibrations more effectively.
....Playing style comes into play when a specific sound is required....By removing mass in key areas of the bridge, each string can be adjusted to allow certain amounts of vibration through to the top. Simply adjusting it for weight, while important, is much less of a factor in the way it transmits vibrations. |
Thank you, Chad.
With classical setups, what sort of specific differences in bridge work would there be (if any) between solo violin (brilliant) versus chamber or group ensemble (warmer, mellower).
I hope others can comment as I would like to know if there is an answer to this sort of question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chad48309
Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Posts: 110
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lemuel wrote: | | Chad48309 wrote: | ....Well, what type of wood you're using and its quality (hardness, tightness of grain) will have an impact on your sound. For instance, it's my opinion that a harder, denser wood (ideally maple) should be used for a classical setup using gut strings or synthetic strings, because its density and rigidity will transmit vibrations more effectively.
....Playing style comes into play when a specific sound is required....By removing mass in key areas of the bridge, each string can be adjusted to allow certain amounts of vibration through to the top. Simply adjusting it for weight, while important, is much less of a factor in the way it transmits vibrations. |
Thank you, Chad.
With classical setups, what sort of specific differences in bridge work would there be (if any) between solo violin (brilliant) versus chamber or group ensemble (warmer, mellower).
I hope others can comment as I would like to know if there is an answer to this sort of question. |
I honestly think that there's so many different schools of thought on bridge design that it would be foolish for me to subscribe to any or endorse any in particular. I've seen examples that I can speak of, but nothing with any real science or method behind it.
Many fiddlers I know shave the top of their bridges flatter (for obvious reasons) and, at the same time, open up most of the holes in the carving as wide as possible. Supposedly, this lends to a more nasal-like sound, which I can only guess is what they were after. There are also some die-hards who play on copies of very, very old bridges. I recently saw members of an orchestra playing on copies of Strad bridges, but don't know what they think about the sound quality provided.
I really don't know how to provide any sort of help in this area, but hopefully another member can point both of us in the right direction. I only know the theory of it, but have very little input on the actual application.
_________________
-C.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Darnton
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1347
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
This type of discussion always bothers me, and I was trying to figure out why. I think it's like this: when the discussion turns to making a violins sound "bright" or "dark", I can't relate. This is like asking the customer if he prefers his car bashed in on the left side, or on the right.
My objective to setting up a violin is to make it balanced and even, clear and fast. It's up to the player to shape the sound, not me. If the sound is complete and unbiased, he can do that by pulling out of the sound what ever characteristics he needs. Consequently I use the bridge and other aspects of the setup mostly to open up areas of sound that are deficient. These are usually not overall things, but localized problems, such as (often) an unclear A string, or a G that drops off sharply compared with the others. About the only thing of the type being discussed that I use the bridge for is to lighten the bridge, especially the top half, just short of the point where the violin's sound becomes noisy, but I don't think of this a brightness--it's just completing the sound by adding more of something that's available.
The bridge has an effect in these things, but so do many other things, and it works in conjunction with them, so I usually work out a whole plan of which the bridge is a small part.
At the del Gesu convention in NYC in the 90s the cellist of the Guarneri Quarted responed in a Q&A to the question of what he liked to hear in a "quartet" cello. He responded that when someone described an instrument like that, or called it a "chamber" instrument, he'd run the other way; he wanted the best instrument he could have, and it was up to HIM, not the cello to make it fit in with the group. To him a description that pigeonholed a cello indicated that it was defective: it should have the potential to be everything. An instrument that can be described as bright or dark. . . that's an instrument that's defective, not a goal, I think.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chad48309
Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Posts: 110
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Darnton wrote: | This type of discussion always bothers me, and I was trying to figure out why. I think it's like this: when the discussion turns to making a violins sound "bright" or "dark", I can't relate. This is like asking the customer if he prefers his car bashed in on the left side, or on the right.
My objective to setting up a violin is to make it balanced and even, clear and fast. It's up to the player to shape the sound, not me. If the sound is complete and unbiased, he can do that by pulling out of the sound what ever characteristics he needs. Consequently I use the bridge and other aspects of the setup mostly to open up areas of sound that are deficient. These are usually not overall things, but localized problems, such as (often) an unclear A string, or a G that drops off sharply compared with the others. About the only thing of the type being discussed that I use the bridge for is to lighten the bridge, especially the top half, just short of the point where the violin's sound becomes noisy, but I don't think of this a brightness--it's just completing the sound by adding more of something that's available.
The bridge has an effect in these things, but so do many other things, and it works in conjunction with them, so I usually work out a whole plan of which the bridge is a small part.
At the del Gesu convention in NYC in the 90s the cellist of the Guarneri Quarted responed in a Q&A to the question of what he liked to hear in a "quartet" cello. He responded that when someone described an instrument like that, or called it a "chamber" instrument, he'd run the other way; he wanted the best instrument he could have, and it was up to HIM, not the cello to make it fit in with the group. To him a description that pigeonholed a cello indicated that it was defective: it should have the potential to be everything. An instrument that can be described as bright or dark. . . that's an instrument that's defective, not a goal, I think. |
I firmly believe that's a choice best left to the performer. The performer is who should have the final say in what, exactly, they want their instrument to sound like for their purposes. Yes, it's all well and good to say that the performer should be able to change the color of the sound however they want, but ultimately it is their choice of how they want their playing style to influence their sound and how the instrument responds. Some people actually prefer instruments that are unresponsive and sluggish, especially for ambient, noise, experimental, and lo-fi genres.
I consider this just like any other instrument. Saxophonists have been stripping their instruments of lacquer for years to give a more mellow, jazzy sound. Clarinet players have been over-oiling their instruments for a long time to darken the sound. When you change the natural state of the sound, you shift that range of color you can give the sound. I would attest that to assume that every player wants the most balanced instrument is pigeonholing performers. Does that mean that instruments should be made a different way? Certainly not. The maker should choose how they want their instruments to be, obviously. But there's a choice on the side of the performer that we all should be aware of. I believe that every performer has the right to select their instrument from what is available to them and every right to break, warp, and destroy it in any way that will benefit their art, whatever it may be.
Edit: the real point of this thread was how bridge weight (or rather, mass and shape) impacts the quality of sound. This can certainly be part of the discussion of what bridge suits what violin, but I was only giving examples of strange aberrations in bridge style and design and what impacts I thought they had on the sound quality. Perhaps the discussion should be steered BACK towards the cold, hard science, lest we fly right the heck off the rails.
_________________
-C.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Darnton
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1347
Location: Chicago
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chad48309
Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Posts: 110
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Darnton wrote: | | I'm pretty sure you missed my point. |
As I see it and can summarize it, I believe you were saying that an instrument that is either too dark or too light is to be considered defective and not ideal. My only point was that this depends entirely on the perspective of the performer.
Edit: please correct me if I'm mistaken. I loathe mis-communication, especially when I'm guilty of it.
_________________
-C.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Darnton
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1347
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An instrument should be able to become whatever is demanded of it, including delivering a darker or brighter sound, and that's one of the marks of a good instrument. While it's true that every one isn't going to be great, that's a goal to shoot for. To the extent that one can manage to achieve that, players won't have much to say about an instrument needing changes, even minor adjustments.
That's mainly referring to classical players--people who are doing off-track stuff, or aren't experienced and think the sound comes more from the instrument than them, won't necessarily see it that way. But one of the things I used to do when I was actively selling things was slip a real Strad into the mix. The reason was so the customer could see what could be done, and then look for that. Most would immediately chose that one, before they knew what it was: even kids getting their first 4/4 violin got it, as did fiddlers, and Irish musicians, so it's not just a classical issue. Then the only problem was to find the violin that would do that, or as much of it as possible, for several million dollars less.
I'm sure I've mentioned here that the single most common comment I heard from really great players trying out instruments wasn't that they liked a violin's sound as such; it was "I could work with that," meaning that it was a violin they could shape the way they needed. A violin doesn't have to cost millions of dollars to be flexible, and a really strong player can force an inflexible violin to do things other players can't (and lead makers to think they're another Stradivari :-). But if you have a tool that can do anything. . . well, it does everything.
Melvin Goldsmith is in the process of saying the same thing elsewhere: http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=323069&view=findpost&p=491729
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chad48309
Member
Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Posts: 110
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Darnton wrote: | An instrument should be able to become whatever is demanded of it, including delivering a darker or brighter sound, and that's one of the marks of a good instrument. While it's true that every one isn't going to be great, that's a goal to shoot for. To the extent that one can manage to achieve that, players won't have much to say about an instrument needing changes, even minor adjustments.
That's mainly referring to classical players--people who are doing off-track stuff, or aren't experienced and think the sound comes more from the instrument than them, won't necessarily see it that way. But one of the things I used to do when I was actively selling things was slip a real Strad into the mix. The reason was so the customer could see what could be done, and then look for that. Most would immediately chose that one, before they knew what it was: even kids getting their first 4/4 violin got it, as did fiddlers, and Irish musicians, so it's not just a classical issue. Then the only problem was to find the violin that would do that, or as much of it as possible, for several million dollars less.
I'm sure I've mentioned here that the single most common comment I heard from really great players trying out instruments wasn't that they liked a violin's sound as such; it was "I could work with that," meaning that it was a violin they could shape the way they needed. A violin doesn't have to cost millions of dollars to be flexible, and a really strong player can force an inflexible violin to do things other players can't (and lead makers to think they're another Stradivari  . But if you have a tool that can do anything. . . well, it does everything. |
Very, very valid point taken. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
What do you think about fitting a bridge to a top, or how specific changes in bridge mass and shape relate to changes in sound? Is it vastly different between tops that the bridge is being fitted to or is there some sort of method to it all? I've never been able to get really good clarification on this. My knowledge of it all stops at "it has an impact on sound."
_________________
-C.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lemuel
Site Admin
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 515
Location: Mt. Elgin, Ontario
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Darnton wrote: | ...
I'm sure I've mentioned here that the single most common comment I heard from really great players trying out instruments wasn't that they liked a violin's sound as such; it was "I could work with that," meaning that it was a violin they could shape the way they needed. A violin doesn't have to cost millions of dollars to be flexible, and a really strong player can force an inflexible violin to do things other players can't (and lead makers to think they're another Stradivari . But if you have a tool that can do anything. . . well, it does everything.
|
Initially I was hesitant to ask this question...but now I'm glad I did. The above paragraph sums it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
