Thank you for posting this. I wonder what Guarneri was trying to accomplish with the length experiments with the f holes. I too believe we can make the violin better today.
Compmeist: The f hole AND the C bouts were both longer, and this allows the entire sound chamber to flex a little more, and creates the potential for the violin to have a much deeper bass than other violin designs. Graduations of top and back also are very important.
This is an interesting discussion and I appreciate learning something, namely the history and significance of the term bridge. But there is one word that is conspicuously missing: Sacconi,. Didn't he investigate and document the ancient sources and put all that down in his book?
Thank you. Sacconi is an important book and has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the past. However, is it possible that further research has been conducted since the epochal publication of Sacconi's book, leading to new discoveries?
@@badiarov I agree with your hypothesis! To that end I recently saw a lecture by Ken Parker a famous archtop guitar maker who has a scientific approach and he mentioned that the benefit of the purfling channel on a violin is to weaken the top around the perimeter which gives better low frequency response. I had never seen this discussed before including in the Sacconi book and Maestronet forums. Have you come across this concept and do you think it has validity? Thank you.
I'm interested in how Stradivari etc might have altered the body shape - if at all - if they were making their instrument to play at 440hz like today, rather than about a half step down as was then?
When Stradivari made violins, violins were played at all kinds of pitches, from 382 to 465 and maybe even higher, and a huge variety of temperaments. Today it is just 440, and just one temperament. Except for musicians like us. I hope this helps.
Sam…the strad vs new experiments by Fritz, Curtin and Tao showed that modern makers can make instruments preferred over golden period instruments. I don’t think there are “secrets”. There are great makers…and a fraction of their instruments will be the best ever made!
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for posting this. I wonder what Guarneri was trying to accomplish with the length experiments with the f holes. I too believe we can make the violin better today.
In my opinion, it's proportional to begin with.
Compmeist: The f hole AND the C bouts were both longer, and this allows the entire sound chamber to flex a little more, and creates the potential for the violin to have a much deeper bass than other violin designs. Graduations of top and back also are very important.
Really fascinating to hear what Sam has to say.
Thank you for adding. I appreciate. It was fascinating talking to Sam.
This is an interesting discussion and I appreciate learning something, namely the history and significance of the term bridge. But there is one word that is conspicuously missing: Sacconi,. Didn't he investigate and document the ancient sources and put all that down in his book?
Thank you. Sacconi is an important book and has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the past. However, is it possible that further research has been conducted since the epochal publication of Sacconi's book, leading to new discoveries?
@@badiarov I agree with your hypothesis! To that end I recently saw a lecture by Ken Parker a famous archtop guitar maker who has a scientific approach and he mentioned that the benefit of the purfling channel on a violin is to weaken the top around the perimeter which gives better low frequency response. I had never seen this discussed before including in the Sacconi book and Maestronet forums. Have you come across this concept and do you think it has validity? Thank you.
Dmitry…I did not hear any of the insights you have learned that you said you would share? Really interested to hear.
Yeah, I did not want to interrupt Sam. My insights are shared in the free three part training for luthiers here on YT, and in more depth in my book.
I'm interested in how Stradivari etc might have altered the body shape - if at all - if they were making their instrument to play at 440hz like today, rather than about a half step down as was then?
When Stradivari made violins, violins were played at all kinds of pitches, from 382 to 465 and maybe even higher, and a huge variety of temperaments. Today it is just 440, and just one temperament. Except for musicians like us. I hope this helps.
@@badiarov yep that's a useful way to look at it thanks! guess was just no standardization, so makers had to account for that
Sam…the strad vs new experiments by Fritz, Curtin and Tao showed that modern makers can make instruments preferred over golden period instruments. I don’t think there are “secrets”. There are great makers…and a fraction of their instruments will be the best ever made!
true.