I've heard bad things about them. Is it true? I've never played on many violins to tell the difference but is there a specific difference in tone quality? Why is oak not preferred?

I have an 85 yr. old oak violin, I think it sounds alright, but then again I've not played on too many violins. The grain of the wood is nice. Sounds better than a "professional" hand carved spruce top violin I used to have. I'd suspect its age has to do with that.

[For those of you who may have already seen this violin, fine... yes, I attempted to restore it. The color does not quite suit oak--upon closer examination there are dark places in the wood and the grain, especially on the back, is very deep and blackish. Can't see it that well in the pictures. Unusual (better said ostentatious) nonetheless!]

Anybody have any opinions on oak? Knowledge?

The Sunburst Violin

The Back

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freischutz

I've heard bad things about them. Is it true? I've never played on many violins to tell the difference but is there a specific difference in tone quality? Why is oak not preferred?

I have an 85 yr. old oak violin, I think it sounds alright, but then again I've not played on too many violins. The grain of the wood is nice. Sounds better than a "professional" hand carved spruce top violin I used to have. I'd suspect its age has to do with that.

[For those of you who may have already seen this violin, fine... yes, I attempted to restore it. The color does not quite suit oak--upon closer examination there are dark places in the wood and the grain, especially on the back, is very deep and blackish. Can't see it that well in the pictures. Unusual (better said ostentatious) nonetheless!]

Anybody have any opinions on oak? Knowledge?

---

You might be interested in this article on the topic of tonewood. It is written by a guitar maker, but I expect it would apply to any sort of stringed instrument that is made of wood. You have to understand that there is a good deal of mythology. tradition, and subjectivity that goes into crafting a musical instrument, particularly a violin. The violin business can be a quasi-magical one, and sometimes it's best to play by the rules even if your audience couldn't distinguish between the ancient and priceless Strad and the much newer Oak vagary if both were played separately behind a curtain. 

That said, there are plenty of poor sounding instruments out there. Interestingly, even the cheap junk and the esoteric instruments can usually be made to sound pretty good (in my limited experience), mostly by adjusting the setup and providing quality fittings and strings. However, since the experience of music is a such a subjective one, it is very important what we (the audience) bring to it. If there is some story or anecdote, you'd be surprised at how significantly the experience changes. Certain instruments have a great effect on those who play them and on those who listen. 

Just my opinion... It could be heresy!

There was a guy back in the Ozarks that made fiddles. He made one out of white oak (spruce top). I played it and it sounded ok to me, but It seemed a little heavy. (I told him this and he got kinda irate) Overall, I think it was a good fiddle. His workmanship was good although he was a novice luthier. Like pmccombs said up there.... 'Theres a lot of tradition in instruments.' so I'd expect to get some raised eyebrows from some folks. Using oak for the secondary tonewoods is no more of a reach than using a hardwood for the soundboard like Martin and Gibson have done. It cant sound any worse than a lot of lousy sounding maple and spruce fiddles out there.
It's good to be different!

I've often wondered how Hickory or Ash would do as tonewoods. I seem to recall Martin making a few Ash guitars in the 90's. SooooTRADITION .... but then traditions develop develop from successful rather than from unsucessful outcomes. Hmmmmm

I have a Black Walnut fiddle from Hill Violins.  It is really beautiful and has a sweet sound, but not a lot of projection.  I have never amped it, but that might be a way to bring out the sound more.  I learned to play on this fiddle and Ernie Hill is no longer alive, so it is a special one to me. Interesting to read about the various woods used in fiddle-making.

I have an oak banjo pot that sounds great.  It was a grain measure in another life.  I also have a cherry fiddle with a spruce top which is my go to fiddle.

I believe a lot of times that it is the quality of the instrument itself that matters most, not just the wood... it has to be made well, set up right, and most importantly, played right! My fid is a sight to behold but I'm interested in getting another. I like to practice my luthiery skills and fix up old ones. I might do that if I can find one in okay condition, because buying an all good and set-up one is so expensive.

...I bet none of you have seen an oak violin that color.   :)  Not the nicest job but it is unusual.

​I've heard they're oak-kay; however, others pine about how they're too heavy.  Now certainly there are aldernate woods for fiddles, yet I think Annie Oakley liked them a lot.  People tend to firget that the wrong wood can make one sycamore than usual, too, so I beechseech folks to find a fiddle right for them.  

There are a lot of fussy fiddle aficionados who would say nothing but curly maple (but not broad leaf maple heaven forbid) and European spruce will do. But if you dig even a little bit you find sycamore and poplar are popular... you dig? I wish to possibly sell my fiddles so i stick with the old formula. But there is no scientific reason to omit any wood other than the instruments weight and material strength. It is all just an accepted paradigm, our cultural ears have been conditioned to say "this is what sounds professional and cultured" If the ancients had other materials in abundance then those would be the standard. I bet a Mahogany or Koa top could make a fine cello or viola and rosewood neck sides and back would probably be good for any form but dont expect to see the concertmaster sawing away on such a creation.

Probably the most important individual component of the fiddle for good sound is the top--that's where the majority of sound/tone production takes place. It's no secret that spruce is an ideal wood for this purpose--many woods can work for purposes of back and sides, so long as the top is spruce. It's no coincidence that the fiddles mentioned above have spruce tops. I doubt you'd see many instruments with an oak *top*, however. Not as ideally suited to the purpose as spruce for physical reasons.

Edited by - DeamhanFola on 08/18/2012 08:51:44

swampash - In English and European books about violinmaking you'll see "sycamore" recommended for back and ribs. But they are referring to a species of maple, the same as "European maple"  http://www.cozio.com/forum/Topic2302-5-1.aspx

I don't know how well the American "sycamore" would work for a violin, but at least in my experience I wouldn't consider it or poplar (another confusing name) to be "popular."

the Italian masters made their instruments from the best materials available to them at the time they where creating their instruments. At the time that was maple/spruce, that's how the tradition started. Woodwind makers changed materials as better woods became available through trade, violin makers stayed with tradition.

so why maple over oak?

Maple was hard and easily worked and not too porous, oak is hard but very porous and is harder to carve and dulls tools quicker. If you look at oak closely you can see black flecks, those are the fibrous tubes - whereas maple lacks those and tends to be more uniform in density. The tonal impact of the back/sidewood isn't as important so a good hardwood which is easily carved fits the bill.  Now most players come to expect it and want it, so luthiers build accordingly. Some other woods that would work well would be cherry, sycamore (a close cousin of maple) or any easily carved hardwood that doesn't like to warp or bend with time. Rosewoods/mahogany would probably work well too if someone had the will to carve them. Beech is hard but it's ugly(no figure), poplar is sometimes used it's easily carved but it's ugly and kind of spongy. Koa's all the rage nowadays, probably work OK too.

The reason spruce is used for the top is because of it's grain, the winter grains (dark lines) have the strength of ebony while the summer grains (lighter part) are so soft you could cut it with your fingernail. It's the interplay between the soft summer grains and the rigidity of the winter grains that make spruce work so well. Cedar can be used too, it's used on guitars sometimes - it's tonal quality is a bit different but a great piece of cedar could sound better than a middling piece of spruce - but then again tradition dictates the preference for spruce. Oak could be used for the top; however, it doesn't have the right hard/soft properties that a tight grained softwood has. I'm not saying it *won't* work, but it's not really cut out for the job. Interesting to see if other tight grained softwoods have been used - maybe fir or even a balsa/ebony laminate.

Anyway, craftsmanship adds a big variable to the equation, an experienced luthier could whip up a better instrument using non-traditional tone woods than an apprentice/tinkerer. And in my experience most weird-o tone wood fiddles were cobbled together in some garage by someone with little to no training - every once in a while they make a decent to good fiddle with the same luck and consistency as someone winning the lottery.

Different woods sound distinctly different.  An oak violin just won't sound like a maple one; oak's structure and density are just too different. Cedar tops just don't sound like spruce tops. You might like the sound, and it might even be marketable, but it won't sound the same. Some makers are having success with alternate woods, but it takes a while to learn to get what you want out of them, and they still have a "different" sound, IME. I have on my list of new stuff to prototype, a cherry fiddle with spruce top, and a walnut fiddle with cedar top. Not gonna try to make them sound like maple / spruce, but will explore their own individual sound.

Some woods do sound a lot alike. Different species within the same genus, of course, but also woods of similar density and grain structure.  I expect cherry to sound a lot like maple, for example, but it will still have a slightly different, perhaps warmer timbre.

http://www.franksfiddles.com/recent/archives/201001/index.html

Hi: I was talking with Frank Daniels about two years ago, and he told me about a very intriguing project that he had undertaken. A very old tree, planted by (IIRC) Benjamin Harrison, was felled. Due to the historical significance of the tree, the town decided that something should be done with the wood. Frank was asked if he would be interested in making a couple of fiddles with this wood. I think he was required to donate one to the museum (which he did) and he could use the remainder of the wood allotted to him as he saw fit. The link above gives a lot more info on this project. 

Frank made two fiddles (that I know of). One was donated. I did get to play the other one. I was blown away by the tone, but especially the projection of this instrument. To be candid, if I could have afforded it, I would have bought it right on the spot. 

I already have two fiddles made by Frank. I have posted pictures of my five string on my home page here at the FHO. 

Ciao

PS. Sorry, but I don't know how to make the above link "hot". You can copy and paste it into your web browser. Can a FHO member tell me how to correctly post links so they are hot?

Proof's in the pudding.  Good sounding fiddle, as far as I can tell from the video.  Doesn't sound like maple, though. Has its own voice.

LOL.....well spOAKen Curt. Bailey, here's my oak fiddle with poplar top : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nhI_sWplQ6g  . Woodwiz (above ) set it up for me. It definately has a sound of its own. ALL tha parts are hand made of oak except tha poplar top. I like its sound, and tha more I play it, tha      more I like it.

Oak ( as you may know ) is a hardwood and poreous and not as easily worked as maple or spruce and would require more attention to tha sealing in tha finishing process. Does yours have a label in it, or who tha maker was ? I'd like to have one made of walnut or cherry.

Sorry you had a bad first day at H.S. You're a good expressive writer, so hang in thar. You'll have many more joyous, happy H.S days ahead of ya. 

Lou - to make a "hot" link, make sure "Rich Text" is selected in the reply box. Copy the desired URL to your clipboard, and put the cursor where you want it to go. To the right of the little "smiley" "emoticon" is something that looks vaguely like a link of chain I think. When you click that a new box will open (in its own sweet time) where you paste the URL, and click "OK." Presto - its only about three times more difficult than it needs to be!

Oak was used for the backs and sides of some old parlor guitars, usually not very good ones. That was back in the heyday of oak furniture. I don't think I've ever seen a violin made with oak, but here's a nice one from the guitar world:  http://www.talaricohardwoods.com/instrument.htm

If I were looking for a substitute for maple I think I'd try cherry, birch, or walnut first, but I think there's a lot of suitable maple still around.

That's a nice sounding fiddle, Doyle. Its got its own kind of "ring", doesn't it?

Edited by - DougD on 08/18/2012 13:14:16

A couple of factors not mentioned yet.

Spruce is very flexible, and has a good track record for reasonable durability over hundreds of years.

An experienced luthier COULD do a better job with alternate woods than an amateur tinkerer, but why would they?

They might if they had a geeky, enquiring mind that just wanted to know, but if they were more businesslike, they'd probably pass.

As far as the classical violin world, Stradivari's and Guarneri's designs "aren't broken" and they don't really want them "fixed".  There's a romantic factor there, and also the concern for resaleability as they move up to higher end instruments and sell their present instrument.

Also, the tone of the present designs with the present woods works well in the sound mix of classical orchestras and smaller ensembles too.  They blend well in string sections, and the better examples work well as solo instruments.  Different woods change the tone in unpredictable ways.  They might sound good solo, but do they blend well?  Do they project well? Do they record well?  Do they "get lost in the mix? All those things are known factors with conventional violins, while instruments with alternate woods are an unknown.

  Fiddlers might be inclined to be a little more progressive, but they benefit from the abundance of traditional instruments for sale, so why should they change?  They also tend to need to resell instruments.  It's nearly always easier to sell something that's normal and conservative for what it is.

New things catch on because they solve problems- solid body electric guitars caught on because they were relatively feedback-proof compared to traditional arch-top guitars with pickups added to them.

5-string fiddles ARE catching on because they do offer a bigger range for violinists and fiddlers playing outside of the classical genre, but that's about the only innovation that really seems to be gaining some traction in the market.

If alternate woods actually improved the performance of a 5-string fiddle, that is a market where what the classical violin world thinks doesn't count for much anyway.

Why, you might even be able sell a 5-string with Chanot-type body... IF it worked well as a 5-string!

Problem areas for a conventional violin that MIGHT suggest alternate woods:

1. Violins and fiddles aren't that easy to record- violins that work well in performing situations don't always do well in the recording studio.

2. Ebony is a scarce and the species of ebony used are at least partially threatened- substitute woods may need to be used.

Edited by - fiddlepogo on 08/18/2012 13:36:01

quote:

---

Originally posted by DougD

Lou - to make a "hot" link, make sure "Rich Text" is selected in the reply box. Copy the desired URL to your clipboard, and put the cursor where you want it to go. To the right of the little "smiley" "emoticon" is something that looks vaguely like a link of chain I think. When you click that a new box will open (in its own sweet time) where you paste the URL, and click "OK." Presto - its only about three times more difficult than it needs to be!

 

​Thanks Doug!

Ozarkian- it was made in 1925. The maker's name is hard to read but it is something like J.W. Lynch. It was made in Tecumseh, Nebraska.

Wow, I really love the sound of your oak fiddle! Way better than mine. How old is it?

Edited by - Freischutz on 08/18/2012 17:35:54

Made 1954 by a "Chaz Rainey"  from Crawford Co. Indiana. Even tha pegs and tailpiece are handmade of oak.

One of my drumsets is oak ( I've got three.  A vintage,  cute little be-bop set,  a beater set,  and a modern oak set),  and one of my four snares is,  also.  The oak has power and projection (at least in drums,  I'm not sure this translates to fiddles.  Maple is warmer.  I've got a maple snare,  too.  The maple records better,  but for live playing in loud or outdoor situations,  oak is hard to beat.  (pun intended) 

Oak violins are very heavy. I remember comparing my oak one to a regular spruce/maple. But I don't mind the weight. As long as it is responsive when you play it.

Now please, all of you. I have posted a new topic called "a new violin or an old one" in this same buyer reviews section. Please go there and give me your feedback.