I watched a violin making video today.. They showed small holes being drilled up into the bridge from the bottom of the feet...new one on me.. WHat is happening with that?
Can you give a link to the video? I don't know why that would be done.
Prolly some wacky idea to reduce the mass of the bridge. Never seen, heard or thought of that before, in 45+ yrs messing with fiddles.
quote:
Originally posted by Brian WoodCan you give a link to the video? I don't know why that would be done.
sometimes I'll start watching Youtube and Facebook 'shorts' and will maybe watch 50!!! (they are often quite interesting..and addictive) so NO I can't find the link. MY computer only will say Youtube video or Facebook video...
Here's what a quick search says. I trust the source.
https://maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/326403-bridge-holes-to-reduce-weight/
quote:
Originally posted by TuneWeaverI watched a violin making video today.. They showed small holes being drilled up into the bridge from the bottom of the feet...new one on me.. WHat is happening with that?
This is a crackpot idea that's been tried from time to time. The theory is that the holes direct sound in some magic way that improves sonority. It doesn't.
I've seen a couple soundposts made with a hole all the way through their length. That idea was similarly unimpressive.
A while ago there was someone who was trying to sell people on the idea that cellos could be tonally improved and wolves could be adjusted through the selection of endpin rods with holes drilled in at certain points. I don't think I've ever seen one in use.
If you can think of a crazy idea for adjusting sound, several other people have probably (unsuccessfully) tried it already at some point in the last several hundred years.
Banjo players sometime sand down the bottom of their bridges to make them thinner. It is supposed to increase volume. Pro banjo player Alan Munde talked about doing it and the stampede was on. I would guess it puts more pressure on the top of the instrument.
Wow! That brought the memory blasting back of hearing about that trick for the first time, just shy of 60 years ago in Bloomington, Indiana. If I'm recalling correctly, the idea was credited to the cellist Janos Starker-- I think he drilled out just the bass-side leg, and left the treble one solid. Kind of sounded to me like snake oil at the time, but I hadn't yet messed with a cello at all, and was barely starting to figure out what made a fiddle tick.
I tried drilling a fiddle bridge, and didn't think it made any difference in the sound. Of course it didn't. A <1/8" hole, <1/4" deep, doesn't remove enough weight (or alter the flexibility of the wood enough) to do anything noticeable.
A cello bridge has relatively long legs, which if hollowed out, could certainly make some significant change in the bridge's weight and how that weight is distributed. So, it ought to do something noticeable to the instrument's response and voice.
quote:
Originally posted by Dan GellertWow! That brought the memory blasting back of hearing about that trick for the first time, just shy of 60 years ago in Bloomington, Indiana. If I'm recalling correctly, the idea was credited to the cellist Janos Starker-- I think he drilled out just the bass-side leg, and left the treble one solid. Kind of sounded to me like snake oil at the time, but I hadn't yet messed with a cello at all, and was barely starting to figure out what made a fiddle tick.
I tried drilling a fiddle bridge, and didn't think it made any difference in the sound. Of course it didn't. A <1/8" hole, <1/4" deep, doesn't remove enough weight (or alter the flexibility of the wood enough) to do anything noticeable.
A cello bridge has relatively long legs, which if hollowed out, could certainly make some significant change in the bridge's weight and how that weight is distributed. So, it ought to do something noticeable to the instrument's response and voice.
Starker was the most famous player to advance this idea, and the fact that he was a good player was enough to convince some people that his skill in playing meant that he had a similar ability to understand how instruments worked. A few people tried it and then the magic wore off when it became apparent that there was more to improving instrument setup than drilling holes in things.
In the bicycle world there was a similar obsession with improving importance by reducing the weight of the equipment. Proponents of weight reduction clamored for lighter and lighter frames and components and then drilled holes wherever they could to save every gram possible. Eventually the UCI introduced a minimum weight requirement for all bikes that were used for UCI events to combat this and to deter cyclists from killing themselves by making their bikes structurally unstable. Eventually, as bike manufacturers started hiring formula one designers to come up with aerodynamic designs for racing bikes, the craze for light weight died. There were still some "weight weenies" who argued that super lightweight bikes may not be faster in most conditions but that they were the best choice for pure climbing. But then it started to become apparent that if a bike was aerodynamic enough, it was more efficient on climbs even though it was heavier. While bike frames on the whole ended up lighter with the advent of carbon fiber, eventually people stopped caring as much about that as they did about other things and weight started to increase again.
Light weight has been tried in violin making as well. The results have been similar to those in the cycling world. There's nothing new under the sun.
