The Physics of Violins:
Artistry Versus Physics
Shuo Chen
Wednesday, May 14, 1997
Period 2
Does making artistry or physics hold the key to
making
the perfect violin? Experts and music lovers debate
over the issue.
The Physics of Violins: Artistry Versus
Physics
Thesis: Artistry and physics contribute
together to develop a
beautiful violin.
Physics of Violins: Artistry Versus Physics
Chemistry, physics, geography, math ... life presents many
mysteries. From crop circles, the Bermuda triangle, Easter
Island statues, fire walkers, supernatural phenomenon, to
concepts of the universe, man has attempted to understand many
things. Many things are fascinating, amusing, and enigmatic to
ponder about. Many things remain unsolved. They taunt and grip
our minds and souls. People desire to know more about it through
our curiosity, but as we research further and our interest is
piqued, more questions are found than are answered. Often
origins of things are unknown like man's, the universe's, or ...
a violin's. The violin has remained a legend, an instrument with
a great background that believed to have originated from Andrea
Amati who founded the great Cremona school of violin makers. With
his pupils Antonio Stradivari and Giuseppe Guarneri, they brought
the art of violin making to an extraordinary height that only now
people would attempt to exceed it. They had been open to their
limited physics, but they maintained an art, not a science
(Hutchins 79). They had to pass their art through many
generations, since it takes many years to build a master, which
even today we have not been able to determine their secret in the
art. People have tried and many now believe that with modern
tools and equipment they can replicate and surpass their works.
Thus, it is still in debate what it takes to create a beautiful
violin: artistry, physics, or both.
The violin is a seemingly fragile instrument that is
actually quite strong. Its combined tension of all four stings
is about fifty pounds twenty pounds of which is directed
straight down upon the instrument through the bridge and on to
the detailed, eggshaped box (Hutchins 81). Its strings are
usually made of metal, pig gut or gut wound with fine silver, or
aluminum wire (Hutchins 180). The actual sounding is made of a
front plate and a back plate that is arched slightly forward to
form somewhat a bell-like shape. The wood is usually carved with
a chisel, plane and scraper that is traditionally made of curly
maple (though pear and sycamore wood is sometimes used) and it is
dried for at least ten years (Hutchins 80). It can be made of a
single piece or it can joined together carefully in two pieces.
The thickness of the wood ranges from six millimeters in the
center to about two millimeter. The wood sides are also thin and
are shaped, glued to the blocks in the interior of the top and
bottom of the violin. In order to make the violin, it is usually
made of spruce that is split down the middle lengthwise and used
as the center of the top of the violin, which makes the grain
bilaterally symmetrical. There are two beautifully shaped
f-holes which are cut into each side of the plate. The edge of
the violin consists of a slight shallow groove called the
purfling which maybe used as decoration and a precaution about
cracking going further into the interior. Many other materials
maybe used like ebony, rosewood, and curly maple. The filler,
varnish and glue contribute to the characteristics of the violin
and
may slightly dampen sound if not used correctly. There have been
theories that the varnish has contributed greaty to the sounding
of the violin and the masters have a secret formula for making
it.
(Hutchins 80-81) Others say that that is merely flim-flam to
drive up the prices of the violins. Also some say that the
purfling may be of some interest, since its use is a bit
unknown. After many years of playing, the glue that holds the
purfling strips may give away and grooves may begin to crack,
thus creating thin vibrating edges which may account for the
improved tone after years of playing. The interior is made of a
bass bar on the side of the string that is tuned to the lowest
octave. It is used to steady the violin and help balance the
instrument from weight components in the top and bottom. It used
to be located directly above the center, but somehow someone
thought of putting it where it is now. At the other side of the
bridge there is a vertical post of wood that is fitted carefully
and held in place by friction. The function of the bridge is
debatable. It can alter the tone so greaty with its position,
tightness,and wood quality that the French call it the soul
(l'âme) of the instrument. (Hutchins 80) Just removing it causes
the violin to sound like a guitar. While the whole violin is
rocking, the bride is there to provide a fulcrum to the
instrument; it serves as the maximum travel to the bridge foot
over the bass bar. There is quite a bit of energy that about five
to ten percent of the energy to bow the instrument transfers into
one or two percent of sound. The rest is transfered into heat.
(Hutchins 83) Much physics is present in the violin. Vibrating is
going on in the strings. It's goes to the bridge. It goes to the
sound post and eventually, the whole instrument is vibrating. A
scientist is interested in all of these vibrations, but he or she
usually concentrates on only one. The scientist may be an artist,
as well, and he or she may be interested in both.
One revered scientist is out to prove that science
eventually will preserve over traditional methods of violin
making. Carleen Maley Hutchins, an 82 year old American violin
maker studied violin making as a teacher and eventually became a
expert on acoustical, mathematical and physical ideas of her own
creations. She uses accelerometers and various scientific
equipment to test vibration modes, resonances, and other
acoustical factors that have resulted in rules and standards in
violin making. She is extremely accurate in her measurements and
has appeared in many scientific journals and literary works.
Browne writes in the New York Times that Hutchins believes
that
in order to make better violins than those of the masters with a
foolish mystery surrounding them, it is necessary to obey
physics' principles and do numerous scientific calculations.
(Browne C6) She believes that it is necessary to find out what
makes them sound so good and use that to show how to make better
instruments (Lipkin 152). She is a contemporary scientist who
does have a few questionable techniques.
One of her projects she studied on dealt with air and wood
vibrational modes, or differences in the frequency, she called
them the A1-B1 delta (Lipkin 152). This is something that is
relatively important to the instrument. It doesn't determine
whether the instrument sounds good, but it does determine who
will tend to play it, if the vibration differs some. As Hutchins
point out, some players like a strong and bright sound and will
like a delta of 60 to 80 hertz (Hz), while orchestra members will
favor 60 to 40 Hz; 40 to 20 Hz is best for chamber musicians and
20 Hz is best for amateurs (Lipkin 152). This might aid in the
selection and construction of a good instrument. Depending on the
maker, like Mr. and Mrs. Spear, they can concentrate on big or
little changes on the violin. Hutchins taught Mr. and Mrs. Spear,
experts on violin making, what she knew about violin acoustics.
Now Mrs. Spear concentrates on the violin air frequency to get
the best tones for the violin (Browne C6). Hutchins along with
these and other scientists have found a way to detect the
vibrational modes of violins to their advantage. That way they
can separate the harsh sounding violin from the smooth, sweet of
a great violin. The process is extremely complex and would never
be complete, so only general rules that she and others developed
apply. The main way to roughly check the vibrational modes is to
put the front of the instrument on a resonating surface that will
bombard the violin with various frequencies while sand is
sprinkled on the back of the instrument (Browne C6). The expert
violin maker can determine which plates are not moving by any
pattern collecting on the back that doesn't look right and
removing more wood so it will vibrate better. Instruments can be
disassembled, analyzed, fixed, and reassembled and the instrument
will sound a little better. In terms of analyzation, Hutchins has
found out that the wood's own natural resonance is often best
when it sounds between the instruments two middle strings. The
main wood resonance is an important factor since the resonance of
the wood must not be equal to the vibration of the air, or it
will make a poor, weak violin. If it is not right the two may
shuffle between the two and cause something similar to a
teenager's cracking voice that is called a wolf note. The Spear
family have confirmed Hutchins' vibration mode research and they
say that there is a ideal relationship between the air and the
wood plates of the violin. According to them, if the woods differ
by 100 Hz then the violin will sound harsh, so a difference of 50
to 60 is good for concert halls and 10 to 20 is good enough for
chamber recitals (Browne C6). These modes of vibration, are
called harmonics, or the number of wiggles of a vibrating object
according to Browne. For instance, if a string just vibrates back
and forth it is in the first mode, but if half of the string
vibrates in one direction while the other half vibrates in the
other, then it is in the second mode. Each additional notch in
the string is another mode. Modes differ form each other by one
octave, discovered by the Greek mathematician Pythagoras (Browne
C6).
Vibrations of the instrument aren't the only things that
scientists look at in an instrument. They also look at the wood
structure. Some woods are used more often because of tradition,
but others are used for their superior quality. They are louder
than certain woods and can vibrate better. Usually spruce and
maple are used to make violins, but sugar maple is coming into
use because of the endangering of spruce trees and its loudness
according to the Spears (Browne C6). The type of wood is
extremely important in the making of a violin. There is lore that
it takes fifty years for the wood to be at its optimum seasoning
which Hutchins respects since it usually turns out to be right
for her (Lipkin 153). So why is this type of wood important and
better? No sure answer is present, but there are scientific
theories about crystal formation inside wood cell walls that
block out moisture (Lipkin 153). This is believed to aid the wood
vibrations. There is also lore of how an instrument and how long
it is played (maybe eighty years) eventually affects its sound.
(Lipkin 153). The term for this smoothing out of sound is getting
it
broken in properly, and if it is not used for a long time it
"goes to sleep and requires regular playing to bring back
its
luscious sound." (Lipkin 153) There is proof for this in an
article by Leary in his New York Times article for the
breaking
up of wood molecules. Dr. David G. Hunt of the School of
Engineering Systems and Design at South Bank University says that
"Musicians have said that the sound of an instrument gets
better
the more you play it, and we have found the proof for that."
(Leary 9) What they have found is something called the dampening
coefficient, a "measure of cycles of vibrations emanation
from
the material." (Leary 9) This has been found from the great
scientist, Hutchins, vibrating violins for at least 1,600 hours
by bombarding them with frequencies from radio broadcasts and
loud speakers till it changes the wood resonances (Leary 9). This
means if an instrument is vibrated long enough, then a note will
sound longer (a beneficial attribute), and the dampening
coefficient will go down. Hutchins believes this is due to wood
bond breaking and not just moisture bonding (Leary 9). This is
interesting to expert violin makers since some instruments (after
being played eighty years) may sound better that the Stradivarius
models according to Hutchins (Lipkin 152). There may be more
research here in the future.
These scientific discoveries may be enough to surpass the
ancient violin masters. Some believe this will eventually happen,
but others believe that the ancient Italian violin makers
possessed a magical quality to their violin making. In a recent
article in the New York Times, Leary featured the Tokyo
String Quartet playing with renowned acoustic physicists and
master violinists trying to figure out how to make a great
violin. Their attempt was unsuccessful in coming to a unanimous
conclusion, but they did make beautiful music in the process. One
of the experiments done was to determine which players had modern
instruments and which one was the priceless Italian fiddle after
playing a piece of music. They were successful, but many
preferred the sounds of the modern instruments which seemed to be
tonally richer and better acoustically balanced and distinctly
louder than the Renaissance counterparts (Browne C6). This shows
that these people had a tendency toward the modern science and
little artistry that was used to make the instruments. Violins
used to be made by hand and they were crafted beautifully and
delicately. Now many instruments are manufactured by machines
according to specifications. However, not all instruments are the
same. Their wood and design may be a little different, so each
instrument has its own personality and this should be accounted
for. Even the musicians said they did not regret certain things
about the modern instruments, but the only problems were that
they lacked the confidence in the ability to sustain superb sound
quality when played pianissimo on the modern instruments (Browne
C6). Thus, the pianissimo passages brought out the superior
quality of even the softest tones in the Italian instruments
(Browne C6). Both modern and Italian instruments both have
certain advantages that make them better than the other. Maybe in
the future the violin makers could combine the two to their
advantage and make a perfect instrument. However, is it really
just the instrument that is the key to perfection? According to
Dr. Medwin, an amateur violinist, "Every instrument has its
own
complex overtones, and a player must learn to compensate
them."
(Browne C6) These leaves it to the player who influences the
violin as well. If he plays wonderfully, the violin can sound
good. If he plays well, but the instrument is made poorly, then
it will sound just as bad, though this can be improved with a
little science. There are many variables to the violin family of
instruments. It is the violinist according to Medwin that makes
the final say as to whether the violin will sound good or not. It
has been argued that "science is a poor substitute for the
fingers, ears, and eyes of the master luthier, who must have the
intuition of a true artist." (Browne C6) In order to make a
violin it may be necessary to know science of the violin's woods
and the violin acoustics. That can certainly make a good violin,
but in the end it rests on who will make the violin. The
scientist had
better know his materials, as well as, be a good carver of the
violin. He is the one who shapes the violin, listens to its
rhythms as it forms, and gazes over the texture of the
instrument. He must be both a master luthier or artist, and a
scientist. Thus the "argument between the two camps is never
ending." (Browne C6) For those who "contend that
science has
little to offer violin makers," Hutchins has responded back
(Lipkin 152). She was offered to design a new set of instruments
by Henry Bryant in 1957 with the same power, clarity, and tone of
a violin (Lipkin 153). It took her many years but she has finally
completed the Octet family which are sized according to
proportions and calculations to fit the player's musical needs
and not the body. There is at least six sets traveling about the
world for people to play and muse upon. They do sound
acoustically better, but it may take at least fifty years for
it to catch on, partly because little music is written for it
(Lipkin 153). Therefore, people have their own preferences. They
have a mind of their own. People will never totally agree with
one idea as to how to make a violin and what makes a violin sound
good. It's not so much a conflict of science and artistry as a
choice of personal preference. Even expert Hutchins admits that
science will never substitute the art of crastmanship, but it can
only "augment it." (Lipkin 153) She says that in order
to make a
good violin "you still have to do the same things the old
masters
have done for centuries" which is designing and carving the
violin (Lipkin 153). It not only deals with the mental ideas but
also the physical motions and the violin itself.
What exactly is a good violin? That is a hard question to
answer for many since there is no single definition, though the
violin should sound good to the ear. Some need it to sound, look,
and feel right to them. If the violin does not sound right people
obvious will not play it unless it can be fixed. It needs to have
the right look so it doen't look like it is beat up and it has
unrecognizable edges. It needs to feel good to the person
who is playing it so he doesn't have to lean over or slant his
neck in an awkward position. To some it needs to fit the body
well and so the Octet family of violins would be out of the
question even though they sound acoustically better than normal
instruments. It is still a matter of personal preference. As
Oliver E. Rodgers, a mechanical engineer at the university of
Delaware in Newark, said "People don't realize how difficult
it
is to come up with technical descriptions that truly distinguish
between a good and violin." (Lipkin 153) Even Hutchins who
worked by intuition and basic rules and experiment, sounded good
accoustically, but whether it sounds great to the violinist, that
is uncertain since no one can fully define the definition of good
and great. All the participants in the acoustical society
agreed, it is in the performer, and not based on any formal set
of criteria to find the best sounding intrument. If it is easy
for the violinist to get the exact sound he wants from his
violin then to, him at least, the violin is a good one. Others of
course may differ and have different criteria. This argument is
never
ending and will probably never be solved as with some of the
great mysteries of the universe. It justs deals with opinion and
it can never be solved. It is probably safe to say that both
science and the violinist, all contribute to how it sounds.
No one thing makes a violin great alone. It takes a craftsman, an
artist, a violinist, a scientist to help shape the violin
beautifully like Venus, and make the violin sing out its best
tonal qualities like a Siren. Browne sums up the argument in his
article of New York Times:
Dr. Gabriel Weinrich, a physicist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor who acted as chairman of the concert, recalled that an admirer had once told Jascha Heifetz [Russian-born American violinist] that his violin produced unbelievable good music. Heifetz held the violin to his ear and replied: "Strange I don't hear anything." Dr. Weinrich added: "No violin is great in it self. It takes a great artist to make it sing." (Browne C6)
Jascha Heifetz was of course joking a bit when he did that, but
it is true that the violin depends on and is linked to who makes
it what it is. The violin cannot produce music by itself. It
needs a violinist to handle it who has a great art and skill in
making a violin as well as playing it. He must be able to adjust,
move, and feel the violin. A scientist is also an artist, but his
skills are in a different form in that he measures his violin in
other mays, like the internal main resonance qualities and the
wolf notes of the violin. He may not have the virtuoso skills to
handle and make the instrument have its vibrato and dynamic
contrasts. They are both the same and similar thing though.
Eventually they may become one thing as Hutchins is considered as
a violinist by some and others consider her as a scientist. Maybe
the violin will finally be totally understood. Maybe it will lose
its mythical awe, but hopefully not. The violin has many
subleties and tiny mysteries that will never be solved. Maybe one
day they will be.
Bibliography
Browne, Malcolm. "Perfect Violin: Does Artistry or Physics
Hold
Secret?," New York Times 14 June 1994: 1.
Hutchins, Carleen Maley "The Physics of Violins," Scientific
American Science and the Arts 207.5 Nov. 1962: 78-93.
Leary, Warren E. "When Violinists Play, Their instruments
Improve," New York Times 27 Feb. 1996: 9.
Lipkin, Richard "To Build a Better Violin: Can science
determine
why some instruments sound so great?," Science News
146
3 Sept. 1994: 152-153.