Talk:Violin acoustics

Major Edit to Wikify

Hey. I did the rewrite, but I wasn't logged in. This is my first major rewrite, any comments or critiques would be appreciated (Andy Huston 03-21-2007)

Firstly, thanks for tackling this article. I think you've done a good improvement. There are some math equations in the article. I don't know how to format them, but there are math tags for dealing with it. Cheers. -- Whpq 16:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Great Revision: It is really great to see how something I wrote has evolved. Thank you so much. If you have any questions about the article let me know. It seems like you have covered all the right things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.94.110 (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

misleading maths

I believe there is an error in the "Tension" section.

I direct your attention first to the sentence: "Increasing tension causes the sound waves to travel faster through the string." I find this sentence misleading because it suggests that the speed of the sound wave being transmitted increases as tension in the string increases and that the increased speed of the sound wave results in an increased frequency. Of course the speed of sound does not increase, it is the rate of vibration of the string that increases.

Secondly, and more significantly, I direct your attention to the first sentence in the second paragraph: "Because the length of the violin, which determines the wavelength of the sound waves, is constant, an increase in tension will cause a proportional change in the frequency." The equation cited, f*λ = v, is not really relevant to the discussion as string tension is not involved in the equation. The meaning which is conveyed is that wavelength remains contant and the frequency increrases proportionally to the velocity, which in turn increases proportionally to string tension. In fact it is velocity which remains constant in the above equation. Wavelength and frequency are always inversely proportional, and the wavelength is not absolutely determined (ie. fixed) by the length of the string (or violin). That would also mean that the frequency is fixed by the length of the violin! Which is absurd. Absurd! :)

Biirnats (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I appreciate that someone has put quite a bit of work into this article, presumably, since there is a lack of citations, from their own understanding, and I commend it. However, it is very confusing to read. At some point the article needs to explain that The bow hair sliding across the string sets up a vibration/standing wave in the string, which in turn causes the bridge to vibrate, which causes the table and the soundpost to vibrate, and the sound post causes the back to vibrate, and it is the combination of the table and back plates vibrating that creates the sound. As it is written at the moment, one might think the vibrating string is what is causing the sound. Chickpeana (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Expert attention needed

The whole article needs dusting off and refurbishing, but here are just a few particular observations:

The "Bow" section is an oversimplification. The equations give it a science-y appearance, but they are based on some unwarranted simplifications. Primarily, the stick-slip behavior of rosined hair is unlikely to be characterized by a single time-invariant scalar coefficient of friction. Higher-order effects of bow stick dynamics and hair elasticity make a significant difference to the sound, I believe. No doubt there is more to it than that...

I doubt that any serious violin-maker uses Chladni patterns as a routine tool for graduating top and back plates.

The whole business of transferring string vibrations to the surrounding air is described in fuzzy language

This article appears to be based on some general knowledge of violins and basic physics. It does not look like it was written by someone who has studied violin physics in depth, nor does it look like there has been much input from anyone who has actually built a violin. Not bad, but still very stubby, in my opinion.

The UNSW site does seem to be a valuable source here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Physics not accurate

Thanks to all those who have contributed to this valuable article. I have corrected or removed a few of the more egregious physics fallacies, but there are still others. No personal criticism intended, but whoever wrote this article has only a tenuous understanding of the physics involved. For example, it is clearly wrong to state that the length of the violin "determines" the wavelength; consider that 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, and 1/4 violins all produce exactly the same notes ("wavelengths"), despite being of greatly different sizes.

Again, the effort is appreciated, and this is a good stub, but someone needs to clarify and clean up the physics explanations. __ Spoxjox (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basic physics of the violin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307043050/http://www.bormanviolins.com:80/journalarticles.asp to http://www.bormanviolins.com/journalarticles.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Violin acoustics per resounding consensus (non-admin closure) Red Slash 19:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Basic physics of the violin → Physics of the violin – The term 'basic' is relative—what is simple and easy to comprehend to one reader may not be to someone else—and appears to be little used in other Wikipedia articles in this context. None of the sources so far listed in the article distinguish between the 'basic' physics of the violin family of instruments and physics which is more advanced (e.g. more mathematical or more in depth. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Violin acoustics - this article isn't about nuclear fission or gravitation within a violin... its about the aspects of the violin which are involved in producing sound... musical acoustics.[1] Also matches Piano acoustics and wikibooks:Acoustics/Acoustics in Violins. -- Netoholic @ 10:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC) (edited)
• Happy with changing the name to either Physics of the violin or Violin acoustics, as imo they amount to about the same thing. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The article is slightly more general than just a discussion of acoustics though (such as a mention of friction during bowing), so I'd rather go with the nom's suggestion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Deacon Vorbis: - Friction during bowing is a key component of how this instrument produces musical sound...and as such is clearly part of its musical acoustics. Such information would clearly fit within the scope of an article named Violin acoustics. -- Netoholic @ 16:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, consider my favoring for the original suggestion of the weak variety. If others are favoring the other, I'm not that concerned about it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Clarification please - is there a difference between what we would cover in an article on the physics of the violin, and one on violin acoustics? Some rock stars smash their instruments at the end of a performance. If anyone smashed a violin, and an RS wrote something serious about how it smashed, that would be off-topic for violin acoustics, wouldn't it, but still relevant for physics of the violin? Geo Swan (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  I do not believe there is general reader interest in non-acoustic properties of the violin in this respect, and so that seems WP:OFFTOPIC, but if I'm wrong and some fact about non-acoustical physics related the violin needed to be included on Wikipedia, then it should be in violin, leaving this article to have a clear focus on its musical acoustics. -- Netoholic @ 16:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Violin acoustics which is a far better description of the topic of the article as it is. Andrewa (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Violin acoustics. It's a musical instrument not a falling object. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

String frequency

The lead sentence of the Strings section says: "The open strings of a violin are of the same length from the bridge to the nut of the violin, but vary in pitch because they have different masses per unit length."

I thought that the violin strings different frequency was due to being screwed to different tensions. Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

String tension is roughly even across all strings, since it affects playability. In particular, a loose string may have its pitch affected by the arm weight applied by the bow, making intonation less stable, and leading to unmusical bovine noises.

Looking at the strings on a violin, it is easy to see that the higher-voiced strings are thinner than the lower ones, entailing a corresponding difference in mass. Different materials can alter that correspondence, but not by much. (For example, in a set of Thomastik Dominant strings, the silver-wound G string is a bit thinner than the (higher-voiced) aluminum-wound D string, since silver is denser than aluminum.) Just plain Bill (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Unclear measurements of body lengths for other instruments in the family

Under the section "Comparison with other members of the violin family," the average size of a violin is listed as 23⅜ inches, a viola is 27¼ inches, the cello is 48 inches, and the double bass is 74 inches. But it isn't clear what is being measured, or why the overall length is relevant. Unless I'm mistaken, only the length of the resonating body (minus the neck) matters for each instrument's overall sound, and that's typically 14 inches for a violin, 15-16½ inches for a viola (since it has no single standard size), roughly 30 inches for a cello, and about 41 inches for double bass. Bo Bogus (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)