38 replies to this topic

[Johnmasters]

http://www.maestrone...c=323802&st=179

This is an old topic for argument, but I have had a challenge about "machine made" violins involving CNC and using a laser scanner to copy an existing violin.

People usually copy famous-name instruments by hand cutting and measuring. Is this more hand made than to find the coordinants of an arching and cutting them with a machine ?

Keep in mind that this is a roughing technique. The finish surface would be by the maker in this case or the totally hand-made case. I argue that most makers use machines up to certain point. The idea is that the machine does what the maker wants. So at what level does one abandon machine usage?

The finish surface will be all hand work in any case, and will reflect the skill of a maker. There are romantics out there who don't like any machines, and cut out plates with a coping saw. Others may use pantograph cutters, although I have never heard anyone admit this.

Where does romance stop and useful machine work continue?

Comments welcome. I think there is a misconception about "machine made" and even one about "hand made."

[tsummerville]

I look at it this way, "machine made" is when you load raw materials in one end and the finished product comes out the other. Regardless of the amount of machine work you do, the maker's hand still has to guide the process.

[DGerald StephenR]

http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=323802&st=179

This is an old topic for argument, but I have had a challenge about "machine made" violins involving CNC and using a laser scanner to copy an existing violin.

People usually copy famous-name instruments by hand cutting and measuring. Is this more hand made than to find the coordinants of an arching and cutting them with a machine ?

Keep in mind that this is a roughing technique. The finish surface would be by the maker in this case or the totally hand-made case. I argue that most makers use machines up to certain point. The idea is that the machine does what the maker wants. So at what level does one abandon machine usage?

The finish surface will be all hand work in any case, and will reflect the skill of a maker. There are romantics out there who don't like any machines, and cut out plates with a coping saw. Others may use pantograph cutters, although I have never heard anyone admit this.

Where does romance stop and useful machine work continue?

Comments welcome. I think there is a misconception about "machine made" and even one about "hand made."

Hi John,

Just wondering if you feel the "romance" needs to stop? And if so, why? Why can't folks just use whatever means they feel suitable to use to make an instrument?
When I was first apprenticing in violin lutherie, I was forbidden to use any power-tools whatsoever. I would sit there at my bench, hacking away at the wood while the Masters would freely use machines that I was not allowed to. At first, it really frustrated me...add to it the fact that the Master's refused to speak English in my presence. It took me a long time to rationalize why I was being subjected to this treatment but after about 10yrs it finally made sense to me that what the Masters were doing was forcing me to learn my tool control. And I couldn't be more grateful to them.
I have never taken to the method of using power tools in violin construction because of the lack of control I personally find with power tools. A prime example of this is a dear luthier friend of mine (a guitar maker), who is a world renowned maker, (he crafted his first instrument in 1979 and has several high-profile musicians playing his instruments) very recently (7wks ago) lost an entire finger and the tip of another to a terrible jointer accident. I remember when I was making guitars, one time coming way too close for comfort to having my finger pulled into a table-top router. NO THANKS!

I think to an extent, machines are perfectly acceptable tools for some folks...CNC I suppose too. Its all in the end product, is my thinking. As "robertdo" wrote in the linked topic; it could indeed be akin to the apprentices from days gone by doing the rough work for the Stradivari shop.

In the end, I think some could choose to argue that the aid of CNC (or a similar robotic motorized x-y motion machine) takes away from the romantic title of being entirely hand made, and they have a point. I wouldn't argue that (as long as the finishing work is completed by hand) but are they wrong? I don't think so personally..that is after all a lot of rough work being done by robotic means. But I also don't really care. For some, the speedy aid of CNC is an added bonus and helps them keep up with demand. For others, hand tools will suffice. For me, well; I'm just happy to have the privilege of working on instruments every day of my life.

[Michael K.]

That is a typical thread wich should be split in two parts.

One part should be only open to professional luthiers whoose income makes more as 75% from makeing and selling new instruments in different categories and price-ranges.

[martin swan]

That's quite a conversation-stopper ....
Or perhaps I'm not allowed to say that since slightly less than 75% of my income derives from selling new instruments, and I don't make them myself.
Nonetheless, I just want to reinforce what Gerald says. I regard the use of machines holistically, that is to say they may save time in one dimension but there are hazards! I lost the tip of my left index finger to a planer thicknesser a few years ago, kind of a critical bit of finger for a violin-player - I couldn't play at all for 6 months, and I had to re-learn a lot of stuff, many things I still can't do. Some energy-saving device that turned out to be ...
OK I wasn't using the planer thicknesser to play the violin, but the point is the same.

[fiddlewallop]

For me, well; I'm just happy to have the privilege of working on instruments every day of my life.

I'm jealous.

[Johnmasters]

I look at it this way, "machine made" is when you load raw materials in one end and the finished product comes out the other. Regardless of the amount of machine work you do, the maker's hand still has to guide the process.

That would require a lot of robotics which simply does not exist. My cnc does not have two ends. I put in a blank and carve an arch less margins. Margins are handled by a seperate cutter that uses plastic patterns with a pattern-follower technique. I have my hands on it at all times with that machine. (Is using a Dremel less mechanical? A dremel is sensitive to rotations, my method is not, so I like it better)

Really, it is about more than one machine and the opperations are roughing. The edges still require work. I did not use CadCam to make a pattern, I simply cut a raster pattern for the arch. That way, I can specify a longitudinal arch and use curtate cycloid arches referenced to the longitudinal arch

[Johnmasters]

Masters would freely use machines that I was not allowed to.

Ha! could not resist the pun. Of course, one can romanticize all one wants. I made a lot of violins, starting as a hobby in 1961. This was because I read the early papers of Carleen Hutchins and decided that maybe there was a rational way to get tone. My ideas have evolved since then.

Since I went full time in 1970, I worked a lot and slowly bought ordinary shop power tools. I cut purfling all by hand until late in the game. It is very hard on the wrists, and I figured that I had learned to do it (imperfectly) as well as I could. The romance was gone.

Now, since I retired 6 years ago, the romance is in various ground and varnish experiments which I do on Chinese white violins. I have a very large school music program to sell these cheaply, cost plus $100 or so.

Romance does not age well when one is working all the time. At least for me. Ask folks married for 40 years......

[Johnmasters]

That is a typical thread wich should be split in two parts.

One part should be only open to professional luthiers whoose income makes more as 75% from makeing and selling new instruments in different categories and price-ranges.

I will bet that in the USA any maker that gets 75% of his income from making alone is either poor or is one of half a dozen American Makers. These people have to answer the question, "Why is this one less." No, I don't think they do this. They make up to their standard. If something fails to come up to standards, it is not sold. Or maybe "from the shop of" labels are used.

Otherwise, your point does not make much sense to me.

[Johnmasters]

That's quite a conversation-stopper ....
Or perhaps I'm not allowed to say that since slightly less than 75% of my income derives from selling new instruments, and I don't make them myself.
Nonetheless, I just want to reinforce what Gerald says. I regard the use of machines holistically, that is to say they may save time in one dimension but there are hazards! I lost the tip of my left index finger to a planer thicknesser a few years ago, kind of a critical bit of finger for a violin-player - I couldn't play at all for 6 months, and I had to re-learn a lot of stuff, many things I still can't do. Some energy-saving device that turned out to be ...
OK I wasn't using the planer thicknesser to play the violin, but the point is the same.

It happens to the best. Carl Becker lost a digit to a jointer, he told me so himself. I ride a motorcycle (I own two in fact) and people warn about that too. The idea is to try not to let one's mind drift away from the task at hand. I have been lucky so far, perhaps.

[Conor Russell]

Hi John,

I tried to respond to your earlier post, but abandoned my efforts, as I find it hard to express, or even martial my thoughts on this subject.

First I must say that I have nothing against machine tools, and know that they produce great results when a standard form is to be copied, ready for hand finishing. I have often toyed with the idea of getting a copying router to take cello backs down to say 5mm oversize, so that they can mature as thinner stock. Mind you, I start my arching with a scrub plane, and I shift waste off pretty quick!

The thing that excites me most when I see a beautiful violin is being able to see the maker’s character and hand at work. If I see something I love, then I see the maker as my teacher, and try to capture a flavour of his work in mine.

That process starts when I draw the arching on to the plate with my gouge. That’s where the thrill is, imagining what I want, and cutting it out. So every instrument is a bit different, but they all wind up (sometimes despite my best efforts) looking like one of mine.

So finishing instruments from pre formed ‘blanks’ would deny me the opportunity to create something new each time.

Conor.

[nathan slobodkin]

Hi John,
This is an interesting topic. I was trained in a shop which was evolving from a small hand powered shop to a larger 20 workbench shop where they tried to invent machines for efficient making of reasonably priced advanced student instruments. While some machines proved usefull and were used by everyone purfling groove routers and rib thickness sanders for instance other machines such as a neck setting apparatus were only worth using for large numbers of axactly similar instruments and in fact did not come into normal use until after I was no longer available to set necks since I could generally be done with a half dozen neck sets by the time the machine was set up perfectly. When I started making in my own shop I found that I preferred to do things by hand because the extra hour or two of roughing out plates means that by the time I get to the final arching and scraping I've had a chance to assess the strengh and density of the wood and can modify the arch and grads accordingly. I also can and do incorporate toolmarks into the look of my instruments which would not be possible if using machines even for the roughing out. Also the constant practice with my tools keeps up my skills so that if I do want to make a straight clean instrument I only need to add a couple more rounds of scraping to eliminate the overt tool marks while still keeping the flow that comes from the directional use of the gouges and planes.The only machines in my shop today are a bandsaw, a small jointer, a drillpress and a basic metal grinder for tool maintenance. I make about six cellos and two or three other instruments every year and could easily double that using my current tooling if I was not running a full service shop as well.

[Michael K.]

I will bet that in the USA any maker that gets 75% of his income from making alone is either poor or is one of half a dozen American Makers. These people have to answer the question, "Why is this one less." No, I don't think they do this. They make up to their standard. If something fails to come up to standards, it is not sold. Or maybe "from the shop of" labels are used.

Otherwise, your point does not make much sense to me.

You are right if we talking only about the heighest standart of new instruments and my english is unfortunally not good enough to could express myself correctly what I meant. So i think maker who make only new instruments and we should not talk only about the highest standart (and please that should be allowed here too) have mostly a different view on this.

I am with he same opinion as Nathan and CRussel.

[Johnmasters]

Hi John,

I tried to respond to your earlier post, but abandoned my efforts, as I find it hard to express, or even martial my thoughts on this subject.

First I must say that I have nothing against machine tools, and know that they produce great results when a standard form is to be copied, ready for hand finishing. I have often toyed with the idea of getting a copying router to take cello backs down to say 5mm oversize, so that they can mature as thinner stock. Mind you, I start my arching with a scrub plane, and I shift waste off pretty quick!

The thing that excites me most when I see a beautiful violin is being able to see the maker’s character and hand at work. If I see something I love, then I see the maker as my teacher, and try to capture a flavour of his work in mine.

That process starts when I draw the arching on to the plate with my gouge. That’s where the thrill is, imagining what I want, and cutting it out. So every instrument is a bit different, but they all wind up (sometimes despite my best efforts) looking like one of mine.

So finishing instruments from pre formed ‘blanks’ would deny me the opportunity to create something new each time.

Conor.

Then you should keep doing what you are doing. There is plenty of hand in the finished surface of a violin with machine-roughed parts. The main reason I made my CNC was to measure out desired functions for the arching. In fact, the old pantograph I was using was faster and saved more labor than the CNC. But I had to make pattern models for that, and I wanted more control over the shape.

[Johnmasters]

Hi John,
This is an interesting topic. I was trained in a shop which was evolving from a small hand powered shop to a larger 20 workbench shop where they tried to invent machines for efficient making of reasonably priced advanced student instruments. While some machines proved usefull and were used by everyone purfling groove routers and rib thickness sanders for instance other machines such as a neck setting apparatus were only worth using for large numbers of axactly similar instruments and in fact did not come into normal use until after I was no longer available to set necks since I could generally be done with a half dozen neck sets by the time the machine was set up perfectly. When I started making in my own shop I found that I preferred to do things by hand because the extra hour or two of roughing out plates means that by the time I get to the final arching and scraping I've had a chance to assess the strengh and density of the wood and can modify the arch and grads accordingly. I also can and do incorporate toolmarks into the look of my instruments which would not be possible if using machines even for the roughing out. Also the constant practice with my tools keeps up my skills so that if I do want to make a straight clean instrument I only need to add a couple more rounds of scraping to eliminate the overt tool marks while still keeping the flow that comes from the directional use of the gouges and planes.The only machines in my shop today are a bandsaw, a small jointer, a drillpress and a basic metal grinder for tool maintenance. I make about six cellos and two or three other instruments every year and could easily double that using my current tooling if I was not running a full service shop as well.

I do set my necks by hand. I have done so many that it is not a big job, tedious but enjoyable. I have not decided that I know how to adjust curvatures according to wood strength even after spending a couple of years trying thought experiments with FEA. The machine does not graduate the plate, It roughs the inside a mm or so oversize. So I "hand graduate" them also.

There is the unknown about your age and also that of Mr. Russel. I am 68 and made my last violin about 5 years ago when I started a lot of new experiments, in both wood and finishes. Also built my CNC last year. One gets saturated after a while. At least I do. I will have to start again if only to justify the effort to make the CNC !

[Jeff White]

I will have to start again if only to justify the effort to make the CNC !

Indeed you will! (should). Great to hear that machinery can offer you the opportunity to continue (start again)making instruments that you probably wouldn't have otherwise. Frankly I don't think in "hand made" and "machine made" terms. Since the advent of horrible early chinese "skylark" grade violins in the 70's, I quickly realized that hand made means nothing. We obviously can go back alot furthur with that realization to Shonbach, I just wasn't around What does mean something (to me)is what I term as "individual maker". As mention by others, the machine is mainly a tool to take out alot of the "grunt" work. Where Nathan uses that hogging out time to feel the density and adjust his graduation by it, Don N.(and others I suspect)use those density numbers I see posted to do the similar. The results are the "individual" choices made during the making process, and that's what I see value in. I used to critique alot of early 20th century american "hobby" makers violins as crude and crap. I now see them as stepping stones to better themselves and an individualistic style. I have a few pooly crafted American vioins like that and are very attracted to them because of the individuality. Bottom line, I throw out Machine/hand in favor of Shop/individual. John, so when will we see a resurgence (sp?)of your making on the "what's on my bench" thread? jeff

[Johnmasters]

Indeed you will! (should). Great to hear that machinery can offer you the opportunity to continue (start again)making instruments that you probably wouldn't have otherwise. Frankly I don't think in "hand made" and "machine made" terms. Since the advent of horrible early chinese "skylark" grade violins in the 70's, I quickly realized that hand made means nothing. We obviously can go back alot furthur with that realization to Shonbach, I just wasn't around What does mean something (to me)is what I term as "individual maker". As mention by others, the machine is mainly a tool to take out alot of the "grunt" work. Where Nathan uses that hogging out time to feel the density and adjust his graduation by it, Don N.(and others I suspect)use those density numbers I see posted to do the similar. The results are the "individual" choices made during the making process, and that's what I see value in. I used to critique alot of early 20th century american "hobby" makers violins as crude and crap. I now see them as stepping stones to better themselves and an individualistic style. I have a few pooly crafted American vioins like that and are very attracted to them because of the individuality. Bottom line, I throw out Machine/hand in favor of Shop/individual. John, so when will we see a resurgence (sp?)of your making on the "what's on my bench" thread? jeff

Thanks for the reply, Jeff. It is just getting out that unwanted wood, and having control. I think that "control" over the end point is the important thing. If the machine parameters can be adjusted for different woods, so much the better.

[La Folia]

What does mean something (to me)is what I term as "individual maker".

I used to hear that about Carl Becker & Son violins, but I never noticed that it affected the quality or price.

[Michael_Molnar]

Well, start by chopping off our hands and see what is produced. Everything is really handmade. However, ...

"Handmade" has many dimensions and is only fodder for another "soft" topic.

"Handmade" usually connotes that one individual did EVERYTHING with rudimentary tools and resources. But is that true of the Amati and Stradivari shops where tasks might have been delegated?

The issue is also that "handmade" connotes a superior product which is total rubbish. Consider the handmade violins flooding our markets.

To my modern way of thinking, "handmade" is what I made. No other entity can reproduce it because it has, for better or worse, my idiosyncrasies.

Perhaps, "idiosyncratic" should replace "handmade".

Hope this helps, John.

Stay Tuned.
Mike

[Johnmasters]

To my modern way of thinking, "handmade" is what I made. No other entity can reproduce it because it has, for better or worse, my idiosyncrasies.

Perhaps, "idiosyncratic" should replace "handmade".

Hope this helps, John.

Stay Tuned.
Mike

Thanks Mike, that is a good suggestion. As long as the method gives you what you wanted and preconceived, it hardly matters how you got there. It seems that the Chinese white violins are hand finished by a lot of specialists in different operations. But they use Router tools of some kind to cut arches. One can see evidence. Of course, the Hand-maker needs to take things down to the final surface with hand tools. At this time, I don't see machines as precision as needed to really make a finished part.