Joseph Curtin Studios | Some Principles of Violin Setup, Journal of the Violin Society of America, November 1995

Joseph Curtin Studios Home

Articles of Interest

Some Principles of Violin Setup

by Joseph Curtin
The following article was featured in the November 1995 issue of the Journal of the Violin Society of America.

Saturday, November 11, 1995, 9:00 am

Albert Mell: We start the lectures today with a talk by Joseph Curtin, whose name is familiar if you have been
reading the Strad lately. I first met Joseph - and he may not remember this - in Toronto, I think it was in 1981 on
the occasion of the Viola Congress. At that time he was just at the beginning of his career as a maker. He'd been
a student at the University of Toronto, had begun working with Otto Erdesz, and had made, I think, his first viola
- with the indentation on the A-string side to facilitate playing in the upper positions for those of us violists who
suffer from arthritis and other such conditions.
Then I lost track of Joseph. Later I found he'd gone to Cremona to continue his studies. The next thing I knew he
had allied himself with Gregg Alf, and the firm of Curtin & Alf became known to all of us. In the years since,
both have earned distinguished reputations as makers, for their individual instruments as well as for
their collaborations on copies of old ones.
When first scheduled to speak here, Joseph was going to talk about something in relation to computers because he
is one of those rare people who not only make violins but have an interest in science. He is, therefore, bridging the
gap between scientists and violin makers. But then his lecture was changed to the one you see on our programs
here, involving setup. But I found out secretly he's going to apply principles of acoustics and physics to violin setup,
so he hasn't really changed his subject.
I would now like to introduce Joseph Curtin.
Joseph Curtin: The title of this lecture suggests a more rounded discussion of setup than I will actually present.
My initial intention was to look at various elements of setup and how they work together. But I found myself
sinking deeper and deeper into ruminations about the violin bridge. Late one night last week, I decided to
concentrate on the bridge, more or less to the exclusion of everything else. I didn't realize Vahakn Nigogosian
would be speaking on the same subject. I hope my thoughts will complement his own very useful and
interesting observations.
A great deal of discussion about setup consists of conversations about measurements and workshop standards.
The width of a violin bridge is 41 mm. The bass bar is placed one millimeter inside the bridge foot. The string
spacing at the nut is 16.5 mm, and so on. This is all very important, of course. A thorough understanding of
accepted standards, along with a sense of appropriate deviation, forms the basis for practical violin making. However,
I would like today not to be preoccupied with measurements. Rather, I would like to attempt answers to questions
that began to preoccupy me five or six years ago.
About once a year, Gregg Alf and I collaborate on an exact copy of an old violin, and five or six years ago we copied
a Stradivari. When the copy was strung up we were not especially satisfied with the sound, which seemed rather dull.
Now it happened the client had wanted a new bridge on the original - I don't remember why - so we fitted one. And
so it was that the original bridge, a rather beautiful one by a well-known British firm, was lying on my workbench
one day as I adjusted the copy. On impulse, I tried this bridge on our instrument. It fit rather well, and what is
more, the violin sounded quite brilliant, with a clarity of response I loved.
Now the bridge we made seemed well cut. The wood looked very good, a nicely aged Aubert deluxe blank. Why
the difference in sound?
I dismounted the violin and started tapping the two bridges in various ways to see if there were any
interesting differences. A physicist friend had recently asked whether we tuned our bridges. I said no, we simply
used the best blanks we could find and tried to make them look right. I thought that if a bridge looked beautiful,
it would work well. Actually, I thought this true for the whole instrument. But no matter how good one's
http://www.josephcurtinstudios.com/news/tech/journal_vsa/principles.htm (1 of 9) [6/1/2008 11:43:15 PM]

Joseph Curtin Studios | Some Principles of Violin Setup, Journal of the Violin Society of America, November 1995

craftsmanship or sense of style, I have become convinced that lack of understanding, in physical terms, of how
violins work is what holds us back most as makers.
At any rate, I held each bridge near its feet, then tapped its edge with the handle of my bridge knife. The
original bridge seemed to respond with a lower click than ours did. This surprised me: I'd heard stories of
makers selecting bridges on the merit of the higher clicks they made when dropped on a hard surface.
I trimmed the waist of our bridge, calculating this might lower the tap tone to match the other. As it turned out,
this happened rather quickly - hardly two-tenths of a millimeter of wood needed removing. But the effect on
the instrument was startling. It seemed to bring out the brilliance and responsiveness which pleased me so much
with the bridge from the original. I began tuning the bridges of other instruments around the shop, matching the
tap tones to the miracle bridge. Sometimes it made as big a difference, sometimes almost none. It was time to try
and figure out what was going on.
I soon discovered that a number of physicists, engineers, and musical acousticians had studied the violin bridge. I
have relied on their thinking and research as well as my own speculations in developing the following ideas. A
great deal of research still needs to be done. In the meanwhile, here are some working hypotheses. I hope they will
not all be discredited by future research!

Static and Dynamic Functions

The bridge on a stringed instrument can be looked at as having two kinds of functions, which I will call static
and dynamic. By static I mean the things the bridge is expected to do even when the instrument is not being
played: holding the strings up, for example, and refraining from warping or falling over.
By dynamic, I refer to what the bridge is expected to do while the instrument is being played: transmitting
vibration from the strings to the body of the instrument, at the same time acting as a stable support for the
vibrating strings. These two functions, I will later try to show, create a rather paradoxical set of constraints for
the violin maker.
The static functions of the bridge are easily described and understood. The strings must be held a certain distance
apart along a prescribed arc, and they must be maintained at a comfortable height above the fingerboard.
The curve of the top of the bridge has been widely standardized. So has the bridge's slight backward tilt, which helps
to avoid warping. To this end, it is often noted that the bridge should bisect the angle of the strings, in order that
the downward force of the strings goes straight through the center of the bridge. In practice, this gives a largerthan-appropriate slant; the force of the strings, though indeed through the center of the bridge, would have
an unfortunate tendency to make the feet of the bridge slip forward.
One way in which bridges vary significantly is in their height. In practice, the height of a bridge tends to be adjusted
to wherever the neck happens to be. But in setting up an instrument from scratch, one has the chance to establish
an ideal bridge height, then set the neck accordingly. But on what principles is the ideal bridge height
established? What, exactly, is at stake? If we limit ourselves to the bridge's static functions, what is at stake is
the amount of room the bow has to clear the treble C bout, and perhaps more important, the amount of string
tension that will be transferred downward onto the belly of the instrument.
It is an interesting and sometimes surprising exercise to draw, fullscale or larger, the geometry of a violin you are working on, trying to
get exactly right the angles created by the neck, the strings, the
arching, and the bridge. Figure 1 shows a drawing prepared in our
shop some years ago. I have drawn in a triangle formed by the
playing edge of the upper saddle, the top of the bridge, and leading
edge of the lower saddle. The question of downward force on the
belly can be understood by studying this geometry (Figure 2).

Figure 1

If the strings traveled in a straight line across

the bridge, there would certainly be no
downward force exerted (except for that created
by bow pressure or string vibration). If, on the
other hand, one exaggerated the string angle with
a very high bridge, most of the tension of the
strings would be transferred downward on to the
top (requiring it to be very substantial indeed).
Figure 2

What, then, is a normal range of heights for

this triangle, and how much difference does it make in terms of the downward force? If bridge height ranges
http://www.josephcurtinstudios.com/news/tech/journal_vsa/principles.htm (2 of 9) [6/1/2008 11:43:15 PM]

Joseph Curtin Studios | Some Principles of Violin Setup, Journal of the Violin Society of America, November 1995

from about 31 mm to 35 mm, and archings from 12 mm to 20 mm, we have a spread of about 12 mm between a
very low bridge on a very low belly and a high bridge on a high belly. In practice, this range is not found;
lower archings are usually paired with higher bridges.
To determine the actual forces involved, we need to solve
some calculations relating to both the string tension and the
geometry of the setup (Figure 3). If we assume that the
bridge is at a right angle to the base of the triangle (a close
enough approximation for our purposes), then the force
downward on the belly consists of T times H over L, plus T
times H over L1, where T is the total string tension, H is the
height of the triangle, L is the string length, and L1 is the
distance from the bridge to the leading edge of the lower
saddle. Expressed mathematically:

Figure 3

The combined tension of a typical set of strings on a full-sized violin is, according to Norman Pickering (whose
book The Bowed String I highly recommend), about 51 pounds.
For the fairly typical violin illustrated in Figure 3, the string length L is 327 mm. A 15.5 mm arch and a 33.5
mm bridge give a value for H of 42.6 mm (which is not simply the combined heights of the bridge and the arching,
as the base of the triangle rides somewhere above the plane of the top of the ribs). The distance behind the bridge,
L1, is 160 mm.
Solving this equation, we find a downward force on the belly of 19.22 pounds, which is almost 40% of the total
string tension. Recalculating for different values of H. each millimeter change in bridge height changes the
downward force by about .47 pounds.
As a practical way of measuring the height of the triangle on finished instruments, Gregg Alf designed the jig
pictured in Figure 4, based on some ideas given to us by Carl Becker.
How much does a change in the height of
the triangle affect the sound of the instrument?
By way of an anticlimax, I propose that it does
not make much difference. A simple
experiment, suggested by University of
Paris physicist Xavier Boutillon, illustrates
this. Dampen the upper three strings of a violin
by wedging a soft cloth between strings
and fingerboard. Play the G string and note
its power and quality. Then, one by one,
loosen each of the two middle strings, playing
the G string between each change in string
tension. (Leaving the E string tuned up helps
keep contact between top andFigure
sound4post, which tends to be compromised when the top three strings are released.)
I think you will find very little change in the sound, considering the radical change in the downward pressure.

Bridge Height
At any rate, from the point of view of static functions, bridge height seems relatively straightforward. We can assume
a normal bridge height produces a downward pressure that has proven sustainable over long periods of time
by normally arched and graduated violin tops. If the arching is higher, the height of the bridge can be reduced. It
can be raised in the case of an instrument with low arching. All this is common practice.
And yet, we are often requested to put a higher bridge on an instrument to increase the tension in the hope of
greater power, projection, brightness - whatever is felt to be missing. How much of this is realistic? The question
can be addressed at a number of levels.
The first concerns the oft-encountered misconception that raising the height of the bridge increases the tension of
the strings. Using heavier strings will accomplish this, as greater tension is required to bring them up to pitch.
Tuning the violin to a higher A will also increase the overall tension. I have heard it said that increasing the
string length behind the bridge will increase the overall tension. Actually, the strings could extend for several
miles behind the bridge and it would still take the same tension to bring the playing portion up to pitch. (In such a
case, however, the pegs might have to take up several hundred yards of slack while tuning up!)
http://www.josephcurtinstudios.com/news/tech/journal_vsa/principles.htm (3 of 9) [6/1/2008 11:43:15 PM]

Joseph Curtin Studios | Some Principles of Violin Setup, Journal of the Violin Society of America, November 1995

Raising the height of the bridge won't increase overall tension, but more of the existing tension will be
transferred down on to the belly. If our experiment suggests that this alone doesn't much affect the sound, are there
any valid tonal adjustments to be made by changing the bridge height?
I believe there are. But I think we have to look to what I have called the dynamic functions of the bridge to
understand the basis of such adjustments.

Dynamic Functions
The bridge's dynamic functions can be conveniently divided into two categories, the first based on cases in which
the bridge acts as an essentially rigid support for the strings, the second in which the bridge is seen as a
flexible coupling.
It is interesting to note that if the bridge were truly rigid. it would not matter what it were made of. As long as
the weight and dimensions remained the same, the choice of bridge blank and the shape of the cutouts would make
no difference to the sound.
This, by the way, I believe is very largely true for the violin sound post. Research has shown that the sound post
had no resonances falling within the important areas of the violin's range. This means that the post is acting as a
rigid column and neither flexing nor compressing/expanding longitudinally. This implies it does not much
matter whether the post is made from old wood or new wood, good wood or bad wood, providing,of course,
that length, fit, and mass are optimal. Rene Morel, speaking from long experience, stated as much in a lecture he
gave at the 1994 Guarneri exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. I myself have found it to be true,
though on the basis of far less experience.
But back to the bridge, which at low frequencies does seem to act as a rigid unit. At higher frequencies its
resonant properties become important.
When the strings are set into motion by the bow, the force they exert on the bridge tends, mainly, to rock it from
side to side. If the bridge is acting as a rigid unit, then its ability to move in response to the urgings of the
strings depends on the mobility of the top directly under the bridge feet.
This mobility, in turn, depends on such factors as the bass bar, sound post, the mass of the top, and ultimately of
the resonant properties of the violin body. In fact, the mobility of the top varies greatly with frequency. If there is
a resonance at a particular frequency, and the bridge is favorably placed to excite that resonance, it will move
easily when excited at that frequency by the strings.
It might seem that what we want is a very mobile bridge, allowing a great deal of energy to be transferred from
the strings, through the bridge, to the body of the instrument, from there to be radiated as sound.
Unfortunately, there is a complication. Imagine a rope tied to a wall. You hold the free end of the rope and swing
it back and forth. It is relatively easy to produce a standing wave. Now imagine a rope tied to a rather flexible pole:
a fishing rod, for example, planted in the ground. The rope will no longer have a stable support and it will be
more difficult - and in certain cases impossible to produce a standing wave.
The same is true for a violin string, which depends on the upper saddle and the bridge to remain relatively
immobile. As the bridge begins to move, string vibration becomes harder to control. An extreme case of this is
the wolf note.
A wolf note is caused by a strong resonance in the body of the instrument. This allows the bridge to move freely
when excited at the frequency of that resonance. As the bridge motion increases, it ceases to be a stable support for
the string. At this point the regular musical vibrations of the string break down. The bridge then stabilizes itself.
The cycle begins again. Thus we get that uncontrollable pulsing so characteristic of a wolf note.
So we seem to have a paradoxical set of constraints. We want the bridge to move as much as possible in order to
set the body in motion. At the same time, we want the bridge to be as stable a support for the strings as
possible, ensuring rapid and predictable response. I believe that much of the art of setup - and indeed the design
and construction of the instrument itself - is a kind of balancing act played out between these two limits.

http://www.josephcurtinstudios.com/news/tech/journal_vsa/principles.htm (4 of 9) [6/1/2008 11:43:15 PM]

Joseph Curtin Studios | Some Principles of Violin Setup, Journal of the Violin Society of America, November 1995

Figure 5 (left) and Figure 6 (right)

What has this got to do with bridge height? I hope Figures 5 and 6 will clarify this. Let's again, for the
moment, consider the bridge a rigid body. It can then be treated as a lever. The longer the arm of the lever, the
more mobile the end of this arm becomes. The complication is that, in the case of the bridge, the fulcrum shifts
with frequency. For example, at low frequencies, experiments have shown that the sound post more or
less immobilizes the treble bridge foot and becomes a kind of fulcrum. The bridge rocks around this fulcrum,
moving the bass bar side up and down. At higher frequencies, the situation becomes considerably more
complicated. Depending on which combination of resonances is being activated, the bass bar side may
remain immobile while the treble foot drives the sound post (and thus the back) up and down. In this case, the
bass foot of the bridge is acting as a fulcrum.
But as long as the fulcrum is somewhere near the bottom of the bridge, the higher the bridge compared to its width,
the greater its immobility - that is, the greater the deflection of the top of the bridge will be for a given string force.
A cello bridge is much higher in relation to its width than is a violin bridge. This helps explain the cello's
greater tendency to have wolf notes.

Ideal Bridge Heights

How do we determine the ideal bridge height for a given instrument? This is rather like having to choose a single
gear in which to drive a car for an entire journey. If the car is heavy or acceleration is especially important, one
might opt for first gear. Top speed would be limited by this choice. Given the same motor in a lighter car, one
might choose a higher gear and get the same amount of acceleration and a higher top end.
If you have a violin that is relatively heavily built - dense wood or thick graduations - a high bridge may work well.
It is for this reason, I believe, that many new instruments are best set up this way.
A more lightly built instrument may respond best to a lower bridge. This provides increased resistance to the
strings, and so good response, at the same time allowing greater dynamic range than a higher bridge might allow.
If the above suggests lighter instruments have an advantage over heavier ones, I believe this to be true. But there are
so many factors at work it is difficult to draw simple conclusions. For example, anyone who heard the
extraordinary sound of the heavily built Cannone (ex-Paganini) Guarneri del Gesu played in recital at the
1994 Guarneri exhibition might well be tempted to explore thicker graduations.

Longitudinal Vibrations
If wolf notes are the result of overly mobile bridges, they can be relieved by some of these strategies: lowering
the bridge; making it wider (this of course is not always practical, given the internal placement of bass bar and
sound post); making it heavier; using lighter strings. Each of these strategies has differing effects on the sound.
Wolf note eliminators can be employed, but a discussion of these is outside the scope of this talk.
I would now like to look at bridge height from a different point of view. When the string vibrates from side to side,
it creates a force tending to pull and release its end supports. This is easy to visualize if we imagine holding a
cord between our outstretched arms. If someone pulls the rope at the middle of its length, our arms will be
pulled together. As the rope is released, our arms can move apart again and take up the slack.
During a single vibratory cycle, the bowed string will be pulled off center twice - once to each side - and this
produces a shortening and lengthening of the string an octave above the fundamental frequency. I will refer to this
as the longitudinal vibration of the strings, in contrast to their more familiar side-to-side, or lateral, vibrations.
How important are these longitudinal vibrations? This depends on at least two factors. The first concerns the
http://www.josephcurtinstudios.com/news/tech/journal_vsa/principles.htm (5 of 9) [6/1/2008 11:43:15 PM]

Joseph Curtin Studios | Some Principles of Violin Setup, Journal of the Violin Society of America, November 1995

string angle, which we looked at earlier. If the strings passed in a straight line across the bridge, the
longitudinal vibration would tend to pull the top of the bridge back and forth. But this motion would have almost
no affect on the belly of the instrument, the leverage being so poor.
However, as the string angle increases with either a higher bridge or higher arching, more and more of the
longitudinal vibration is transferred downward to the belly directly through the bridge, just as the static force of
string tension was.
The second factor is how loudly the instrument is being played. According to Arthur Benade, the force of
these longitudinal vibrations increases by the square of the lateral ones.* Therefore, twice the bow speed will
double the amplitude of lateral vibrations, but quadruple that of the longitudinal vibrations. Benade concludes that
the effect of the longitudinal vibration is negligible at pianissimo, but becomes more important at higher
dynamics. This may be part of the reason for the change in tone color as the instrument is played more loudly.
(A recording of a violin played very softly will not, when the volume is turned up, sound like a violin played loudly.)
If this is so, then a higher arching/bridge height would give a greater shift in tone colors across the
instrument's dynamic range. The increased brightness claimed for sharper string angles may be due to the
increased transmission of longitudinal vibrations. This needs exploration at an experimental level.
*Arthur H. Benade, Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics (New York: Dover Publications), 530.

Flexible Coupling
I would now like to look at the bridge in its role as a flexible coupling between strings and violin. Allow me
to approach this through a series of digressions.
Psychoacousticians have mapped out the sensitivity of the human ear and found it to be far from even. Although
we can, especially when young, hear frequencies from below 50 hz up to and beyond 15k hz, the area of
maximum sensitivity tends to be around 3000 hz. This is a higher pitch than one might expect (almost three
octaves above A 440) if one considers that the long-term average spectrum for both full orchestra and the
speaking voice shows peak amplitudes at about 450 hz (just above concert A). Presumably this is satisfying to our
ears, otherwise instrumental music would have evolved differently.
But let's for a moment put ourselves in the position of a soloist performing with an orchestra - an operatic tenor,
for example - who must often struggle simply to be heard above the orchestra. Because the spectrum of the
normal singing voice, like the speaking voice, falls within that of the orchestra, the singer is in danger of being
masked by the orchestra.
Opera singers, in contrast to choral singers (whose role is to blend in), have developed an interesting and
effective strategy for holding their own above the orchestra. They learn to use their vocal apparatus to produce
what has become known as the singer's formant. This formant is effectively a means of producing overtones in
the 3000 hz area. The formant has the double advantage of being well above the orchestral spectrum's center, and
of lying in the ear's most sensitive range.
How does the violin manage to be effective as a solo instrument? Its body is not especially effective at
amplifying sounds in the 3000 hz range. This is where the bending of the bridge becomes important. In a typical
bridge the relationship between the mass of the top portion of the bridge and the stiffness of the waist and legs
creates a resonance at about 3000 hz. When string partials in this range excite the resonance, the upper part of
the bridge begins to rock back and forth, helping to transfer string vibrations in this range to the body of
the instrument.
This resonance is the lowest, and I believe the most important, of many resonances found in the bridge. What
factors affect it? Its frequency is determined by the mass of the top portion of the bridge in relation to the stiffness
of the waist area. Clearly, the waist must flex if the top portion is to move independently of the bottom. The stiffer
the waist (including any surrounding areas that flex when this resonance is excited), the higher the frequency of
the resonance. And the lighter the mass of the top portion, the higher the resonance. So to raise the pitch of
the resonance. we could either remove wood from somewhere in the top portion, or else shave wood away from
the waist area.
Now, the overall mass of the top portion will affect the resonance's ability to move the top. (Imagine the effect of
a heavy man jumping from foot to foot on a wooden floor, compared to that of a small boy.) It will also affect
the strings' ability to move the bridge. Establishing the optimal bridge mass for a given instrument is obviously
a matter of trial and error and experience. I know of no experimental work yet done in this area.
In Figure 7 I have tried to show a relationship between the height of
the upper portion of the bridge and the effective leverage of each
string in exciting the resonance. It can be seen that the higher the top
http://www.josephcurtinstudios.com/news/tech/journal_vsa/principles.htm (6 of 9) [6/1/2008 11:43:15 PM]

Joseph Curtin Studios | Some Principles of Violin Setup, Journal of the Violin Society of America, November 1995

section of the bridge, the more equal the leverage between inner and
outer strings. If the top section of the bridge is low, there is a
significant difference in leverage.
This difference may be part of why the outer strings tend to be more
brilliant and soloistic than the inner. (Another reason is that the outer
strings can be bowed at a steeper angle, thus more directly driving the
top in an up-and-down motion.) I suspect the practice of keeping the
feet of the bridge as low as possible, thus maximizing the height of the
upper portion of the bridge, helps maintain a good balance between
inner and outer strings.
It must be remembered that the effectiveness of the bridge resonance
in amplifying sound in the 3000 hz range also depends on the violin
body's willingness to cooperate. If the peak of a bridge resonance
overlaps with a peak of a body resonance, good coupling, and thus
good amplification, will occur. But resonances in this area of a violin's
spectrum vary greatly from instrument to instrument. They cannot be
controlled by the maker the way, let's say, the first few free-plate
resonances can. And so different violins may require differently tuned
bridges for optimal performance.

Damping

Figure 7

The last point I will make concerns the damping of the bridge. A well-damped resonance will tend to have
low amplitude and a broad peak. A relatively undamped resonance will tend toward higher amplitude and a
narrower peak. This means a well-damped resonance will be more effective at amplifying a broader range
of frequencies than an undamped one, but the amount of amplification will be less. Which is better in the case of
a violin bridge? I don't know yet, and it is quite possible different amounts of damping are appropriate for
different violins. As the damping depends mainly on the wood used and how it is treated, one begins to
understand why the sorts of things Mr. Nigogosian discussed - the quality and preparation of the bridge blank, etc.
- are so important.
I hope that further experimentation with bridges will lead to practical guidelines for best matching bridge
to instrument. In the meantime, tapping bridges, comparing them with each other, keeping track of weight, height,
and proportion, finding what works best for any given instrument have, for me at least, been an excellent way
of developing a sense for this crucial element of setup.
That about concludes the formal portion of this talk. I'll now open the floor to questions.
Bill Dolittle: Do you thin the outer edges of the bridge in the area of the kidneys to tune the bridge?
Mr. Curtin: We start with a standard cut which has something of a lens-shaped curve, and so it does get thinner
toward the edge. If the pitch of the bridge seems higher than you want it. thinning the area you suggest would
certainly work.
Ralph Rabin: Could you talk a little about the decoupling effect of the two cuts above the feet of the bridge?
Mr. Curtin: The bridge has a number of resonances and those cuts may affect one which involves the bridge as
a whole bouncing up and down, I believe at around 6000 hz. But I haven't studied this yet, and so I can't answer
the question.
Tom Croen: In regard to Ralph's question, if you thin down the width of the ankles, you lower the pitch of the
bridge radically.
Mr. Curtin: If it lowers the stiffness of the bending portion of a resonance, it would certainly lower the pitch of
that resonance. But I haven't yet studied the resonances affected by the ankles, or how they affect the sound of
the instrument.
Question: Doesn't the bridge vibrate back and forth, in the direction of the fingerboard and tailpiece, and doesn't
the bridge itself radiate sound?
Mr. Curtin: An interesting question. The bridge would have to move in the way you suggest in order to radiate
sound, and it would have to be at fairly high frequencies. Does anyone have an answer to this?
Norman Pickering: It does move and it does radiate at very high frequencies.
Mr. Curtin: In what range?

http://www.josephcurtinstudios.com/news/tech/journal_vsa/principles.htm (7 of 9) [6/1/2008 11:43:15 PM]

Joseph Curtin Studios | Some Principles of Violin Setup, Journal of the Violin Society of America, November 1995

Mr. Pickering: In the useful range of 3000 to 5000 cycles

Mr. Curtin: OK. Something I didn't know. This vibration of the bridge, if it radiates directly, may be
important. Otherwise, I don't see it as being effectively coupled to the instrument, because the instrument
is, longitudinally, very stiff, and because the effective leverage is poor.
Mr. Pickering: The bridge motion is far more complicated than you have described, and I'm sure you know you
have simplifled. For example, the bridge waves in peculiar ways - like putty sometimes - and it does actually
make sounds independently of the belly of the instrument.
Joseph Regh: Somehow the energy from the strings has to be transmitted through the bridge to the body of
the instrument. You seem to ignore the lower half of the bridge and the springiness of the legs.
Mr. Curtin: As Norman said, I've very much simplified things. Oliver Rodgers has done some wonderful work
in computer modeling the bridge, and has published the results in the CAS Journal. He shows graphic
representations of the different ways the bridge flexes and bends.
Mr. Regh: Do you in fact tune the sides?
Mr. Curtin: No. We adopted a more or less standard cut which comes out about right. We then do the adjusting
around the waist. But in principle, the horizontal sections are important. In my own work, I try to do one little thing
at a time, many times over, and so get a sense of which changes make a difference. Casual inspection suggests
the waist area is the most sensitive, so I have concentrated there.
Mr. Nigogosian: The two kidneys affect the mobility very strongly.
Question: What is the significance of the string biting the tip of the bridge? Some people say the string should bite
the bridge strongly, some that it should be lubricated.
Mr. Curtin: I would tend to lubricate it with a little graphite, so it's easier for the player to straighten the bridge. I
can't imagine that affecting the sound.
Question: What about the fit of bridge foot to belly?
Mr. Curtin: It doesn't look good with gaps! In principle, the fit might affect the coupling, though given the softness
of varnish and top wood, I'm not sure a very slight misfit affects the sound much. Some people like to leave the
feet slightly hollow. This creates, to my mind, an increased tendency of the feet to dig into the varnish and belly.
Mr. Nigogosian: If the fit is a little hollow, and you put a little moisture on it, it will fit better. The outer edges
will become compressed by the pressure of the strings, and so become stronger.
Gregg Alf: An interesting part of your talk concerned the effect of bridge height on the effective leverage of the
lower and higher strings. As we all know, the bridge is lower on the treble side because of the differing string
heights, and also because of the rotation of the neck. Can you comment on how this affects things?
Mr. Curtin: If increasing the bridge height increases brightness, lowering the treble side should decrease it, and
this may create a better balance between outer strings.
Question: I don't think you can really make a standard pattern for a bridge. Different wood requires a different cut.
Mr. Curtin: We use Aubert blanks and more or less cut them to identical dimensions. I must say, they all
come remarkably close in the kind of tuning I've been discussing, so very little tuning is necessary. This suggests
that, by and large, workshop specs over the years have developed designs that work, and you don't have to start with
a tabla rasa with each bridge. The arena for this kind of adjustment can be very small and still be effective. Of
course, style varies from maker to maker. I've seen bridges by Morel that are relatively high and thinly cut. This
may have tonal advantages in some cases. It also has structural implications.
Mr. Nigogosian: He also spreads his strings a little more, which affects the sound.
Dennis Topper: In reference to the string biting into the bridge: with basses, they often use a little metal ferrule
over the top of the bridge, and this makes a big difference in sound.
Mr. Curtin: I assume this is due to a change in damping more than anything else, just as, at the other end, the
open strings sound brighter because the ebony of the upper saddle dampens the strings less than the fingers do.
Mr. Pickering: You are very much exaggerating the longitudinal motion of the bridge. It is microscopic.
Furthermore, the strings will not slide on a wooden bridge; they will dig in. If you look under a microscope, you
can see the ridges from the windings. The top nut is a different story; the strings have to slide very freely. But at
the bridge they are locked infirmly.
Mr. Curtin: That's what I would assume.

http://www.josephcurtinstudios.com/news/tech/journal_vsa/principles.htm (8 of 9) [6/1/2008 11:43:15 PM]

Joseph Curtin Studios | Some Principles of Violin Setup, Journal of the Violin Society of America, November 1995

Mr. Pickering: When you tune the strings, the whole bridge moves over.
Mr. Curtin: Are we correct in assuming if we put a piece of soft material under the string, it will change the damping?
Mr. Pickering: Sure. It won't transmit higher frequencies to the bridge. It will act as a little filter. If you put a piece
of rubber there, you'll hear quite a difference.
John Wodowski: This is a neck-set question. On the East Coast a lot of people rotate the neck toward the treble
side half a millimeter or so, and on the West Coast, they rotate it the other way. I was told this makes the E side
much lower than the G, the first way, and more equal, the second.
Mr. Curtin: I think this has to do with the relative differences in the rotation of the earth on the East and West
Coasts. Seriously, at our shop we tilt it to make the treble side lower on the violin. This makes the playing angle
lower. If you start hitting the treble C bout on a wide viola, for example, you might want to even things out.
Gregg, you do that on violas, don't you?
Mr. Alf: On cellos as well.
Mr. Nigogosian: I am against it. On viola and cello, the C tends to be soft and the A metallic.
Joe Martin: Isn't it generally accepted that the top strings have a little more tension, and so are lowered to equalize
the tension?
Mr. Curtin: I think that's probably right. The rotation helps the playing angle and the sound a little. I think this is
what Nigo is saying. Thank you for your questions and attention.
Top

Contact Us

http://www.josephcurtinstudios.com/news/tech/journal_vsa/principles.htm (9 of 9) [6/1/2008 11:43:15 PM]

Home
1996 - 2007 Joseph Curtin Studios