Carbon fiber bow?

If you look around you should be able to find a decent nickle mount Pernambuco German production bow for $300 or a good Brazilwood one, strong brazilwood can be just as good as weaker Pernambuco.

The rosin used might also be suspect - too much, too little, or a brand that doesn't like your strings.

After seeing Paul Deck mention it several times, but otherwise finding next to no information about it, I just today ordered a Cadenza *** Master 'Hybrid' bow - that is carbon fiber core with a pernambuco veneer.

I'll admit this was half curiosity, half desire to try something new. I'll be happy to report back to you when I get my hands on it next week - especially wither I choose to keep it or send it back.

One thing about CF bows is they are a lot more durable.

It's really hard to compare bows against one another because you can't be sure that they have the same kind (or age, or cleanliness) of bow hair or what kind of rosin, and how much, in the store.

Oh by the way Michael I also have the Cadenza Master viola bow for my viola, and I think I might like that even more than the violin bow.

As for stiffness, it would kind of surprise me if the makers of CF bows didn't work pretty hard to come up with a material that has pretty close to the same modulus as wood.

I absolutely should have specified - I ordered the viola version. I'm glad that you find that one even more satisfying than the violin version. I find when I play violin I tend to use my viola bow anyway - it is such a rare occurrence that it is usually only in passing and what I'm used to. Cost me a little more than $450, but that's because it's in Canadian dollars.

As for Op,

Don't count out the cheaper 'pernambuco' bows just because they're around $300. They might be pernambuco, they might be who knows what. What matters is if it's a good bow or not. At that price range I think there is a limit to what you can expect, but it's also quite reasonable to shop around and try all the options. I think I paid about that for my Knoll, which I love dearly.

But I wonder if you are not about to buy what you already have.

While every bow is different, maybe you have specific technical and musical reasons for upgrading, and if that is the case, are you going about choosing a new bow in a way which will get you what you need?

What does your teacher recommend? How does your teacher "sound" when he or she plays your instrument and bow?

Posted under my own FULL name in accordance with the rules of Vcom.

Cheers Carlo

Most of the time, good Pernambuco bows sound better, often by a lot, but those don't grow on trees these days. And much depends on the violin being used, the adjustment, the shape I'm in, the weather...

No middle names? :P

Cheers Carlo

I find I don't need as much tension on the CF bow as the wood bows to play the same way. In this case I don't believe the CF is a close match to real wood, or at least the type of wood in my bows isn't a close match. Maybe the real Pernambuco is closer to that tension. My wood bows have a softer action and need a tighter adjustment, some a bit more than the pencil thickness recommended.

I can confirm they are real wood. The rest is up in the air. A few of those would probably benefit from being discarded instead of being re haired.Even so, they sound better than CF to me.

Some craftspeople capable of performing an immaculate rehair may still use a "standard hank" of hair which will probably over-hair a soft stick. If you have a soft stick you may be able to trim a few hairs to effectively stiffen it up. Of course some cheap wooden bows are just too soft to recover. If you are going to trim hair do it on the inside of the "hair ribbon," not the outside - evenly across the ribbon and probably no more than 5 hairs at a time.

Until just about 16 years ago* I had been making measurements on a number of violin, viola, and cello bows and came up with a range of 133 to 205 hairs for a group of 16 violin bows for optimum behavior that correlated with the measured stick stiffness (the optimum number of hairs correlated with the average stretching (or strain) of a single hair in the bow. I found that bows tended to sound better if the hair was strained a specific amount* (of course there is variation in the diameter of the hairs used - so everything is approximate and average). (*That amount of strain was 0.5mm and on average required the force equivalent to a weight of 2.5 grams hanging from it --multiply by the number of hairs in the bow to get the total force on the hair of a bow.)

I was about to unleash my measurements upon a very large collection of bows (not mine) with a new measuring rig I had acquired when 09/11/2001 happened and the next day I ceased measuring bows and hairs forever and decided it was more important to me to use my bows entirely for making music.

Beyond that, enjoyment of music is so subjective that declaring one as sounding better or not is problematic. Even which plays better would be quite subjective - hand strength, technique, particular use, etc, will all effect how someone would rate a particular bow, and differing tastes and preferences will dictate how someone would rate the sound of one.

It's almost sillier than the sr v. no sr debate because it's too individual to empirically say x is better than z. At best we can say the sample tested preferred x better than z, or z better than x, or found no consistent preference. Normally we can use this data to make a statement about the population, but I'd be willing to bet each sample would yield differing results.

So it boils down to: Go try some bows, keep an open mind, and buy the one that 'speaks' to you. There's always a better bow - there's always a better instrument. Enjoy the experience instead of getting too caught up in the semantics. You have a budget, explore it, and pick what you like.

EDIT:

Andrew, you should consider releasing the data. I think it would be interesting - people always obsess over the stick, relatively little consideration is given to the hair beyond 'is it good quality/is it worn out?'.

I only fail to provide details due to a lack of experience, and not a reticence to back up my opinion.

I find it plays like any other bow - I move it along the strings and sound comes out. It is an improvement over my current bow in both playability and tone, but my current bow isn't exactly a master work either. I would describe it as well balanced and producing a focused sound - quicker to respond in changes to pressure or speed than other bows I've had experience with (Coda Bow SX, JP Avanti, a few Knoll Bows, bows from $100-2,000 price bracket, but nothing higher). If I had to compare it to one of them I would say it's quite similar in feel to my limited exposure to the JP Avanti.

It does 'feel' a little different, but there is a similar difference between any other two different bows I've used.

This is my first 'long term' exposure to carbon fiber - I don't see anything immediately to hate about it and strongly suspect it's just a matter of preference of sound.

If someone cannot see your bow and doesn't like your sound, is it a result of the bow being cf or simply a matter of them not preferring the same sound you prefer?

Edit: I should add that I'd never ague that CF and wooden bows are the same. They are different beasts - but to say one is objectively better than the other is a different proposition. I posit that they're just different and think it's very important to keep options open.

I'm still trying to figure out from the opinions of the people here which physical properties of a bow could be responsible. My suspicion is that the sound has more to do with hair, hair tension, and rosin, whereas the stick itself affects handling in various fast bowing techniques and maybe the response during the attack of a tone. But typical statements like "Expensive bow X pulls a much nicer sound than affordable bow Y" are a bit too vague for me. And I couldn't notice much difference myself when I went out to replace my warped kit bow by a CF one, when I was a three months beginner (not so long ago). I moticed a difference in weight and stiffness, but not in sound and playability.

I am a little wishy-washy because I am hesitant to say anything too strongly - I'm not a particularly masterful string player and the world is still relatively new to me, I do however have a basic science background and the ability to form opinions and think for myself. That said the main reason I'm cautious is I don't want to lock myself into something that will bite me later or ruffle too many feathers. I have a lot of respect for the people here and don't want to appear to be chastising them, because I most certainly am not. On the other hand I do want to encourage experimentation and discussion on the topic.

I think the perceived lack of quality may be placebo/tradition kicking back as opposed to a straight up inability to perform at a similar level as wood. I think tone is too subjective to measure, but handling is something that is a little easier to agree on. It's worth considering that a synthetic product can likely be tweaked to a much higher degree than relying getting the 'right stick', and will lead to an increase in performance as more research is done into carbon fiber materials.

I might not be making much sense - I'm quite tired!

What I will absolutely own up to is agreeing with you - I strongly suspect that rosin, hair, and the tension to which it is tightened, have a greater effect on tone than the material of the stick - hence why I was so interested (as were you!) in Andrew's data.

Interesting info Lyndon - you've made me a little curious as to the manufacturing process now. :)

I wonder how much of that is due to the density of the material and how the flaws in it behave under the forces of playing.

It's interesting to try and measure things like this because it's quite 'magical' until someone discovers the secrets of why each individual bow sounds how it does.

We are really just chatting about it - there will likely be no profound revelation or clear right or wrong here, nor a winner or loser. It's just nice to converse with other people who are either like minded or differing minded, but invested, on the topic.

It's fun to chat - otherwise we wouldn't have evolved so many methods to communicate with each other.

No one is doubting that each bow is different and they all have their own characteristics - but rather the ability of the different materials to perform to a similar level and why/why not. It's fun because without doing some serious experimentation it's just subjective and conjecture mixed with anecdotes, which really just makes it more fun.

I like my CF viola bow, but then you can play a viola with the horse!

The EXCEL spreadsheet I constructed from this work, with all the data, was posted on line for many years --until I gave up my website about 4 years ago. I would be happy to email the spreadsheet to someone else to post on line, but I do not want to get involved with posting my email address and having to respond to multiple requests for it. With a few exceptions I own, or did own all the bows in the SS.

I think that whether you prefer a CF or wood bow depends to some extent on your hearing. A friend of mine uses Rolland SPICCATO and CODA Cla, CF DURROssic bows on his $150,000 Enrico Rocca violin in preference to his Lamy. I have CODA, SPICCATO, ARCUS, CF DURRO and BERG Deluxe non-wood bows - I have owned other brands too. I generally prefer to play with some of my wood bows.

It is my understanding that wood density affects the speed of sound in the bow and this has an effect on the sound the bow makes on a given instrument. Lucci (a bow maker, I believe) was selling a device for measuring sound speed in bow wood for material selection. The owner of the ARCUS bow company was very "big" re. this correlation/effect in his material design for that brand of bows. Of course, the bow would also have to be fabricated just right. Perhaps one should also consider not so much how the material of the bow enhances the sound, but how much it might spoil it.

Anders Askenfelt is probably the leading researcher on "bow science" and those who are interested should check out his scientific papers, many of which are available on line.

However, there are objective ways of determining whether an individual can indeed make the discrimination he or she claims. The simple way is of course a "forced choice" protocol between two alternatives presented several times in random order, for example is that violin being played with a bow made of wood or carbon fibre? Why are there so few properly controlled trials of this sort? Maybe that would put an end to an entertaining debate, but sometimes I yearn for a definitive answer.

Thanks for posting that Andrew, I will research Anders Askenfelt - I really appreciate your experimental spirit and ability to carry a conversation about the topic. I am hesitant to post a longer reply since I am delusional and tone deaf for daring go against the party line!

Lyndon Taylor
Edited: September 28, 2017, 2:58 AM · Its all fun to you, but you accuse serious parties with years of experience of being delusional about the tonal differences between wood and CF, may I postulate that its also possible to be delusional about the idea that there are no tonal differences between wood and CF, otherwise known as being tone deaf.

The tonal differences between different bows, be they CF or wood, are not at all subtle. The difference is far greater than with strings. If you have trouble hearing differences between violins, though, you might also have difficulty hearing differences between bows. I don't think this is a hearing issue per se, in terms of physically hearing all the frequencies (assuming you are not hearing-impaired); I think this probably has to do with the brain processing the information in a way that drops the detail.

The sound of a bow is unique on a particular violin. Furthermore, within CF bows, even within bows of the same model, there are significant tonal variations. However, CF bows tend to have different frequency response characteristics than wood bows.

The telling trait in CF bows tends to be what I think of as a thread of high-frequency sound. I personally describe that sound as metallic; with some CF bows on some violins, it has the effect of making the sound screechy. In some CF bows, that oddly sharp thread can be spread out over a broader range of frequencies, in which case the bow sounds noisy or grating. It's possible that if your high-frequency hearing is attenuated(this is a natural effect of age), it won't be as obvious to you.

My observation is that the tonal difference between CF and wood has declined over the years as the CF bow-makers have refined their materials. Also, sometimes the CF frequency response bolsters particular violins. (Years ago, Bernd sold me an Arcus that he thought was terrific for projection, thanks to its sharp amplification of high-frequency response. It wasn't good on my already-brilliant violin, but it worked very well on a friend's dark-sounding instrument, and I traded it to him.)

The JP Avanti that I have probably wouldn't be detectable as CF by a listener hearing me blind, though you can hear the CF traits if you are actively listening for them; I chose a stick that sounded as non-CF-like as possible, among plenty of tonally unpleasant CF alternatives.

I was playing in an orchestra for a bit with a stand-partner (a pro) who was using a JP Vetta. I don't think anything about his sound betrayed the CF, at least not in the orchestral context.

The Arcus S9 I tried while I was bow-shopping really impressed me -- it's competitive with antiques in its range in terms of playability (putting it up against makers like Morizot). I highly doubt that most listeners would hear that an S9 was CF, though it doesn't have the beauty of sound of a high-end wood bow, and there's a subtle bit of something almost akin to surface noise that seems to be its CF sound signature. (If I were doing a lot more orchestra playing, I'd probably choose an S9 as my main bow, though.)

In general, I would bet that players who buy CF bows (and choose them consciously, rather than having them thrown in with an outfit or the like) probably choose sticks that don't sound harshly CF-like on their violins. But if you try a bunch of CF bows, the majority of them will likely interact with your violin in a way that produces a distinctive sound signature that's very different than wood.

I'd have to agree that if you can't hear the difference between violins then the same person likely would have trouble hearing the (imo more subtle, at least than two violins!) difference between bows. I also agree that it probably has little to do with physically hearing. It makes me think of people who, when first introduced to classical music, can't pick out the separate instruments of an orchestra, and then upon greater exposure and time begin to break out the pieces more and more, even without realizing it. Without knowing the cues and what to listen for it really is just a wall of (beautiful) sound.

I think your second point is why it will be so hard to empirically decide if CF is 'up to the job'. There would be so much to control, it's why I would rather argue that it's just a different sound - not necessarily worse. As you mentioned I think that as time goes on and research into the material and bows is conducted cf bows will continue to improve. I think a lot of the history is taken for granted - how long did it did the modern violin bow to evolve? CF has only had a few decades to play catch up and I think it's done quite well. The middle high end of the CF range, as you note, as very convincing.

I think there being significant tonal variations is a good thing - it is much the same as with wood bows. Some bows and instruments 'pair' very well while others maybe not so much. I think that you are also right in that some cf bows just do not mix with some instruments. There are even more variances when you add in the differences between player technique. I actually have heard that high frequency you speak of, but only once. I think it's fair to say that like any other bow it does need to be tried by player and instrument before purchasing it as the variances are quite large (much like wooden bows, if in different areas) between bows, brands, and price points.

I think an important bit of research could be comparative - what is different about the bow you chose compared to the ones you didn't? Besides your preference and it sounding better, what physically makes it different? I think if manufactures could hone in on that it might help to make CF better all around. Could it just be chance - the material settling in just the perfect way? Or is there some flaw in the others that a manufacture might eventually be able to control for. Because CF is manufactured and not grown, there is a greater opportunity to reproduce results consistently, even if we aren't quite there yet.

On the note of the Arcus, I've read (here and elsewhere) that they play very different from a regular bow. Since I don't have personal experience with them, would you describe it as something you would still enjoy if those handling qualities were present in a wooden stick?

Aside from the screech, I'm not entirely sure that a different sound signature from wood is a terrible thing. It's not necessarily evolution of sound, but it is something that gives more options for a player seeking 'their' sound.

It reminds me a bit of a book: 'How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony, and Why You Should Care'. I wonder if CF will eventually become the new norm from a practical standpoint, if not an acoustic one, and if that were to happen, would the first generation to grow up in a CF bow majority world prefer the sound of CF over wood?

Thanks for collecting it Andrew, and Lydia for sharing it.

Some of it is a bit beyond me, but I am going to try and get as much info out of it as I can. I love learning new things so fun times ahead.

Please show me where I have asserted that Lydia prefers cf over wood, have directly insulted someone, claimed I can't hear the high end sizzle of CF bows, and that it's all in their heads.

I don't appreciate your attempts to counter and suppress discussion by insulting me - it is very disrespectful and not needed at all. If Lydia is offended by my posts, or any other poster here based on my 'insults to them' they are happy to tell me and I will happily either clarify the statement that offended them, or apologize profusely as it was not the intent. I am curious about carbon fiber. I am interested in having a conversation about carbon fiber. I feel I am conducting that in a respectful manner.

Lyndon Taylor
September 28, 2017, 6:54 AM · Michael, Lydia has said over and over on this forum that she prefers her wood bows to her CF bow, if you can't hear the high end sizzle of CF bows, maybe your hearing is lacking in high frequency response, I don't know, poster after poster in this thread has said they prefer wood bows to CF, its not all in their head, and frankly I find the inference that it may be in their head to be quite insulting.

Psychology has resoundingly told us so. If the fact that what someone prefers as a sound is personal preference is a fact that insults you and others, then I really don't know what to tell you. Some people don't even like classical music - imagine the horror! They must be tonedeaf.

I also notice that my current bow bends a lot more when using pressure.

In terms of sound quality, the trial bows blow my current one. I'm not surprised that they would sound better, but I'm surprised by how MUCH better they sound. The difference is not as big as say jumping from a $300-500 to a $800-1200 violin (let's say that's a 100% improvement). The trial bows I'm using give about a 40-50% sound improvement.

It's called Violinist.com, not classicalmusic.com!

The common link is the violin, not the music played on it :)

I would argue that in general, CF is less pleasant of a sound; there's a subtraction of warmth from the sound. You might think of it as roughly akin to a digital vs. analog sound, or perhaps the sound of a human voice singing versus a synthesizer "voice".

It's a pity that Bernd Musing doesn't frequent this forum (he used to be a frequent Maestronet poster), since I imagine that he could explain the process he's gone through with Arcus's tonal evolution. There's clearly a material property change throughout the Arcus line and throughout its history. I assume that some of the ways that the sticks are made result in higher manufacturing costs.

I also know that the CF manufacturing process is unpredictable still. My understanding is that CF bow manufacturers still "grade" the sticks; i.e., a bunch of sticks will be made through the same industrial process, but the end-results are different, and depending on the resulting stick quality, it will end up sold as a specific "model" in the manufacturer's bow-lines.

I find most Arcus bows to be too light to be comfortable in the hand -- and I normally prefer light wood bows. At the high end of the Arcus line, I stop being aware that the bow is too light, which I'm guessing probably has to do with the way that the bow is balanced. (Tip-heavy bows tend to feel heavier to me, because you can feel your pinky having to counterbalance.)

Indeed, one of the problems that I had with having an Arcus as my spare bow is that it simply felt too different from my regular bow. The JP Avanti feels like an average decent bow, which means that I can swap to it from my usual bow without having to think.

Since you mentioned it, do you prefer evenly balanced or tip-heavier bows? Or depends on the piece you are playing?

The bows Im trying are 62g and 61g. To my surprise, the 62g actually feels lighter. I balanced both and the 61g balances a few mm's away from the frog compared to the other one. I wouldn't have bothered doing these measurements if I didn't notice getting a little bit more tired using the 61g bow which also happen to sound better in my opinion. Luckily I've played a lot of tennis and have tried many many rackets, so I've gotten quite sensitive to feeling differences in weight distribution (which also makes huge differences in playing tennis). I just dont know yet the pros and cons of varying bow weight distribution when it comes to playing the violin. My newbie self likes the even balanced 62g, but if tennis gear taught me something... Is that I may prefer a completely different one as I get better.

I prefer bows that feel relatively light in the hand; they don't necessarily need to *be* light, but just balanced in such a way that I don't feel like my pinky is getting tired bearing the weight. I like the balance-point at the middle of the bow or just slightly lower. I want precision and predictability of response.

I tend to favor "Mozart bows" -- bows that feel elegant and lively and light, which are great for playing Mozart and similar repertoire. Alternatively, I want a solid and stable draw, with a strong and resilient stick that has effortless articulation.

I would recommend that a player who doesn't yet know what they want in a bow, choose something in an average weight range (60g is normal violin bow weight, +/- 1 gram is fine, +/- 2 grams is less common, don't go outside that range unless you know what you're doing), with a balance point at the middle and an even distribution of weight. The average cheap bow has fairly neutral handling traits.

In many ways it is better. Less expensive, more stable in humid conditions. Extremely unlikely to break, unless it was on a 747 that crashed.

What were the motives? Manufacturers grew tired of importing wood with varying quality control. A faster more even production process.A result close to wood.Lower cost to build.

In my case, the CF bow already had many disadvantages that weren't directly tied to the actual performance of the bow.

The comment a musician who I greatly respect made. A person who has played violins for probably 30 years. He says he can hear a difference and prefers wood.

My own bent toward not liking it when anything tries to be like anything else. I've never been a fan of artificial anything because in almost all cases there is some kind of an unfortunate trade off. Notice no one ever starts a conversation about CF by saying that the wood sounds similar to CF.It's always CF sounds similar to wood. The clear winner for comparison is wood among most.

So for me to be entirely fair I would need to forget everything I know and simply listen to the bows. Play the bows.

When I give it my best effort to be fair I still hear the upper range frequencies so often mentioned by others. And why should this be a surprise? It's an entirely different material.

People are willing to live with some trade offs. Will that high end shrill scratchy tone be heard from 10 feet away? Chances are you notice it more because you are close to it when playing. If you've ever heard a CF played from some distance, the differences become less noticeable.

For me, It's annoying to practice with a mid range CF over a long time.
If I had a 2000.00 wood bow would I rather take CF to the outdoor gig? You bet I would. If it was all I had compared to a very cheap wood bow that was unbalanced, would I prefer CF? Yes I would...yes I would not prefer wood :)

I don't like to make decisions like this. I don't like trade offs. Sometimes they are necessary. As I see it, CF is all about trade offs for some kind of gain in another area. Sometimes of necessity and sometimes by preference.

Stiffness, inertial and rotational "weights" and damping can all be varied to emulate good sticks. The real challenge is find a bow that matches your arm and the violin you are playing.

The "sound" of the bow itself is an interesting discussion point but I wonder if such opinions could survive a double-blind test. But I am willing to say it might have merit, but only as a non-projecting sound unless the bow has some unusual defect.

Just the other day, testing a C. N. Bazin against my Coda Marquise, the few listeners (fellow musicians) unanimously preferred the Coda. I wasn't playing for them. They had no idea whether they were listening to CF or Pernambuco or 20th Century French or manufactured synthetic.

Lydia, I have the GS, though I'm not clear on what all the letters mean. It's more supple and sounds better than my Diamond NX, but of course, at almost 4 times the price.

"High-sensitivity carbon fibers extending continuously from button to tip plate bestow in it a natural response and beauty. Referred to inside the workshop as the 'Gold Standard', this Marquise design appeals to discerning players more than any other and is the clear choice as the standard-bearer of the Marquise Experience."

From their website. And no, before someone accuses me, I'm not paid nor sponsored by CodaBow. If they did they will probably lose money. I'm a terrible beginner! Hahah

Edit: Just joking about the God Stick part. I've never tried this bow.

Examples.

1. Many cellos I have played have been problematic in the upper 2 octaves of the C string; (all 3 of mine are). I have 8 cello bows, only my ARCUS Concerto (CF bow) is reliable and consistent in that range (even if it is not comparable to playing a really great cello), My other bows include a Paul Martin Siefried, an old Albert Nürnberger, and a Marco Raposo. The best of my bows on my old (1877) Lowendahl (Mittenwald) cello has been a CF DURRO I bought just before I bought my Coda Classic, however that preference seems to disappear when I installed a Krentz wolf eliminator on that cello - go figure.

2. My Enrico Rocca violin owning friend prefers a Coda Classic or a Rolland Spiccato (to his Lamy) on that violin. When a quartet mate asked to try the Coda bow he didn't like it one bit, but when he tried it on the Rocca he liked it.

And for amusement: A few days ago the Coda website had placeholder marketing-copy, with instructions on what to write there, and it had stuff like "ego-stroking". ;-)

Lydia, that's funny! Any chance you took screen shots?

Thanks for setting me straight.