For instance: is a very stiff wood harsher and brighter? Is bow stability the ennemy of bounce capacity? Etc….
I find very little truly useful material on this on the interwebs 😔
Tweet
The violin bow: Taper, camber and flexibility, Colin Gough
What you'll then need to know is that the missing part of the story is damping, which is the specific way different woods dissipate vibration energy.
Somewhere there's been some discussion of pernambuco's uniqueness in this regard. You might find reference to it over at Maestronet.
That reminds me of a line from the movie, Dirty Harry. Clint Eastwood's character has the bad guy on the ground trying to reach for his gun. Callahan wonders aloud whether he's taken five shots or six with his own pistol (a huge revolver), and he says,
"So the question is, do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"
Even your questions are not defined in measurable terms, 'brighter', 'bounce capacity'
You can scour literature on material science. Even if you could find something relevant from the perspective of the topic, I am not sure it could even be applied.
What it is that you want? Do you want to be able to select better bows? Do you want to find a material that is an alternative to pernambuco?
The Schuster is demonstrably louder than the other bow. The differences: Round vs. Octagonal and the Schuster is about 10 grams heavier. Both are good bows with very little lateral flex. Neither have been re-cambered.
I've asked others to play with both bows and the Schuster is always louder for all players.
Maybe in the end it's like Harry Potter and the bow chooses the violinist. Simply magic.
Maybe there is a bowmaker on the forum that can explain the properties of bows.
The Schuster is demonstrably louder than the other bow. The differences: Round vs. Octagonal and the Schuster is about 10 grams heavier. Both are good bows with very little lateral flex. Neither have been re-cambered.
I've asked others to play with both bows and the Schuster is always louder for all players.
Maybe in the end it's like Harry Potter and the bow chooses the violinist. Simply magic.
Maybe there is a bowmaker on the forum that can explain the properties of bows.
Next year (a couple of weeks from today) will mark the 40th anniversary of Giovanni Lucchi's invention of the "Lucchimeter," an instrument advertised to measure the properties of wood related to its quality for bow making.
https://www.lucchimeter.com/sound-velocity-in-bow-making/
The advertisements are not sufficient to prove anything, but some people see value in the relationship to potential bow quality.
I have not done any significant research on bow properties related to vibrations and the velocity of sound in pernambuco sticks, but I hypothesize that bow behaviors related to sound production are related to the vibration of the hair in contact with the string due to the acoustic resistance (acceptance) at the hair-stick interface and damping by the stick. (In other words any vibration of the hair will interfere with the straightforward "stick-slip" coupling of hair and string.)
In agreement with George's observations of the loudness of sound produced by his bows, I have found the same thing with my bows - and it is not related to the weight of the sticks, that I have all measured (in fact I have written them on the white and silver tips). But there is much more to it than that.
Then too, there are the obviously dynamic properties of bows - how well do they bounce. I have found some bows they seemed able to read my mind and bounce just the way I wanted with the sense that I just had to think it. Unfortunately I have never owned a bow that perceptive.
Rosin choice can make a big difference in the sound produced by any bow.
Late in the 1990s I visited retired violin maker/luthier/dealer Frank Passa at his home in Santa Rosa, CA (this was after his stroke and not long before his death). In the 5-car garage under his house were largestacks of pernambuco blanks, precut for their ultimate use as (violin, viola, cello and bass) bow sticks. It was impressive!
A few years later I was chatting with Jay Ifshin at his Berkeley "Ifshin Violins" shop and I mentioned that wood in relation to Morgan Anderson (a bow maker associate of Jay's who had studied at the Violin School of America as a classmate of Jay's). Jay told me that that wood was not good enough for Anderson's bows (which at the time were selling for about $3,200, but of 11 bows [by now) sold at auction, Anderson's record price was $7,200 for a violin bow. I did get to try a couple of Anderson's bows back in those days and they were very fine in sound and every other characteristic you could want.
The pitch senses are not a property of the bow stick. They are present on bows of any material (Pernambuco, fiberglass, carbon fiber, etc.) and size. The pitch senses are a manifestation of a three-dimensional field (fields) in the air surrounding the bow stick and originating on the bow stick. (Think of the electric and magnetic fields associated with an electrical wire carrying a current.) They are configured (shaped) according to the shape of the bow surface but can also, fortunately, be reconfigured easily by drawing lines (discontinuities) on the bow stick. There appear to be three interconnected orthogonal fields: axial (along the direction of the stick) radial (outward from the stick) and circumferential (around the circumference of the stick). To confirm this, these fields can be mapped. Lay the bow on a flat surface and tap in the area around the bow stick. You will detect the same pitch senses on the flat surface (radial and axial pitch senses). At different 45-degree angles around the bow stick, the pattern changes. (You need to have a surface along the centerline of the bow for an accurate picture of the orthogonal pitch senses). Using a flat thin plate (I use acrylic plastic say .25 x 3x3 inches (3 x 150 x 150 mm) held in the fingers, the plate becomes a “pitch sense probe”. By manipulating and tapping on the acrylic plate surface with the china marker you can detect the direction of the pitch senses as they pass through the plate perpendicularly or are aligned with the surface of the probe. With the acrylic probe, you can detect all three types of pitch sense field around the bow stick.
I don't know of any highly successful bowmaker who does what you have suggested, and I do know a bunch of 'em.
https://violinlounge.com/product-review/round-vs-octagonal-arcus-violin-bow-review-violin-lounge-tv-409/#:~:text=Traditionally%20bows%20come%20in%20two,a%20bit%20stiffer%20and%20lively.
so maybe the sound becomes more satisfying when the faces are in alignment with the sense fields..?
A maker may decide to continue on from octagonal to round because their personal style, or the style of bow they are imitating is round; or because that is what the client wants; or because they want to remove a little more weight or stiffness from the bow.
This web page, from the Jerry Pasewicz shop, includes photos taking you through the various steps. In this case, they are making a soundpost rather than a bow, but the process is very similar.
https://trianglestrings.com/soundpost/
It's possible that much more was done by machine than I realized though, since I was only shown small parts of the factory.
We see as many discussions on rosin as on the cross-section of bow sticks, and it's the bow hair that holds the rosin sufficiently in line for us to use it.
"L’ Archet, the seminal two-volume work on bow makers by Bernard Millant and Jean-Francois Raffin, contains many examples of bows from down the ages. A most intriguing example, which appears on pages 186–7 of the first volume, is an ivory bow commissioned personally by the Russian empress Catherine the Great. Made entirely from mammoth tusk, the stick has a swan-bill head while the frog is made from a single piece of nacre (mother-of-pearl), decorated on each side with four small diamonds. The audience side features the inscription Catarina II Russiarum Imperatrix Fecit . et dedit A. Lolli. 1776 (‘Catherine II, Empress of Russia: made [for] and given [to] A. Lolli [in] 1776’). The bow has retained its original case, apparently crafted by the same maker as the bow.
The brief description by Bernard Gaudfroy in L’ Archet treats the bow as a historical artefact from the collection of Claude Lebet, but includes no attempt at attribution. Nor has any other account of the bow in the past 200 years made any suggestion as to who might have made it. Until now, the first Russian bow maker whose name we know is Nikolai Kittel (1806–68), whose earliest examples date from the 1830s; to ascribe this artefact to a professional bow maker rather than an artisan would effectively rewrite the history of bow making in Russia by a full 60 years. However, the Lolli bow was indeed carved by a bow maker, who was also the leading ivory craftsman of his time: Osip Kristoforovich Dudin (c.1714 –85). A contemporary of Nicolas Pierre Tourte (1700–64), Dudin appears to have been the only craftsman engaged in such work in St Petersburg in the 1770s. The importance of Catherine the Great’s commission confirms Dudin’s standing as the most respected ivory carver and bow maker of his day in Russia."
So "your bow" is probably only half-fantasy (the unicorn half).
If you are tracking single variables (color of wood, say), then there is some value to keeping the hair identical.
Unfortunately, most bows have many more than one variable at play, because it is nearly impossible to make copies. In that case, the useful thing for most shoppers (not researchers) is to have each sample sound its best, whatever that means.
Stephen
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
Thomastik-Infeld's Dynamo Strings
Violinist.com Summer Music Programs Directory
ARIA International Summer Academy
Johnson String Instrument/Carriage House Violins
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine