relative body thickness, förg vs schwarzer 10883

Share your zither photos. Use this forum to discuss zither makers and models.

Moderator: Dave

Post Reply
Rudy Mueller
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:33 am
Location: Grafton WI 53024 RMUELLERMKE@GMAIL.COM

relative body thickness, förg vs schwarzer 10883

Post by Rudy Mueller »

it was desired to compare the dimensions of schwarzer #10883 to those of a Förg, expecially the resonance cavity.
zitherschwarzer, sn 10883förg
internal cavity thickness, mm32 20
external thickness, mm37 26
the thickness of the internal cavity of the schwarzer is approximately 60% greater than the förg. comparison can be seen in the attachment.

external thickness was measured at the maximum width of the instrument. the schwarzer has a combined thickness of top and bottom of (37-32) = 5 mm, while the förg has (26-20) = 6 mm, approximately a +20% difference.

comparing overall dimensions
zitherschwarzer, sn 10883förg
maximum length, cm85 66
maximum width, cm37 35
the length of the schwarzer is approximately 30% greater than the förg.

could this significantly greater cavity volume and thiner "skin" be the cause of its apparently greater volume?

rudy mueller
Attachments
100_0989.JPG
100_0989.JPG (434.64 KiB) Viewed 1329 times
User avatar
Dave
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:55 pm
Location: Chestertown, Maryland
Contact:

Re: relative body thickness, förg vs schwarzer 10883

Post by Dave »

Rudy, Sasha Radicic in St Louis offered some very interesting insights. His response follows:

In general, the thickness of the top, back, etc., is a very personal decision made by the luthier. It is very fine line, whether you are going to give an appropriate balance between the two, or not . It depends on the given piece of wood; I usually spend a lot of time trying to feel the wood's flexing, weight and resonances. I have been asked many times how do you determine the top thickness etc. and, quite frankly, I do not know how to provide a precise answer. I do know that I have spend a good part of my life flexing and tapping wood, which is something you have to learn through time and experience! Basically, I tap the wood and after a while I will have "something" to tell me how thick should it be. I can not even say what those numbers are. That is, I think, a job for a scientist. I prefer to go on feeling and almost always feelings are right. Another thing to address is the bracing system on the top and the back.

It is very complicated for me to explain that but, to put it simply, it is very important to align these four things: type and quality of timber, size of the braces and their position, thickness of the top (most important) and thickness of the back and sides. There are many factors to control and consider and at the end it is a complete miracle to have a fine sounding instrument at all! Trust me, I am still learning that. Fortunately there is a simple logic to all of this: if you have thin zither box, then it will give you a treble oriented sound; if it is a thicker box that of course it will favor the bass.

Interesting to note, my observations of Schwarzer, Meinel and Forg zithers revealed that their inside construction details vary from year to year. It could mean that something was tried and perhaps did not work quite right, so they changed the dimensions or completely abandoned certain bracing positions on future models.


Also see Karas' ANGU zithers which have a wedge-shaped design. The body of these zithers are thickest under the bass strings, which serves to bring out the contrabasses. This page has a good view from the side, under the section "The ANGU Full Sound Zithers."

http://www.zither.us/zithers.anton.karas
We do not take humor seriously enough. —Konrad Lorenz
Post Reply