Matthew, my top is glued to the ribs so can't do the experiment. Also keep in mind that the shape of a doulble bass is a little different than a violin with narrower upper bout, so this might not have been applicable to gamba instruments. Strad did make gamba shaped instruments and lots of different types and shapes including cornerless. The sons did not understand Antonio's methods completely according to Sacconi. They miss-interpreted the ff placement when they finished some of the fathers work and placed them in the wrong place according to the fathers method.
The classic cremonese and Brescian methods are probably more related to esthetics than acousitics of the instrument although harmony is harmony. I think that is why Arnold's - knows it when he sees it - statement makes sense to me.
Another interesting comment from Sacconi is that ff holes too far apart are not as bad acoustically as too close together. But keep in mind this is in context of Antonio's system of arching and proportion.
In modern acoustics, which may lead us down the wrong path or not, there is not many body modes that are not effected by ff hole placement or size. The air modes are a part of the acoustic footprint of the sound and also effect the plate modes by coupling with them, but it is extremely complex because of the way the body vibrates. The flexibility of the whole corpus helps lower the main air resonance by its "breathing" or bellows motion. The top and back plates, but mostly the top vibrate like a big piston and also with more complex "islands" creating distinct resonaces along the spectrum that give the bass it's voice or signature.
My opinion is that a combination of esthetics from geometrical harmony and modern acoustics will be able to speed the quest for a newly made bass with old sound. I could be wrong though and might be wasting a great deal of time studying modern acoustics.
|