No.3 -- The Internal Wolf Eliminator

About the Internal Wolf Eliminator:  When I first came across this model in the early 1990s, I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.   In contrast to the other models on the market, it works not by slowing down the vibration of the string, but by placement on the most "active" part of the top. Made by Herdim in Germany, it consists of a sprung weight attached to a small piece of wood, and can be used either internally (glued to the inside of the top with a special clamp which works through the soundhole) or externally, by attaching it to the outside of the instrument with two little dabs of blu-tac.

trying out for position on the outisde

Fit & Finish:  This wolf eliminator doesn't sport looks to get excited about, as it was really designed for internal use; in other words, to be invisible.  Having said that, it isn't offensive-looking, either.  As far as ease of use, any player can experiment with the external placement; however, I would recommmend to have the glueing done by a professional.

  Some trial and error is involved in finding the optimal spot for the wolf eliminator.  I typically start by placing it about halfway between the soundhole and the bass bar, a little South of the lowest part of the "ff"s.  I then play the instrument, and move the wolf eliminator East and West to find the place where most of the wolf is gone, but the desirable sound qualities are preserved.  When I have settled on the optimal spot, I mark it with a China Marker.

  Before glueing, it is important to remove all traces of the blu-tac, as the gummy residue prevents the glue from adhering to the wood; and to use padding on the outside so as not to scratch the top with the clamp.

This wolf eliminator typically works well, but does have a couple of drawbacks.  One is that it isn't adjustable -- if your instrument is sensitive to changes in weather, your once-ideal placement might no longer work so well after the seasons change.  I had this experience when I moved from Hong Kong to Minnesota.  I moved, the cello moved, the wolf moved, and the wolf eliminator became ineffective.  Which brings us to the other problem -- once glued, it is a little tricky to remove.

the glueing process

Cost:  At $75.00, plus cost of installation, this puppy doesn't come cheap!

Conclusion:  For a player living in a stable climate, with a stable instrument, this is a good choice -- it is a little fussy to set up, but in my experience, it works really well.  Used externally, it could be a good choice for any player who doesn't object to a little black object sitting on the top of his or her instrument.  I also appreciate the fact that it treats the problem at its source, which means one particular string isn't singled out for damping.

Wolf Eliminators Nos.1 and 2: Generic and Wolf-Be-Gone

About the "Generic":  This is the old workhorse of wolf eliminators.  It has been around for as long as I can remember, and thus deserves a mention.  It basically consists of a rubber inner sleeve with a cut side, to allow the player to slide it onto the string between the bridge and tailpiece; a chrome-plated or gold-plated metal case which fits over the rubber sleeve; a spacer nut, and an adjuster.  The photos show the gradual assembly of a viola wolf eliminator, but the system is the same for violin/viola, cello, or bass.

Fit & Finish:  This type of wolf eliminator is visually rather unassuming, and as someone who often has to fix violin buzzes and rattles, I am reluctant to equip an instrument with anything that has multiple moving parts.  Super-Sensitive have recently come out with a somewhat sleeker model -- the "Wolf-Be-Gone" -- which features a chic, urban, blackened-steel finish and sleeker styling, achieved through elimination of the spacer nut.  This is a relief to me personally as I could never quite figure out what it was good for in the first place.

Price:   As befits a workhorse, the "generic" wolf eliminator is the most inexpensive option on the market.  At House of Note, it retails at $7.50 for the chrome-plated violin/viola model, $10.00 for the gold-plated version; with the cello wolf eliminators running at $11.25 and $13.75 respectively.  The "Wolf-Be-Gone"  is moderately more costly, at $13.00 for violin/viola and $19.49 for cello.

Conclusion:  Unless you are desperately strapped for cash, I don't find anything much to recommend this type of wolf eliminator.  The challenge with on-the-string wolf eliminators is to find the optimal placement, both in terms of which string to put it on and where on the string to place it.  This is another reason I do not like the multiple moving parts --every tiny adjustment of position requires you to loosen the adjuster and spacer, then make sure the inner and outer sleeves are aligned, but in such a way that the "cut" side doesn't overlap, or face the adjuster directly ... there seem to be too many variables, especially considering the more up-to-date models available now.

An Investigation of Wolf Eliminators

Introduction: Most string players, and almost all cellists, are familiar with the problem of the wolf note -- an over-vibration of the top of the instrument which results in notes of certain frequencies "cancelling" themselves out. Even on a well-made instrument, and particularly on cellos, the plates are thin relative to the size of the soundbox (or body).  A wolf note does not, however, mean there are structural difficulties with the instrument -- many of them have survived, wolves intact, for several centuries.
  A wolf tone can manifest in different ways ranging from a hesitancy to respond on a single note (on a full-size cello, it is typically somewhere between the E and F# played in fourth position on the G string) to a "stutter" or interrupted tone on all Es (or Fs) across the strings and positions. Some wolf notes can be played through or around, others are so persistent they create a problem even for accomplished players.
  There have been many attempts to remove or circumvent the problem of wolf tones, and in recent years, several accessory companies have come up with a number of wolf eliminators; to the point where having to choose one can be a bewildering decision to make.  My aim is to make the choice a little easier by presenting the most commonly available examples and sharing what my experience with them has been.
  A note of caution is in order here:  while in most cases, the wolf is the result of a built-in design flaw, it can also be a sign that either the adjustment is faulty in some way (a loose soundpost will often generate a wolf) or that some part of the instrument has come unglued -- it is generally advisable to have your instrument checked over regularly for open seams, a loose neck, etc. 
  Watch this space for my upcoming review of some widely available models of wolf eliminators.

Japanese Bell Cello Endpin Rod

Introduction:  My boss at House of Note recently asked me to audition a cello endpin we had had in stock for a while.  This endpin is made in Japan from metal typically used for casting bells, and while for a time it received some hype, the attendant attention has since died down.

  I tend to be somewhat sceptical of the latest, greatest inventions and my expectation for the endpin rod was thus pretty low.

Fit and Finish: The endpin comes without the shaft (the wooden piece that sits in the endblock of the cello) which, if you are lucky enough to already have a shaft with the correctly sized hole in it, makes installation a piece of cake -- the rods can just be switched out.  At 20 3/4" (53 cm) in length and 5/8" (8.5mm) in diameter, it is pretty typical in size.  The rod is hollow and the finish an unremarkable chrome.

About my experience with the endpin: To establish a base line for the sound,  I first played my cello with its usual endpin, which was made in England by Mark Jackson.  I then switched out the endpins and played the same piece of music, not expecting any change.  I was therefore surprised to find a definite improvement -- not so much in the color or quality of the sound, but in its dimension.  The projection and range seemed considerably bigger than with the English endpin rod.

  I followed my private experiment with a "blind test" involving the members of my quartet -- I didn't tell them what to listen for, or which part of "gear" I was changing.  They immediately picked up on the improvement, which led to my eventually purchasing a bell rod for my own use.

  We also experimented with the bell endpin rod on some instruments at House of Note and noticed a similar enhancement of the sound projection.

Price:  At House of Note, the endpin retails for three hundred dollars, which seems like a lot to spend on a piece of equipment the player never even looks at.  However, this is roughly the amount a good set of strings would set you back, and whereas for a serious and frequent player the string purchase comes around once or twice every year, the Japanese endpin is a once-in-a-lifetime buy. 

Conclusion:  For a professional or serious amateur player, it might be well worth investigating the pruchase of a Japanese Bell endpin rod -- the increase in overtones makes up for the sticker shock!

Guitar Scratch Remover Instrument Polish

Introduction:  As a violin maker, and particularly as a restorer, I am always on the lookout for a good polishing product -- something that gives a good sheen to the varnish, doesn't leave residue, and doesn't harm the original finish.  I was thus quite excited to try out the "Player's Kit Instrument Polish" from Guitar Scratch Remover.  The manufacturer claims that repeated use of this polish will remove even deep scratches and since at House of Note, where I work, we deal with a lot of rental instruments, the idea seemed too good to be true!

About the Player's Kit:  The kit comprises two containers of polishing compounds, labeled "1" and "2" respectively; as well as a thick towel for polishing. There are some instructional videos on the manufacturer's website.

 Useability:  I found the labeling on the containers a little misleading -- No 1, which is pink, is actually the less gritty of the compounds, whereas No 2, which is baby blue and has a lovely almond smell, is somewhat more abrasive.  When I went to the website and watched a few of the videos to find out what order to use the polishes in, however, I found them to be more promotional than informational. 
The towel is quite large and rather shaggy, and while it is very soft, it tends to pick up benchtop debris in the form of shavings and splinters easily -- which makes it somewhat  counterproductive (I don't want to be dragging scratchy pieces of wood over a surface I am trying to restore).

I tried the polish on several instruments, with mixed results.  I used it on a couple of Suzuki violins, from the 1970s and 1980s respectively; on a Reuning & Sons from the 1990s, on an Eastman cello from the 2000s, and on one of my violas.  I tried using the blue compound first, following it with the pink; then I turned the process around.   The best results were achieved with the Suzuki violins -- they came out nice and shiny, although I couldn't detect any improvement in the scratches, even when I applied the process several times.  On the Eastman and the Reuning, the polish left a matte filmy residue which I then had to use another polish to remove.  Again, the scratches were unchanged.  My viola seemed unaffected either way by the treatment.

Conclusion:  This product was designed for use on guitars, and might very well work for use on a synthetic laquer-based finish -- this is probably why results on the more commercial finish of the Suzuki violins were more promising than on the oil and spirit varnishes of the other instruments.  I probably wouldn't be using the polish on a nicer instrument, and I would definitely find a less shaggy cloth to use it with.  However, I did have one great result -- when I tried to to polish out some scratches on the touch screen of my cell phone, they were markedly improved!