Martyn Hodgson
Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:27:56 -0700
--- On Sun, 8/6/08, Anthony Hind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Anthony Hind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: [LUTE] Re: Double headed 12c/loaded/Demi-filé > To: "Jarosław Lipski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]>, "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Date: Sunday, 8 June, 2008, 3:09 PM > Jaroslaw and Martyn > I believe the difference in calculation comes from Martyn > using a > stiffish high twist (rather than a rope). This can possibly > be pushed > through quite a narrow hole, where a flexible rope would > not go through. > Mimmo is taking the calculation for a rope diameter as > being 80% of > the size of the hole, as Segerman seems to have said. > Perhaps, > Segerman's ropes at that time were unsmoothed, perhaps > not. > Then, we know that ropes have a higher degree of flexibity > than stiff > gut. Thus when you raise the rope up to tension, it will > become > thinner than its original size. So it will be thinner than > 80%, > perhaps around 70% to 75% (if it began at 80% of the size > of the lute > hole). > > Now, this would be what would happen, with the type of > stringing that > Satoh uses (Pistoys). However, Martyn seems to be using a > stiff gut > high twist of 1,4 that he thinks will go through a hole of > 1,5mm. > Have you actually tried that Martyn? Yes, I've explained previously how hole sizes are often measured (eg by inserting known diameters -often a drill bit), so a hole measuring 1.5mm by this method is certainly at least 1.5 and will indeed take a 1.4mm string (if uniform diameter and stiffish) - the trick is to also rotate when putting in - so that it's not the higher static coefficient of friction which is acting. Now according to > Charles > Besnainou, inharmonicity is caused by the stiffness of the > string at > the bridge and the nut. I simplify, but the sound waves > encounter the > greater stiffness at the nut and bridge end, and some wave > forms are > returned out of phase, and these partially cancel the > initiating wave > form (particularly the high frequencies) givin > inharmonicity. > > If the high twist and the rope are at normal high tension, > the result > will be far worse for the hightwist, as it will be stiffer. > However, > perhaps you can lower the tension more on a high twist, > before it > loses its ability to vibrate. > As you lower the tension, so the stiffness will presumably > decrease > at the nut and the bridge. Perhaps at a very low tension > this means > that the hightwist is not so inharmonic as it was > previously. Indeed, the inharmonicity is less (as Segerman in fact demonstrated many years ago) MH > > This sort of thing can be measured. I will ask Charles > whether he has > done comparative studies of such strings at lower tensions. > > Martyn, what is the sound like of your high twist at 1,5Kg? > Does it > sound good. Could you make a recording for us? Have you > actually > tried using a 1,4 string with a 1,5 hole? I think you mistake my position if you think I'm uncritically advocating this sort of stringing, I merely wish to draw attention to it as an option to loaded and which can perhaps too easily be overlooked (some others have also made the same point). I have, however, strung a trial lute this way (a 9 course at 64cm in the old tuning C D F G c f a d g with the 9th down to C at A415). I'm not wholly satisfied with the result but this may well be because I devote insufficient continuous time to developing the necessary low tension technique (v close to bridge etc) since I use more 'normal' tensions for concert (ie mostly continuo) work. In fact my subjective preference continues to lean towards loaded basses but, as said, I think it important that we try to explore all reasonable avenues. MH PS I have no recording facilities! > More importantly, even if this CAN be done, is it > comfortable? Is it > hard to push the string through (even if it is possible)? > Would you > want to do that each time you put a string on your lute? > If this is not the case why did they not make slightly > larger holes? > > Have I in any way twisted your hypothesis. I tried to state > what I > understand, and the possible consequences. Please let us > know your > thoughts. > Anthony > > > Le 8 juin 08 à 15:35, Jarosław Lipski a écrit : > > > > > Hi Martyn, > > I just talked to Mimmo. He explained that the tension > of 0.9 till > > 1.2 Kg > > came out from mathematical calculations made by > Ephraim Segerman > > considering > > the bridge holes of surviving lutes. He calculated > some 1.2 till > > 1.5 Kg. but > > this was made considered the density of a low twist > gut (that > > unstretched at > > all). He made new calculations considering the only > alternative to the > > loading of a gut that is stretchable and less dens > roped string. > > This is why > > tension would be around 1 Kg each bass string on such > historical > > lutes. > > Best > > Jaroslaw > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martyn Hodgson > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:45 PM > > To: 'Lute'; Jarosław Lipski > > Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: [LUTE] Re: [LUTE] Re: Double > headed > > 12c/loaded/Demi-filé > > > > > > I don't know where Mimmo gets the tension of 0.9 - > 1.0Kg from, but > > as an > > example: take a Dm tuned lute at 68cm (with top course > f' tuned as > > reasonably high as it will go without excessive > breakages allows a > > pitch of > > A415) with a bass string hole allowing a max string of > diameter of > > 1.4mm > > gives a string tension of around 1.45Kg. > > > > MH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html