Anthony Hind
Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:27:01 -0700
Thanks Martyn for these precisions.It seems a fair point to say that technique has to adapt to a string type. Indeed loaded strings also call for a change in technique. I have found that even with the loaded string on my 7c, very much as people have been saying of low tension strings, I need to move my thumb a little further back to have more control on the movement of this string. That is probably because the thin Venice core remains quite stretchy. It is not what I would call Baroque thumb-out (the little finger for the moment has not moved very far back), but the thumb itself seems to go further back away from the index, which is not quite so able to follow.
This could perhaps become more extreme if I add a 6th loaded course.You are right the question has to remain open, as to whether it is possible to obtain an acceptable sound with a high twist and 1K5, until someone is seriously willing to give it a go, as Satoh did for the higher tension Pistoy (However, Satoh's tension is far above what we are discussing, here, I believe.)
Like yourself, I think no avenue of research should be closed until it is shown to be an impasse. Some directions do seem more promising than others, and I think it is perfectly normal that we draw attention to the huge work that Mimmo has achieved recently (not just on the loaded string issue, by the way). However, many people did predict that it was actually impossible to achieve a good loaded string, with an even spread of the load. This would either have meant that lutists in the past put up with quite untrue strings, or that the technology would have been quickly abandoned, if it had ever tried. Mimmo kept at this issue for the last 25 years and finally seems to have discovered how to obtain this.
Again, it is not because Mimmo has made this break through that we can necessarily conclude that it already occurred before, but it does open a door (as it were), and whether or not lutists believe this technology was historic, the loaded string is now available, perhaps, I can say timidly, once again; but I will be cautious
and just leave it at, available.I hope other string makers, including those who feel they have good reason for sticking to high-twist, or ropes, or whatever, will feel free to talk about their point of view, without feeling it is necessary to ignore the work of others. Robust debate and even polemic discussion can lead to clarification of all views, and a better understanding as the dust settles. At least I hope so.
Regards Anthony Le 8 juin 08 à 17:26, Martyn Hodgson a écrit :
--- 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 toCharles 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) MHThis 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. MHPS 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 tensionof 0.9 till1.2 Kg came out from mathematical calculations made byEphraim Segermanconsidering the bridge holes of surviving lutes. He calculatedsome 1.2 till1.5 Kg. but this was made considered the density of a low twistgut (thatunstretched at all). He made new calculations considering the onlyalternative to theloading of a gut that is stretchable and less densroped string.This is why tension would be around 1 Kg each bass string on suchhistoricallutes. 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: Doubleheaded12c/loaded/Demi-filé I don't know where Mimmo gets the tension of 0.9 -1.0Kg from, butas an example: take a Dm tuned lute at 68cm (with top coursef' tuned asreasonably high as it will go without excessivebreakages allows apitch of A415) with a bass string hole allowing a max string ofdiameter of1.4mm 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