Very interesting Martin.
Another aspect is the 'boundary condition' of the vibrating plate
(belly) ie how rigid or inflexible. In short the boundary can be rigid
but the plate still flerxible.
Simple theoretical considerations (your 'intuitive physics' - a phrase
I like) might suggest that if we wish as much energy as possible to be
communicated to the belly (and not 'wasted' on setting the sides in
motion) then a very rigid boundary to the vibrating plate (in this case
the belly to side joint) is preferable. It's interesting that as the
lute journeyed through the 17th and into the 18th centuries, outer
edging/ 'liners' were increasingly employed - perhaps mostly to
protect the delicate edges but maybe also to make the boundary more
rigid. Theorbos often had such from the earliest days.
But I guess that the 'quality' of the sound (timbre) is of more subtle
origins than the 'quantity' (volume/sustain) and this accounts to an
extent for the fame of certain makers. I mean, whilst no doubt sheer
volume is vital for an accompanying instrument such as theorbo perhaps
it was (and maybe ought to be) of less importance for the solo lute,
in particular when played to a few or oneself in a small chamber.
Martyn
__________________________________________________________________
From: Martin Shepherd <mar...@luteshop.co.uk>
To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2014, 15:37
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Single versus triple roses
I fear there is a natural tendency to think of the rose as the hole
that
"lets the sound out", but I think this is a case where intuitive
physics
lets us down. The size of the opening affects the natural resonant
frequency of the body, with a smaller opening giving a lower frequency.
But I invite all you proper physicists out there to explain why!
A more complex issue, but one which is related in that it also involves
a mismatch between intuitive physics and the real thing: many people
seem to believe that the lute soundboard should be flexible to "allow
it
to vibrate", and that the more flexible it is the better the bass
response. In fact I think - please contradict me if I'm wrong - that
the frequencies which we are interested in are far too high to be aided
by a floppy soundboard, which is more likely to have a damping effect.
As far as I can see, a relatively rigid soundboard is going to produce
a
more sustained sound. The most important factor is the mass, which
must
be kept as small as possible so it can be activated by a small input of
energy - hence the rather thin soundboards (supported by many bars to
retain sufficient rigidity) required by lutes.
Martin
On 23/11/2014 16:07, BENJAMIN NARVEY wrote:
> Dear All,
> Just wondering if any of you (especially the makers out there)
have
> thoughts about the projection of single versus triple roses.
> I have had many lutes/theorboes with both single and triple roses
over
> the years, and I have always felt that triple roses helped make
more
> sound, and that single roses made possibly more focussed, but more
> "woody", interior, sounds. Perhaps I am wrong?A
> All thoughts welcome.
> All best,
> And thanks,
> Benjamin
>
> --
>
> [1]www.luthiste.com
> t +33 (0) 6 71 79 98 98
>
> --
>
> References
>
> 1. [1]http://www.luthiste.com/
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
[3]http://www.avast.com
--
References
1. http://www.luthiste.com/
2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
3. http://www.avast.com/
