I don't think I disagree Martyn, you say "Martin's practice of thinning
at the bridge is probably to allow the string there to vibrate around
a clean take off point thus minimising frequency absorption (ie
damping)", I have used the expression "lowering impedance", ie
minimising resistance to vibration, or as you prefer, "minimising
damping" (I was only referring to this marginal effect of whittling
down) and not suggesting the characteristics of the string as whole are
not more important.
I was actually thinking that whittling down a KF string had a similar
effect to passing only one element of a twine through the bridge hole,
as Charles Besnainou does with his air core "polyethylene" (or similar)
twine strings. Of course it is the air core structure that makes that
string exceptionally low impedance, the passing of only one element of
the twine through the bridge just further lowers the impedance.
Similarly the use of a relatively high density KF string should reduce
impedance compared to a lower density HT gut diapason, the whittling
down further lowers resistance (or damping) I would not contest that.
Always a pleasure to discuss these string issues with you,
Best wishes
Anthony
[1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Le samedi, février 4, 2017, 10:05 AM, Martyn Hodgson
<hodgsonmar...@cs.dartmouth.edu> a écrit :
Thinning of a string will, of course, affect its flexibility where
the
thinning occurs but the state of the remainder of the string (ie the
vast majority of it) remains unchanged and it is this which
principally
produces the sound and thus the quality. As remarked earlier,
thinning
at the bridge does have a benefit of reducing loss at this point by
making a more focused take off point rather than one where the string
can move significantly in the shallower groove produced by a thicker
string.
Thus, as we might expect and, indeed, experience the material
make-up of the totality of the string is what largely produces the
sound we hear - hence, for example, why loaded gut produces a more
satisfactory bass than plain gut.
regards
Martyn
__________________________________________________________________
From: Anthony Hind <[2]agno3ph...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
To: Martyn Hodgson <[3]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>; Martin Shepherd
<[4]mar...@luteshop.co.uk>; "[5]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
<[6]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2017, 20:45
Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE]
Baroque
Lute Stringing
Apologies for allowing the incomplete message to shoot forth
Dear Martyn
I tend to see methods for reducing the inharmonicity of a
string
as simply ways of lowering its impedance to bending while
maintaining
its weight: either a) by increasing its elasticity or b) by
improving
its flexibility (bendability) through keeping it as thin as
possible
for the same weight (particularly near the fixed points from which
it
moves). I see loading and thinning at the bridge as similar
processes
of type b; while i agree there are many other factors which also
effect
the way a string resonates.
Of course these are merely layman's weak metaphors for which I
also
apologise.
Best wishes
Anthony
[1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Le vendredi, fà ©vrier 3, 2017, 4:52 PM, Martyn Hodgson
<[1][7]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> a à ©crit :
Dear Anthony,
I may well have misunderstood the point you make
'and the extra diameter beyond the bridge behaving similarly to
loading, but as though the loading were more of the same material'
- surely the physical characteristics of a string largely determine
the
sound - else why bother?
Martin's practice of thinning at the bridge is probably to allow
the
string there to vibrate around a clean take off point thus
minimising
frequency absorption (ie damping) and, as Martin said, to avoid
the
thickish string buzzing against the bridge. This is not, of
course,
to
say that the rest of the physical characteristics of the string are
immaterial! The characteristics of the string and hence sound are
determined by the totality of the vibrating length and thus the
material, its dimensions its elasticity, stiffness, etc. Otherwise
one
might as well make a string out of anything and it would sound the
same
if the bridge thinning were identical ......
regards
Martyn
__________________________________________________________________
From: Martin Shepherd <[2][8]mar...@luteshop.co.uk>
To: Anthony Hind <[3][9]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>; JarosÃaw Lipski
<[4][10]jaroslawlip...@wp.pl>;
"[5][11]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
<[6][12]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2017, 15:35
Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Baroque Lute Stringing
Thinning the string probably does weaken it, but since the
strings
in
question are way below their breaking strain that would never be
a
problem. I have not tried thinning at the nut, but I suspect if
it
could be done it might improve the sound still further. There is
something to be said for thinning them where they go through the
hole
in the peg, allowing a smaller hole to be used and also making it
easier to persuade the string to bend around the peg.
Martin
On 03/02/2017 15:45, Anthony Hind wrote:
By thinning them at the bridge, Martin, I suppose this allows
the
diapason to be "seen" (as it were) at the bridge as a thinish
loaded
string. The effective resonating diameter being that passing
through
the hole and the extra diameter beyond the bridge behaving
similarly
to loading, but as though the loading were more of the same
material
(albeit with a brake on the harmonicity where the whole string
psses
over the nut)? Does the whittling down weaken the string? Could
you
also thin it at the nut?
Best wishes
Anthony
[1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Le vendredi, fà ©vrier 3, 2017, 2:00 PM, Martin Shepherd
[2]<[2][7][13]mar...@luteshop.co.uk> a à ©crit :
Just to explain:
When I said roped strings were dull compared to plain gut I was
talking
only about relatively thin strings, say .80-.90mm.
For the KF strings, the high tensions which many people want to
use
will
not work because the thicker KF strings are really too thick and
stiff
to work. On the 11th course of an 11c lute I would use nothing
larger
than 1.50mm (actual diameter). I'm using .95 for the 6th course.
Another factor with KF strings is the importance of thinning them
where
they go through the bridge and wrap over themselves in front of
the
bridge. If you don't do this, the sound will be dull and you
will
probably get problems with the strings buzzing against the top of
the
bridge.
Martin
On 03/02/2017 11:39, JarosÃaw Lipski wrote:
> Mimmo,
>
>> You experience is that a roped string is duller than a plain
gut?
I
have the contrary. Maybe it is necessary to know how the roped
string
was done. Mine is a roped string made with two fresh 'brins'
twisted
like as rope and then polished. In practice our Venices.
> Yes, I use your Venice roped strings and can confirm this. They
are
brighter than plain gut
>
>> I would like to buy some KF strings just to do a comparation:
> I have both KFs and your CDs and compared them side to side.
KFs
have
shorter sustain, are more percussive and à ¢ ¦slightly duller
sound
IMO.
KFs work well till 11th course on BQL. I don't like them on
diapasons.
CDs have stronger fundamental, longer sustain (much longer than
guts)
and work very well on diapasons, however their elasticity make
them
work only on instruments with higher than normal action and wide
string
spacing. Also tuning is not ideal.
>
>> Heck, guys, what to do? first or second option?
>> At present the second option is the winner!
> Now, the question is what is your goal in making CD strings. If
you
aim at finding a substitute for gut strings than stiffer strings
would
be better. I am used to gut basses so I like short sustain and a
little
bit stiffer string. If someone played only overwounds he/she
would
probably prefer longer sustain. So the answer to your question
will
depend on whom you'll ask.
> All in all there is no one answer to this question, and
probably
you
would have to take into consideration your business strategy.
> Best
> Ciao
>
> Jaroslaw
>
>
>
>
>> ciao to all
>> Mimmo
>>
>> -----Messaggio originale----- From: Martin Shepherd
>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:22 AM
>> To: Mimmo Peruffo ; Matthew Daillie
>> Cc: Arto Wikla ; [3][3][8][14]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
>> Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Baroque Lute Stringing
>>
>> Thanks, Mimmo.
>>
>> I agree absolutely that there is no need to make versions of
these
>> strings thinner than .80mm.
>>
>> The issue of damping is perhaps the one which worries me most.
In
the
>> case of roped strings, they sound duller than a plain gut
string
of
the
>> same size, presumably because of internal friction between the
strands
>> of the rope. In the case of rubber strings (sorry!) what
worries
me
is
>> that some damping/absorption of energy is happening as the
string
>> stretches and contracts with each vibration. The KF
fluorocarbon
>> strings, being solid and stiff, have neither of these damping
effects.
>> I can imagine that a string which was "floppy" but not
especially
>> elastic would work well.
>>
>> I hope that a lower rubber content would allow the strings to
slide
>> better over the nut, which would also be a welcome
characteristic.
>>
>> Best to all,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> On 03/02/2017 10:09, Mimmo Peruffo wrote:
>>> Thank you very much about all these helpfull suggestions,
guys.
>>>
>>> actually the gauges from 80 CD till 105CD are made half
loaded
using also a stiffer elastomer. This combination is perfect fo
the
tonl trasiction betweenj pure gut/nylon/Nylgut to a wound
strings,
KF
or CDs etc etc.
>>> I call this range of gauges simply as Meanes. they are still
CD
types however.
>>> In practice they are around the 5th course of renaissance &
d
minor Lutes.
>>> I have intentionally exluded the 4th courses because make
not
sense at all to use a denser strings on it. The 80 CD is just
done
for
those that are curious.
>>>
>>> well, I done the very first prototypes (than cannot be
perfect)
and
sent out to some friends to hear their opinions: of course, some
of
them were uneven. Despite that I had very good reports.
>>> Some installed them also like octaves (!): I never realized
that
additional option. However, I do not raccomend. Octaves normally
can
works at higher working index than a 5 th course; so they can
breack.
>>>
>>> said that, I agree with you Matthew. thanks
>>>
>>> Martin, a stiffer string has an higher elasticity modulus so
the
performances are less good than those of an equivalent string
with
more elasticity. You probably reffers to the KF strings. However
there
are others parameters at work here, for example the inner damping
effect is one of them, and it is not related to the elasticity
modulus. This explain for example why a special kind of nylon,
whose
density is far less than fluorocarbon sound like this one. It was
a
huge surprise to me!
>>>
>>> I am thinking that you guys prefer the second option. To me
is
even better, it help to solve some problem becausew they sometime
stick
on the nut slots/ grooves.
>>>
>>> False strings? yes, with prototypes can happen. when one
start
with the ufficial production an extruder plant work exatly in
the
same
even way. The first strings are the waste and then the rest are
done
exactly in the same way.
>>> well, I am leaving italy to London so I have not time to re
start;
I will do some samples both for meanes and basses just to see if
they
actually works in the proper way
>>> Be patient again; i cannot be too fast here.
>>> Mimmo
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Messaggio originale----- From: Martin Shepherd
>>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 9:35 AM
>>> To: Matthew Daillie ; Mimmo Peruffo
>>> Cc: Arto Wikla ; [4][4][9][15]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Baroque Lute Stringing
>>>
>>> Tout à fait d'accord, Matthew.
>>>
>>> I would add that "trueness" is not just a question of
intonation
when
>>> notes are fretted. A false string never sounds in tune even
as
an
open
>>> string, and the pattern of vibration makes it buzz against
the
frets.
>>> If your string heights are high enough that this isn't a
problem,
>>> they're too high.
>>>
>>> I don't know whether the samples I had from Mimmo some time
ago
are
the
>>> same as the current production, but I thought they were too
elastic. He
>>> did say he was going to make a less elastic version for the
thinner
>>> strings, but I don't know whether he's implemented this idea
or
not
(can
>>> you tell us, Mimmo?). I'm slightly puzzled by the suggestion
that
the
>>> less elastic version would have a duller or darker sound, I
would
almost
>>> expect the opposite - as a comparison, the KF strings are
very
stiff but
>>> sound bright.
>>>
>>> It would be such a shame if after all his efforts we end up
with
a
>>> string which is not as good as the old loaded gut. Actually
the
new
>>> string needs to be better than that in terms of trueness.
>>>
>>> Best wishes to all,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 03/02/2017 09:06, Matthew Daillie wrote:
>>>> Dear Mimmo,
>>>> In my opinion there are two factors which need to be given
priority even before judging the sound of a string. Firstly it
has
to
be true (with no problems of intonation going up the fingerboard
for
stopped strings) and secondly it has to be playable: on a
well-made
and
well set up lute, it must not catch on the nut, buzz, hit a
neighbouring string, hit against the fingerboard, or cause any
other
extraneous noises. If a string has the potential to sound
wonderful
but
does not meet these two criteria, then it is of no use
whatsoever.
>>>> Once that is established, obviously players want a string
with
a
full-bodied and stable tone, enough sustain to make voice-leading
a
pleasure and the instrument to sing to the best of its ability
and
sufficient power to provide convincing projection and resonance.
>>>> Personally I am looking for a warm and sweet tone with
precise
fundamentals and enough overtones to make the timbre rich and
variable.
>>>> Oh dear, that does sound like a holy grail doesn't it?
>>>> Fingers crossed!
>>>> Best
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 8:29, Mimmo Peruffo
<[5][5][10][16]mperu...@aquilacorde.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for the suggestion Arto.
>>>>> Unfortunately i cannot do it
>>>>> I already image how confuse the thing will be with the
customers.
>>>>> This mean the eford to mannage twice products and
honestly
I
do not
>>>>> like to add cofusion in the factory and with customers
already
stressed
>>>>> by me!
>>>>>
>>>>> I should do a choice and in fast time: is it better a
more
elastic
>>>>> string like these are (whith problems related to the
fact
that
maybe
>>>>> stretch tooo much and that the sound is too bright) or
it
is
better to
>>>>> switch to a less elastic plastic support with the
advantage
that it
>>>>> stretch less, the sound is darker and with less sustain?
>>>>> Hard to do the choice: both solutions are ok; i already
tried
the
>>>>> second option that is similar to the loaded gut strings
>>>>> Even Anthony Bailes suggested me the second option.
>>>>>
>>>>> Strings or not to strings? this is the question
>>>>>
>>>>> ah ah
>>>>> (my poor english at work)
>>>>> Ciao
>>>>> Mimmo
>>>>>
>>>>> ps
>>>>> which are your suggestion guys?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>>>>> From: Arto Wikla
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 9:46 PM
>>>>> To: Mimmo Peruffo ;
[6][6][11][17]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
>>>>> Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Baroque Lute Stringing
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mimmo,
>>>>>
>>>>> if you decide to make the loaded nylgut strings (CD)
less
elastic, I
>>>>> hope (and wish and urge ;-) ) that you keep also the
original
elastic
>>>>> version in your repertoire! They work exceptionally well
on
my
Harz
>>>>> arclute, great stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> And big thanks for your invaluable work!
>>>>>
>>>>> Arto
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/02/17 14:03, Mimmo Peruffo wrote:
>>>>>> Well, seeing this post I have the idea to switch to these
stiffer
>>>>> ones.
>>>>>> at the end of the day they are closer to those loaded
strings
made of
>>>>> gut.
>>>>>> I will do some samples in advance.
>>>>>> Mimmo
>>>>>
>>>>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>>>>
[7][7][12][18]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
>>> [8][8][13][19]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
>> [9][9][14][20]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
[10][10][15][21]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
__________________________________________________________________
[11]Avast logo
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
[12]www.avast.com
--
References
1. [11][16][22]https://yho.com/footer0
2. mailto:[12][17][23]mar...@luteshop.co.uk
3. javascript:return
4. javascript:return
5. javascript:return
6. javascript:return
7.
[13][18][24]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
8. [14][19][25]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
9. [15][20][26]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
10. [16][21][27]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
11. [17][22][28]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
12. [18][23][29]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
References
1. [24][30]https://yho.com/footer0
2. javascript:return
3. javascript:return
4. javascript:return
5. javascript:return
6. javascript:return
7. [25][31]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
8. [26][32]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
9. [27][33]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
10. [28][34]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
11. [29][35]https://yho.com/footer0
12. javascript:return
13. [30][36]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
14. [31][37]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
15. [32][38]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
16. [33][39]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
17. [34][40]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
18. [35][41]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
References
1. mailto:[42]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
2. mailto:[43]mar...@luteshop.co.uk
3. mailto:[44]agno3ph...@yahoo.com
4. mailto:[45]jaroslawlip...@wp.pl
5. mailto:[46]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
6. mailto:[47]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
7. mailto:[48]mar...@luteshop.co.uk
8. mailto:[49]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
9. mailto:[50]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
10. mailto:[51]mperu...@aquilacorde.com
11. mailto:[52]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
12. [53]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
13. [54]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
14. [55]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
15. [56]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
16. [57]https://yho.com/footer0
17. mailto:[58]mar...@luteshop.co.uk
18. [59]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
19. [60]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
20. [61]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
21. [62]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
22. [63]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
23. [64]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
24. [65]https://yho.com/footer0
25. [66]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
26. [67]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
27. [68]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
28. [69]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
29. [70]https://yho.com/footer0
30. [71]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
31. [72]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
32. [73]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
33. [74]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
34. [75]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
35. [76]https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
References
1. https://yho.com/footer0
2. javascript:return
3. javascript:return
4. javascript:return
5. javascript:return
6. javascript:return
7. javascript:return
8. javascript:return
9. javascript:return
10. javascript:return
11. javascript:return
12. javascript:return
13. javascript:return
14. javascript:return
15. javascript:return
16. javascript:return
17. javascript:return
18. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
19. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
20. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
21. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
22. https://yho.com/footer0
23. javascript:return
24. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
25. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
26. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
27. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
28. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
29. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
30. https://yho.com/footer0
31. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
32. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
33. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
34. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
35. https://yho.com/footer0
36. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
37. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
38. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
39. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
40. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
41. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
42. javascript:return
43. javascript:return
44. javascript:return
45. javascript:return
46. javascript:return
47. javascript:return
48. javascript:return
49. javascript:return
50. javascript:return
51. javascript:return
52. javascript:return
53. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
54. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
55. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
56. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
57. https://yho.com/footer0
58. javascript:return
59. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
60. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
61. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
62. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
63. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
64. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
65. https://yho.com/footer0
66. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
67. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
68. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
69. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
70. https://yho.com/footer0
71. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
72. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
73. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
74. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
75. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
76. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
