Great as a starting place. Now I'm still just studying physics on these animals, but it seems to me that a chien would be most responsive when it is placed so that it contacts the wheel just above the horizontal center at rest, but that it would be most consistent placed some distance higher on the arc.
If 14 cm (about 5.5 inches give or take?) would be the practical limit of a solid wheel, then in order to get 2 chanters, 2 drones and a trompette the wheel would have to be mounted with the bearings very close to the soundboard (to give enough room for everything - 2 inches or so gets eaten up very quickly). Would there every have been a situation where the bearings and shaft were mounted above the soundboard? Just trying to get some more practical guidelines. Thanks Chris Nogy *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 2/3/2007 at 7:14 PM Arle Lommel wrote: >Chris, > >> For example, I know that at that time music was becoming more >> entertainment, more secular. Would this indicate the wheel size >> and crank size would be getting bigger so that players could play >> longer, or the wheel size and crank size getting smaller so that >> players could play more brightly and lively? > >Rather the opposite is true. If you want to play longer, a smaller >wheel with a short crank is an advantage because it minimizes the >movement of the hand and wrist. The Hungarian instruments have quite >small wheels and cranks, and if players really want to do the >historically accurate thing of playing three-hour csárdás sets, they >actually get special shorter cranks to do just that. > >In any event, until multiple-ply wheels were in use, your practical >limit for wheel size would be not much more than 14 cm, so in the >early periods you are talking about you wouldn't find large wheels at >all. > >Best, > >Arle
