Philippe Mottet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think M. Thames is right when he mentions that a bigger opening, a > rosette with a longer diameter and an airy (?) motive, tends to favor bass > and fundamental resonances.
And you, also, would be incorrect. I'm not trying to be mean or rude, you are entitled to believe whatever makes you happy. But unlike some more subjective things, like whether a note is "sparkling" or not, the pitch of the main air resonance of a guitar or lute or violin and what happens to that pitch as you make the hole(s) in the top smaller (it goes down) are objective things that you can easily measure with a simple experiment. They are no more influenced by how you think or feel about them than is the height of the Eiffel tower. As for "this particular rose design causes those particular tonal qualities" - there are just way too many variables involved. Making such a statement on the basis of one or two instruments is nothing more than a superstition. To make any meaningful statement you would have to make two batches of otherwise identical instruments with twodifferent rose patterns and then show that, on average, a pair with different roses had a significant difference in the quality you were testing for compared to a pair with the same rose design. At this point it would be wise to recall a statement attributed to Michael Lowe: "An exact copy of a historical instrument ? I can't even make an exact copy of one of my own instruments." Pendulums ? Divining ? Dowsing? Mysterious Energy ? My contract with the Physicist's Union has a clause limiting the amount of time I have to spend arguing with believers so I will just leave with a single word: "unlikely". .....Bob ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Replies: (remove the "ZZZZ") Ekko Jennings: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bob Clair: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
