Ed, For the 2002 LSA conference with my brand-new homemade lute, I had put Nylgut strings on a day or so before the start of the conference. I was taking the Lute Basics class, and the darned thing wouldn't stay in tune for fifteen minutes. I felt like an idiot. I thought it was me, I thought it was the lute (which meant, of course, that it was still me since I had made the lute). I had no idea what was going on. The lute WAS pretty bad, and I WAS pretty clueless, but towards the end of the conference someone explained to me that Nylgut stretched a lot at first, then settled down. Sure enough, it did (after the conference was over). I suppose that experience has colored my feelings about Nylgut. But there is something very attractive about the sound of gut strings, even on a homemade lute. Unless I find myself traveling with a lute, I suppose I'll stick with gut. The cost is about the same as Nylgut, and I'm not playing enough for the difference in wear to matter. I think the lute I'm building now won't even have wound strings. But I have a lot to learn about the intricacies of Lyon versus Pistoy versus gimped versus catline, etc. strings for the lower courses.
I'm curious, why use nylon for courses 1-3 and Nylgut for courses 4 and 5? Is it the brightness of nylon compared to Nylgut? Tim On Tuesday, January 11, 2005, at 06:05 PM, Edward Martin wrote: > I have quite a bit of experience with Nylugt. It was first introduced > by > Mimmo Peruffo, in an attempt to re-create a synthetic string that is > long > lasting, but similar to gut. Some believe that it does sound like > gut. Because the density is the same, i.e. 1.36, it does have some > similarities with gut, but in my opinion, it does not sound like gut, > because it lacks the "warmth" of real gut. > > I have used Nylgut in the past, but not so much these days. My 8 > course > lute is currently strung in nylon for 1-2, & 3rd courses, & nylgut for > 4 & > 5. I do this because I want at least one lute to be in synthetics. > > Nylgut is very stable, once it stretches. It reportedly has only 10% > of > the water absorption properties of nylon, and therefore, especially in > humid conditions, is VERY stable for keeping a lute in tune. That is > the + > side of it. For the negatives, it does not sound as beautiful as gut. > I > believe it is a polymer. Sort of a liquid, that stretches out. One > interesting thing is that if one puts on a treble size of 0.425, after > 6 > weeks it is about 0.39 mm. in diameter. So, if you use a 0.42 gut, get > 0.44 Nylugt. The same goes for the other strings. If you select 1 > size > higher, it works after the string settles in. It also makes for a > projective, loud sound as compared to gut or nylon. > > Many professional use it. Nigel North is now using it on corses 1-5, > and > for octaves. He gets a good sound from it. > > ed > > >> X-Ironport-AV: i="3.88,116,1102309200"; >> d="scan'208"; a="678036983:sNHT14309454" >> X-RF-Exists: >> X-Mailing-List: [email protected] >> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:33:07 -0500 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> From: "timothy motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: lanolin >> >> Hi Jon, >> I had forgotten that Nylon is a trademark name. So, in the strict >> sense, Nylgut can't be Nylon. My understanding is that it is a >> plastic that has been treated somehow to change the density and make >> it more like gut. As far as I know, there is not any real gut in it. >> It looks and acts different than either standard nylon or gut, >> although it sounds more like gut than does nylon. It stretches a >> whole lot more at first than either nylon or gut, too. I tried it on >> my first lute but decided to go with real gut when I built my present >> lute. The price was about the same, and I liked the sound and feel >> of real gut better. I'm not performing, so the problems that >> lutenists experience with gut on a stage under lights don't affect >> me. And I haven't noticed any wild changes in pitch with weather >> changes. >> >> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> ---- Original Message ---- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: Re: lanolin >>> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:54:49 -0500 >>> >>>> Tim, >>>> >>>> Are you sure Nylgut is still nylon? And I don't quarrel here. As I >>>> understand it Nylgut is a proprietary product of Aquila (Italy?). >>> And as >>>> Nylon is a patented formulation of DuPont the Nylgut must be a >>> different >>>> formulation. >>>> >>>> The question becomes whether Aquila has found a way to integrate the >>> natural >>>> gut fibers into the Nylon formulation, or if they have just found a >>> new >>>> formulation of the plastic. If it were the latter I'd think they >>> would have >>>> left the Nyl out of the name, assuming that DuPont still has the >>> title to >>>> the name. But then again the name might be public domain now and >>> Aquila >>>> using it to bounce off the Nylon reputation. But were I them, and >>> found a >>>> new totally plastic formulation I'd have called it Aquigut, or >>> something. >>>> >>>> As a packrat I keep scraps for whatever, there is a test to try. I >>> don't >>>> have a micro scale for weight/unit (density), but if the Nylgut is >>> absorbant >>>> I should be able to observe that with a micrometer (which I do have) >>> as it >>>> would swell when not under stress. >>>> >>>> A good thinking point Tim, thanks, >>>> >>>> Best, Jon >>>> >>>> BTW, I'm long gone from cracked fingertips and thumbs, I just have >>> to use >>>> them more softly on the strings. the calouses from years of work and >>> play >>>> are so deep that nothing will soften them. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > Edward Martin > 2817 East 2nd Street > Duluth, Minnesota 55812 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > voice: (218) 728-1202 > > > >
