Dear Rob
the implication of smaller holes in the bridge would be either the old
lutenists used a higher tension than we do or the strings they used would
be made of a different material. I've read somewhere in an article guessing
the gut strings would be different from our modern times gut strings
(assuming environmental influences). I think this is somehow plausible but
still guesswork. Or is there evidence for this?
So I would think they used higher tension.
Best wishes
Thomas
"Rob MacKillop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> am 30.01.2005 09:20:54
An: "'Lute net'" <[email protected]>
Kopie:
Thema: RE: Gutsy stories
A luthier once told me that many of the original bridge string holes are
too
small for the diameters we choose for 'modern' gut. Is this true, and if so
what are the implications?
Also, many luthiers drill bridge holes on their instruments for wound
synthetic strings, and when you decide to experiment with gut, you too will
find that the holes are too narrow. On two occasions I have had to have the
holes widened.
There is some connection between these two paragraphs...
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29 January 2005 20:20
To: Michael Thames; LGS-Europe; Lute net; Edward Martin
Subject: Re: Gutsy stories
No argument here. The extended bass length is precisely for that
purpose.......with the longer basses, the required strings will necessarily
require a smaller string diameter. I am uncertain if it gives more volume
and sustain, but for sure, a better clarity of pitch and sound. These
instruments were designed for gut strings.
ed
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
CONFIDENTIALITY : This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and
may be privileged. If you are not a named recipient, please notify the
sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use
it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium.
