Well, as I frequently do, I got the string question wrong. I  
concluded from Leonard's explanation that, as both stiffness and  
thickness in a string effects its fundamental length (by shortening  
it effectively), this was the reason why top thin strings were made  
stiff and low thick diapasons made flexible. I was following his  
correct logic too closely.

Mimmo Peruffo explains (as you all probably realise, and so did I,  
but in the heat of the reasoning forgot) it is simply that :

"The material being the same, elasticity and resistance are inversely  
proportional and that is why it is not possible to use  high twist  
strings as trebles, since they would easily break.

Low twist strings are best suited for Trebles - but not best suited  
for the mid-register strings, where the acoustic performance would be  
impoverished. "

http://www.aquilacorde.com/faqi.htm
Regards
Anthony



Le 20 août 07 à 11:48, Anthony Hind a écrit :

>
> Le 19 aout 07 =E0 18:45, Edward Martin a ecrit :
>
>> Yes, that is the idea.  If a stiffer string vibrates less at the
>> nut & bridge, it will be in effect to the sound, a shorter string.
>> So, if you tune it in the open position, it will be true, but in
>> fingering it up the frets, it will in effect be false.
>>
>> ed
>
>> As soon as you add thickness (and stiffness) to the string the
>> situation changes because
>> the string cannot make the necessary sharp bends at nut and bridge
>> that
>> would make the _actual_ vibrating length equal to the mensur.  The
>> stiffer/thicker the string, the more pronounced the effect:  the
>> treble g
>> will have a longer vibrating length than the heavier bass g.
>> Leonard
>
> Octave anomaly
>
>   Just considering the flexibility question, at first I thought I had
> understood. I began by saying,
>
> "Right, I now understand why it is that my lutemaker advised a
> hightwist octave alongside the very high twist Pistoy on the 6th:
> obviously, to have as close an effective fundamental length on both
> as possible."
>
> but this should not be true, if we take the difference in thinness
> into account. As the octave is thinner than its diapason (and
> therefore effectively longer), we should need to compensate by having
> a stiffer octave (thus effectively shortening it) and a more flexible
> diapason (thus effectively lengthening it).  I now suppose that the
> high twist is needed on the octave for some other reason; or that
> high twist is sufficiently stiff in relation to the very flexible
> Pistoy to compensate sufficiently.
>
> I suppose as all this is mainly relevant for fundamental in-tuneness,
> it will be more noticeable with two strings tuned identically
> (octave, unison), but it must be potentially audible, also, as seems
> to be implied by Leonard, to a lesser extent across courses.
>
> If all strings were of equal stiffness and thickness, then it would
> be possible to compensate exactly for the  effective fundamental
> length of all the strings of each course equally at the frets. As the
> frets are more or less at 90=B0 to the fingerboard, it is difficult to
> compensate for varying effective fundamental lengths.
>
> I suppose lute stringers have to play on both factors (flexibility,
> and thickness) to try to even things out at the frets. Thus at the
> extremes, at the top string, we would need as stiff (effectively
> short) a treble as possible to compensate for its thinness (which
> makes it effectively longer), while for the lowest diapason, which is
> thick (and therefore effectively shorter) we would need as much
> flexibility to compensate in the opposite direction. Unless this is
> only really audible on the same course, or I have missed something.
>
> Obviously other factors play a role in the string's sound other than
> in-tuneness. Thus it would not necessarily be true, say, that, a
> Kurschner top string is better than a Baldock, simply because the
> Kurschner is stiffer, even if both are made from gut.
>
> This does, I think, explain to me the question raised, and finally
> answered by Leonard Williams on "Octave anomaly"; but it does not
> really account for my problem of the buzz on the 4th course unison
> strings.
>
> BUZZ on the 4th
> Why should two lowish twist strings on the 4th in unison buzz when
> fretted or not, while two very hightwist, and flexible strings not do
> so.
>
> The old diagrams of bad strings show us that the harmonic behaviour
> of a string is just as important as is the fundamental. Might it not
> be true that treble twist (Pistoy) and double twist, (Venice) tend to
> have better behaviour at that harmonic level, than do lower twist
> strings (stiffer strings) and that this might afford an explanation,
> here?
>
> Or could the elasticity of the more flexible string also cause it to
> become effectively thinner than the stiffer string when it comes up
> to pitch?
>
> Sorry, I am afraid this is rather laborious, but I do like to
> understand. I know usually we can look to our string maker or lute
> maker to solve this sort of problem, and just get on with playing our
> lutes. I am off to do so now ...
> Regards
> Anthony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> At 05:48 PM 8/19/2007 +0200, you wrote:
>>> Hello Ed
>>>         I think I undesrtood that if a string is very stiff, the
>>> first part,
>>> in contact with the bridge, or nut will act ever-so-slightly, as a
>>> continuation of the bridge or nut. Thus it would resonate as though
>>> it was shorter than it in fact is.
>>>
>>> I think the physics must be more complex than that, but that was  
>>> what
>>> I understood.
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>> Le 19 aout 07 =E0 17:18, Edward Martin a ecrit :
>>>
>>>> Hello, Anthony.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks you for your message.  You are correct, in that the Pistoy
>>>> cannot be made for a course smaller that the 5th, because of the
>>>> triple strands.  In terms of the vibrating string length, Leonard
>>>> explained it better than I can.  If the string is true and very
>>>> flexible, the intonation is usually much more accurate than a
>>>> stiffer gut string.
>>>>
>>>> ed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 11:04 AM 8/19/2007 +0200, Anthony Hind wrote:
>>>>> Hello Ed
>>>>>         You are no doubt right, as Venice are supposed to be  
>>>>> double
>>>>> direction twist (not triple); but in their "blurb" they claim they
>>>>> are the most flexible string on the market, as they explain, here:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Venice strings possess a remarkable degree of elasticity and
>>>>> pliability, superior to any strings currently on the market. This
>>>>> means a surprisingly ready attack and good richness in upper
>>>>> overtones."http://www.aquilacorde.com/catalogo4.htm
>>>>>>> However, I am not sure I understand the physics of what you tell
>>>>>>> me,  "stiffness makes the vibrating portion of the string in
>>>>> effect
>>>>> shorter, therefore pitch problems can occur.  This is why the
>>>>> Pistoy
>>>>> works the best, due to its flexibility." and also "That is why  
>>>>> they
>>>>> intonate so well, because the vibrating aspect of the string is
>>>>> from
>>>>> the nut to the bridge, not in effect a shorter distance."
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought all strings vibrate in a complex manner, from the nut to
>>>>> the bridge, but also at multiples of this measure (half the  
>>>>> string,
>>>>> quarter of the string, etc).
>>>>> Indeed, Aquila claim (see above) that Venice being very flexible
>>>>> allow for rich high frequency harmonics to develop. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, I imagined that the stiffer the string, the less these
>>>>> harmonics are allowed to develop.
>>>>> I understood that was the same logic as explained by Martin
>>>>> Shepherd
>>>>> in relation to low tension strings (ie the lower the tension of a
>>>>> given string, the greater its flexibility and the richer its
>>>>> harmonics). I imagined that reaching a certain critical
>>>>> stiffness the
>>>>> string would almost only vibrate along its full length, with all
>>>>> the
>>>>> in between harmonics damped out, and only the full length
>>>>> vibrating.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am no specialist in physics, so I may well be using my
>>>>> imagination
>>>>> too much.
>>>>> Now, if a stiffer string is more likely to be untrue than a
>>>>> flexible
>>>>> one, could that be due to the fact that the stiffness, and
>>>>> thickness
>>>>> can never be homogenous, and so some parts of the string may more
>>>>> freely be resonating, while at some other part of the string, the
>>>>> harmonic is partly damped.
>>>>> Thus we have the same string vibrating in different modes (as  
>>>>> shown
>>>>> in some old treatise on string choice), and as the pair might be
>>>>> vibrating in quite a different pattern the buzz problem could
>>>>> occur.
>>>>> This would be most problematic on the 4th, as these strings are
>>>>> thicker and therefore closer than on the first or second. A
>>>>> flexible
>>>>> string that has be twined from both ends might be less liable to
>>>>> show
>>>>> this irregular harmonic pattern.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the point I was making was not that the Venice was more
>>>>> flexible than the Pistoy. I was trying to understand why the very
>>>>> stiff paired Kurschners on my 4th course were causing a buzz (I
>>>>> changed them three times) while the paired Venice on the same
>>>>> course
>>>>> had no such problem. I was assuming that the Kurschner were
>>>>> slightly
>>>>> untrue in relation to each other (for the reason stated above), I
>>>>> have no way of seeing whether a Larson Pistoy would behave even
>>>>> better than a Venice, as they can't be made down to the size for
>>>>> the
>>>>> 4th course. They are great however, as diapasons on my Sixth,
>>>>> and in
>>>>> the Gimped version on my 7th.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, if the buzz were due to contact with the fret,
>>>>> while this same explanation could hold, another plausible
>>>>> explanation
>>>>> comes to mind. I suppose there is the possibility that when the
>>>>> Venice come up to full tension (being more flexible or elastic)
>>>>> they
>>>>> may, as a consequence, take on a slightly smaller diameter than  
>>>>> the
>>>>> Kurschner, when they reach the same tension. I suppose it could be
>>>>> true that the stiffer the string, the less its diameter
>>>>> "shrinks" as
>>>>> it reaches the desired pitch. If this is, at least plausible, then
>>>>> perhaps this 'thinner' string's vibrations, are just missing the
>>>>> fret.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no way of finding out which, if any, of these  
>>>>> "explanations"
>>>>> might be right. However, a very niggling problem was got rid of in
>>>>> the change over to Venice, which are very well worth trying on the
>>>>> 4th course, in my opinion.
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 18 aout 07 =E0 14:35, Edward Martin a ecrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, Anthopny.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Pistoy is the most flexible string available.  They are made
>>>>>> using 3 strands of wet gut, and they are each triple twisted.
>>>>>> Then, they are twisted together in the opposite direction, making
>>>>>> for a very loose, flexible string.  That is why they intonate so
>>>>>> well, because the vibrating aspect of the string is from the
>>>>> nut to
>>>>>> the bridge, not in effect a shorter distance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Venice are possibly even more flexible than Pistoys, and
>>>>>>> definitely far less stiff than the Kurschners, which I find
>>>>>>> particularly stiff even for a low twist string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Edward Martin
>>>>>> 2817 East 2nd Street
>>>>>> Duluth, Minnesota  55812
>>>>>> e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> voice:  (218) 728-1202
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>>>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>> Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.0/960 - Release Date:
>>>>> 8/18/2007 3:48 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Edward Martin
>>>> 2817 East 2nd Street
>>>> Duluth, Minnesota  55812
>>>> e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> voice:  (218) 728-1202
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database:
>>> 269.12.0/960 - Release Date: 8/18/2007 3:48 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Edward Martin
>> 2817 East 2nd Street
>> Duluth, Minnesota  55812
>> e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> voice:  (218) 728-1202
>>
>>
>
>
> --



Reply via email to