The double loop is VERY easy to tie and to tie very firmly/securely. I seem to recall that David Van E's site gives instructions/pictures. In short, double the string and bring the looped end across the fingerboard (from bass to treble) holding onto the two loose ends with one hand. Bring the loop round the back of the neck to approach the loose ends. Make another loop in one of the loose ends and thread this through the main loop. Thread the remaining loose end through the small loop. Pull both ends and the knot should tighten on itself (rather like a slipknot). I've only ever used gut; nylon being so much stiffer may not be satisfactory for the knot.
I can't think any maker would not know how to tie double frets. Those that I know personally say that they don't offer double simply because customers don't ask for it (perhaps through ignorance............). Regarding changing temperaments: why should having a lower string height (set finer) cause problems? If anything I'd have thought the opposite since it will reduce the small effect of increasing the tension (and hence pitch) when depressing a string especially at higher frets. Regarding double loops but of two different sized strings: as said, the strings bed in very soon with most wear on the loop closest to the nut - effectively like having a thin and thicker fret I suppose - so why go to the trouble of tying two loops? A further advantage of a single gut piece double loop is that the longer overall length has more stretch thus allowing some movement without loosening the fret. I think the matter of lower lute string height and well graduated frets, together with right hand position (closer to bridge etc)and string tension, and perhaps double frets, and even the elimination of the guitar 'rolled' chord are some of the areas I expect to see reflected in performance practice in coming years. MH --- On Wed, 14/5/08, Anthony Hind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Anthony Hind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Frets > To: "[email protected] Net" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008, 10:38 AM > Oh I have just seen from their sites that several lute > makers do > offer both single and double fret options, and at least one > prefers > double fretting. > Sorry for these repeated corrections, but although I had > heard of > double fretting, I mistakenly thought that they had been > completely > abandonned, never having seen a lute with them, and > therefore i have > never paid attention to the question. Now, as usual when I > begin to > pay attention, I am beginning to see increasing information > about > this on different lute sites. > > I am also wondering, from what Martyn H. has > said,whether, > perhaps, I ought to have the action on my Renaissance lute > lowered, > according to historic principles derived from Dowland, and > perhaps > set up with double frets at the same time. I could do the > double > fretting (I think), but I couldn't lower the action > which is a fairly > standard modern stetup similar to that advised by Lundberg: > Frets > 1) 1 > 2) ,95 > 3) ,90 > 4) ,85 > 5) ,80, > 6) ,75 > 7) ,70 > 8) ,65 > > However, I am wondering whether a very low action would not > make > changing of temperaments more difficult. > as Jim says " Does this (changing of temperaments) > also imply > different fret gauges? For example, many players use a > fourth fret > that is substantially closer to the third fret than it > would be in > equal temperament, to achieve purer major thirds. Would one > thus pay > closer attention to diminishing the diameter of the fourth > fret to > avoid buzzing when the third fret is fingered?" > > I would imagine that the finer the setting, the more > precise you need > to be in the choice of frets. > I could be quite wrong here, as I am trying to imagine this > rather > than to experiment it. > Thus from over caution, I will probably leave my lute as > it is, > while wondering just what improvement could be obtained by > making > such a change. > > Anthony > > > Le 14 mai 08 =E0 10:50, Anthony Hind a ecrit : > > > I shouldn't say "be capable", but rather > "be willing". No lute > > maker has ever offered to set up my lutes with double > fretting. > > Having just looked at Van Edwards site, he probably > does offer to > > use the Mace method. > > Anthony > > Le 14 mai 08 =E0 10:21, Anthony Hind a ecrit : > > > >> Martyn > >> Of course this has to be done by the lute maker > (setting of the > >> action). I wouldn't care to take a file to the > nut of my lute to > >> lower the string, although I imagine this is what > is called for. I > >> suppose this implies Dowland set his lutes low. > >> Would you have any photos of double fretting, or > know of any > >> already on any site? Do you think most lute makers > would be > >> capable of changing single to double fretting? > >> Regards > >> Anthony > >> > >> Le 12 mai 08 =E0 17:52, Martyn Hodgson a ecrit : > >> > >>> > >>> Yes, > >>> > >>> Dowland couldn't equate fret sizes with > strings which weren't on > >>> the lute so he was obliged to give one string > for two (or three) > >>> frets. In practice the 2nd is to be between > the first and third etc. > >>> > >>> Cost of double fretting - less than for > single. This is because > >>> the lower (ie towards the nut) loop takes much > of the heavy wear > >>> leaving the other to act as the actual fret. I > found double > >>> lasted around four times single (of course > I'm speaking of gut > >>> here not nylon). Also with the historic > double loop when > >>> significant waer becomes an issue, one can > slide the fret back > >>> (to slacken it) then 'rotate' the fret > so that the wear position > >>> now lies BETWEEN two courses - then slide the > fret upto position > >>> to retension. This way the loops'life can > be extended - doubled. > >>> > >>> Incidentally, my understanding of the > guitarists use of the word > >>> 'action' is the height from the > underside of a string to the TOP > >>> of a fret. A better measurement is the > distance from the > >>> underside of the string to the fingerboard (ie > how far the string > >>> needs to be depressed). With thin upper frets > (as Dowland seems > >>> to suggest) this distance can be very low at > the 8/9th fret so > >>> enabling the lute to be set 'fine'. > >>> > >>> > >>> MH > >>> --- On Mon, 12/5/08, Anthony Hind > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> From: Anthony Hind > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Frets > >>>> To: "Martyn Hodgson" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > >>>> "[email protected] Net" > <[email protected]> > >>>> Date: Monday, 12 May, 2008, 1:17 PM > >>>> Dear Martyn > >>>> Although the book by Lundberg > "Historical Lute > >>>> Construction", gives > >>>> the explanation I copied, I don't > think that > >>>> "Historical Lute" in the > >>>> title means historical technique as > concerns fret tying. > >>>> The Dowland indications you give are > interesting, but I see > >>>> there is > >>>> no difference between Fret 1 and fret 2, > if taken literally > >>>> (but > >>>> perhaps it is meant to be a guide, not to > be taken > >>>> absolutely > >>>> literally). > >>>> > >>>> You are advocating a low action with a > first fret of around > >>>> 0,70, > >>>> perhaps modern fretting (which seems to be > higher) is > >>>> influenced by > >>>> other modern instruments, or determined by > modern strings. > >>>> > >>>> Lundberg only considers high and low > action as an element > >>>> in choosing > >>>> fret height. Could string tension and > string-type also play > >>>> a role in > >>>> deciding the fret height. Loaded strings, > and some Venice > >>>> types, are > >>>> very supple and tend to have a wide > movement,could this not > >>>> effect > >>>> choice of fret height, also? (I just > quoted Lundberg, > >>>> hoping his > >>>> experience might be of use to others, but > I have not had > >>>> cause to try > >>>> out the advice he gives). > >>>> > >>>> I certainly do not as yet have practise > in fretting > >>>> different > >>>> instruments with different string types. > Obviously, a lute > >>>> maker will > >>>> be confronted with lutes having high to > low actions and > >>>> varied string > >>>> types, so i would expect you to have > experience in this > >>>> area that I > >>>> don't have at all. > >>>> Thanks for any additional clarification on > this subject. > >>>> > >>>> I am just thinking that for most of us, > single fretting is > >>>> already a > >>>> fretful exercise (sorry) but double > fretting would have to > >>>> give a > >>>> very clear advantage to make me go to the > extra effort and > >>>> cost. > >>>> However, if there really is an advantage > in it, perhaps I > >>>> would try. > >>>> Regards > >>>> Anthony > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> following. > >>>>>> > >>>> Le 11 mai 08 =E0 16:39, Martyn Hodgson a > ecrit : > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear Anthony, > >>>>> > >>>>> The only early source which gives > comprhensive and > >>>> detailed fret > >>>>> sizes is, as far as I'm aware, > John Dowland's > >>>> 'OTHER NECESSARIE > >>>>> Observations....' Varietie (1610). > Here Dowland > >>>> relates fret sizes > >>>>> to strings of the lute: > >>>>> > >>>>> Fret 1 and 2: countertenor ie 4th > course > >>>>> > >>>>> 3 and 4: as Great Meanes ie 3rd > >>>>> > >>>>> 5 and 6: as Small Meanes ie 2nd > >>>>> > >>>>> 7, 8 and 9: as Trebles ie 1st > >>>>> > >>>>> You'll see that this gives much > thinner frets than > >>>> most commonly > >>>>> use today. It also enables a lute to > be set very > >>>> 'fine' with very > >>>>> low distance from the fingerboard even > at the highest > >>>> frets. > >>>>> > >>>>> Interestingly, larger lutes (with as > is said elsewhere > >>>> ought to > >>>>> have thicker strings) will have > thicker frets. > >>>>> > >>>>> Of course, the sizes depend on the > precise stringing > >>>> but I can't > >>>>> see any reasonable stringing on a mean > lute requiring > >>>> a first of > >>>>> 0.70mm. > >>>>> > >>>>> MH > >>>>> > >>>>> --- On Sun, 11/5/08, Anthony Hind > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> From: Anthony Hind > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Frets > >>>>>> To: "Bruno Correia" > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "[email protected] > >>>>>> Net" > <[email protected]> > >>>>>> Date: Sunday, 11 May, 2008, 10:42 > AM > >>>>>> Lundberg in his Historical Lute > Construction says > >>>> the > >>>>>> following. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "The eight frets on a > Renaissance lute are > >>>> generally > >>>>>> arranged so that > >>>>>> they descend in diameter towards > the body. I would > >>>>>> typically use the > >>>>>> following diameters: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Fret 1 1.00mm > >>>>>> Fret 2 0.90mm > >>>>>> Fret 3- 0.85mm > >>>>>> Fret 4 0,82mm > >>>>>> Fret 5- 0.79mm > >>>>>> Fret 6- 0.76mm > >>>>>> Fret 7- 0.73mm > >>>>>> Fret 8- 0.70mm > >>>>>> > >>>>>> However, gut varies, so don't > worry about > >>>> being really > >>>>>> exact. The > >>>>>> main points to consider are that > the first fret > >>>> shoudl be > >>>>>> large, the > >>>>>> second fret should drop > considerably in diameter, > >>>> and each > >>>>>> of the > >>>>>> rest should be about .03mm smaller > than the > >>>> preceding. > >>>>>> If the lute has a very high > action, that is, if > >>>> the height > >>>>>> of the > >>>>>> strings above the fingerboard at > the neck/body > >>>> join is, for > >>>>>> example, > >>>>>> in the vicinity of 5mm, then it > would be better to > >>>> tie on > >>>>>> frets of a > >>>>>> more constant size or even the > same size. If on > >>>> the other > >>>>>> hand, the > >>>>>> action is low, then a larger 1st > fret together > >>>> with a > >>>>>> bigger drop > >>>>>> between frets and ending with a > .66mm might > >>>> help." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This book is well worth having for > its very > >>>> reasonable > >>>>>> price. > >>>>>> Regards > >>>>>> Anthony > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Le 11 mai 08 =E0 05:17, Bruno > Correia a ecrit : > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> With so many gauges fretting > the lute become > >>>> quite > >>>>>> expensive... > >>>>>>> What about > >>>>>>> using te same gauge from the > 4th until the > >>>> last? Would > >>>>>> you have a > >>>>>>> photo from > >>>>>>> your lute with the fretting > described below? I > >>>> wish I > >>>>>> could see it > >>>>>>> to try > >>>>>>> myself. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2008/5/10 The Other > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Using Thomas Mace's > method of tying > >>>> double > >>>>>> frets; locking forceps to > >>>>>>>> pull the frets tight > enough; Dan Larson > >>>> fret gut; > >>>>>> in One Quarter > >>>>>>>> Comma > >>>>>>>> Meantone Temperament, with > two 1st frets > >>>> instead > >>>>>> of using a tastini. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Fret 1a (peg box side)- > 1.00mm > >>>>>>>> Fret 1b (bridge side)- > 0.95mm > >>>>>>>> Fret 2- 0.95mm (yes, same > size as Fret > >>>> 1b) > >>>>>>>> Fret 3- 0.90mm > >>>>>>>> Fret 4- 0.85mm > >>>>>>>> Fret 5- 0.80mm > >>>>>>>> Fret 6- 0.75mm > >>>>>>>> Fret 7- 0.70mm > >>>>>>>> Fret 8- 0.65mm > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No buzzing. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>> "The Other" > Stephen Stubbs. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> To get on or off this list see > list > >>>> information at > >>>>>>> > >>>> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > __________________________________________________________ > >>>>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail. > >>>>> A Smarter Email > >>>> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > __________________________________________________________ > >>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail. > >>> A Smarter Email > http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html > >> > >> > >> > >> To get on or off this list see list information at > >> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > -- __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
