Indeed - this is what I meant. I am not using *less* tension than at 415, but rather I have a new set of strings that reproduce the same tension at a lower pitch. That said, I think lower tensions in general work better for the solo repertoire.
> Incidentally, pitch as such isn't the crucial factor of course since one > could use thicker strings at a lower pitch to maintain previous 'high' > tensions. > > MH > > --- On Sun, 29/6/08, Nigel Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: Nigel Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [LUTE] very low pitch > > To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" <[email protected]> > > Date: Sunday, 29 June, 2008, 12:07 PM > > I recently tuned my 72cm 13-course down to a tone below 415 > > (with > > strings intended for 392, so half a tone lower than that) > > and it really > > came to life. Could it be the lower tension strings (now > > around 3.5 on > > the top course, basses around 2.5, octaves 2.3or 2.4) or > > the fact that > > the pitch suits the lute better? Does anybody else play > > baroque lute at > > such a low pitch (and get away with it?) Pitch I know is a > > very debated > > subject, but if you are playing alone (usually but not > > always the case > > with baroque lute) surely you are less confined to what the > > Pyramid or > > Kurschner or Savarez string chart says you should be using? > > > > Nigel > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > __________________________________________________________ > Not happy with your email address?. > Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now > at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html > > > -- Benjamin Narvey Luthiste: http://www.luthiste.com --
