The string must still be secured in the bridge in the
conventional way.
I find that even with very high torsion strings that 1.75mm is
the maximum
that one can bend and manipulate. And that happens to be what
I end
up with as my 11th course. So here is a piece of practical
information
based on the properties of the material.
Damian
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Basses loaded, bottom of the 9th
Measure the holes, examine the marks, scratches, toolmarks,
analyze
the strings, analyze the wood near the strings for trace
residue,
etc, etc, it is all very basic research.
The biggest chunk of information will be a clearer picture
of
reentrant tuning. When I used to look at these instruments
30-35 years ago, I wasn't specifically looking at the
bridges. Now
it is much harder to examine the instruments. But I don't
remember
seeing a lot of "double reentrant" holes. Not saying they
were not
there, just doesn't ring a bell. I'm sure I could have
missed it :) I
will, however, be very surprised if they are all drilled out
for
double reentrant. Results never fit the theory. Can't think
of a
single example where that has happened. Can't wait.
There is lots of knowledge to be gained by basic research,
as there always is.
dt
My dear Watson,
The logic is clear enough - you can put a thin string
through a
bigger hole, but not vice-versa. So if we have some well
authenticated original bridges with small holes (a few would
do - it
doesn't have to be a majority) then we have to explain this.
We
also have to remember that the Old Ones didn't have highly
engineered twist drills for every 0.1mm, so they may well
have
drilled some oversize holes as a matter of technical
practicality. The small holes can be explained by increased
string
density (loading or winding with metal, for instance) or low
tension, or only part of the string going through the hole,
or maybe
something we haven't thought of yet - but it's not magic.
To say
that we don't know how they made their bass strings is
obviously
true, but the possibilities are pretty limited - so it's not
good
enough to say "we don't know how they did it so we might as
well
just use overspun strings", at least not if we have any
interest in
how the lute might have sounded before the invention of
modern wound strings.
Just for the record, I don't believe our modern gut strings
are
exactly like theirs either, so we probably have some way to
go in
terms of reproducing their technology even for thin strings.
I
still prefer the sound and feel of them over any synthetic
strings,
and I would still like someone to produce a synthetic bass
string
with similar characteristics to the best gut bass strings we
currently have.
Best wishes,
Martin
Daniel Winheld wrote:
Dear colleagues and especially our esteemed
stringmaker/researchers; as
regards the present big question- "Was they WAS, or
was they WASN'T,
loaded? In our search for evidence, and evaluation of
same, let's also
keep in mind the famous dictum of Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle, as channeled
through that old coke addict/violinist Sherlock Holmes:
"How often have I said to you that when you have
eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must
be the truth?
Not simple, of course. with multiple possibilities
available to be
further explored.
> >>How many lutes were mesured for bridge hole's
>>>diameter? 10, 20 or 30?
>
>I dnot see that we need a complete or even a
substantial survey.
>
>Any instance where the bridge was conceived as we
see it and the
diapason
>holes are significantly smaller than the holes for
stoped basses is
>evidence tht smaller diameter strings were
conciously used, if that
then
>obliges the use of strings denser than natural,
loading of some
sort is
>indicated, if not overspin, then chemical.
--
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
