On Feb 28, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Martin Shepherd wrote: > 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.
I suppose lutemakers back then made what they regarded as standard- sized bridgeholes, for trebles as well as basses. Maybe it would help to know what a standard bridgehole size was for bass strings. At least "standard" for, say, 1648 to 1750. ;-) > - 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" Who says that? > , at least not if we have any interest in how the lute might have > sounded before the invention of modern wound strings. Lots of variables there, going way beyond stringing! Can our 20thC ears possibly be attuned to the point that we would recognize the true sound if we heard it? (I hope it wasn't anything like the lute- stop on a harpsichord!) > ...I would still like someone to produce a synthetic bass string > with similar characteristics to the best gut bass strings we > currently have. So would I!! Best, Davidr dlu...@verizon.net -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
