Again, very interesting.
We touched earlier on this issue of the thinnest available gut which was said to be around 0.40mm at one time. I think this was based on the smallest whole intenstine available (need to check). But I also recall that something called a 'splitting horn' (or similar name) was invented (17thC I think the suggestions was) which enabled whole guts to be split. And of course by th 18thC (again I think) polishing and grinding to finished size became praticable. Just a thought, but if you are thinking of trying lowish tension for a test (say c. 2 Kg), perhaps you might try plain nylon which being less dense than carbon gives slightly thicker strings and thus a noticeably rounder sound even at very low diameters. regards Martyn --- On Sun, 30/5/10, EUGENE BRAIG IV <[email protected]> wrote: From: EUGENE BRAIG IV <[email protected]> Subject: [LUTE] Re: baroque mandolins etc--- tensions and kgs? To: "Lute List" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, 30 May, 2010, 14:08 Greetings Martyn et alia, Again, in my mind, the "why" is mostly dictated by what is available in strings. While lower courses could be strung much lighter, the imbalance with the lightest available gut g'' would be undesirable. Even though I don't always use gut g'' strings, I do often use the rough equivalent of the finest gut available in carbon. Best, Eugene ----- Original Message ----- From: Martyn Hodgson <[1][email protected]> Date: Sunday, May 30, 2010 8:52 am Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: baroque mandolins etc--- tensions and kgs? To: Stuart Walsh <[2][email protected]> Cc: Lute List <[3][email protected]>, EUGENE BRAIG IV <[4][email protected]> > Dear Stuart, > The answer is 3.5KG for this spec. Whether it's high or low tension is moot. I think it's fairly > high for such a relatively small instrument: on a lute-like comparison I'd expect something closer to 2Kg But most of you mandolinoistas seem to think high tensions are the norm - but on what basis I don't know. Why don't you try doubled nylon on this course to give 2Kg per string - you'd need to put on nylon at 0.40mm - and see how double string playing with finger tips feels like now (may take a bit of time to adjust of course...) > I gave the formula is an earlier email Frequency is directly related to pitch. You need to be careful that you use consistent units. But the simplest way is to find a website that offers a string calculator and allows you to vary the parameters. I use a special slide rule which has the advantage of allowing numerous comparisons to be made visually all at once. > rgds > Martyn > --- On Sun, 30/5/10, Stuart Walsh <[5][email protected]> wrote: > From: Stuart Walsh <[6][email protected]> > Subject: [LUTE] Re: baroque mandolins etc--- tensions and kgs? > To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[7][email protected]> > Cc: "Lute List" <[8][email protected]>, "EUGENE BRAIG IV" <[9][email protected]> > Date: Sunday, 30 May, 2010, 12:06 > > Dear Eugene, > > > > There is really is no difficulty here. The heart of the matter is that > > tension needs to be related to string length, so that with similar > > instruments, bigger ones (and used eg Dowland as said)) higher tension > > than their smaller counterparts - see the earlier communication about > > this. So for a small string length, like on the mandolino which is > > around half the string length of a mean lute, a tension of as low as a > > half is suggested for similar 'feel' ie 3Kg/2 = 1.5Kg (which is why I > > suggested a trial at around this level). The converse is also the case > > with large theorbos needing higher tensions than a mean lute. > > > > The modern 'classical' guitar is single strung (like some theorbos) and > > can be played with a higher level of tension (as Stuart found out when > > he tried single strings). > > > > I thought all this was common knowledge..... > > > > regards > > > > Martyn > > > > > > > No it's really interesting. I've always glazed over discussions of > tensions and kgs. So how do you work out the string tension in kgs? Is > it a rather baffling formula? > For example, the second course of my little homemade instrument, with a > string length of 37cms (or just a bit more) and with a Pyramid lute > string , nylon 0.525 tuned to b' (A=440). Is that high tension or low > tension? As a doubled course it feels very high tension indeed (iron > bar). As a single course it feels just a little bit too light, but > superficially at least, more amenable for fingerstyle play. > Stuart > > > > > > --- On Sun, 30/5/10, EUGENE BRAIG IV <[10][email protected]> wrote: > > > > From: EUGENE BRAIG IV <[11][email protected]> > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: baroque mandolins etc--- tensions and kgs? > > To: "Lute List" <[12][email protected]> > > Date: Sunday, 30 May, 2010, 5:26 > > > > I don't know why tension should have much to do with punteado vs. > > plectrum. I also certainly would not consider approx. 3.0-4.0 kg > > per > > string (as I use on my mandolino) "high" tension. Guitars are often > > much higher, modern classical or even 19th c. It's not even far > > from > > what some players use on lutes. On his string calculator page, > > Arto cites 3.0 kg as his standard and 4.0 as preferred on archlute. > > Eugene > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Stuart Walsh <[1][13][email protected]> > > Date: Friday, May 28, 2010 6:13 pm > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: baroque mandolins etc--- tensions and kgs? > > To: David van Ooijen <[2][14][email protected]> > > Cc: Lute List <[3][15][email protected]> > > > David van Ooijen wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Stuart Walsh > > > <[4][16][email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Is there a simple explanation, somewhere, of string tensions > > > and what 3kg or > > > >> 7 kg etc means and what is the significance of it. I've never > > > understood>> what it's all about. > > > >> > > > > > > > > I wrote this some years ago, so I could understand what it was > > > all about: > > > > > > > > - Calculating String Tensions > > > > Explaining the why and how of calculating strings for lutes. > > > > > > > > > > [5][17]http://home.planet.nl/~ooije006/david/writings/stringtension_f.h tm > > > > > > > Thank you for this. I read it as carefully as I could! > > > > > > To be honest, I got as far as "the frequency of a string > > > [frequency=pitch?] is directly related [=is?] the square root of > > > its > > > tension." and a sort of filter kicks in. > > > A bit like when a plumber comes to fix something (at great > > > expense) and > > > explains all the minute details when I just want to know whether > > > the > > > toilet will flush or not. > > > > > > But what you say confirms (if I've understood you) what I > > > thought about > > > high tension stringing, playing with nails (plectrum) etc and > > > that maybe > > > old instruments were more lightly constructed with strings > > > at lower > > > tension, needing a gentler mode of playing. > > > > > > And so this is the problem with tiny instruments like the > > > mandolino > > > where the strings are inevitably (?) going to be high tension - > > > how can > > > they be fingerstyle/punteado instruments rather than plectrum > > > instruments (even if some of the music for them looks - > > > superficially? - > > > as if it can't be played with a plectrum) > > > > > > > > > Stuart > > > > > > (not a plectrum player) > > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > [6][18]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > -- > > > > References > > > > 1. [19]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] > > 2. [20]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] om > > 3. [21]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] > > 4. [22]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] > > 5. [23]http://home.planet.nl/~ooije006/david/writings/stringtension_f.htm > > 6. [24]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > -- References 1. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 2. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 3. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 4. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 5. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 6. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 7. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 8. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 9. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 10. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 11. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 12. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 13. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 14. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 15. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 16. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 17. http://home.planet.nl/~ooije006/david/writings/stringtension_f.htm 18. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 19. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 20. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 21. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 22. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected] 23. http://home.planet.nl/~ooije006/david/writings/stringtension_f.htm 24. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
