Dear Martyn
"This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they had. "
Martyn
I think I would agree with you, I was informing but not
advocating.
While there are strong arguments for gut having been made more dense by
loading of basses so as to obtain a less "tubby" sound), there is none
(as far as I know) in favour of some treatment that lowers its
intrinsic density for trebles (for a less bright sound), although there
is speculation that historic top strings may have been thicker than
they are today (I believe) and so perhaps less bright sounding.
Nevertheless, the same "retrograde step" must surely be true for
adopting higher density than gut trebles in carbon, which some, here,
seem to be considering (with a potentially more unpleasant metallic
sound than that of Titanium Nylon).
And to be fair to these experimenters, the use of wirewound basses,
could be surely be considered even less historic than the use of a
synthetic top, from the point of view of the sound of the old ones.
In fact, these French players may have just been looking for a
replacement for the old Nylgut, because of its stretchiness (which is
different from gut). I think Titanium nylon might be less slippery than
nylon. If so, they may now adopt the new nylgut, as they did say they
liked the sound of the old Nylgut, and they were not just looking for a
cheap solution.
"Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which you
refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite like
the modern guitar type tone......" Martyn
That is possible, although they would not say so. They would perhaps
claim that synthetic strings have qualities that were just not
available at the time, but would have been adopted if they had been
(you know the arguments that we have also heard, here, at times).
Indeed, one of them did argue that the fact Baroque lutenists were
playing back towards the bridge indicates they were striving for the
bright sound that modern carbon affords.
That, as you know, is not my position. What was of interest to me was
rather the effect of thick versus thin top strings, as shown in their
experiment, and this remains relevant, I think, to gut users (if we
leave aside the question of density).
Thicker treble strings, giving a less bright sound, can be used, as you
know, by lowering the diapason while maintaining the same tension, or
maintaining the same diapason while raising the tension.
I think David Tayler is perhaps implying this here:
"As a starting point for French baroque lute, on a "French Frey", 399
or 400 is a very good choice. I often find 415 a bit too high, and 392
a bit tubby due to the relatively small scale."
[1]http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg25126.html
Tubbiness, presumably due to the thicker strings.
I have found the trebles on my 70 cm Baroque lute a little bright (ie
too thin), and I don't think I have quite tweaked this aspect of my
stringing; while I am entirely happy with my Basses and Meanes. I may
try raising the tension a little (ie a 46 instead of a 44 on the top
string), but ideally, I would have liked to lower the diapason from 407
to 392, which would give the same 46 thickness (with no change of
tension). However, the bother of replacing all the basses and Meanes
that are so well run-in, rather makes me hesitate.
It is also true that different makes of gut treble string can vary in
brightness for the same diameter (and, presumably, density) and I may
play around with this.
Best wishes from
Anthony (who is not about to go all "synthetic")
__________________________________________________________________
De : Martyn Hodgson <[email protected]>
A : Edward Martin <[email protected]>; Anthony Hind
<[email protected]>
Cc : [email protected]
Envoye le : Mer 6 octobre 2010, 9h 01min 43s
Objet : Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
Dear Anthony,
This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they had.
Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no reason to
suppose their density has changed significantly since then - in short a
material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for these
strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence thicker (and
plummier sounding), strings.
Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which you
refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite like
the modern guitar type tone......
regards
M.
--- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Anthony Hind <[email protected]>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
To: "Edward Martin" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24
Dear Ed and All
For the reason you state below :
%
> The density of carbon is so much
> more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
0.38
> or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
> certainly more sharp sounding.
>
> ed
%
two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic strings
for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost), and who
are
ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for, have
adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for their top
strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore, sweeter
warmer
sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high density
KF
carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to
slightly
higher density nylon.
%
They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close to
gut),
but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which presumably
has
been resolved with the latest version)..
%
In fact, they were looking for a sound similar to that which is
achieved with titanium nylon guitar strings, but these do not exist
in
diameters suitable for the lute.
It would seem that such a string can be found in a suitable diameter
(0,35 to 0,50) in fishing line, under the name, Nylon Powerline
Titanium; but there is also Asari Falcon titanium G2, which might be
suitable.
(for those interested these are special fishing lines for surf
casting)
%
FranAS:ois Pizette gave the following comparative table of densities
(which I have not checked out):
%
titanium nylon :1.04
nylon: 1.12
perlon: 1.22
nylgut: 1.3
gut: 1.36
KF pvf: 1.81
%
FranAS:ois actually sent me a trial string for my Renaissance lute,
but
I never got round to trying it out, myself. I had just begun
experimenting a Kathedral gut top string at the time, so I passed it
on
to a friend who was using a nylon top string, and I believe he found
the Titanium Nylon quite good, but a little "too sweet".
Nevertheless,
he kept it on for a time, so it may not have been at all bad to his
taste.
%
As you say, string density determines the diameter, and presumably,
all
things being equal, 'thinner than nylon' could lead to a sharper
tone,
while thicker could lead to a sweeter one. However, FranAS:ois
Pizette
claimed he heard the carbon top string as "colder", and the titanium
nylon as "warmer".
Nevertheless, relative top string thickness also plays a role in
terms
of feel and playability. It is not easy to "dig into" a thin string,
although an over thick string could possibly become too damped.
%
A comparison between Alliance Savrez carbon and Addario
Titanium-nylon
can be heard here on a Ukelele in this You/Tube video (if you have
the
patience, as there are two other strings tested):
[1][2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
%
One player's comments on this test seem interesting. He says it is
more
the feel of the Titanium Nylon he prefers than the sound difference
with the Savarez:
"You were the one that goti>>? me into Savarez strings, though I
still
prefer my D'Addrios only because they are thicker and give me a
little
more "feel" under my fingers." (a Ukele player)
%
Is this not why some Baroque lutenist gut users prefer a lower
diapason
(say 392 over 415, with the same tension). This also gives a
thicker
top string, with more material to "dig into"?
%
I think this question may be just as interesting for gut as for
synthetics users.
While personally, I have been experimenting with the sound and feel
of
gut in relation to hypotheses about historic strings, I am happy to
report on these synthetic string user's experiments, attempting to
achieve a better sound and playability with their choice of strings.
Best regards
Anthony
---- Message d'origine ----
>De : "Edward Martin" <[[email protected]>
>A : "Edward Mast" <[4][email protected]>;
> "Roman Turovsky" <[5][email protected]>
>Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
>Date : 04/10/2010 15:10:06 CEST
>Copie A : "Paul Kieffer" <[6][email protected]>;
> "EUGENE BRAIG IV" <[7][email protected]>;
> [8][email protected]
>
>No, it would have too much tension. The density of carbon is so
much
> more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
0.38
> or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
> certainly more sharp sounding.
>
> ed
>
>
>
>
>
> At 07:50 AM 10/4/2010, Edward Mast wrote:
> >The .40-.41 mm diameter line sounds like it would be suitable for
> >the top course, yes?
>
>
>
> Edward Martin
> 2817 East 2nd Street
> Duluth, Minnesota 55812
> e-mail: [[email protected]
> voice: (218) 728-1202
> [2][10]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
> [3][11]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
>
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> [4][12]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
--
References
1. [13]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
2. [14]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
3. [15]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
4. [16]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg25126.html
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
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://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
11. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
12. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
13. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
14. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
15. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
16. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
