From: "Martyn Hodgson" <[email protected]>
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.
Quite a few of the Current Ones far exceed the Old Ones, methinks...
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.
Or thuddier ans squeekier, to some.
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......
There is nothing "guitar type" in the tone of carbon on lutes.
So until the improvement of gut technology that would some day assure
stability, intonation and economic justification we'd be using carbon.
RT
--- 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][1]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" <[3][email protected]>;
> "Roman Turovsky" <[4][email protected]>
>Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
>Date : 04/10/2010 15:10:06 CEST
>Copie A : "Paul Kieffer" <[5][email protected]>;
> "EUGENE BRAIG IV" <[6][email protected]>;
> [7][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][9]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
> [3][10]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
>
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> [4][11]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
--
References
1. [12]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
2. [13]http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
3. [14]http://www.myspace.com/edslute
4. [15]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
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://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
10. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
11. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
13. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
14. http://www.myspace.com/edslute
15. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
