Dear Anthony,
Regarding pitching of lutes, we have good historic evidence that this
is closely related to the tensile strength of gut. Thus whatever the
pitch one generally tunes the highest course to just under breaking.
As a rough guide I use the following
HIGHEST PITCH OF TREBLE
String length, cm @ A392 @ A415 @ A440
76 f' e' eb'
72 f#' f'' e'
68 g' f#'' f'
64 g#' g' f#'
60.5 a' g#' g'
57 a#' a' g#'
54 b' a#' a'
One corollary to this: there's a little evidence that some 17th century
French solo lute music, especially the earliest, might not pitch
trebles quite so close to breaking stress, in which case you might
pitch with the top course one, or even two steps, below those indicated
above.
Martyn
--- On Tue, 23/11/10, Anthony Hind <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Anthony Hind <[email protected]>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: tying two strings together (in process of
changing from 407Hz to 392)?
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, 23 November, 2010, 16:06
Dear All,
I suppose I should add an explanation for why I need this
gluing
technique.
I have always regretted that my Baroque lute was strung for 415Hz
rather than for 392 (for which I had actually asked my lute maker,
but
he had forgotten this). The main reason for 392 would have been to
achieve thicker trebles for my 700mm lute, allowing the fingers to
"dig
more deeply" into these strings. Diapason 392 could allow f1:0.46,
d2:0.54, and A3:0.64 (instead of f1:0.42, d-2:0.50 and A3:0.58 at
415Hz).
Historic arguments in favour of this, for the French Baroque lute,
might be the relatively small diapason of historic French lutes
(around
68 according to Martyn, and others), which would imply relatively
thick
trebles, unless the diapason pitch was above 415Hz. I rather assume
this is part of the French aesthetic. What do you think?
$
I managed to lower the diapason to 407 (and slightly raise the top
string tensions); this was the lowest point at which these loaded
strings would work well (I kept the original tension by
simulataneously
raising the tension of the octaves). I believed the original tension
on
the basses was 3Kg and on the octaves 2K8 (as indicated by my
lutemaker). I therefore thought that after lowering to 407 and
changing
the octaves to 3K1 for that frequency, I would maintain the
lutemakers
suggested tension, but have 2K9 on the basses and 3K1 on the octaves
(I
roughly confirmed this with Dan Larson's string calculator).
However, I did notice that the Venice Octaves were clearly now the
lead
voice, which I felt was highly desirable, but which did not quite
fit
in with the small difference of tension. Also Martin Shepherd told
me
that 2K9 was quite high tension on the basses. However, this was not
at
all how they felt, but I just put that down to the flexibility of
the
loaded basses.
$
Recently, however, I wondered whether I could achieve 392 with
basses
close to 2K9 by moving C11 to D10 and D10 to E9, and so forth (in
other
words by a simple shift of each string up one). I did fear I might
get
a more irregular tension pattern, and also that the tension might be
too high.
$
At this point, I played around with Arto's string calculator, and
finally understood how it worked (I am a little computer programme
challenged, and previously gave up when not quite understanding
which
field corresponded to what parameter) .
With Arto's calculator now uderstood, I was able to set the
diapason
explicitly to 407Hz and remove the guess work. I was surprised to
find
my basses at 407Hz were actually at a lowish 2K7 (taking account of
true thickness of the flexible loaded Venices by dividing their
value
by 1.07, as explained by Mimmo on the Venice string page).
Dropping them to diapason 392 (according to "Arto-calc" would bring
them effectively to around the 2K9, I thought I had originally. I
believed this would be acceptable, although I could still drop the
diapason slightly to 380Hz or so to compensate if necessary.
I would of course have to change most of the other strings, but I
didn't want to throw out my "expensive" and well worn in loaded
basses
(unless they prove already to be a little too old, I have had them 2
years or more?)
$
Anyway I thought I could use these, at least, to check the resulting
values would work well at 392 with 2K9 tension. I made just one
check
by tuning the C11 string D10 at 392Hz, and it seemed acceptable, so
I
think I can go ahead with the experiment.
$
I then remembered that as my loaded strings had been cut very short
to
prevent them rubbing against the decorative panel of the peg-box. I
might need to "lengthen" some loaded basses and perhaps some Venice
octaves to reach the peg two above, which is why I have asked for
your
knotting advice. Thank you everyone for your help.
I will of course need at least one new loaded string for C11 to
carry
out the experiment.
$
I am just wondering whether other loaded gut users have tensions
around
my target 2K9, higher or lower? 2K7 did work alright, I must admit.
Do most of you try to lower your basses by compensating with higher
tension octaves (or are they the same, or lower)?
Do most pure and gimped gut users have basses around 2K5 (Dan
Larson),
lower (Satoh), or higher?
$
Practical considerations:
I am aware that pure gut string users will probably consider
2K9 as a high tension. Dan Larson's standard is 2K5, but this is for
pure gut, no doubt to compensate for its natural thickness (and
inharmonicity, or high impedance, at high tension), and also to
account
for the relative stiffness of Dan's gimped strings.
With loaded Venice strings the flexibility, especially for the lower
basses, is even greater than that of a Venice (as the core is
relatively thin, the weight determined more by the loading).
Therefore the impedance at the bridge, even with highish tensions,
remains low.
$
Theoretical consoderations:
Of course, low tension as a hypothesis of historical stringing is
mainly advanced to account for the tiny historic bridge holes
contrasting with the naturally thick pure gut string (and the poor
harmonicity of such strings when at higher tension); but also to
relate
to the relatively thin bass strings represented in the iconography
(see
for example the Charles Mouton lute).
Further arguments for low tension are that most iconography and lute
marks (see Mimmo Lute news NADEG 94) indicate an RH position near
the
bridge, which could indicate an attempt to compensate low tension by
finding a string point with greater tension (see T. Satoh).
$
If one adopts the loaded string hypothesis, however, higher tensions
can be achieved, while maintaining thin string diameter compatible
with
small bridge holes and the iconography; while the RH position could
indicate an attempt to achieve a point of higher resistance with low
impedance strings.
(An alternative high tension theory is put forward by Charles
Besnainou
involving a special low impedance spring bass string, more of this
later. Perhaps, George Stoppani's lang lay ropes might have a
similar
but less low impedance potential).
Regards
Anthony
__________________________________________________________________
De : Guy Smith <[1][email protected]>
A : Anthony Hind <[2][email protected]>
EnvoyA(c) le : Lun 22 novembre 2010, 18h 33min 07s
Objet : RE: [LUTE] Re: tying two strings of different thickness
together?
I agree. The grapevine knot works best when the sizes are roughly
equal. Fortunately, I've never had to extend a loaded string.
____________________________________________________________________
___
From: Anthony Hind [mailto:[3][email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:58 AM
To: Guy Smith
Subject: Re : [LUTE] Re: tying two strings of different thickness
together?
Thanks Guy
One of the two ropes could be a loaded one, and so probably
not
supple enough to participate in a double knot. The sheet bend knot
might be all I can manage, but for other strings I will try your
suggestion.
Regards
Anthony
PS I see there animated knot examples, that make things fairly
foolproof.
____________________________________________________________________
___
De : Guy Smith <[4][email protected]>
A : [5][email protected]; Anthony Hind <[6][email protected]>
EnvoyA(c) le : Lun 22 novembre 2010, 17h 18min 57s
Objet : RE: [LUTE] Re: tying two strings of different thickness
together?
I use a grapevine knot. I learned that in my rock-climbing days as a
bombproof way to tie into a rope. Probably overkill, but if it can
hold
a
twenty foot leader fall, it should be able to handle a lute
string:-)
FWIW, the traditional knot for joining two lengths of fishing line
is a
blood knot, which would be another possibility. I tend to avoid
square
knots. They can easily be turned into a cats paw knot, which isn't
secure at
all.
Here's a good reference for all sorts of knots:
[1][7]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
Guy
-----Original Message-----
From: [2][8][email protected]
[mailto:[3][9][email protected]] On Behalf
Of Martyn Hodgson
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:05 AM
To: [4][10][email protected]; Anthony Hind
Subject: [LUTE] Re: tying two strings of different thickness
together?
I use a reef knot - but secured with a drop of super glue....
--- On Mon, 22/11/10, Anthony Hind <[5][11][email protected]>
wrote:
From: Anthony Hind <[6][12][email protected]>
Subject: [LUTE] tying two strings of different thickness
together?
To: [7][13][email protected]
Date: Monday, 22 November, 2010, 15:28
Dear All
I may need to lengthen a string which does not quite
reach
the
peg, but goes well beyond the nut. I would like to attach it
to a
slightly thinner short piece of gut to reach the peg in
question.
I
remember that Stephen Gottlieb had done that for several
strings
on
my
lute; but I can no longer remember the type of knot he used.
Can
anyone
advise me, or tell me of a page where this knot is described.
Regards
Anthony
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
[1][8][14]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. [9][15]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. [16]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
2. mailto:[17][email protected]
3. mailto:[18][email protected]
4. mailto:[19][email protected]
5. mailto:[20][email protected]
6. mailto:[21][email protected]
7. mailto:[22][email protected]
8. [23]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
9. [24]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
2. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
3. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
4. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
5. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
6. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
7. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
8. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
9. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
10. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
11. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
12. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
13. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
14. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
15. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
16. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
17. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
18. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
19. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
20. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
21. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
22. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]
23. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
24. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
