Dear Anthony, Here are my experiences with plain gut basses: I have 2 renaissance lutes strung in all gut - on the 6th and 7th courses I use a tension of about 3kg (for an F-lute at 440, 66cm) or 2.9kg (G-lute at 440, 60.5cm) for the low basses. This is actually slightly higher tension than I use on the 3rd-5th courses. I think the trick is to find the absolute best quality extra-high-twist strings - I find those made by George Stoppani are infinitely better than anything I've tried from Dan Larson or Aquila. Even when these strings are very thick, they are still flexible and produce enough overtones which can then be beefed up by the octave string (I use about the same tension for the octave). If the tension on the basses is too low, then it is hard to really lay into the string with the thumb, which I think is absolutely necessary when playing on plain gut basses. Of course all lutes vary - for example, I find that gut basses sound much better on my Jacobsen lute than on my Thompson lute. And I think it is a mistake to get too worried about tensions. It's better to experiment with different diameter strings and different pitches until you find something that suits your instrument and your way of playing (well, sometimes it might be necessary to adapt the latter!) As for small string holes in the bridge, I just reduce the diameter of the end of the string with a knife if necessary - the string will still be thick enough to be in no danger whatsoever of breaking! I agree with Martyn's breaking pitches for gut strings. However, if I use a plain gut top string on my 60.5cm G lute it has to be very thin to achieve a sensible tension (about 0.42mm or less for me). Since strings this thin are rarely in tune for long and wear out incredibly quickly, I find that it's not really practical to use plain gut for concerts anymore. I also don't like the way very thin strings feel under the fingers. So now I use varnished gut (or even nylon!). However, on my 66cm F-lute I have no problem using a 0.46mm plain gut top string. Also, larger lutes tend to be able to support a slightly higher tension. So, while I think the top string should be tuned up until just below breaking point, I think that there is also a minimum sensible diameter for a top string - for me it is about 0.45mm. For this reason, if I were to order a new G lute at 440 I wouldn't go for a string length above about 59cm. In other words, I would apply what Martyn says about string tensions for seventeenth-century French solo music also to renaissance lutes and their string tensions. All the best, Sam
On 23 November 2010 17:06, Anthony Hind <[1][email protected]> wrote: 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 <[2][email protected]> A : Anthony Hind <[3][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:[4][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 <[5][email protected]> A : [6][email protected]; Anthony Hind <[7][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][8]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm Guy -----Original Message----- From: [2][9][email protected] [mailto:[3][10][email protected]] On Behalf Of Martyn Hodgson Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:05 AM To: [4][11][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][12][email protected]> wrote: From: Anthony Hind <[6][13][email protected]> Subject: [LUTE] tying two strings of different thickness together? To: [7][14][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][15]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. [9][16]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. [17]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm 2. mailto:[18][email protected] 3. mailto:[19][email protected] 4. mailto:[20][email protected] 5. mailto:[21][email protected] 6. mailto:[22][email protected] 7. mailto:[23][email protected] 8. [24]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html 9. [25]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html -- Sam Chapman Oetlingerstrasse 65 4057 Basel (0041) 79 530 39 91 -- References 1. mailto:[email protected] 2. mailto:[email protected] 3. mailto:[email protected] 4. mailto:[email protected] 5. mailto:[email protected] 6. mailto:[email protected] 7. mailto:[email protected] 8. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm 9. mailto:[email protected] 10. mailto:[email protected] 11. mailto:[email protected] 12. mailto:[email protected] 13. mailto:[email protected] 14. mailto:[email protected] 15. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html 16. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html 17. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm 18. mailto:[email protected] 19. mailto:[email protected] 20. mailto:[email protected] 21. mailto:[email protected] 22. mailto:[email protected] 23. mailto:[email protected] 24. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html 25. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
