Thank you Anthony for a most complete explanation of all the important facts and factors concerning these most highly evolved loaded gut strings. Now I feel confident that I could actually order them and know what to go for, and expect. And not only which lute to use them on but just as important- where NOT to use them!
I'm sure that they are the strings to use on my Baroque lute, but less sure of their suitability on my 8 course. Playing style/touch comes into play here; my B-lute RH is already modeled after what we can see in the famous picture of Charles Mouton, (only not quite as far back to the bridge) and even with the strange combination of strings on it now the sound & style fit the instrument and the music quite well. The tension overall is about .2 or .3 Kg per string more than Toyohiko Satoh's recommended tensions from the chantarelle down to about the 6 or 7th course, then matches his- right where the higer tension of the new loadeds would be applicable. But just now from your last message- "...although I have been getting away with 2K7"- so I think it's going to work. Such tension, and more, have been harmless to this instrument in the past. (An old Robert Lundberg "Hoffman" interpretation. Not an instrument to write home about, but does the job for my needs.) My approach to the Renaissance lute is completely different; I am laying into the unison gut (Larson Pistoys) very vigorously at times w/ thumb under and half-way into the rose. Even strong thumb rest strokes on the 5th & 6th courses produce no buzzing. Of course I must use enough discretion and good LH touch to maintain the correct string spacing or I get proximity string slap- a different matter from the buzzing that concerns us. Not sure if the new loaded gut would blend well with the other courses on the low 8th D, as it would be the only string of this radically different type on this lute- but I would like a touch more clarity from that string than I get even with the Larson GImp paired with a strongish octave string, although the tone color, volume, and intonation all work very well with the rest of the strings as a whole. String tensions on this lute are exactly as Larson had set it up- (his tension charts are on his Gamut string website) he really nailed it for me with this instrument. Putting these new strings on my 6 course lute would be like putting low profile racing tires on 1936 Plymouth. UnHIP and unwise, maybe even dangerous. Wish I could have been at your house the day you had for lutes all loaded with loaded guts. Dan > Dear Daniel and All > There is a fundamental difference between the first and the > second generation loaded guts. The first were loaded on a single high > twist core, and the second were loaded on Venice twine. > The flexibility of the Venice twine gives better harmonicity, but by > its very flexibility needs to be treated with care, in setting up, and > in RH technique. > $ > Furthermore, Mimmo made a third "improvement"; while in the first > loaded Venice-type, the cores became progressively much thicker, say > from 6th through to the 11th, in the more recent ones, the core remains > almost the same, but the loading increases. > So imagine a fairly thin Venice core loaded with copper, it is going to > act more like a pendulum than a spring, there is very little core to > pull the string back once you have given it its impulse (ultra low > impedance). This gives a better sound, but calls for more care when > setting a lute up, and when striking the string. > When ordering Venice twine (which is very stretchy), Mimmo advizes to > multiply the value you require by 1.07. The same must be done for a > loaded string, as it has the same stretchy quality. > That is what gives its harmonicity, or its fantastic singing quality. > In fact, the loaded string, perhaps because of its thin core, is even > more stretchy, and so possibly, multiply by 1.07, and then take the > next value up. > $ > The result of the stretchiness is an ultra low impedance string, > similar in some ways to an ultra low tension HT string. It may be > necessary to strike it slightly closer to the bridge, to find the point > of best impedance. > Do not consider loaded strings if you are hoping to go for low tension > stringing. The only reason to do that is if the strings are high > impedance HT strings. Loaded strings are already ultra low impedance! > $ > Expect to wait at least a month for the string to come up to its final > tension, and to to gain slightly in the high harmonic area. It will > progress for at least 6 months. > $ > Consider using a higher tension Meane octave for basses 7c down. This > gives even better harmonic behaviour, and helps reduce the risk of > buzzing. > $ > When I used a loaded string on my 7c Renaissance lute, instead of a > thick Pistoy, I did get buzzing, otherwise I far preferred the sound. > To solve this problem I raised the string slightly by slipping a small > piece of tube ticket under it, and I also raised it at the bridge, just > by twisting it. There was still the occasional buzz, but much reduced. > I think that if you order a loaded string for a new lute, the lute > maker will probabluy set it slightly higher than he would for a thick > Pistoy. > $ > When I ordered my 11c lute from Stephen Gottlieb, he set the lute up > for the loaded strings, but unfortunately, he did not do the necessary > calculation when ordering them, and so instead of the 3Kg he announced > they were more like 2K9. The octaves were at 2K7 (total 5.6Kg). He also > strung it at 415Hz, but I wanted 392Hz. > $ > At 415Hz they only buzzed occasionally while they were new; but when I > lowered the diapson as much as I could, down to 407Hz, then they did > begin to buzz, but at near 2K75, probably clashing with the octaves > (that were now at around 2K5) and also possibly against the frets. > $ > I solved this largely, by changing to Venice Octaves of a higher > tension, say around 3K3. > I don't know whether it was the combined tension, as I now had around > 6Kg, and so more global resistance, or whether it was because the > Venice octave is of the same material as the bass and so has the same > resonance pattern. > Nevertheless, I would strongly advise using higher tension Venice > Octaves with loaded basses. > $ > Having done this successfully with my Baroque lute, I also put higher > tension Venice octaves on my Renaissance lute, and noticed an instant > improvement. > $ > When choosing a loaded string, probably you should go for 3Kg or > above, but I prefer 2K9 on the basses and 3K3 or even 3K5 on the Venice > octaves. > This gives a very pleasant sensation: the loaded string gives way, and > the Venice catches you. The Venice becomes the leading string, giving a > superb Meanes edge to the bass sound. > The fact that these strings, move like a pendulum gives them a superb > singing quality. > You don't get that with a tress, like a Pistoy. > $ > The other day, I had four loaded Baroque lutes in my flat: two Stephen > Gottlieb 11c lutes, and two Martin Haycocks (one 13c the other 11c). > $ > The sound of these basses on all four lutes was quite amazing! Yes it > does call for care when setting them up, and perhaps you should err in > the direction of higher tension. Two of those lutes had basses at 4Kg! > Personally, I feel that is overkill, and if one uses high tension > Octaves, probably unnecessary. > S: > At present, as said elsewhere, I am finally going to lower the diapason > of my 11c lute to 392, by shifting the basses up one. Thus I will > actually have the 2K9 I want, and my octaves will be at 3K5. I feel > fairly sure that will be an excellent compromise, but I will report on > this. > Regards > Anthony > PS The fact that the present loaded Venices more or less keep the same > core, while stepping up the loading as you move from 6C to 11c, makes > them similar to the basses of a 12C lute, except that in the 12c lute, > while the diameter remains stable, the length increases by steps. > ---- Message d'origine ---- -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
