On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:36:47 -0800, Dan Winheld wrote > Chris- > > "Modern gut,since its characteristics are quiet different from > historical gut, does not provide an empirically reliable metric to > determine pitch or tuning based upon string length." > > This bit I find very interesting. Except for the vexed problem of > gut bass strings, with their "how-low-can-you-go" variables, I had > been led to believe (by modern gut string specialists- Mimmo Peruffo > et al) that at least in terms of strength/breaking point, that "Gut > is gut" and the inherent strength is determined at the cellular > level; and by just employing the basic processing procedures for a > low-twist 1st course string one will find out almost the exact, real > world- both present-day and historic- absolute high pitch limit of > an instrument based on string length. > > If this is something that is still in dispute I'd love to know more- > as I am always second-guessing my ideal pitch levels anyway.
I can't speak for Chris, but for me the breaking index is much less important than the strings flexibility. If you take a close look at old paintings, the strings at the pegbox look way more flexible (almost string-like) then any modern gut I have seen. Also, they smoothness of the knots at the bridge (esp. those thick bass strings) is very different from today's gut. When working on a "historic" right hand possition (meaning: little finger behind or on top of the bridge) it feels as if the string at this point is too stiff/inflexible. A tiny shift toward the rose makes playing convincing. So - a slighly more flexible gut would be desirable. Cheers, RalfD To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
