In buying and using our lute strings we place an awful lot of faith in our 
micrometers. I see people changing strings for going up or down a tone or even 
a semitone. Yes, I think I can feel the tension change and hear it to some 
degree but we're often talking a difference of microns in string difference. 

For example, a change of .42 to a .43 is 10 microns which is not repeatable on 
my smaller micrometers (even digital) but is on the 6" digital micrometer. For 
rougher measurements, say, between 1st, 2nd and 3rd courses, the delta is 
easily seen/felt and I think that even I could make a measurement device for 
that for further refinement.

In the 16th century, of course, there were no micrometers although I'm sure 
there were fairly accurate (and perhaps, secret?) methods of fine measurement. 
I'm wondering how they worked out the diameters. Any place I could read up on 
this?

Years ago, a friend did some experiments in roped bass strings and found that 
5th and 6th courses could be made from combinations of the 1st, 2nd or 3rd 
courses. From this we concluded that nearly all sizes of 6c instruments could 
be strung with a total of 3 diameters of strings. The 4th course is a little 
iffy in that it could be made from a thicker 4th size or possibly a combination 
of 2 chanterelles. 

I'm just thinking that by keeping the choices fewer they were able to be more 
efficient in string technology. On the other hand, I wonder if this tended to 
keep the lute technology at a halt: ie, you can play anything you want as long 
as it has the 6 courses of those sizes. 

No, nothing was published and the theories are not ready for primetime but I 
was wondering what other string scientists have come up with. I realize there 
are the notes in Capirola but I'm thinking by mid-century there had to have 
been a larger industry at work, judging from the number of books being 
published and lute inventories.


Sean





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Reply via email to