[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Baroque Lute Stringing

2017-02-04 Thread Anthony Hind 
   I don't think I disagree Martyn, you say "Martin's practice of thinning
   at the bridge is probably  to allow the string there to vibrate around
   a clean take off point thus minimising frequency absorption (ie
   damping)", I have used the expression "lowering impedance", ie
   minimising resistance to vibration, or as you prefer, "minimising
   damping" (I was only referring to this marginal effect of whittling
   down) and not suggesting the characteristics of the string as whole are
   not more important.

   I was actually thinking that whittling down a KF string had a similar
   effect to passing only one element of a twine through the bridge hole,
   as Charles Besnainou does with his air core "polyethylene" (or similar)
   twine strings. Of course it is the air core structure that makes that
   string exceptionally low impedance, the passing of only one element of
   the twine through the bridge just further lowers the impedance.
   Similarly the use of a relatively high density KF string should reduce
   impedance compared to a lower density HT gut diapason, the whittling
   down further lowers resistance (or damping) I would not contest that.

   Always a pleasure to discuss these string issues with you,

   Best wishes

   Anthony

   [1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

   Le samedi, février 4, 2017, 10:05 AM, Martyn Hodgson
   <hodgsonmar...@cs.dartmouth.edu> a écrit :

 Thinning of a string will, of course, affect its flexibility where
   the
 thinning occurs but the state of the remainder of the string (ie the
 vast majority of it) remains unchanged and it is this which
   principally
 produces the sound and thus the quality. As remarked earlier,
   thinning
 at the bridge does have a benefit of reducing loss at this point by
 making a more focused take off point rather than one where the string
 can move significantly in the shallower groove produced by a thicker
 string.
 Thus, as we might expect and, indeed, experience the material
 make-up of the totality of the string is what largely produces the
 sound we hear - hence, for example, why loaded gut produces a more
 satisfactory bass than plain gut.
 regards
 Martyn
   __
 From: Anthony Hind <[2]agno3ph...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
 To: Martyn Hodgson <[3]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>; Martin Shepherd
 <[4]mar...@luteshop.co.uk>; "[5]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
 <[6]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
 Sent: Friday, 3 February 2017, 20:45
 Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE]
   Baroque
 Lute Stringing
   Apologies for allowing the incomplete message to shoot forth
   Dear Martyn
 I tend to see methods for reducing the inharmonicity of a
 string
   as simply ways of lowering its impedance to bending while
   maintaining
   its weight: either a) by increasing its elasticity or b) by
   improving
   its flexibility (bendability) through keeping it as thin as
   possible
   for the same weight (particularly near the fixed points from which
   it
   moves). I see loading and thinning at the bridge as similar
   processes
   of type b; while i agree there are many other factors which also
 effect
   the way a string resonates.
   Of course these are merely layman's  weak metaphors for which I
   also
   apologise.
   Best wishes
   Anthony
   [1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
   Le vendredi, fà ©vrier 3, 2017, 4:52 PM, Martyn Hodgson
   <[1][7]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> a à ©crit :
   Dear Anthony,
   I may well have misunderstood the point you make
   'and the extra diameter beyond the bridge behaving similarly  to
   loading, but as though the loading were more of the same material'
   - surely the physical characteristics of a string largely determine
 the
   sound - else why bother?
   Martin's practice of thinning at the bridge is probably  to allow
   the
   string there to vibrate around a clean take off point thus
   minimising
   frequency absorption (ie damping) and, as Martin said, to avoid
   the
   thickish string buzzing against the bridge.  This is not, of
   course,
 to
   say that the rest of the physical characteristics of the string are
   immaterial! The characteristics of the string and hence sound are
   determined by the totality of the vibrating length and thus the
   material, its dimensions its elasticity, stiffness, etc. Otherwise
 one
   might as well make a string out of anything and it would sound the
 same
   if the bridge thinning were identical ..
   regards
   Martyn

   __
   From: Martin Shepherd <[2]

[BAROQUE-LUTE] [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Baroque Lute Stringing

2017-02-04 Thread Martyn Hodgson 
   Thinning of a string will, of course, affect its flexibility where the
   thinning occurs but the state of the remainder of the string (ie the
   vast majority of it) remains unchanged and it is this which principally
   produces the sound and thus the quality. As remarked earlier, thinning
   at the bridge does have a benefit of reducing loss at this point by
   making a more focused take off point rather than one where the string
   can move significantly in the shallower groove produced by a thicker
   string.
   Thus, as we might expect and, indeed, experience the material and
   make-up of the totality of the string is what largely produces the
   sound we hear - hence, for example, why loaded gut produces a more
   satisfactory bass than plain gut.
   regards
   Martyn
 __

   From: Anthony Hind <agno3ph...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
   To: Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>; Martin Shepherd
   <mar...@luteshop.co.uk>; "baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
   <baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
   Sent: Friday, 3 February 2017, 20:45
   Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Baroque
   Lute Stringing
 Apologies for allowing the incomplete message to shoot forth
 Dear Martyn
   I tend to see methods for reducing the inharmonicity of a
   string
 as simply ways of lowering its impedance to bending while maintaining
 its weight: either a) by increasing its elasticity or b) by improving
 its flexibility (bendability) through keeping it as thin as possible
 for the same weight (particularly near the fixed points from which it
 moves). I see loading and thinning at the bridge as similar processes
 of type b; while i agree there are many other factors which also
   effect
 the way a string resonates.
 Of course these are merely layman's  weak metaphors for which I also
 apologise.
 Best wishes
 Anthony
 [1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
 Le vendredi, fà ©vrier 3, 2017, 4:52 PM, Martyn Hodgson
 <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> a à ©crit :
 Dear Anthony,
 I may well have misunderstood the point you make
 'and the extra diameter beyond the bridge behaving similarly  to
 loading, but as though the loading were more of the same material'
 - surely the physical characteristics of a string largely determine
   the
 sound - else why bother?
 Martin's practice of thinning at the bridge is probably  to allow the
 string there to vibrate around a clean take off point thus minimising
 frequency absorption (ie damping) and, as Martin said, to avoid  the
 thickish string buzzing against the bridge.  This is not, of course,
   to
 say that the rest of the physical characteristics of the string are
 immaterial! The characteristics of the string and hence sound are
 determined by the totality of the vibrating length and thus the
 material, its dimensions its elasticity, stiffness, etc. Otherwise
   one
 might as well make a string out of anything and it would sound the
   same
 if the bridge thinning were identical ..
 regards
 Martyn
   __
 From: Martin Shepherd <[2]mar...@luteshop.co.uk>
 To: Anthony Hind <[3]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>; JarosÃaw Lipski
 <[4]jaroslawlip...@wp.pl>; "[5]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
 <[6]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
 Sent: Friday, 3 February 2017, 15:35
 Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Baroque Lute Stringing
   Thinning the string probably does weaken it, but since the strings
   in
   question are way below their breaking strain that would never be a
   problem.  I have not tried thinning at the nut, but I suspect if it
   could be done it might improve the sound still further.  There is
   something to be said for thinning them where they go through the
   hole
   in the peg, allowing a smaller hole to be used and also making it
   easier to persuade the string to bend around the peg.
   Martin
   On 03/02/2017 15:45, Anthony Hind wrote:
 By thinning them at the bridge, Martin, I suppose this allows the
 diapason to be "seen" (as it were) at the bridge as a thinish
 loaded
 string. The effective resonating diameter being that passing
 through
 the hole and the extra diameter beyond the bridge behaving
 similarly
 to loading, but as though the loading were more of the same
 material
 (albeit with a brake on the harmonicity where the whole string
 psses
 over the nut)? Does the whittling down weaken the string? Could
   you
 also thin it at the nut?
   Best wishes
   Anthony
 [1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
 Le vendredi, fà ©vrie

[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Baroque Lute Stringing

2017-02-03 Thread Anthony Hind 
   Apologies for allowing the incomplete message to shoot forth

   Dear Martyn
 I tend to see methods for reducing the inharmonicity of a string
   as simply ways of lowering its impedance to bending while maintaining
   its weight: either a) by increasing its elasticity or b) by improving
   its flexibility (bendability) through keeping it as thin as possible
   for the same weight (particularly near the fixed points from which it
   moves). I see loading and thinning at the bridge as similar processes
   of type b; while i agree there are many other factors which also effect
   the way a string resonates.
   Of course these are merely layman's  weak metaphors for which I also
   apologise.
   Best wishes
   Anthony
   [1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

   Le vendredi, février 3, 2017, 4:52 PM, Martyn Hodgson
    a écrit :

   Dear Anthony,
   I may well have misunderstood the point you make
   'and the extra diameter beyond the bridge behaving similarly  to
   loading, but as though the loading were more of the same material'
   - surely the physical characteristics of a string largely determine the
   sound - else why bother?
   Martin's practice of thinning at the bridge is probably  to allow the
   string there to vibrate around a clean take off point thus minimising
   frequency absorption (ie damping) and, as Martin said, to avoid  the
   thickish string buzzing against the bridge.  This is not, of course, to
   say that the rest of the physical characteristics of the string are
   immaterial! The characteristics of the string and hence sound are
   determined by the totality of the vibrating length and thus the
   material, its dimensions its elasticity, stiffness, etc. Otherwise  one
   might as well make a string out of anything and it would sound the same
   if the bridge thinning were identical ..
   regards
   Martyn
 __

   From: Martin Shepherd 
   To: Anthony Hind ; JarosÅaw Lipski
   ; "baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
   
   Sent: Friday, 3 February 2017, 15:35
   Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Baroque Lute Stringing
 Thinning the string probably does weaken it, but since the strings in
 question are way below their breaking strain that would never be a
 problem.  I have not tried thinning at the nut, but I suspect if it
 could be done it might improve the sound still further.  There is
 something to be said for thinning them where they go through the hole
 in the peg, allowing a smaller hole to be used and also making it
 easier to persuade the string to bend around the peg.
 Martin
 On 03/02/2017 15:45, Anthony Hind wrote:
   By thinning them at the bridge, Martin, I suppose this allows the
   diapason to be "seen" (as it were) at the bridge as a thinish
   loaded
   string. The effective resonating diameter being that passing
   through
   the hole and the extra diameter beyond the bridge behaving
   similarly
   to loading, but as though the loading were more of the same
   material
   (albeit with a brake on the harmonicity where the whole string
   psses
   over the nut)? Does the whittling down weaken the string? Could you
   also thin it at the nut?
 Best wishes
 Anthony
   [1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
   Le vendredi, février 3, 2017, 2:00 PM, Martin Shepherd
   [2]<[2]mar...@luteshop.co.uk> a écrit :
 Just to explain:
 When I said roped strings were dull compared to plain gut I was
   talking
 only about relatively thin strings, say .80-.90mm.
 For the KF strings, the high tensions which many people want to use
 will
 not work because the thicker KF strings are really too thick and
   stiff
 to work.  On the 11th course of an 11c lute I would use nothing
   larger
 than 1.50mm (actual diameter).  I'm using .95 for the 6th course.
 Another factor with KF strings is the importance of thinning them
   where
 they go through the bridge and wrap over themselves in front of the
 bridge.  If you don't do this, the sound will be dull and you will
 probably get problems with the strings buzzing against the top of the
 bridge.
 Martin
 On 03/02/2017 11:39, JarosÅaw Lipski wrote:
 > Mimmo,
 >
 >> You experience is that a roped string is duller than a plain gut?
   I
 have the contrary. Maybe  it is necessary to know how the roped
   string
 was done. Mine is a roped string made with two fresh 'brins' twisted
 like as rope and then polished. In practice our Venices.
 > Yes, I use your Venice roped strings and can confirm this. They are
 brighter than plain gut
 >
 >> I would like to buy some KF strings just to do a comparation:
 > I have both KFs and your CDs and

[BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Baroque Lute Stringing

2017-02-03 Thread Anthony Hind 
   Dear Martyn

 I tend to see reducing inharmonicity of a string as lowering its
   impedance to bending while maintaining its weight.
   [1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

   Le vendredi, février 3, 2017, 4:52 PM, Martyn Hodgson
    a écrit :

   Dear Anthony,
   I may well have misunderstood the point you make
   'and the extra diameter beyond the bridge behaving similarly  to
   loading, but as though the loading were more of the same material'
   - surely the physical characteristics of a string largely determine the
   sound - else why bother?
   Martin's practice of thinning at the bridge is probably  to allow the
   string there to vibrate around a clean take off point thus minimising
   frequency absorption (ie damping) and, as Martin said, to avoid  the
   thickish string buzzing against the bridge.  This is not, of course, to
   say that the rest of the physical characteristics of the string are
   immaterial! The characteristics of the string and hence sound are
   determined by the totality of the vibrating length and thus the
   material, its dimensions its elasticity, stiffness, etc. Otherwise  one
   might as well make a string out of anything and it would sound the same
   if the bridge thinning were identical ..
   regards
   Martyn
 __

   From: Martin Shepherd 
   To: Anthony Hind ; JarosÅaw Lipski
   ; "baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu"
   
   Sent: Friday, 3 February 2017, 15:35
   Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Baroque Lute Stringing
 Thinning the string probably does weaken it, but since the strings in
 question are way below their breaking strain that would never be a
 problem.  I have not tried thinning at the nut, but I suspect if it
 could be done it might improve the sound still further.  There is
 something to be said for thinning them where they go through the hole
 in the peg, allowing a smaller hole to be used and also making it
 easier to persuade the string to bend around the peg.
 Martin
 On 03/02/2017 15:45, Anthony Hind wrote:
   By thinning them at the bridge, Martin, I suppose this allows the
   diapason to be "seen" (as it were) at the bridge as a thinish
   loaded
   string. The effective resonating diameter being that passing
   through
   the hole and the extra diameter beyond the bridge behaving
   similarly
   to loading, but as though the loading were more of the same
   material
   (albeit with a brake on the harmonicity where the whole string
   psses
   over the nut)? Does the whittling down weaken the string? Could you
   also thin it at the nut?
 Best wishes
 Anthony
   [1]Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
   Le vendredi, février 3, 2017, 2:00 PM, Martin Shepherd
   [2]<[2]mar...@luteshop.co.uk> a écrit :
 Just to explain:
 When I said roped strings were dull compared to plain gut I was
   talking
 only about relatively thin strings, say .80-.90mm.
 For the KF strings, the high tensions which many people want to use
 will
 not work because the thicker KF strings are really too thick and
   stiff
 to work.  On the 11th course of an 11c lute I would use nothing
   larger
 than 1.50mm (actual diameter).  I'm using .95 for the 6th course.
 Another factor with KF strings is the importance of thinning them
   where
 they go through the bridge and wrap over themselves in front of the
 bridge.  If you don't do this, the sound will be dull and you will
 probably get problems with the strings buzzing against the top of the
 bridge.
 Martin
 On 03/02/2017 11:39, JarosÅaw Lipski wrote:
 > Mimmo,
 >
 >> You experience is that a roped string is duller than a plain gut?
   I
 have the contrary. Maybe  it is necessary to know how the roped
   string
 was done. Mine is a roped string made with two fresh 'brins' twisted
 like as rope and then polished. In practice our Venices.
 > Yes, I use your Venice roped strings and can confirm this. They are
 brighter than plain gut
 >
 >> I would like to buy some KF strings just to do a comparation:
 > I have both KFs and your CDs and compared them side to side. KFs
   have
 shorter sustain, are more percussive and â¦slightly duller sound IMO.
 KFs work well till 11th course on BQL. I don't like them on
   diapasons.
 CDs have stronger fundamental, longer sustain (much longer than guts)
 and work very well on diapasons, however their elasticity make them
 work only on instruments with higher than normal action and wide
   string
 spacing. Also tuning is not ideal.
 >
 >> Heck, guys, what to do? first or second option?
 >> At present the second option is the winner!
 > Now, the