My 70 cm Warwick works well at 392Hz. While going from 407Hz to 392Hz,
I wanted to raise the tension of the basses slightly, so I just shifted
them along one increment (C1 to D2 etc). However, I changed most of the
mid and top strings.
The basses were two years old, but still seem good.
A smaller lute, as Ed suggests, might be better at 415.
Anthony
PS My intuition might be that certain pieces are better played at 392,
but perhaps not all.
__________________________________________________________________
De : sterling price <spiffys84...@yahoo.com>
A : howard posner <howardpos...@ca.rr.com>; baroque lute list
<baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Envoye le : Mardi 29 Novembre 2011 5h18
Objet : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: A=392
Hi-After just playing it now, I like the basses but the 1st and
2nd courses could be higher tension of course so I think I will go
that
way.
Just curious--how many of you are playing baroque lutes at A=392? I
think it works quite well on a larger lute, but I'm not convinced it
should be done on a smaller lute(ie below 69cm). My 70.5cm Burkholzer
will stay at 415.
-Sterling
From: howard posner <[1]howardpos...@ca.rr.com>
To: baroque lute list <[2]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 7:15 PM
Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: A=392
On Nov 28, 2011, at 5:15 PM, sterling price wrote:
> My question is: should I
> just tune the same 415 strings down or get a new set of strings
for
> 392?
Yes. Those are pretty much the only two options.
> Right now it is at 392 but I'm wondering if it might sound better
> with new strings. Any thoughts?
Do you like it at 392 now?
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
[3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
--
References
1. mailto:howardpos...@ca.rr.com
2. mailto:baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
