Presumably FB was talking of dark diapasons and not bass courses
   diapasons with their octaves? Modern wire wounds are very bright and
   there is little need for strong octaves. Personally when using Venice
   gut loaded that were quite flexible and dark, I moved to higher tension
   Venice octaves to compensate the slightly flappy quality of loaded
   basses (which at first had tended to rattle slightly). This works very
   well, the bass initially gives way to the thumb pressure, but the
   higher tension octave gives a delayed resistance (all tendency to
   rattle disappeared). I preferred this to going to a thicker higher
   tension loaded bass which could sometimes sound slightly over damped. I
   have kept these octaves with the new synthetic basses, and the few
   lutenists who have tried my lute found it sounded well with this
   configuration (how well this corresponds to evidence of historic
   stringing, I am not sure. Although where indicated that octaves should
   be played without basses, my octaves have a good tuneful presence,
   which I doubt would be the case with lower tension ones; but along with
   FB some might argue 'basses should be basses', whereas mine have a
   slightly singing Meanes presence to them).

   In the past, I have used first generation stiff HT loaded gut and
   second generation flexible Venice loaded gut and now the flexible
   synthetic ones, and after a time and some tweaking, managed with each
   type. I think the playing style alters somewhat to adapt to stringing
   and tensions, but I can imagine that those used to very stiff
   wirewounds might take some time to adapt. On the other hand, if a
   flexible bass is false, no increased tension of the octave will prevent
   it from rattling.
   Regards
   Anthony

   Le jeudi, février 2, 2017, 10:53 AM, Mimmo Peruffo
   <mperu...@aquilacorde.com> a écrit :

   The Well, Tony Bailes mailed me that:
   Writing in 1629 Francis Bacon stresses that low strings should produce
   a
    bass sound: "for we see, that in one of the lower strings of a lute,
   there
   When soundeth not the sound of the treble, nor any mixt sound , but
   onely the
   sound of the base."
   Mimmo
   ps: I can made them less stretchly using a different elastomer. the
   problem
   is that they became a bit darker in the sound. Any suggestion? I am
   ready to
   start with the big batch. I am a bit worry about those that like that
   they
   are in some way still close to the wound strings
   -----Messaggio originale-----
   From: Martin Shepherd
   Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 10:26 AM
   To: Mimmo ; Matthew Daillie
   Cc: [1]baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   Subject: [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: Baroque Lute Stringing
   Dear All,
   If we're really interested in how lutes might have been strung
   historically, I think it's important to take the historical evidence
   (very little of it, I know) as a starting point, rather than the habits
   of modern players using modern strings.
   We have a lot of iconographic evidence (plus the evidence from
   measuring
   bridge holes) that bass strings were rather thin - so the conclusion
   that they were more dense than a plain gut string seems pretty well
   inescapable.
   Having said that, the tensions which modern players expect may be too
   high, for several reasons.  One is that we are accustomed to wound
   strings, which are very flexible and don't work at all well if they are
   at too low a tension.  A related problem is that modern players tend to
   play much further from the bridge than their historical counterparts.
   Another issue is that we have tended to assume roughly equal tension
   across all the strings, so we have not experimented much with a
   tapering
   of tension as we go down into the bass.  One interesting aspect of the
   iconography is that strings get progressively thicker as they go down
   into the bass, but not as much as one would expect if the tensions were
   equal.  To make this concrete, for a descent of an octave (maintaining
   equal tension) the string should double in diameter, so the 6th course
   on a 6c lute should be nearly twice the diameter of the 4th.
   On the subject of string diameters, Mimmo estimates the thinnest string
   which could have been made in the past as .42-.44mm. Single top strings
   will need to be a higher tension than the individual strings of a
   course, but even so it is more or less inevitable that the tension must
   be tapered to some degree, otherwise bass strings (and tension) would
   be
   enormous.  Mimmo has recently written that equal tension is different
   from equal "feel", and I agree with his suggestion that (in order to
   maintain equal feel) thinner strings should therefore be at a higher
   tension than thicker ones.  I have done this as a matter of instinct
   for
   many years - using a higher tension on the second course than on the
   third, for example.  As an aside, I note that most of us have tended to
   use octaves at a lower tension than the fundamentals, but the string
   table in the Gaultier book (discovered by Andreas Schlegel), and my
   more
   recent experiments, suggest perhaps a more equal tension.
   As far as the characteristics of the strings is concerned, there are
   some apparent contradictions in the historical evidence.  Many
   paintings
   give the impression that the strings were very floppy (compared to
   modern gut strings), with lengths of spare string dangling from the
   pegbox.  On the other hand, one of the tests for a good string
   recommended by Dowland is "stiffness to the finger" (assessed before
   putting the string on the lute by pressing the end of the string to see
   how bendy it is).  In terms of elasticity, Mace talks about a string
   stretching "an inch or two" in the winding up - suggesting a string
   much
   more elastic than almost any modern string.
   Then we come to another apparent contradiction on the area of modern
   experiments.  I have found the Savarez KF strings (made from PVDF, much
   more dense then gut, so perhaps more like a "loaded" gut string as far
   as density is concerned) work very well, in spite of being very stiff
   and not very elastic.  They also work well at lower tensions than other
   types of string.  They are usually pretty true, and that helps.  The
   implication seems to be that a string which is sufficiently dense (and
   can therefore be thin) doesn't need to be very elastic in order to
   work.  I don't know how to reconcile this with the historical evidence,
   but it occurs to me that there is a difference between elasticity
   (stretchiness) and "sideways flexibility" or "floppy flexibility"
   (which
   it seems the old strings may have had).  Think of the difference
   between
   an rubber band and a piece of household string - the cotton string is
   very floppy but has very little elasticity.  All things considered I
   would definitely be interested to see Mimmo make a string with lower
   elasticity. Trueness is paramount - if a string is even slightly false
   the irregular pattern of vibration will make it rattle against the
   frets
   and it will never sound well even as an open string.
   Just a few thoughts for you to chew on....
   Martin
   On 02/02/2017 07:20, Mimmo wrote:
   > Well, I can add a few informations
   > There are no production problems it shelf. I had an extruder broken
   so I
   > was obliged to wait the time to fix it. After that I finished the raw
   > material. I received it a week ago.
   > They has more amplitude in the vibration whose problem is mostly
   because
   > one should compensate the lack of tension when the strings are under
   > tension. In practice they became thinner that any wound strings. In
   short,
   > if the equivalent gut by calculation is 145 I raccomand  to install a
   150
   > instead. So under tension the final gauge will be the suitable one.
   > Yes, there is no problem to switch to a more stiffer plastic blend.
   The
   > problem is that we lost a bit of brightness. Is it a good idea ? I do
   not
   > know, people has  the wound strings sound in comparation.
   > Take care
   > Mimmo Peruffo
   >
   >> Il giorno 01 feb 2017, alle ore 23:34, Matthew Daillie
   >> <[2]dail...@club-internet.fr> ha scritto:
   >>
   >> Of the main copper-wound strings available, the fullest sounding and
   >> brightest are the Kürschner followed by the Savarez, then the
   Aquila Ds
   >> and lastly the Aquila DEs, which are pretty dull (and are no longer
   being
   >> made although several retailers still have quite large stocks
   available).
   >>
   >> As far as I am concerned the jury is still out on the Aquila loaded
   >> nylgut. Many of us have high hopes but there are production problems
   >> (there has only been one batch so far and many diameters are
   unavailable)
   >> and some strings can have considerably sideways amplitude when
   plucked
   >> (even causing them to catch neighbouring strings!) as well as
   intonation
   >> issues (but that is also true of a lot of wound strings).
   >>
   >> Best,
   >>
   >> Matthew
   >>
   >>> On 01/02/2017 22:25, David Rastall wrote:
   >>> It seems I am back playing Baroque lute once again, after rather a
   long
   >>> hiatus.  It's been long enough that I have forgotten some of the
   points
   >>> of conventional wisdom concerning stringing.  I'm playing an 11c
   lute
   >>> currently strung with silver-wound basses and Pyramid nylon mids
   and
   >>> trebles.  I'm not so much bothered by the sustain of the nylon
   strings,
   >>> but if you folks can refresh my memory:  what is the best choice of
   >>> basses to get a sustain which is not downright thunky or chunky,
   but has
   >>> shorter sustain than the silver-wounds?
   >>>
   >>> David R
   >>>
   >>
   >>
   >> To get on or off this list see list information at
   >> [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   >
   ---
   This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
   [4]https://www.avast.com/antivirus

   --

References

   1. javascript:return
   2. javascript:return
   3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   4. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Reply via email to