>Sound box is not an absurdity. My preference is for wider >and flatter shell >of Tiefennbrucker-Edlinger type which differs quite >significantly in >acoustics from the slender types, although this can only be >worded in the >manner that smacks of a wine label. >Flatter lutes are also a lot more ergonomic on one's left >shoulder. >RT They also have a more fundamental sound, closer to the flat sound of a guitar. The slender lutes if not too deep, have a more complex sound. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:05 AM Subject: Re: Schelle lute
> >>> When will big, flat-backed lutes built for renaissance > >>> tuning and incorporating Kasha/Schneider bracing systems and bridge designs > >>> sweep the lute world? Why not use geared tuners? Etc? > >> Has been exhaustively discussed. Let's not whip this beached salmon back to > >> life. > > > > > > I know it has, and I am not remotely interested in a Kasha lute with geared > > tuners, but how is changing the profile or air volume of a soundbox without > > precedent, even if slight, different than any of the more radical > > absurdities I've listed? > Sound box is not an absurdity. My preference is for wider and flatter shell > of Tiefennbrucker-Edlinger type which differs quite significantly in > acoustics from the slender types, although this can only be worded in the > manner that smacks of a wine label. > Flatter lutes are also a lot more ergonomic on one's left shoulder. > RT > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
