I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone through this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some time. Nice try...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>; "Lute builder Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > Martyn, > Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to me to have single frets. Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for diameters, in which case, the first two frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm wide and that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means that the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on these lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of these lutes. > On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows double frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance. > I'm sure your familiar with this site......... > http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Martyn Hodgson > To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > > Michael, > > Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over stuff which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the archives. > > However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient detail in to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it was as much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils those trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to estimate historic tensions. However, there are a few pictures with sufficient photographic accuracy (eg Holbien) and these show double loops. I'd be grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this sort of requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop. > > Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is higher up the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the pitch; the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier. In short, there is no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon............. > > If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so - you'll be pleasantly surpised. > > regards, > > Martyn Hodgson > > > Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Martyn wrote, > >The historical evidence is that double fret loops were >generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace >(he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute >in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself >lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' >'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop >frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a >double loop > > Martyn, > In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to go through the iconography and look specify for this. If this was as popular as you say, one would have expected to see more, and come to think about it I not seen one modern lute with these either. > I've seen allot of paintings of historical lutes, and think it probably safe to sat 99% of what I've seen are single frets. > > The only possible way that double frets could work is if the fret closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the string to make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have big intonation problems. > > As a guitarmaker, I go through great lengths to crown a metal fret exactly at the correct point, this is very important. The string should only come it contact with the crest of the fret. Any difference to this is a personal choice as to how much tolerance one has for out of tunness. > > > > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Martyn Hodgson > To: Michael Thames > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:11 AM > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets > > > > The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace (he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' 'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a double loop. > > This matter has been the subject of previous communications and you can read these in the archives. > > Re. concern about buzzing: - in practice, a double fret beds in very soon and has a real advantage in that the loop nearest to the finger takes most of the heavy wear allowing the other loop to retain a good cut-off profile. > > rgds > > Martyn Hodgson > > Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Jon wrote, > > I see >the comment from > >Michael as to Dowland's suggestion of two gut frets, and >that it makes no > >sense. Again I speak as a beginner, but I can picture a >value to a wider > >fret (two gut frets wouldn't be higher, only wider, unless >they were wound > >together > > Jon the problem isn't the wildness of the fret, but where the string > makes contact. If you have two frets next to each other, and you press the > string down HARD, it will only hit the fret nearest to the nut and the > second fret will cause it to buzz or sound dull. > If you press the string with less pressure it will only ride off the > front fret. This variation is a mm or so for each fret, and will cause huge > intonation problems on a lute with a string length of 600mm which at that > point can't tolerate any inaccuracy. > Michael Thames > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jon Murphy" > To: ; "Lute builder Net" > ; "Martyn Hodgson" > ; "Michael Thames" > Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:21 AM > Subject: Re: Built-in action? > > > > If an amateur may add to the thread (and by now you know I will anyway) > I'll > > toss in my oar. BTW - Martin, Martyn, Durbrow and Thames - sounds like a > law > > firm. The goal is the action. Neglecting any "tilt" in the neck (which > does > > exist in many) there is a natural effect to the midpoint of the string > (the > > 12th fret in almost every case). The "action", or pressure needed, is > easier > > the further from the nut. There is also the matter that the widest > > displacement of the string in its series of vibratations is at the > midpoint, > > the open tonic. (Ooops, as I write this I realize I haven't followed the > > thread from inception - so pardon if this is obvious). But it seems to me > > that the angle of higher at the bridge to lower at the nut, and with all > > frets the same height is natural to keep the finger action the same > through > > that range (to the octave). It is when you get above the octave that the > > problem occurs, as the action gets stiffer as you go from midpoint to > nearer > > the bridge (and the range of vibration, and therefore potential "buzz" > gets > > less). > > > > OK, a speculation for your consideration from a beginner in making these > > boxes. All comments welcome, I am here to learn. I see the comment from > > Michael as to Dowland's suggestion of two gut frets, and that it makes no > > sense. Again I speak as a beginner, but I can picture a value to a wider > > fret (two gut frets wouldn't be higher, only wider, unless they were wound > > together. Good playing practice suggests fingering close to the fret, but > as > > the fret distances gradually narrow up the fingerboard mightened it be > > possible to make the distance more uniform with wider frets at the lower > > end, after all the VL is fixed by the "north end" of the fret. (This is > pure > > speculation, I thought of it as I typed). And carrying that further the > > "action"/pressure is influenced by the distance between frets (try playing > a > > little charango tuned to high tension). Perhaps a wider fret would allow > > playing nearer the center of the fret spacing for an easier action. > > > > Again, all speculation. But with the knowledge that the factors ("tilt" of > > the neck, thickness of the frets, "angle of the dangle" between bridge and > > nut) all interact. > > > > Best, Jon > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael Thames" > > To: ; "Lute builder Net" > > ; "Martyn Hodgson" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:04 PM > > Subject: Re: Built-in action? > > > > > > > >Again, we should always aim to refer to historical >information if we > are > > > to approach what they expected. > > > > > > >rgds > > > > > > >Martyn > > > > > > Didn't Dowland, ( I believe?) also recommend the use of 2 gut frets > > per > > > fret as well? A practice which makes no sense, and no one does > thesedays. > > > > > > Michael Thames > > > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Martyn Hodgson" > > > To: ; "Lute builder Net" > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:21 PM > > > Subject: Re: Built-in action? > > > > > > > > > > Martin, > > > > > > > > Yes. But one of the problems continues to be the reluctance of players > > to > > > employ well graduated frets which allows the lute to be 'set fine' (low > > > action in modern parlance). You only need to read 'Varietie' to > > understand > > > the quite severe graduations required (cf. many current frettings) and > the > > > thickness of the first fret. > > > > > > > > Incidentally, by using graduated frets the 'Old Ones' clearly showed > > they > > > well understood the importance of displacement to the fingerboard rather > > > than just to the top of the fret.............. > > > > > > > > Again, we should always aim to refer to historical information if we > are > > > to approach what they expected. > > > > > > > > rgds > > > > > > > > Martyn > > > > > > > > Martin Shepherd wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > Michael Lowe told me recently that he thought luthiers spent the first > > > > 30 years of their working lives making lutes, and the second thirty > > > > years adjusting actions.... > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > Ed Durbrow wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Herb, > > > > >>There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the top > > > > >>of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually, on > > > > >>some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of > > > > >>the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more > > > > >>even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the > > > > >>strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge. And, as Gernot > > > > >>points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with > gut > > > > >>bass strings being quite fat. That requires the luthier to either > > > > >>cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the > > > > >>treble, or both. I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in > > > > >>which the action was wrong and required remedial work. It was quite > > > > >>a learning experience, and I have much greater app > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >It's always boggled my mind how luthers can get it right. I'd like to > > > > >know how much leeway they have when considering how heavy to make an > > > > >instrument in order to accommodate different sets of strings. It > > > > >seems to me if you make a very light lute, you have to string it up > > > > >to full tension, and hopefully it would work out that just at the > > > > >point of being at the proper pitch, and only then, would the strings > > > > >clear the frets with the lowest possible distance without making a > > > > >buzz. To consider variable stringing when making an instrument must > > > > >mean that they would have to make it heavier. Am I way off base here? > > > > >I'm just speculating, but I would guess they would have to take that > > > > >into consideration. For example, if the tension is raised even > > > > >slightly, that could upset the action so a luther must consider if > > > > >the customer is going to be switching between high and low pitch with > > > > >the same set of strings. Even if the tension is constant, the > > > > >differences in thickness between gut and overspun must through a > > > > >wrench (spanner Brit.) into the works. Just thinking with my fingers > > > > >here. > > > > > > > > > >cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > > > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with > > > voicemail > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail > -- > >
