Sean and all, it seems that the pics are still online.
www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadors.html Enjoy! g On 20.06.2005, at 00:44, Sean Smith wrote: > > Michael, > Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the Ambassadors on my > hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he could send you > one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is no > uncertainty there. > > Gernot? > > Sean > > > On Jun 19, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thames wrote: > > >>> 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... >>> >> >> Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how >> large >> of a >> spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look ! In these photos there >> is not >> even a hint of what looks like two frets together. >> And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double >> fret >> looks like. >> >> Michael Thames >> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Lute Net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> >> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM >> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets >> >> >> >>> 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 >>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >
