Several previous messages from synthetics users mention the advantage of using carbon strings on the 4th and 5th course to avoid wire- wounds. Nobody, in that discussion (i can recall) mentioned Savarez KF. Some answers contrasted carbon and nylgut, others carbon and gut. However, I notice that Jacob Heringman, who uses gut for recording, says,"For touring and performing, as opposed to recording, I use nylgut in the treble and mid-range, down to the fifth course (though I'm experimenting with Savarez KF strings for the fifth course at the moment), and the above-mentioned gut basses, with nylgut octaves." http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/Heringman.html
The KF might be an alternative then to carbon for the 5th also for synthetic users (Savarez, in fact, claim the KF are closer in sound and texture to gut), perhaps they have properties in between carbon and nylgut, hopefully, being less slippery than carbon? I have heard people calling them carbon strings, but I think they may be a fluor based product. I have never, tried them myself, but they might be a serious but more expensive alternative for the fifth course for someone using synthetics, who did not want to use wire-wounds, and who does not like carbon fishing line. Personally, I have been comparing Aquila Venice and Gamut Lyons on my 5th course, of which more, perhaps, later. Choices for 4th and 5th strings do seem to be critical for gut users too. Anthony Le 19 juin 07 à 09:42, David Van Edwards a écrit : > Indeed the carbon music strings are just fishing line, as has been > revealed by the withdrawal of 0.7 size [the one I find most useful > for the 4th course] from the string-makers list at the same time as > it has vanished from the fishing line range. I went looking around > fishing sites and shops hoping for an old unsold reel of 0.7 but no > luck. > > Apparently the large sizes have been superceded in the fishing world > fashion stakes in favour of braided strings which are stronger and > more flexible. I didn't try a braided string, but maybe I should have. > > When you start trawling [sorry!] round, it's whole different world > out there underwater, where they are interested in the refractive > index being close to that of seawater so the lines are invisible (the > big attraction of carbon apparently) and the amount of friction as > they drag on the bottom. > > Best wishes, > > David > > > At 08:39 +0200 19/6/07, LGS-Europe wrote: >> Carbon 4 = 0.33mm = Gut Equivalent 0.39mm = Nylon 0.42mm >> Carbon 5 = 0.37mm = Gut Equivalent 0.44mm = Nylon 0.46mm >> Carbon 6 = 0.405mm = Gut Equivalent 0.48mm = Nylon 0.52mm >> Carbon 7 = 0.436mm = Gut Equivalent 0.52mm = Nylon 0.56mm >> Carbon 8 = 0.47mm = Gut Equivalent 0.55mm = Nylon 0.60mm >> Carbon 10 = 0.52mm = Gut Equivalent 0.61mm = Nylon 0.66mm >> >> Or something near enough for practical purposes. I believe the Carbon >> numbers have something to do with the size (weight) of fish you're >> able to >> catch, and they go up to at least 24. Presumably for whaling ... ;-) >> >> David >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Charles Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Lutelist" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> >> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 11:34 PM >> Subject: [LUTE] Carbon strings >> >> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> I have three carbon strings, at least I had three, marked No.6, >>> No.8 and >>> No, >>> 10. Presumably these were from reels of fishing line. Is there a >>> standard >>> relationship between this type of numbering and string diameter? >>> thanks >>> Charles >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> To get on or off this list see list information at >>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >>> > > > -- > The Smokehouse, > 6 Whitwell Road, > Norwich, NR1 4HB > England. > > Telephone: + 44 (0)1603 629899 > Website: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk > >
