Yes, Dowland couldn't equate fret sizes with strings which weren't on the lute so he was obliged to give one string for two (or three) frets. In practice the 2nd is to be between the first and third etc.
Cost of double fretting - less than for single. This is because the lower (ie towards the nut) loop takes much of the heavy wear leaving the other to act as the actual fret. I found double lasted around four times single (of course I'm speaking of gut here not nylon). Also with the historic double loop when significant waer becomes an issue, one can slide the fret back (to slacken it) then 'rotate' the fret so that the wear position now lies BETWEEN two courses - then slide the fret upto position to retension. This way the loops'life can be extended - doubled. Incidentally, my understanding of the guitarists use of the word 'action' is the height from the underside of a string to the TOP of a fret. A better measurement is the distance from the underside of the string to the fingerboard (ie how far the string needs to be depressed). With thin upper frets (as Dowland seems to suggest) this distance can be very low at the 8/9th fret so enabling the lute to be set 'fine'. MH --- On Mon, 12/5/08, Anthony Hind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Anthony Hind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Frets > To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net" > <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Date: Monday, 12 May, 2008, 1:17 PM > Dear Martyn > Although the book by Lundberg "Historical Lute > Construction", gives > the explanation I copied, I don't think that > "Historical Lute" in the > title means historical technique as concerns fret tying. > The Dowland indications you give are interesting, but I see > there is > no difference between Fret 1 and fret 2, if taken literally > (but > perhaps it is meant to be a guide, not to be taken > absolutely > literally). > > You are advocating a low action with a first fret of around > 0,70, > perhaps modern fretting (which seems to be higher) is > influenced by > other modern instruments, or determined by modern strings. > > Lundberg only considers high and low action as an element > in choosing > fret height. Could string tension and string-type also play > a role in > deciding the fret height. Loaded strings, and some Venice > types, are > very supple and tend to have a wide movement,could this not > effect > choice of fret height, also? (I just quoted Lundberg, > hoping his > experience might be of use to others, but I have not had > cause to try > out the advice he gives). > > I certainly do not as yet have practise in fretting > different > instruments with different string types. Obviously, a lute > maker will > be confronted with lutes having high to low actions and > varied string > types, so i would expect you to have experience in this > area that I > don't have at all. > Thanks for any additional clarification on this subject. > > I am just thinking that for most of us, single fretting is > already a > fretful exercise (sorry) but double fretting would have to > give a > very clear advantage to make me go to the extra effort and > cost. > However, if there really is an advantage in it, perhaps I > would try. > Regards > Anthony > > > >> following. > >> > Le 11 mai 08 à 16:39, Martyn Hodgson a écrit : > > > > > Dear Anthony, > > > > The only early source which gives comprhensive and > detailed fret > > sizes is, as far as I'm aware, John Dowland's > 'OTHER NECESSARIE > > Observations....' Varietie (1610). Here Dowland > relates fret sizes > > to strings of the lute: > > > > Fret 1 and 2: countertenor ie 4th course > > > > 3 and 4: as Great Meanes ie 3rd > > > > 5 and 6: as Small Meanes ie 2nd > > > > 7, 8 and 9: as Trebles ie 1st > > > > You'll see that this gives much thinner frets than > most commonly > > use today. It also enables a lute to be set very > 'fine' with very > > low distance from the fingerboard even at the highest > frets. > > > > Interestingly, larger lutes (with as is said elsewhere > ought to > > have thicker strings) will have thicker frets. > > > > Of course, the sizes depend on the precise stringing > but I can't > > see any reasonable stringing on a mean lute requiring > a first of > > 0.70mm. > > > > MH > > > > --- On Sun, 11/5/08, Anthony Hind > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> From: Anthony Hind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Frets > >> To: "Bruno Correia" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu > >> Net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > >> Date: Sunday, 11 May, 2008, 10:42 AM > >> Lundberg in his Historical Lute Construction says > the > >> following. > >> > >> "The eight frets on a Renaissance lute are > generally > >> arranged so that > >> they descend in diameter towards the body. I would > >> typically use the > >> following diameters: > >> > >> Fret 1 1.00mm > >> Fret 2 0.90mm > >> Fret 3- 0.85mm > >> Fret 4 0,82mm > >> Fret 5- 0.79mm > >> Fret 6- 0.76mm > >> Fret 7- 0.73mm > >> Fret 8- 0.70mm > >> > >> However, gut varies, so don't worry about > being really > >> exact. The > >> main points to consider are that the first fret > shoudl be > >> large, the > >> second fret should drop considerably in diameter, > and each > >> of the > >> rest should be about .03mm smaller than the > preceding. > >> If the lute has a very high action, that is, if > the height > >> of the > >> strings above the fingerboard at the neck/body > join is, for > >> example, > >> in the vicinity of 5mm, then it would be better to > tie on > >> frets of a > >> more constant size or even the same size. If on > the other > >> hand, the > >> action is low, then a larger 1st fret together > with a > >> bigger drop > >> between frets and ending with a .66mm might > help." > >> > >> This book is well worth having for its very > reasonable > >> price. > >> Regards > >> Anthony > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Le 11 mai 08 à 05:17, Bruno Correia a écrit : > >> > >>> With so many gauges fretting the lute become > quite > >> expensive... > >>> What about > >>> using te same gauge from the 4th until the > last? Would > >> you have a > >>> photo from > >>> your lute with the fretting described below? I > wish I > >> could see it > >>> to try > >>> myself. > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2008/5/10 The Other <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> > >>>> Using Thomas Mace's method of tying > double > >> frets; locking forceps to > >>>> pull the frets tight enough; Dan Larson > fret gut; > >> in One Quarter > >>>> Comma > >>>> Meantone Temperament, with two 1st frets > instead > >> of using a tastini. > >>>> > >>>> Fret 1a (peg box side)- 1.00mm > >>>> Fret 1b (bridge side)- 0.95mm > >>>> Fret 2- 0.95mm (yes, same size as Fret > 1b) > >>>> Fret 3- 0.90mm > >>>> Fret 4- 0.85mm > >>>> Fret 5- 0.80mm > >>>> Fret 6- 0.75mm > >>>> Fret 7- 0.70mm > >>>> Fret 8- 0.65mm > >>>> > >>>> No buzzing. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> "The Other" Stephen Stubbs. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> To get on or off this list see list > information at > >>> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail. > > A Smarter Email > http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html > > > > __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
