From: Anthony Hind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Frets
To: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008, 10:38 AM
Oh I have just seen from their sites that several lute
makers do
offer both single and double fret options, and at least one
prefers
double fretting.
Sorry for these repeated corrections, but although I had
heard of
double fretting, I mistakenly thought that they had been
completely
abandonned, never having seen a lute with them, and
therefore i have
never paid attention to the question. Now, as usual when I
begin to
pay attention, I am beginning to see increasing information
about
this on different lute sites.
I am also wondering, from what Martyn H. has
said,whether,
perhaps, I ought to have the action on my Renaissance lute
lowered,
according to historic principles derived from Dowland, and
perhaps
set up with double frets at the same time. I could do the
double
fretting (I think), but I couldn't lower the action
which is a fairly
standard modern stetup similar to that advised by Lundberg:
Frets
1) 1
2) ,95
3) ,90
4) ,85
5) ,80,
6) ,75
7) ,70
8) ,65
However, I am wondering whether a very low action would not
make
changing of temperaments more difficult.
as Jim says " Does this (changing of temperaments)
also imply
different fret gauges? For example, many players use a
fourth fret
that is substantially closer to the third fret than it
would be in
equal temperament, to achieve purer major thirds. Would one
thus pay
closer attention to diminishing the diameter of the fourth
fret to
avoid buzzing when the third fret is fingered?"
I would imagine that the finer the setting, the more
precise you need
to be in the choice of frets.
I could be quite wrong here, as I am trying to imagine this
rather
than to experiment it.
Thus from over caution, I will probably leave my lute as
it is,
while wondering just what improvement could be obtained by
making
such a change.
Anthony
Le 14 mai 08 =E0 10:50, Anthony Hind a ecrit :
I shouldn't say "be capable", but rather
"be willing". No lute
maker has ever offered to set up my lutes with double
fretting.
Having just looked at Van Edwards site, he probably
does offer to
use the Mace method.
Anthony
Le 14 mai 08 =E0 10:21, Anthony Hind a ecrit :
Martyn
Of course this has to be done by the lute maker
(setting of the
action). I wouldn't care to take a file to the
nut of my lute to
lower the string, although I imagine this is what
is called for. I
suppose this implies Dowland set his lutes low.
Would you have any photos of double fretting, or
know of any
already on any site? Do you think most lute makers
would be
capable of changing single to double fretting?
Regards
Anthony
Le 12 mai 08 =E0 17:52, Martyn Hodgson a ecrit :
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 =E0 16:39, Martyn Hodgson a
ecrit :
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 =E0 05:17, Bruno
Correia a ecrit :
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
--
