[LUTE] Re: Frets

[Tony Chalkley]

Dear Anthony,

From your message, I'm not sure if you are interpreting the idea of 
"lowering the action" correctly.  It isn't just a case of thinner frets and 
a lower nut.  If the strings are actually parallel to the fingerboard at a 
given nut height, then progressively lower frets will avoid buzz.  If you 
lower the nut, they will be closer to the lower frets, but by the time you 
reach the eighth, the difference will be much less.

It seems to me likely that the pull on a long guitar neck is much greater 
than on a lute, but if you take the guitar as an example, the frets are all 
the same height, and compensation is provided by the pull which brings the 
nut upwards, creating a very shallow triangle with the longest side being 
the strings.  If you feel that the action on your lute is excessive, as far 
as I know the only solution is to reset the neck at the joint with the body, 
lowering the nut with reference to the bridge, and this could be by 
something less than a millimetre of shaving off the joint. Not a fun job.

Unless of course one of the makers on the list says I'm wrong...

Yours,

Tony
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony Hind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:38 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Frets


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




--