Measure the holes, examine the marks, scratches, toolmarks, analyze the strings, analyze the wood near the strings for trace residue, etc, etc, it is all very basic research. The biggest chunk of information will be a clearer picture of reentrant tuning. When I used to look at these instruments 30-35 years ago, I wasn't specifically looking at the bridges. Now it is much harder to examine the instruments. But I don't remember seeing a lot of "double reentrant" holes. Not saying they were not there, just doesn't ring a bell. I'm sure I could have missed it :) I will, however, be very surprised if they are all drilled out for double reentrant. Results never fit the theory. Can't think of a single example where that has happened. Can't wait. There is lots of knowledge to be gained by basic research, as there always is. dt
>My dear Watson, > >The logic is clear enough - you can put a thin string through a >bigger hole, but not vice-versa. So if we have some well >authenticated original bridges with small holes (a few would do - it >doesn't have to be a majority) then we have to explain this. We >also have to remember that the Old Ones didn't have highly >engineered twist drills for every 0.1mm, so they may well have >drilled some oversize holes as a matter of technical >practicality. The small holes can be explained by increased string >density (loading or winding with metal, for instance) or low >tension, or only part of the string going through the hole, or maybe >something we haven't thought of yet - but it's not magic. To say >that we don't know how they made their bass strings is obviously >true, but the possibilities are pretty limited - so it's not good >enough to say "we don't know how they did it so we might as well >just use overspun strings", at least not if we have any interest in >how the lute might have sounded before the invention of modern wound strings. > >Just for the record, I don't believe our modern gut strings are >exactly like theirs either, so we probably have some way to go in >terms of reproducing their technology even for thin strings. I >still prefer the sound and feel of them over any synthetic strings, >and I would still like someone to produce a synthetic bass string >with similar characteristics to the best gut bass strings we currently have. > >Best wishes, > >Martin > >Daniel Winheld wrote: >> Dear colleagues and especially our esteemed stringmaker/researchers; as >> regards the present big question- "Was they WAS, or was they WASN'T, >> loaded? In our search for evidence, and evaluation of same, let's also >> keep in mind the famous dictum of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as channeled >> through that old coke addict/violinist Sherlock Holmes: >> >> "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the >> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? >> >> Not simple, of course. with multiple possibilities available to be >> further explored. >> >> > >>How many lutes were mesured for bridge hole's >> >>>diameter? 10, 20 or 30? >> > >> >I dnot see that we need a complete or even a substantial survey. >> > >> >Any instance where the bridge was conceived as we see it and the >> diapason >> >holes are significantly smaller than the holes for stoped basses is >> >evidence tht smaller diameter strings were conciously used, if that >> then >> >obliges the use of strings denser than natural, loading of some >> sort is >> >> >indicated, if not overspin, then chemical. >> >>-- >> >> -- >> >> >>To get on or off this list see list information at >>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> >
