Hello Martin
I certainly would not say that 3Kg is low (sorry I am lazy and use
Dan Larson's string calc), but since some others seem to be using over
3.5Kg (and tell me the perceived tension of my stringing is low), it is
not that high either (that was all I meant).
We know that to get the small sound hole sizes for certain bass
courses, we would have to go down to almost 1Kg (unless we adopt
Charles Besnainou's half a strand through the hole theory), so of
course this is all relative, and in those terms, most stringing
mentionned here is high tension.
However, differences in tension should perhaps not be considered
separately from differences in flexibility: a Venice at 3Kg does not
behave like an HT at 3Kg. The flexibilty factor becomes even more
evident if you have ever tried one of Charles Besnainou's spring
strings. Even at what you would call a high tension, with these
strings, it is the player who determines the moment that the string
should be released, and not the string's tension. One could decide to
just continue stretching the string without releasing.
You should be right in saying "that the difference between 2.8 and
3Kg is no big deal", except perhaps when we are dealing again with
flexible loaded strings, with these, 0.2kg can be the crucial
difference between the string buzzing or not.
Indeed, that is exactly what happened when I went down from 415HZ to
407Hz, while most lutenists predicted that I should be able to lower
them even to 392Hz (they were reasoning in terms of HT strings). Loaded
strings are sort of like extremely low tension HT strings.
Now raising the Octave up to the original value of the loaded strings
(again just a change of 0.2Kg) solved this problem and the buzzing
stopped. This actually surprised me although that was what I was hoping
for.
I don't actually know why this took place. It could be because the
slightly raised tension of the whole course, changed slightly the angle
of the neck, or simply because the Venice strings vibrate in the same
pattern as the Loaded, thus avoiding clashing of the pair, but I don't
know (I am not the only one to notice this result).
I mention this also because it means you do need to be absolutely sure
what diapason you are going to use if you order Loaded Venices, there
is less margin of error.
Also with this small swap within .2Kg the whole feel of the course
changed in terms of what was the leading string of the couple; so
depending on string types, I think quite small changes can be very
perceptible in effect.
When I can resolve all the problems stemming from my computer
failures, I will try to explain to those of our list who might be
interested, the essence of what I learnt about Charles Besnainou's
spring strings.
Best wishes
Anthony
---- Message d'origine ----
>De : "Martin Shepherd" <mar...@luteshop.co.uk>
>A : "Anthony Hind" <agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
>Objet : [BAROQUE-LUTE] Re: String tensions etc. in d-m-lutes, esp.
11c.?
>Date : 30/11/2009 15:11:18 CET
>Copie `a : wi...@cs.helsinki.fi;
> baroque-l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
>
>Hi All,
>
> Just a comment on the low tension issue.
>
> I don't regard 3.0 Kg (well, let's be scientific and call it approx.
30
> N) as "low tension", so the difference between 2.8 Kg and 3.0 Kg is
not
> such a big deal. When I experimented with using a double top string
on
> a 9c lute (67 cm) I ended up with the low octave of the 9th course
going
> down to about 19N. It was then vital that the upper octave of that
> course was at a higher tension than the fundamental. I ended up
taking
> the pitch down so that the top string was tuned to e' at modern pitch
-
> even so the individual strings of the first course (Nylgut) were
thinner
> than any string which could have been made in the 17th century, so we
> have some serious reconsideration of pitch to do. I was plucking the
> top course about 50mm from the bridge.
>
> Another story relates to a 13c swan-neck lute I recently made with an
> authentically thin soundboard (based on the Schelle MI 46 in
> Nuremberg). I used what I thought were low tension strings but had to
> reduce them again, and the sound was much more like a "renaissance"
lute
> than one usually hears from this type of instrument. I would love to
> have strung the whole thing in gut, but never got the chance.
> Incidentally, the thickest string would be only about 1.4mm, so
unloaded
> high-twist gut would be fine. The only "problem" is the transition
> between the stopped 8th and the open 9th, but that's a problem the
old
> guys must have had too.
>
> I think we are still heavily influenced by the guitar, and the
> expectations of string "feel" it generates - and this applies to
those
> who have never played the guitar, because the lute community contains
so
> many who have - and also by the habit of plucking so far from the
bridge.
>
> At a recent talk by Michael Lowe on lute barring, one very striking
> aspect of "baroque" lutes is how light the barring is, compared to
that
> of the late 16th C Venetian/Paduan lutes. Could it be that our string
> tensions are far too high, especially on baroque lutes? Even on
> renaissance lutes we may have something of the same issue. No one
> claims that the bottom string on the 6c lute in the famous
"ambassadors"
> painting by Holbein is anything other than a gut string (not loaded).
> But it looks closer to 1.2mm than 1.4mm. Food for thought....
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> Anthony Hind wrote:
> > Dear Arto
> > Congratulations on your new 11-course.
> > I am also new to the Baroque lute, but have had my 11c 70 cm
Warwick
> > for just over a year, and have had time to gradually change some of
my
> > stringing.
> > Unfortunately I just had a double computer failure, and I had lost
> much
> > of my stored data, but your message has given me a chance to do a
> > little detective work (old bills, etc), and I think I am now sure
of
> > the original values, and the changes I have made.
> > In brief : On my 11c Warwick, I now use all gut by Aquila, with
Meanes
> > in Aquila Venices, and Basses in Aquila loaded Venices, but the
> Octaves
> > down from g-7 are also in Aquila Venices.
> > The Octaves are now slightly higher in tension (3.1Kg) than the
Basses
> > themselves (2.9Kg).
> > I don't think this is particularly low tension, but nor is it
> > particularly high.
> > However, Venice string types are probably the most flexible, other
> than
> > Charles Besnainou's "spring" strings, and in this respect behave
> > similarly to low tension strings.
> > I have not yet reached a stable RH position. It seems to depend on
the
> > angle of my fingers to the strings. The flatter they are on to the
> > strings, the further back towards the bridge I seem to go.
> > 11c lutes do seem to have wider spacing than 13c lutes, both
between
> > courses and within the course, I might now have chosen a slightly
> > closer spacing between courses as this does add to the stretch of a
> > longish 70cm lute.
> > Now, In more detail :
> > Basses:
> > From the beginning, I used the gut strings Stephen Gottlieb put on
> > my lute, including the loaded Venice Basses for which I had
> > specifically asked him. St G had put them on C-11 up to F-8, but
then
> a
> > Gimped Bass on G-7, and a Venice Bass on A-6. This was because he
> > feared that loaded basses would stop down false; but the result was
> not
> > as homogenous as I would have liked; so I changed these last also
for
> > loaded strings with no serious falseness problem and much improved
> > homogeneity (not because Gimped or Venice strings are bad per se).
> > Meanes:
> > St G had put HT Trebles for Meane 4 and 5, but I changed these to
> > Venice Meanes, again to improve the homogeneity with the Venice
loaded
> > Basses, and I predicted (I think correctly) that similar string
types
> > would work better together ("sympathy").
> > Octaves & Diapason tension switch:
> > St G had chosen 2.8Kg HT octaves with 3kg Venice loaded Basses and
> had
> > strung my lute at 415Hz.
> > I really wanted a diapason nearer 392Hz, so as to have thicker
treble
> > strings (at least 0,44, rather than 0.42); but not wanting to throw
> > away the loaded strings, I lowered the diapason to 407Hz (the
lowest I
> > could acheive with the rather slack loaded strings)
> > My loaded strings then became a rather low 2.9Kg, or 2.85Kg (at
> 407Hz).
> > But to copensate for this drop in tension at the level of the
course,
> I
> > then replaced all the octaves with values worth about 3Kg to 3.1Kg
(at
> > 407Hz). So that from Bass at 3Kg and Octave at 2.8Kg, I now had
Bass
> at
> > 2.9Kg and Octave at 3.1Kg.
> > This works really well. The octaves then became the "leading"
string
> of
> > the course; but as at the same time I swapped all the Octave HTs
(from
> > g-7 to c-11) for Venice Meane strings (see Mace), the leading tone
> > became that of the Meanes creating a beautiful homogeneity from the
> > Basses through to the Meanes.
> > Also, all tendency for the Octaves to buzz with the loaded basses
> > disappeared.
> > I Approximate values and strings chosen by my Lute Maker:
> > 70 cm a'=414 Hz,
> > f1) 0.42 treble gut 4Kg
> > d-2 0.50 treble gut 4Kg
> > a-3 0.58 treble gut 2.9Kg
> > F-4 0.72 HT gut 2.9Kg
> > D-5 0.86V HT gut 2.9kg
> > a-6 0.56 HT treble gut 2.8Kg
> > A-6 1.2 Venice Aquila 3Kg
> > g-7 0.64 HT treble gut 2.8Kg Octave
> > G-7 1.32 Gimped gut 3Kg Gamut
> > f-8 0.64 HT treble gut 2.8Kg
> > F-8 1.46 Venice Aquila 3Kg
> > e-9 0.76 HT treble gut 2.8Kg
> > E-9 1.6C loaded Aquila 3Kg
> > d-10 0.86 HT treble gut 2.8Kg
> > D-10 1.8C loaded gut 3Kg
> > c-11 0,96 HT treble gut 2.8Kg
> > C-11 1.96C loaded gut 3Kg
> > II The final values and string types adopted:
> > 70 cm a'=407 Hz, all Aquilla
> > f1 0.44 treble gut (4.2Kg)
> > d-2 0.52 treble gut (4Kg)
> > A-3 0.60 treble gut x2 3Kg
> > F-4 0.76V gut (twice) 3Kg
> > D-5 0.91V gut (twice) 3kg
> > a-6 0.58 treble gut 3 Kg
> > A-6 1.24C Venice loaded 2.9Kg
> > g-7 73V Venice Meane gut 3kg
> > G-7 140c Venice loaded 2.9Kg
> > f-8 0,82 Venice Meane gut 3kg
> > F-8 1.46C Venice loaded 2.9Kg
> > e-9 0.88 Venice Meane gut 3K9
> > E-9 1.6C Venice loaded 2.9Kg
> > d-10 97 Venice Meane gut 3Kg
> > D-10 1.8C Venice loaded gut 2.9Kg
> > c-11 108 Venice Meane gut 3Kg
> > C-11 1.96C Venice loaded gut 2.9Kg
> > Best wishes to you and your new lute
> > Anthony
> > Dear baroque lutenists,
> > I'm starting with a new (well, used 1993 Lars Joensson) 11-course
> > baroque
> > lute, string length 68cm . One of the problems with a new type of
lute
> > is
> > the tone production. And what makes it tricky is that the playing
> > technique
> > and string properties are connected in many ways. And when there
are
> > more
> > than one parameters that can be changed, it can be very time
consuming
> > to
> > check the many alternatives available. To make my life easier I
would
> > like
> > to make a poll to you, who have more or less solved this question
in a
> > way
> > suitable to you. So some questions:
> > 1) What string tensions you use? Do you use the same throughout? Or
> > more to
> > the 2 singles? Or less to the octaves of the basses? Or some
> > progressive
> > pattern?
> > 2) What string materials you prefer? What materials you actually
use?
> > 3) Do you use your right hand as for ex. Mouton in the famous
> painting,
> > near the bridge, or nearer the rose as many of the "big names" of
> today
> > do?
> > 4) Any other important issues and advice in stringing a d-m-lute,
> > especially 11c.?
> > Thanks in advance!
> > Arto
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> > [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
>
>
>
--
References
1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
