Martin
As previously discussed, double frets (a single piece not two guts)
need a bit of time to 'bed in'. The loop closest to the stopping finger
takes most of the wear whilst the other loop acts as the cut-off. Thus
double frets also last longer than single.
rgds
Martyn
--- On Fri, 19/2/10, Martin Shepherd <mar...@luteshop.co.uk> wrote:
From: Martin Shepherd <mar...@luteshop.co.uk>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: New frets
To: "Lute List" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Friday, 19 February, 2010, 8:04
Hi Sean and all,
Mindful of the fact that HIP frets should be double, in the late 1980s
I had double frets on one of my lutes for some time. I found that I
could flatten the strand nearest the nut slightly by rubbing it with my
thumbnail and this speeded up the process of wearing them in. I had no
trouble with unclear notes.
I can't remember when or why, but eventually I went back to single
frets. Then there was a discussion on this list about the virtues of
double frets, including the idea that they gave a clearer and/or more
sustained sound. So I was inspired to try them again (same lute) and
had some trouble getting clear notes - only in one or two places, but
it was enough to put me off. Perhaps I should have used Sean's
double-single method (non-HIP) which allows you to have a thinner fret
on the nut side and would also make it easier to separate them if you
wanted to go in for a bit of tastino!
I was also attracted to the idea that double frets slip less and might
be more secure in terms of strings slipping sideways, because of the
greater surface area in contact with the string. This was an
especially attractive idea for playing slurred passages on the
theorbo. When I refret the theorbo, I think I'll have to try it.
It's also interesting that most players nowadays use huge frets
(single) while the old guys (the Ambassadors painting, Dowland) used
very thin (double) frets. Is there a connection?
Best wishes,
Martin
Sean Smith wrote:
>
> Well, Dan, there's that special tomato knot that defies comprehension
standing between me and HIP in this case. Can you imagine doing that w/
those monster 1mm 1st and 2nd frets? Brrr.
>
> I don't know if anyone answered the question on how often to change
frets but I remember Jacob Herringmann saying he swapped them all out
before concerts. A lot of work tho I'm sure it gets easier as time goes
by. He uses singles as far as I've ever seen. But there is nothing
quite as clean-sounding as a newly fretted instrument.
>
> Grant Tomlinson taught that we should have a good cradle for the lute
to work with changing frets and expect to take your time. Then he
mentioned Jacob did it all sitting on the couch, lickety split. Me, I'm
an all afternoon kinda guy.
>
> Even new doubled frets at their best never quite sounded as clean as
singles --just my opinion and I'm sure there are pros who really have
it down. Personally, I think the extended surface absorbs the high
frequencies. Same goes for old single frets.
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Daniel Winheld wrote:
>
>>> Do it twice!
>>
>> HEY! It's the SINGLE frets that ain't HIP - look at that damn
picture
>> again- (you know, the one with the boreless Oboe Muto) Is there any
>> known historical information about single frets? Maybe Mace
mentioned
>> them? Don't want to make trouble- just askin'....
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>> Honestly, it works though it doesn't seem HIP whatsoever. The
>>> advantage being you only need to replace one half (always take off
>>> the more worn fret and replace it w/ a new one on the bridge side).
>>>
>>> Anyway, I've done the double fret experiment for a few years on my
>>> main ax. It has worked, I've learned a few things but I'm ready to
>>> come back to the single fret club.
>>>
>>> Sean
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> 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/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
