Dear Dan
I am glad this may be a help, but I see you have far more
experience of nylon strings than I have, so you may not come to quite
the same conclusions as I did.
$
I wonder whether the Adario string was titanium T2 nylon with purple
haze? If so it might have something in common with Titanium Nylon
fishing line. It would be quite low density allowing a thicker string
for the same weight (as I mentionned, once before). However, I think
the T2 could seem quite reserved, if compared to the NNG; or the NNG
might be heard as quite bright when compared to Ti Nylon (which ever
you are used to, possibly).
$
The NNG go down to 1.04, I think.
$
The US distributor seems to be
[1]http://www.aquilausa.com/
but I don't know whether they will have the new string.
$
Best wishes from snow-sludgy Paris
Anthony
$
$
Daniel Winheld
Sun, 19 Dec 2010 09:12:34 -0800
Thank you, Anthony- just the kind of report that you do so well, and
your results will spur me on to get some of the new nylguts (Shall we
just call them "NNG"?) - chanterelles for my new workhorse
Renaissance lute and as far down as possible on some of the others-
4th course & possibly 5th, if they go as thick as about 1.05 mm.
For the last month or so I have been using plain nylon on the R-lute
chanterelle, as even the most durable guts have all shredded their
way to Gut String Heaven- so the blending of that string with the
all-gut rest of the lute matters very much. The best nylon
chanterelle by far that I found was a .46 mm (.018") by D'Addario
that a student of mine found at a guitar store- but they have just
stopped making that size. I have been surprised at how different in
quality, feel, and other subtle factors that nylon strings from
different sources can be from each other. I
was coming to really like
the D'Addarios.
Anyone know who is dealing the new Nylguts in North America?
Thanks,
Dan
> Dear luthenists
> Since I believe many gut users will be tempted to use the New NG
> for Chanterelles on their lutes, I decided to test them that way,
> while keeping all my other strings in gut : my trebles in pure Aquila
> gut, my Meanes as Venices, and my bases loaded with mostly Venice
> octaves.
> $
> I therefore put a 0.44 NG on my 70cm 11c Warwick at 407Hz, and a 42 NG
> on my 60cm 7c Gerle at 440Hz.
> $
> I only have slight direct playing experience with the old nylgut, as I
> have mostly used all gut; so my comparison has to be mainly with treble
> gut (brightish: Aquila, Keurschner, softer: Baldock and darker: Gamut,
> and of course Sofracob).
> $
>
However, I have heard NG on many other people's lutes, and tend to
> find them coldish sounding (bluish transistor-like), particularly when
> a lutenist uses them with warm loaded basses (reddish valve-like).
> $
> When I first looked at the New Nylgut, just as Ed Martin has reported,
> [1][2]http://www.mail-archive.com/baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu/msg02195.h
> tml
> my initial impression was that the feel was much better than the old
> nylgut, and that the colour was closer to gut, although still slightly
> whiter than Aquila gut, but certainly nothing noticeable at, say, a
> meter's distance.
> $
> I was a little surprised when setting light to the end of the string
> (as one does) to find that it broke into flame. I swiftly put it
out,
> and all was well (I dare say that is always what happens with
> synthetics), a little ball had formed without splitting the string as
> sometimes happens with gut.
> $
> The second surprise was when I started to raise the tension of the 44NG
> on the 70cm lute. There was a sudden stretch, with quite a few extra
> turns of the peg (compared with gut), before some stabilisation set-in.
> I wondered about this, as it had been said that the new string was less
> flexible than the old Nylgut. In fact, I didn't notice this so much
> with the 42NG on the 60cm lute.
> However, in both cases, when the string has finally stabilised, it did
> feel about as stiff as gut (and certainly stiffer than the old nylgut).
> $
> I think Ed is quite right to have left his New Nylgut strings to settle
> for a day and a night before
testing them. I put the chanterelle on in
> the morning, and tried it out on the 70cm lute in the afternoon. My
> initial impression was of loudness, as mentionned by Ed, but with a
> slightly over-bright sound, and more surface noise pick up than on the
> older lower gut trebles.
> This, however had more or less dissappeared by the second day. The
> string remains fairly bright yet warmer than the Old Nylgut, but with
> excellent sustain. I now feel it blends in rather well with the lower
> gut Aquila trebles.
> $
> I have often remarked that a string can lend its qualities and defects
> to surrounding strings, but I hadn't noticed to what extent this was
> true of a chanterelle. All the treble strings, particularly on my
> Renaissance lute, seemed to have gained slightly in sustain and
> dynamics from the new string. I liked
this, but some may prefer a
> slightly duller sound.
> $
> The string seems about as stiff under the finger as an Aquila gut top
> string; and I would hazard a guess that it is this string ideal (his
> strong treble) that Mimmo was striving to achieve, with a good strong
> clear sound.
> Now I wonder whether it would blend in quite so well with softer Gamut
> or Baldock lower trebles?
> $
> I noticed that the 70cm string took longer to stabilze than the 60cm
> one. I don't know whether that was due to the difference in length or
> in thickness, but two days is not very long, and lutenists do have to
> be patient. It was confirmed for me by a serious nylgut user that this
> new string does stabilise quicker than the Old Nylgut.
> $
> I personally thought there was quite a big difference between the old
>
and the new type, and this would seem to be the opinion of some other
> gut users (Ed and a neighbour who tried my two lutes).
> However, nylgut users (and lovers), from discussions on the net, do not
> seem to be quite so conscious of the difference. One serious Nylgut
> user told me that they were about 97% the same as the old nylgut, but
> with better colour and stability, as well as greater clarity on the top
> string.
> Gut users probably have different expectations of a string, and I feel
> that the New Nylgut, at least as a chanterelle, gets closer to my ideal
> than the old one did.
> This is my opinion, based on my own string experience, which will
> evidently vary from player to player.
> $
> In short, Mimmo seems to have combined his skills as a chemical
> engineer with his extensive historical string knowledge, to
come quite
> close to his ideal strong gut treble, in accordance with his
> historical string theory set out on his web pages: it is clear, strong
> and projecting well, with good sustain, but once settled in not too
> loud and with a good feel.
> $
> Now will I be keeping this string on both lutes? At present, I am very
> tempted to leave it on my Renaissance lute (where the string breaks
> much more often), but a little less for my Baroque lute.
> I remain a gut user at heart, but I feel this is a very good substitute
> when you want a string that will last, but without sacrificing too much
> sound quality. Indeed, perhaps, as I said, in terms of sustain, there
> might be a little gain.
> $
> This is my opinion after three days in use.
> $
> Meanwhile, I am looking forward to hearing a lute with loaded
basses,
> otherwise entirely strung with New Nylgut, including octaves. This
> configuration did not work too well (in my opinion) when I heard it
> with Old Nylgut, but New Nylgut might just be warm enough.
> Regards
> Anthony
--
--
References
1. http://www.aquilausa.com/
2. http://www.mail-archive.com/baroque-lute@cs.dartmouth.edu/msg02195.h
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
