The scientific method is to construct a hypothesis and then test it by
measurable (and independently repeated) experimental
observations. Anecdotes of ones personal views are not the same at all.
Buying a microphone, however pricey, is not 'the science'.
Hence Martin Shepherd's "I invite all you proper physicists out there
to explain why!" and my own 'I'd be interested to read anything you
have along these lines'.......
MH
__________________________________________________________________
From: David Tayler <vidan...@sbcglobal.net>
To: lute <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Friday, 5 December 2014, 9:42
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Single versus triple roses
I used the best measurement mic, AFAIK, that one can buy and measured
it. That's the science. Part of science is measuring things.
I don't believe there is a "one size fits all" scientific explanation
since there is no standard lute soundboard, bowl, bracing, materials,
strings, etc., (way too many variables) but it is universally
accepted
that if it is too noisy in the house you close the window. If someone
comes up with a theory, that's great and I would read it, of course,
and probably only understand half of it. But there would be no way of
knowing whether the theory was correct--just read the history of
acoustical theory. One could do a controlled study of a particular
lute, but what would the goal be? If it is to play loud, then
purchase
a tuba.
d
__________________________________________________________________
From: Martyn Hodgson <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: David Tayler <[2]vidan...@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: "[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" <[4]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Single versus triple roses
In his interesting response, I had understood Martin was asking for a
measured scientific explanation rather than a list of anecdotal (and
necessarily subjective) observations: "I invite all you proper
physicists out there to explain why!". I'd be interested to read
anything you have along these lines.
MH
__________________________________________________________________
From: David Tayler <[5]vidan...@sbcglobal.net>
To: BENJAMIN NARVEY <[6]luthi...@gmail.com>
Cc: "[7]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" <[8]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2014, 19:13
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Single versus triple roses
This is a very interesting question, and also one that has been
debated
in the construction of harpsichords.
I have a few, very simple observations.
First of all, and most importantly, Andy is absolutely correct that
if
you use a measurement micaI recommend the DPA 4007aand analyze the
sound coming out of the sound hole (or holes), the sound is vastly
different. The classic mistake when recording lute, guitar, cello,
harpsichord, etc, is to place the mic too close to the soundhole,
because of the extreme difference in the sound. You can also make a
tube out of paper, roll it up and listen like a coelenterate. Using
the
same mic, you will also see that the bridge is the other hot spot.
Let's take a little detour here and mention that in almost all
recordings of lute, the frequency pattern is skewed so the left
channel
sounds different than the right, and that's because the sound is
fundamentally different from the rose and the bridge, causing big
imaging problems (which can be fixed using the lute centering
trick,
subject of another post).
I can also go on record as saying that if you take a cheap lute and
remove the rose and put a different one in, it will change the
sound.
Also, the surface area of the actual holes (not the size of the
rose
but the amount of space in the rose) makes a difference. If you add
a
vent hole to the bass, well, it changes the sound. They knew this
back
whenever.
Lastly, the rose and the lute form a strategic sound system. You
can't
teak one without tweaking the other. And that's because the size of
the
rose affects the resonance and flexibility of the soundboard on the
rose bar amplification nodeaa sub-hotspot that runs usually through
the
middle of the rose, edge to edge but mainly in the middle (the
center
of the rose or rose pattern, in most cases).
If you make a BIG single rose that has the same open surface area
as
a
triple, generally speaking it will sound more open, and if too big
will
make the lute yawn. But it all depends on the way the sound board
interacts with the tension resulting from the roseaa really big
rose
bends easier, unless heavily barred (another factor).
My feeling is that the most open sound comes from a large, single
rose
with narrower weaving, but you can achieve almost the same sound
with
a
triple. And, again speaking very generally, if you want a more open
sound, have the rose made a bit larger, bearing in mind that the
lute
may yawn. A lute that has a naturally stiff top may benefit from
the
added flexibility of a single rose, because the top of the triple
is
inherently stifferamore soundboard, less rose. Obviously, the shape
of
the bowl comes into play as the sound board may be wider at the top
of
the rose with a more barge-like bowl. It could also be that players
in
the renaissance and baroque preferred a more covered sound. After
all,
there are no recorders made nowadays with historical windways, the
builders just widen them.
It's up to the builder to find the sweet spot for an instrument,
and
it's up to the player to work with the builder to push the limits.
dt
_______________________________________________________________________
From: BENJAMIN NARVEY <[1][9]luthi...@gmail.com>
To: Martin Shepherd <[2][10]mar...@luteshop.co.uk>
Cc: "[3][11]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" <[4][12]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 4:45 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Single versus triple roses
Dear All,
Thanks so much for all your thoughts into the single/triple rose
conundrum. It is obviously so hard to know just how this aspect
changes
the tonal colours of lutes. It is also very difficult to test
just
how
this one aspect alters things given that every lute is different,
even
if it is the same model from the same maker.
I will continue to do some intuitive and highly unscientific
tests!
Best wishes,
Benjamin
On Sunday, 23 November 2014, Martin Shepherd
<[1][1][5][13]mar...@luteshop.co.uk>
wrote:
I fear there is a natural tendency to think of the rose as the
hole
that "lets the sound out", but I think this is a case where
intuitive physics lets us down.A The size of the opening
affects
the natural resonant frequency of the body, with a smaller
opening
giving a lower frequency.
But I invite all you proper physicists out there to explain
why!
A more complex issue, but one which is related in that it also
involves a mismatch between intuitive physics and the real
thing:
many people seem to believe that the lute soundboard should be
flexible to "allow it to vibrate", and that the more flexible
it
is
the better the bass response.A In fact I think - please
contradict
me if I'm wrong - that the frequencies which we are interested
in
are far too high to be aided by a floppy soundboard, which is
more
likely to have a damping effect.A As far as I can see, a
relatively
rigid soundboard is going to produce a more sustained sound.A
The
most important factor is the mass, which must be kept as small
as
possible so it can be activated by a small input of energy -
hence
the rather thin soundboards (supported by many bars to retain
sufficient rigidity) required by lutes.
Martin
On 23/11/2014 16:07, BENJAMIN NARVEY wrote:
A A Dear All,
A A Just wondering if any of you (especially the makers out
there)
have
A A thoughts about the projection of single versus triple
roses.
A A I have had many lutes/theorboes with both single and
triple
roses over
A A the years, and I have always felt that triple roses
helped
make more
A A sound, and that single roses made possibly more focussed,
but
more
A A "woody", interior, sounds. Perhaps I am wrong?A
A A All thoughts welcome.
A A All best,
A A And thanks,
A A Benjamin
A A --
A A [1][2]www.luthiste.com
A A t +33 (0) 6 71 79 98 98
A A --
References
A A 1. [3][2][6][14]http://www.luthiste.com/
To get on or off this list see list information at
[4][3][7][15]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
[5][4][8][16]http://www.avast.com
--
[6]www.luthiste.com
t +33 (0) 6 71 79 98 98
--
References
1. mailto:[5][9][17]mar...@luteshop.co.uk
2. [6][10][18]http://www.luthiste.com/
3. [7][11][19]http://www.luthiste.com/
4.
[8][12][20]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
5. [9][13][21]http://www.avast.com/
6. [10][14][22]http://www.luthiste.com/
--
References
1. mailto:[15][23]mar...@luteshop.co.uk
2. [16][24]http://www.luthiste.com/
3. [17][25]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
4. [18][26]http://www.avast.com/
5. mailto:[19][27]mar...@luteshop.co.uk
6. [20][28]http://www.luthiste.com/
7. [21][29]http://www.luthiste.com/
8. [22][30]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
9. [23][31]http://www.avast.com/
10. [24][32]http://www.luthiste.com/
--
References
1. mailto:[33]luthi...@gmail.com
2. mailto:[34]mar...@luteshop.co.uk
3. mailto:[35]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
4. mailto:[36]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
5. mailto:[37]mar...@luteshop.co.uk
6. [38]http://www.luthiste.com/
7. [39]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
8. [40]http://www.avast.com/
9. mailto:[41]mar...@luteshop.co.uk
10. [42]http://www.luthiste.com/
11. [43]http://www.luthiste.com/
12. [44]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
13. [45]http://www.avast.com/
14. [46]http://www.luthiste.com/
15. mailto:[47]mar...@luteshop.co.uk
16. [48]http://www.luthiste.com/
17. [49]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
18. [50]http://www.avast.com/
19. mailto:[51]mar...@luteshop.co.uk
20. [52]http://www.luthiste.com/
21. [53]http://www.luthiste.com/
22. [54]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
23. [55]http://www.avast.com/
24. [56]http://www.luthiste.com/
--
References
1. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
2. mailto:vidan...@sbcglobal.net
3. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
4. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
5. mailto:vidan...@sbcglobal.net
6. mailto:luthi...@gmail.com
7. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
8. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
9. mailto:luthi...@gmail.com
10. mailto:mar...@luteshop.co.uk
11. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
12. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
13. mailto:mar...@luteshop.co.uk
14. http://www.luthiste.com/
15. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
16. http://www.avast.com/
17. mailto:mar...@luteshop.co.uk
18. http://www.luthiste.com/
19. http://www.luthiste.com/
20. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
21. http://www.avast.com/
22. http://www.luthiste.com/
23. mailto:mar...@luteshop.co.uk
24. http://www.luthiste.com/
25. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
26. http://www.avast.com/
27. mailto:mar...@luteshop.co.uk
28. http://www.luthiste.com/
29. http://www.luthiste.com/
30. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
31. http://www.avast.com/
32. http://www.luthiste.com/
33. mailto:luthi...@gmail.com
34. mailto:mar...@luteshop.co.uk
35. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
36. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
37. mailto:mar...@luteshop.co.uk
38. http://www.luthiste.com/
39. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
40. http://www.avast.com/
41. mailto:mar...@luteshop.co.uk
42. http://www.luthiste.com/
43. http://www.luthiste.com/
44. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
45. http://www.avast.com/
46. http://www.luthiste.com/
47. mailto:mar...@luteshop.co.uk
48. http://www.luthiste.com/
49. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
50. http://www.avast.com/
51. mailto:mar...@luteshop.co.uk
52. http://www.luthiste.com/
53. http://www.luthiste.com/
54. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
55. http://www.avast.com/
56. http://www.luthiste.com/
