Built-in action?

[Herbert Ward]

I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers,
who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood.

Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are
credited with the action of a lute.

The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_
of the frets are.  

The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
diameters.



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Gernot Hilger]

Herbert,
this is an astute statement worthy of a physicist which I assume you  
are (I am one as well). :-)

But there is at least a second dimension to take into account. In  
particular with baroque lutes, you got to deal with a more-or-less -  
for now I'd call it this a- hyperconical shape for the fretboard  
because the bridge is more or less straight and the nut is quite  
irregularly curved, straighter in the bass area and astonishingly  
curved for the treble. Also, bass strings need considerably more  
space than the trebles and our poor luthier needs to take care of all  
this.
Choosing different fretgut will only change the action so-to--say  
linearly neglecting most of the more complex geometrical requirements.

Also:
> The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is  
> controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters.
No, I do disagree, the action is controlled by the luthier's work  
PLUS the person's who chooses the fret diameters. If the former does  
pretty much of a botch job, you'll probably go nuts while fretting  
the axe.

Physicist's cheers from cold Germany
g




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Tony Chalkley]

Nope - the action is composed of the shallow triangle formed by strings, the
soundboard and the neck.  Unless I've missed something somexwhere...


- Original Message -
From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 9:35 PM
Subject: Built-in action?


>
> I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers,
> who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood.
>
> Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are
> credited with the action of a lute.
>
> The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_
> of the frets are.
>
> The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
> which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
> diameters.
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>

RE: Built-in action?

[timothy motz]

Herb,
There is more to it than that.  Your description assumes that the top
of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard.  Actually, on
some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction.  That brings the line of
the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more
even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the
strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge.  And, as Gernot
points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut
bass strings being quite fat.  That requires the luthier to either
cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the
treble, or both.  I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in
which the action was wrong and required remedial work.  It was quite
a learning experience, and I have much greater appreciation for a
lute in which the action is good.  These instruments seem simple at
first, but when you start measuring and comparing one to another, you
find that there is a great deal of subtle variation that a luthier
can put in to alter the sound and playing properties.  Building a
basic lute wasn't that hard for me, but I'm finding that building a
good lute is a challenge.  I didn't get there with this lute; perhaps
with the next one.

Tim
>
>
> Original Message 
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
>Subject: RE: Built-in action?
>Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:35:13 -0500 (CDT)
>
>>
>>I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers,
>>who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood.
>>
>>Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are
>>credited with the action of a lute.
>>
>>The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_
>>of the frets are.  
>>
>>The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
>>which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
>>diameters.
>>
>>
>>
>>To get on or off this list see list information at
>>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>

RE: Built-in action?

[timothy motz]

Herb,
There is more to it than that.  Your description assumes that the top
of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard.  Actually, on
some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction.  That brings the line of
the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more
even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the
strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge.  And, as Gernot
points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut
bass strings being quite fat.  That requires the luthier to either
cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the
treble, or both.  I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in
which the action was wrong and required remedial work.  It was quite
a learning experience, and I have much greater appreciation for a
lute in which the action is good.  These instruments seem simple at
first, but when you start measuring and comparing one to another, you
find that there is a great deal of subtle variation that a luthier
can put in to alter the sound and playing properties.  Building a
basic lute wasn't that hard for me, but I'm finding that building a
good lute is a challenge.  I didn't get there with this lute; perhaps
with the next one.

Tim
>
>
> Original Message 
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
>Subject: RE: Built-in action?
>Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:35:13 -0500 (CDT)
>
>>
>>I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers,
>>who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood.
>>
>>Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are
>>credited with the action of a lute.
>>
>>The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_
>>of the frets are.  
>>
>>The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
>>which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
>>diameters.
>>
>>
>>
>>To get on or off this list see list information at
>>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

Well said everyone, but I'd like to add that the difference between
.90mm fret gut, and lets say 1.20mm ( both extremes) is only .30 mm that's
not much! So really what can be done with fret gut is very small compared to
the actual construction and built in set up of a lute.
 Some people advocate using higher fret gut for the first fret, and
decreasing the diameters as you go up the neck.  This makes no sense unless
you are trying to compensate for a bad set up from the beginning.
   The larger diameter fret gut makes barreing much easier than low fret
gut.  As one barres a chord with low frets ones knuckle presses against the
fingerboard, but the soft fleshy part of the finger won't press down the 2nd
course. On high frets one can press down without hitting the fingerboard so
in my opinion low fret gut should be avoided at all costs, even going up the
neck, if one wants relief in the neck the luthier should built it in the
neck before fretting it.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "timothy motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: Built-in action?


> Herb,
> There is more to it than that.  Your description assumes that the top
> of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard.  Actually, on
> some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction.  That brings the line of
> the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more
> even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the
> strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge.  And, as Gernot
> points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut
> bass strings being quite fat.  That requires the luthier to either
> cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the
> treble, or both.  I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in
> which the action was wrong and required remedial work.  It was quite
> a learning experience, and I have much greater appreciation for a
> lute in which the action is good.  These instruments seem simple at
> first, but when you start measuring and comparing one to another, you
> find that there is a great deal of subtle variation that a luthier
> can put in to alter the sound and playing properties.  Building a
> basic lute wasn't that hard for me, but I'm finding that building a
> good lute is a challenge.  I didn't get there with this lute; perhaps
> with the next one.
>
> Tim
> >
> >
> > Original Message 
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> >Subject: RE: Built-in action?
> >Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:35:13 -0500 (CDT)
> >
> >>
> >>I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers,
> >>who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood.
> >>
> >>Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are
> >>credited with the action of a lute.
> >>
> >>The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_
> >>of the frets are.
> >>
> >>The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
> >>which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
> >>diameters.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>To get on or off this list see list information at
> >>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: Built-in action?

[Ed Durbrow]

>Herb,
>There is more to it than that.  Your description assumes that the top
>of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard.  Actually, on
>some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction.  That brings the line of
>the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more
>even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the
>strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge.  And, as Gernot
>points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut
>bass strings being quite fat.  That requires the luthier to either
>cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the
>treble, or both.  I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in
>which the action was wrong and required remedial work.  It was quite
>a learning experience, and I have much greater app

It's always boggled my mind how luthers can get it right. I'd like to 
know how much leeway they have when considering how heavy to make an 
instrument in order to accommodate different sets of strings. It 
seems to me if you make a very light lute, you have to string it up 
to full tension, and hopefully it would work out that just at the 
point of being at the proper pitch, and only then, would the strings 
clear the frets with the lowest possible distance without making a 
buzz. To consider variable stringing when making an instrument must 
mean that they would have to make it heavier. Am I way off base here? 
I'm just speculating, but I would guess they would have to take that 
into consideration. For example, if the tension is raised even 
slightly, that could upset the action so a luther must consider if 
the customer is going to be switching between high and low pitch with 
the same set of strings. Even if the tension is constant, the 
differences in thickness between gut and overspun must through a 
wrench (spanner Brit.) into the works. Just thinking with my fingers 
here.

cheers,
-- 
Ed Durbrow
Saitama, Japan
http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Martin Shepherd]

Dear All,

Michael Lowe told me recently that he thought luthiers spent the first 
30 years of their working lives making lutes, and the second thirty 
years adjusting actions

Best wishes,

Martin

Ed Durbrow wrote:

>>Herb,
>>There is more to it than that.  Your description assumes that the top
>>of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard.  Actually, on
>>some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction.  That brings the line of
>>the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more
>>even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the
>>strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge.  And, as Gernot
>>points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut
>>bass strings being quite fat.  That requires the luthier to either
>>cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the
>>treble, or both.  I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in
>>which the action was wrong and required remedial work.  It was quite
>>a learning experience, and I have much greater app
>>
>>
>
>It's always boggled my mind how luthers can get it right. I'd like to 
>know how much leeway they have when considering how heavy to make an 
>instrument in order to accommodate different sets of strings. It 
>seems to me if you make a very light lute, you have to string it up 
>to full tension, and hopefully it would work out that just at the 
>point of being at the proper pitch, and only then, would the strings 
>clear the frets with the lowest possible distance without making a 
>buzz. To consider variable stringing when making an instrument must 
>mean that they would have to make it heavier. Am I way off base here? 
>I'm just speculating, but I would guess they would have to take that 
>into consideration. For example, if the tension is raised even 
>slightly, that could upset the action so a luther must consider if 
>the customer is going to be switching between high and low pitch with 
>the same set of strings. Even if the tension is constant, the 
>differences in thickness between gut and overspun must through a 
>wrench (spanner Brit.) into the works. Just thinking with my fingers 
>here.
>
>cheers,
>  
>



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

RE: Built-in action?

[timothy motz]

>Ed,
As a newbie builder, I've actually been surprised how stiff a lute
becomes once the braced soundboard has been glued on.  I have seen
some lutes in which the soundboard has bulged upward from the pull of
the strings on the bridge, but apparently scooping the bowl so that
the soundboard bends just below the rose helps deal with that.  The
reason why I had to fix the action on a lute I had just finished
building was that I had allowed for a bit of flexing, but none
occurred.  But I've only made a few 6- and 7-course instruments.  I
don't know whether there is flexing with more courses.  Over a period
of many years there will be flexing, resulting in the action
gradually getting higher (which explains Martin's wonderful joke).  

Tim
>
>
> Original Message 
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
>Subject: RE: Built-in action?
>Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:41:08 +0900
>
>>>Herb,
>>>There is more to it than that.  Your description assumes that the
>top
>>>of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard.  Actually,
>on
>>>some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction.  That brings the line of
>>>the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action
>more
>>>even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the
>>>strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge.  And, as Gernot
>>>points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with
>gut
>>>bass strings being quite fat.  That requires the luthier to either
>>>cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the
>>>treble, or both.  I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in
>>>which the action was wrong and required remedial work.  It was
>quite
>>>a learning experience, and I have much greater app
>>
>>It's always boggled my mind how luthers can get it right. I'd like
>to 
>>know how much leeway they have when considering how heavy to make an
>
>>instrument in order to accommodate different sets of strings. It 
>>seems to me if you make a very light lute, you have to string it up 
>>to full tension, and hopefully it would work out that just at the 
>>point of being at the proper pitch, and only then, would the strings
>
>>clear the frets with the lowest possible distance without making a 
>>buzz. To consider variable stringing when making an instrument must 
>>mean that they would have to make it heavier. Am I way off base
>here? 
>>I'm just speculating, but I would guess they would have to take that
>
>>into consideration. For example, if the tension is raised even 
>>slightly, that could upset the action so a luther must consider if 
>>the customer is going to be switching between high and low pitch
>with 
>>the same set of strings. Even if the tension is constant, the 
>>differences in thickness between gut and overspun must through a 
>>wrench (spanner Brit.) into the works. Just thinking with my fingers
>
>>here.
>>
>>cheers,
>>-- 
>>Ed Durbrow
>>Saitama, Japan
>>http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/
>>
>>
>>
>>To get on or off this list see list information at
>>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>

RE: Built-in action?

[Herbert Ward]

What is wrong with the following procedure, other than
the fact that replacing worn frets would be a day's work?

 Procedure to improve action 
   without wood-working or gluing

Step 1. Borrow a lute with excellent action.  Measure the clearances
and prepare a table like this:
   fret 1fret 2   fret 3  ...
   course 1:   0.019 in  0.024 in 0.033 in...
   course 2:   0.019 in  0.024 in 0.034 in...
   course 3:   0.020 in  0.026 in 0.036 in...
   course 4:   0.022 in  0.027 in 0.036 in...
   course 5:   0.023 in  0.028 in 0.038 in...
   course 6:   0.024 in  0.028 in 0.038 in...

Step 2.  Remove all the frets from the bad lute.  Install
oversized frets.

Step 3.  Use a file (one-sided, to avoid damaging
the string) to cut the frets down so that the 
clearances match those in the table above.




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

RE: Built-in action?

[Matthias Wagner]

Hello Ward,

> Step 1. Borrow a lute with excellent action.  Measure the clearances
> and prepare a table like this:
>fret 1fret 2   fret 3  ...
>course 1:   0.019 in  0.024 in 0.033 in...
>course 2:   0.019 in  0.024 in 0.034 in...
>course 3:   0.020 in  0.026 in 0.036 in...
>course 4:   0.022 in  0.027 in 0.036 in...
>course 5:   0.023 in  0.028 in 0.038 in...
>course 6:   0.024 in  0.028 in 0.038 in...
> 
> Step 2.  Remove all the frets from the bad lute.  Install
> oversized frets.
> 
> Step 3.  Use a file (one-sided, to avoid damaging
> the string) to cut the frets down so that the 
> clearances match those in the table above.

It is easyer and without any risk for the strings to work with sandpaper 
between fret and fretboard. The frets will stay round!

regards

Matthias

--

Matthias Wagner
Klemmbachstr. 11 a
D - 79410 Badenweiler - Schweighof
Tel. +49-7632 - 82 86 95,  Fax: +49-7632 -  82 898 68
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lutes-strings.de



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Denys Stephens]

Dear Herbert,
I think there is a lot more to the set up of the action
on a fine instrument than just the distance between
the frets and the strings - like the angle of the neck,
the height of the nut & bridge, string type, string tension
and so on. On a good instrument all you should ever
need to do is replace worn frets with new ones of the
same diameter. IMHO the only material for frets on a
lute is gut, and taking a file to it would surely raise the
fibres and cause problems, not to mention risking
scratching the fingerboard. If the set up of the action
on a lute is wrong I would say the best bet is to take
it to a good maker to be corrected.

Best wishes,

Denys



- Original Message - 
From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:25 PM
Subject: RE: Built-in action?


> 
> What is wrong with the following procedure, other than
> the fact that replacing worn frets would be a day's work?
> 
>  Procedure to improve action 
>without wood-working or gluing
> 
> Step 1. Borrow a lute with excellent action.  Measure the clearances
> and prepare a table like this:
>fret 1fret 2   fret 3  ...
>course 1:   0.019 in  0.024 in 0.033 in...
>course 2:   0.019 in  0.024 in 0.034 in...
>course 3:   0.020 in  0.026 in 0.036 in...
>course 4:   0.022 in  0.027 in 0.036 in...
>course 5:   0.023 in  0.028 in 0.038 in...
>course 6:   0.024 in  0.028 in 0.038 in...
> 
> Step 2.  Remove all the frets from the bad lute.  Install
> oversized frets.
> 
> Step 3.  Use a file (one-sided, to avoid damaging
> the string) to cut the frets down so that the 
> clearances match those in the table above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 
> 

Re: Built-in action?

[DOMJAN, Gabor]

Just some interesting point to the topic that might as well be known to many
of you:

I know someone who lowers the action of his ten course lute by eliminating
one of the octaves of the base courses  and tying a nylon string to the free
peg which then goes from the belly side to the knob at the back of the
instrument. That is: he gives counter force against the pull of the strings.
It is not for great changes in the action I believe. I tried his instrument
both ways and there was realy a slightly a lighter touch when pulled from
the back, not that much difference though.

It seemed to me a pretty 'wild' approach, though it can be a quick makeshift
solution at times. I was told it is an oriental technique used by oud
players who - I suppose - don't necessarily give up a string but have an
extra peg for the purpose. I wonder.

Anyway, best regards:

Gabor Domjan




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Martin Shepherd]

Dear Martyn and All,

The really interesting thing about "Varietie" is how thin the frets 
are.  Dowland says use a fourth course string for frets 1 and 2, a third 
course for frets 3 and 4, second course for frets 5 and 6, and first 
course for frets 7 to 10.  Our best estimate of likely string diameters 
therefore suggests a maximum of about .80mm, .64mm, .50mm, and .42mm for 
fret diameters, perhaps even thinner for the "first course" diameter 
because D was talking about a double first course.  Has anyone tried 
using a .40mm fret?  Even allowing for the fact that he was using double 
frets, this seems incredibly thin.  Many modern players (admittedly 
using single frets) have tended to use very large diameter frets because 
that say it helps concentrate the pressure on the string rather than the 
fingerboard (especially if you have fleshy finger ends, which I guess 
was never the case for impoverished 16thC musicians!).  They also claim 
large frets make playing ornaments easier.

Comments, anyone?

Best wishes,

Martin

Martyn Hodgson wrote:

> Martin,
>  
> Yes. But one of the problems continues to be the reluctance of players 
> to employ well graduated frets which allows the lute to be 'set fine' 
> (low action in modern parlance). You only need to read 'Varietie'  to 
> understand the quite severe graduations required (cf. many current 
> frettings) and the thickness of the first fret.
>  
> Incidentally, by using graduated frets the 'Old Ones' clearly showed 
> they well understood the importance of displacement to the fingerboard 
> rather than just to the top of the fret..
>  
> Again, we should always aim to refer to historical information if we 
> are to approach what they expected.
>  
> rgds
>  
> Martyn
>
> */Martin Shepherd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Michael Lowe told me recently that he thought luthiers spent the
> first
> 30 years of their working lives making lutes, and the second thirty
> years adjusting actions
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Martin
>
> Ed Durbrow wrote:
>
> >>Herb,
> >>There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the top
> >>of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually, on
> >>some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of
> >>the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more
> >>even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the
> >>strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge. And, as Gernot
> >>points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters,
> with gut
> >>bass strings being quite fat. That requires the luthier to either
> >>cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the
> >>treble, or both. I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in
> >>which the action was wrong and required remedial work. It was quite
> >>a learning experience, and I have much greater app
> >>
> >>
> >
> >It's always boggled my mind how luthers can get it right. I'd
> like to
> >know how much leeway they have when considering how heavy to make an
> >instrument in order to accommodate different sets of strings. It
> >seems to me if you make a very light lute, you have to string it up
> >to full tension, and hopefully it would work out that just at the
> >point of being at the proper pitch, and only then, would the strings
> >clear the frets with the lowest possible distance without making a
> >buzz. To consider variable stringing when making an instrument must
> >mean that they would have to make it heavier. Am I way off base
> here?
> >I'm just speculating, but I would guess they would have to take that
> >into consideration. For example, if the tension is raised even
> >slightly, that could upset the action so a luther must consider if
> >the customer is going to be switching between high and low pitch
> with
> >the same set of strings. Even if the tension is constant, the
> >differences in thickness between gut and overspun must through a
> >wrench (spanner Brit.) into the works. Just thinking with my fingers
> >here.
> >
> >cheers,
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
> 
> Yahoo! Messenger 
> 
>  
> NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail 
> 

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

 I love Dowland's music, and consider him one of my best loved composers of
all time.

However, at the time he recommended these fret diameters, as well as the
double frets, he must have been seeing double, in a drunken melancholy
stooper.
The idea that Martyn uses Dowland as his source, and  narrows down 300
years, of  lute history to this remark, really makes me scratch my head.
   If anyone can barre the second fret cleanly, all the way across and play
divisions at the same time on 80mm frets my hats off to you!  I'm sure it
can be done, with allot of needless effort. That's the equivalent of playing
and old worn out guitar, in desperate need of a fret job.
 Some guitarist's I know ask for high frets if their doing allot of site
reading, saying this makes it easier to read through music, eliminating pin
point accuracy.
 Martyn, what's wrong with a little personal adjustment to the playing
action.
On both my Baroque, and 6 course ren lute, I have 1.20mm fret gut
all the way up, and love it.

 The phenomena of high frets hit the guitar world about 20 years ago. It
started in LA, CA. by Pepe Romero, and then all the LA guitarist's like
Scott Tenet etc. started using them.  The consensus was, you need less
pressure to press down the string as your finger immediately feels the
connection to the fret.
The other side to this is, playing Tarrega, Segovia's style, and the
romantic repertoire, incorporating sliding up the fingerboard on one string.
In this case, high frets can tend to feel like railroad ties, as your going
down the track.  However, I've not come across this technique in any lute
music.

Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Shepherd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lute Net" 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


> Dear Martyn and All,
>
> The really interesting thing about "Varietie" is how thin the frets
> are.  Dowland says use a fourth course string for frets 1 and 2, a third
> course for frets 3 and 4, second course for frets 5 and 6, and first
> course for frets 7 to 10.  Our best estimate of likely string diameters
> therefore suggests a maximum of about .80mm, .64mm, .50mm, and .42mm for
> fret diameters, perhaps even thinner for the "first course" diameter
> because D was talking about a double first course.  Has anyone tried
> using a .40mm fret?  Even allowing for the fact that he was using double
> frets, this seems incredibly thin.  Many modern players (admittedly
> using single frets) have tended to use very large diameter frets because
> that say it helps concentrate the pressure on the string rather than the
> fingerboard (especially if you have fleshy finger ends, which I guess
> was never the case for impoverished 16thC musicians!).  They also claim
> large frets make playing ornaments easier.
>
> Comments, anyone?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Martin
>
> Martyn Hodgson wrote:
>
> > Martin,
> >
> > Yes. But one of the problems continues to be the reluctance of players
> > to employ well graduated frets which allows the lute to be 'set fine'
> > (low action in modern parlance). You only need to read 'Varietie'  to
> > understand the quite severe graduations required (cf. many current
> > frettings) and the thickness of the first fret.
> >
> > Incidentally, by using graduated frets the 'Old Ones' clearly showed
> > they well understood the importance of displacement to the fingerboard
> > rather than just to the top of the fret..
> >
> > Again, we should always aim to refer to historical information if we
> > are to approach what they expected.
> >
> > rgds
> >
> > Martyn
> >
> > */Martin Shepherd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Michael Lowe told me recently that he thought luthiers spent the
> > first
> > 30 years of their working lives making lutes, and the second thirty
> > years adjusting actions
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > Ed Durbrow wrote:
> >
> > >>Herb,
> > >>There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the
top
> > >>of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually,
on
> > >>some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of
> > >>the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action
more
> > >>even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the
> > >>strings too close to the soundboard

Re: Built-in action?

[Martyn Hodgson]

Martin,
 
Yes and it certainly works well if you have a lute set extremely  'fine' and 
are not trying to play as loud as possible, however one needs greater accuracy 
in placing the fingers. The feeling is a little like playing a fretless 
instrument.  But also bear in mind that glued-on frets seem to be an early 
17thC invention and higher notes (above 8th fret) were stopped on the belly. A 
very thin top fret smooths the transition.
 
Having said this, I soon reverted to thicker frets to make life easier (if not 
HIP) - so much for my advocacy of historical evidence ..
 
rgds
 
Martyn 

Martin Shepherd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Martyn and All,

The really interesting thing about "Varietie" is how thin the frets 
are. Dowland says use a fourth course string for frets 1 and 2, a third 
course for frets 3 and 4, second course for frets 5 and 6, and first 
course for frets 7 to 10. Our best estimate of likely string diameters 
therefore suggests a maximum of about .80mm, .64mm, .50mm, and .42mm for 
fret diameters, perhaps even thinner for the "first course" diameter 
because D was talking about a double first course. Has anyone tried 
using a .40mm fret? Even allowing for the fact that he was using double 
frets, this seems incredibly thin. Many modern players (admittedly 
using single frets) have tended to use very large diameter frets because 
that say it helps concentrate the pressure on the string rather than the 
fingerboard (especially if you have fleshy finger ends, which I guess 
was never the case for impoverished 16thC musicians!). They also claim 
large frets make playing ornaments easier.

Comments, anyone?

Best wishes,

Martin

Martyn Hodgson wrote:

> Martin,
> 
> Yes. But one of the problems continues to be the reluctance of players 
> to employ well graduated frets which allows the lute to be 'set fine' 
> (low action in modern parlance). You only need to read 'Varietie' to 
> understand the quite severe graduations required (cf. many current 
> frettings) and the thickness of the first fret.
> 
> Incidentally, by using graduated frets the 'Old Ones' clearly showed 
> they well understood the importance of displacement to the fingerboard 
> rather than just to the top of the fret..
> 
> Again, we should always aim to refer to historical information if we 
> are to approach what they expected.
> 
> rgds
> 
> Martyn
>
> */Martin Shepherd /* wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Michael Lowe told me recently that he thought luthiers spent the
> first
> 30 years of their working lives making lutes, and the second thirty
> years adjusting actions
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Martin
>
> Ed Durbrow wrote:
>
> >>Herb,
> >>There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the top
> >>of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually, on
> >>some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of
> >>the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more
> >>even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the
> >>strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge. And, as Gernot
> >>points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters,
> with gut
> >>bass strings being quite fat. That requires the luthier to either
> >>cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the
> >>treble, or both. I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in
> >>which the action was wrong and required remedial work. It was quite
> >>a learning experience, and I have much greater app
> >>
> >>
> >
> >It's always boggled my mind how luthers can get it right. I'd
> like to
> >know how much leeway they have when considering how heavy to make an
> >instrument in order to accommodate different sets of strings. It
> >seems to me if you make a very light lute, you have to string it up
> >to full tension, and hopefully it would work out that just at the
> >point of being at the proper pitch, and only then, would the strings
> >clear the frets with the lowest possible distance without making a
> >buzz. To consider variable stringing when making an instrument must
> >mean that they would have to make it heavier. Am I way off base
> here?
> >I'm just speculating, but I would guess they would have to take that
> >into consideration. For example, if the tension is raised even
> >slightly, that could upset the action so a luther must consider if
> >the customer is going to be switching between high and low pitch
> with
> >the same set of strings. Even if the tension is constant, the
> >differences in thickness between gut and overspun must through a
> >wrench (spanner Brit.) into the works. Just thinking with my fingers
> >here.
> >
> >cheers,
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
> 
> Yahoo! Messenger 
> 
> NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail 
> 





 

Re: Built-in action?

[Vance Wood]

- Original Message - 
From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM
Subject: Built-in action?
Hi Herbert:

You wrote:  The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
> which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
> diameters.
This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence upon the action
of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large
the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly.  If this is
not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put on the
Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over time will
develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming  less than
180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck higher.

Vance Wood.

>
> I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers,
> who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood.
>
> Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are
> credited with the action of a lute.
>
> The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_
> of the frets are.
>
> The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
> which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
> diameters.
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

> Vance wrote,
>This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence >upon the action
>of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and how
large
>the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly.

 Vance this isn't true either.  The only thing the angle of the neck
will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. It has
nothing to do with the action.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "lute list" ; "Herbert Ward"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM
> Subject: Built-in action?
> Hi Herbert:
>
> You wrote:  The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
> > diameters.
> This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence upon the action
> of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how
large
> the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly.  If this is
> not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put on the
> Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over time will
> develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming  less than
> 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck higher.
>
> Vance Wood.
>
> >
> > I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers,
> > who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are
> > credited with the action of a lute.
> >
> > The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_
> > of the frets are.
> >
> > The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
> > diameters.
> >
> >
> >
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
>
>
>
>

Re: Built-in action?

[timothy motz]

>Michael,
Sure it does.  If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer
to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and
bridge stay the same.  That in turn means that there is a limit to
how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the
strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck.   But the
angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the
soundboard the strings will be.  That is mostly determined by the
height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the
neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the
effect of neck angle will be.  

Tim
>
>
> Original Message 
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600
>
>>> Vance wrote,
>>>This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence >upon
>the action
>>>of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and
>how
>>large
>>>the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly.
>>
>> Vance this isn't true either.  The only thing the angle of the
>neck
>>will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge.
>It has
>>nothing to do with the action.
>>Michael Thames
>>www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "lute list" ; "Herbert Ward"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM
>>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: 
>>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM
>>> Subject: Built-in action?
>>> Hi Herbert:
>>>
>>> You wrote:  The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets
>are,
>>> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
>>> > diameters.
>>> This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence upon
>the action
>>> of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and
>how
>>large
>>> the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly.  If
>this is
>>> not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put
>on the
>>> Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over
>time will
>>> develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming 
>less than
>>> 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck
>higher.
>>>
>>> Vance Wood.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers,
>>> > who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood.
>>> >
>>> > Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are
>>> > credited with the action of a lute.
>>> >
>>> > The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_
>>> > of the frets are.
>>> >
>>> > The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
>>> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
>>> > diameters.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > To get on or off this list see list information at
>>> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

Timothy,
I stand by my first statement.  First, lets define action which is
the height of the bottom of the strings, form the top of the frets.  One
could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or
down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a
constant height of the string over the frets.
This idea of the neck angle affecting the action is a popular
misconception by many luthiers.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "timothy motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


>Michael,
Sure it does.  If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer
to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and
bridge stay the same.  That in turn means that there is a limit to
how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the
strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck.   But the
angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the
soundboard the strings will be.  That is mostly determined by the
height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the
neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the
effect of neck angle will be.

Tim
>
>
> Original Message 
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600
>
>>> Vance wrote,
>>>This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence >upon
>the action
>>>of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and
>how
>>large
>>>the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly.
>>
>> Vance this isn't true either.  The only thing the angle of the
>neck
>>will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge.
>It has
>>nothing to do with the action.
>>Michael Thames
>>www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
>>----- Original Message -
>>From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "lute list" ; "Herbert Ward"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM
>>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: 
>>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM
>>> Subject: Built-in action?
>>> Hi Herbert:
>>>
>>> You wrote:  The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets
>are,
>>> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
>>> > diameters.
>>> This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence upon
>the action
>>> of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and
>how
>>large
>>> the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly.  If
>this is
>>> not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put
>on the
>>> Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over
>time will
>>> develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming
>less than
>>> 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck
>higher.
>>>
>>> Vance Wood.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers,
>>> > who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood.
>>> >
>>> > Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are
>>> > credited with the action of a lute.
>>> >
>>> > The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_
>>> > of the frets are.
>>> >
>>> > The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
>>> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
>>> > diameters.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > To get on or off this list see list information at
>>> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: Built-in action?

[Tony Chalkley]

> This idea of the neck angle affecting the action is a popular
> misconception by many luthiers.

It's not a misconception - on a classical guitar, as you surely know, one
method of construction has the neck in line with the body, but then the
fingerboard is thinner at the higher frets, producing the same effect as
angling the neck "upwards" - on this point I disagree with Tim.  If you
angle the neck backwards and your fingerboard is uniform thickness, then you
are likely to buzz from the first fret - the pull of the strings may
compensate.


> Michael Thames
> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> - Original Message -
> From: "timothy motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>
>
> >Michael,
> Sure it does.  If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer
> to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and
> bridge stay the same.  That in turn means that there is a limit to
> how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the
> strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck.   But the
> angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the
> soundboard the strings will be.  That is mostly determined by the
> height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the
> neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the
> effect of neck angle will be.
>
> Tim
> >
> >
> > Original Message 
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: Built-in action?
> >Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600
> >
> >>> Vance wrote,
> >>>This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence >upon
> >the action
> >>>of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and
> >how
> >>large
> >>>the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly.
> >>
> >> Vance this isn't true either.  The only thing the angle of the
> >neck
> >>will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge.
> >It has
> >>nothing to do with the action.
> >>Michael Thames
> >>www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> >>- Original Message -
> >>From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>To: "lute list" ; "Herbert Ward"
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM
> >>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> - Original Message -
> >>> From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> To: 
> >>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM
> >>> Subject: Built-in action?
> >>> Hi Herbert:
> >>>
> >>> You wrote:  The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets
> >are,
> >>> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
> >>> > diameters.
> >>> This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence upon
> >the action
> >>> of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and
> >how
> >>large
> >>> the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly.  If
> >this is
> >>> not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put
> >on the
> >>> Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over
> >time will
> >>> develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming
> >less than
> >>> 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck
> >higher.
> >>>
> >>> Vance Wood.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers,
> >>> > who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood.
> >>> >
> >>> > Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are
> >>> > credited with the action of a lute.
> >>> >
> >>> > The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_
> >>> > of the frets are.
> >>> >
> >>> > The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
> >>> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
> >>> > diameters.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> >>> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Built-in action?

[JEdwardsMusic]

In a message dated 6/17/2005 12:33:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not a misconception - on a classical guitar, as you surely know, one
method of construction has the neck in line with the body, but then the
fingerboard is thinner at the higher frets, producing the same effect as
angling the neck "upwards" - on this point I disagree with Tim.  If you
angle the neck backwards and your fingerboard is uniform thickness, then you
are likely to buzz from the first fret - the pull of the strings may
compensate.

I've played many baroque guitars where the neck angle definitely affects the 
action, same with classical guitars.

James

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

>I've played many baroque guitars where the neck angle >definitely affects
the
>action, same with classical guitars.
>James

I'm saying the most important single aspect, in the set up, is the
height of the strings off the top.  This has a profound influence on the
tone of either a lute, or guitar.  This ideal height can only vary by 1 or
perhaps 2 mm.  The neck angle determines the bridge height.  From that
point, you then, can fine tune the action.
 This theory assumes one has some experience in the proper set up of
lutes, and guitars.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


> In a message dated 6/17/2005 12:33:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> It's not a misconception - on a classical guitar, as you surely know, one
> method of construction has the neck in line with the body, but then the
> fingerboard is thinner at the higher frets, producing the same effect as
> angling the neck "upwards" - on this point I disagree with Tim.  If you
> angle the neck backwards and your fingerboard is uniform thickness, then
you
> are likely to buzz from the first fret - the pull of the strings may
> compensate.
>
> I've played many baroque guitars where the neck angle definitely affects
the
> action, same with classical guitars.
>
> James
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

 >   I just got finished fixing a problem with the
>neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know >what the
>effect of neck angle will be

Timothy, sounds like you were reading Lundberg's bad advice about
angling the neck back. It should be angled forward. As you see this doesn't
work out so well.  Unless you like the strings to float 10mm off the top.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "timothy motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


>Michael,
Sure it does.  If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer
to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and
bridge stay the same.  That in turn means that there is a limit to
how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the
strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck.   But the
angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the
soundboard the strings will be.  That is mostly determined by the
height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the
neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the
effect of neck angle will be.

Tim
>
>
> Original Message 
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600
>
>>> Vance wrote,
>>>This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence >upon
>the action
>>>of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and
>how
>>large
>>>the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly.
>>
>> Vance this isn't true either.  The only thing the angle of the
>neck
>>will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge.
>It has
>>nothing to do with the action.
>>Michael Thames
>>www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "lute list" ; "Herbert Ward"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM
>>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: 
>>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM
>>> Subject: Built-in action?
>>> Hi Herbert:
>>>
>>> You wrote:  The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets
>are,
>>> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
>>> > diameters.
>>> This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence upon
>the action
>>> of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and
>how
>>large
>>> the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly.  If
>this is
>>> not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put
>on the
>>> Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over
>time will
>>> develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming
>less than
>>> 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck
>higher.
>>>
>>> Vance Wood.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers,
>>> > who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood.
>>> >
>>> > Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are
>>> > credited with the action of a lute.
>>> >
>>> > The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_
>>> > of the frets are.
>>> >
>>> > The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
>>> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
>>> > diameters.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > To get on or off this list see list information at
>>> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: Built-in action?

[Howard Posner]

Michael Thames wrote:

> One
> could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or
> down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a
> constant height of the string over the frets.

This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a different
angle from the one everyone else is talking about.  They're talking about
changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top.  Imagine a triangle
in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut, and
point D is a point on the string directly above above point B.  You can't
move point C without changing the distance between points B and D.

HP



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

  Another, way to look at it, is Humphrey's Millennium guitar, with an
EXTREME  neck angle, however the action is pretty good, at least on the ones
set up by Jurlick out in LA.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


> In a message dated 6/17/2005 12:33:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> It's not a misconception - on a classical guitar, as you surely know, one
> method of construction has the neck in line with the body, but then the
> fingerboard is thinner at the higher frets, producing the same effect as
> angling the neck "upwards" - on this point I disagree with Tim.  If you
> angle the neck backwards and your fingerboard is uniform thickness, then
you
> are likely to buzz from the first fret - the pull of the strings may
> compensate.
>
> I've played many baroque guitars where the neck angle definitely affects
the
> action, same with classical guitars.
>
> James
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

>This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking >about a
different
>angle from the one everyone else is talking about.  They're >talking about
>changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top.  >Imagine a
triangle
>in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C >is the nut,
and
>point D is a point on the string directly above above point >B.  You can't
>move point C without changing the distance between >points B and D.

>HP

   Howard,
I'm afraid you are wrong!  If your referring to a working functional
instrument, extreme neck angles at some point would be dysfunctional.
However, in theory or on paper it works doesn't it ? Just look at Humphrey's
guitar, and keep imagining more and more of an angle, but instead of moving
the neck to change the angle you move the top, which is what he did.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Howard Posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


> Michael Thames wrote:
>
> > One
> > could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up
or
> > down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply
maintain a
> > constant height of the string over the frets.
>
> This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a
different
> angle from the one everyone else is talking about.  They're talking about
> changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top.  Imagine a
triangle
> in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut,
and
> point D is a point on the string directly above above point B.  You can't
> move point C without changing the distance between points B and D.
>
> HP
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

One more example would be a cello or violin which has an EXTREME neck angle,
this doesn't effect the action, now does it.  It only affects how far of the
top, the strings ride, like I've been saying.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Howard Posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


> Michael Thames wrote:
>
> > One
> > could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up
or
> > down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply
maintain a
> > constant height of the string over the frets.
>
> This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a
different
> angle from the one everyone else is talking about.  They're talking about
> changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top.  Imagine a
triangle
> in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut,
and
> point D is a point on the string directly above above point B.  You can't
> move point C without changing the distance between points B and D.
>
> HP
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action?

[Howard Posner]

Michael Thames wrote:

> One
> could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or
> down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a
> constant height of the string over the frets.

I wrote:

>This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a different
>angle from the one everyone else is talking about.  They're talking about
>changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top.  Imagine a triangle
>in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut, and
>point D is a point on the string directly above above point B.  You can't
>move point C without changing the distance between points B and D.

Michael Thames wrote:

> I'm afraid you are wrong!

If I am, so are you, because your next sentence agrees with what I wrote.

> If your referring to a working functional
> instrument, extreme neck angles at some point would be dysfunctional.

They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF THE NECK MAKES THE ACTION
TOO HIGH, right?  Which is to say that you can't change the angle of the
neck to the plane of the top without changing the action.

This happens all the time: the force of the strings over time pulls the neck
forward, raising the nut and increasing the depth of the triangle I
described, so the action is higher.
 
> However, in theory or on paper it works doesn't it ? Just look at Humphrey's
> guitar, and keep imagining more and more of an angle, but instead of moving
> the neck to change the angle you move the top, which is what he did.

If we're talking about the same instruments, he also builds up the
fingerboard to bring it closer to the strings.  Indeed, I usually hear about
this style of building as "the raised fingerboard."

HP



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Howard Posner]

Michael Thames wrote:

> One more example would be a cello or violin which has an EXTREME neck angle,
> this doesn't effect the action, now does it.

Of course it does.  That's why the bridges on those instruments have to be
so high: if they weren't the strings would lie on (or slide off the sides
of) the fingerboard.  If you were to lower the neck angle on a cello a few
degrees, the action up the fingerboard would be impossibly high.

HP



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Craig Robert Pierpont]

Gee Michael,
   I don't understand. Surely it is possible to angle the neck back to the 
point that the strings actually touch the neck at the neck/body joint unless 
you raise the bridge correspondingly. It would also be possible to angle the 
neck up (foreward) until the strings were unfrettable. No?

Craig

Craig R. Pierpont
Another Era Lutherie
www.anotherera.com

Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Timothy,
I stand by my first statement. First, lets define action which is
the height of the bottom of the strings, form the top of the frets. One
could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or
down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a
constant height of the string over the frets.
This idea of the neck angle affecting the action is a popular
misconception by many luthiers.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "timothy motz" 
To: ; ;
; 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


>Michael,
Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer
to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and
bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to
how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the
strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the
angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the
soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the
height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the
neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the
effect of neck angle will be.

Tim
>
>
> Original Message 
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600
>
>>> Vance wrote,
>>>This is not entirely true. The most significant influence >upon
>the action
>>>of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and
>how
>>large
>>>the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly.
>>
>> Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the
>neck
>>will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge.
>It has
>>nothing to do with the action.
>>Michael Thames
>>www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Vance Wood" 
>>To: "lute list" ; "Herbert Ward"
>>
>>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM
>>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Herbert Ward" 
>>> To: 
>>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM
>>> Subject: Built-in action?
>>> Hi Herbert:
>>>
>>> You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets
>are,
>>> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
>>> > diameters.
>>> This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon
>the action
>>> of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and
>how
>>large
>>> the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If
>this is
>>> not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put
>on the
>>> Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over
>time will
>>> develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming
>less than
>>> 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck
>higher.
>>>
>>> Vance Wood.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers,
>>> > who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood.
>>> >
>>> > Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are
>>> > credited with the action of a lute.
>>> >
>>> > The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_
>>> > of the frets are.
>>> >
>>> > The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are,
>>> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
>>> > diameters.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > To get on or off this list see list information at
>>> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>






__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
--

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

Michael Thames wrote:

> I'm afraid you are wrong!

>Howard wrote...
>They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF >THE NECK MAKES THE ACTION
>TOO HIGH, right?  Which is to say that you can't change >the angle of the
>neck to the plane of the top without changing the action

   Howard, the fatal flaw in your theory is, your assuming that the neck
joined at the body can't move, only the nut end can move.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Howard Posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


> Michael Thames wrote:
>
> > One
> > could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up
or
> > down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply
maintain a
> > constant height of the string over the frets.
>
> I wrote:
>
> >This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a
different
> >angle from the one everyone else is talking about.  They're talking about
> >changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top.  Imagine a
triangle
> >in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut,
and
> >point D is a point on the string directly above above point B.  You can't
> >move point C without changing the distance between points B and D.
>
> Michael Thames wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid you are wrong!
>
> If I am, so are you, because your next sentence agrees with what I wrote.
>
> > If your referring to a working functional
> > instrument, extreme neck angles at some point would be dysfunctional.
>
> They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF THE NECK MAKES THE ACTION
> TOO HIGH, right?  Which is to say that you can't change the angle of the
> neck to the plane of the top without changing the action.
>
> This happens all the time: the force of the strings over time pulls the
neck
> forward, raising the nut and increasing the depth of the triangle I
> described, so the action is higher.
>
> > However, in theory or on paper it works doesn't it ? Just look at
Humphrey's
> > guitar, and keep imagining more and more of an angle, but instead of
moving
> > the neck to change the angle you move the top, which is what he did.
>
> If we're talking about the same instruments, he also builds up the
> fingerboard to bring it closer to the strings.  Indeed, I usually hear
about
> this style of building as "the raised fingerboard."
>
> HP
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action?

[lute9]

Lutenists tend stay away from lutes with moving neck joints.


> 
>> I'm afraid you are wrong!
> 
>> Howard wrote...
>> They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF >THE NECK MAKES THE ACTION
>> TOO HIGH, right?  Which is to say that you can't change >the angle of the
>> neck to the plane of the top without changing the action
> 
> Howard, the fatal flaw in your theory is, your assuming that the neck
> joined at the body can't move, only the nut end can move.
> Michael Thames
> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> - Original Message -
> From: "Howard Posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 6:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Built-in action?
> 
> 
>> Michael Thames wrote:
>> 
>>> One
>>> could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up
> or
>>> down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply
> maintain a
>>> constant height of the string over the frets.
>> 
>> I wrote:
>> 
>>> This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a
> different
>>> angle from the one everyone else is talking about.  They're talking about
>>> changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top.  Imagine a
> triangle
>>> in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut,
> and
>>> point D is a point on the string directly above above point B.  You can't
>>> move point C without changing the distance between points B and D.
>> 
>> Michael Thames wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm afraid you are wrong!
>> 
>> If I am, so are you, because your next sentence agrees with what I wrote.
>> 
>>> If your referring to a working functional
>>> instrument, extreme neck angles at some point would be dysfunctional.
>> 
>> They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF THE NECK MAKES THE ACTION
>> TOO HIGH, right?  Which is to say that you can't change the angle of the
>> neck to the plane of the top without changing the action.
>> 
>> This happens all the time: the force of the strings over time pulls the
> neck
>> forward, raising the nut and increasing the depth of the triangle I
>> described, so the action is higher.
>> 
>>> However, in theory or on paper it works doesn't it ? Just look at
> Humphrey's
>>> guitar, and keep imagining more and more of an angle, but instead of
> moving
>>> the neck to change the angle you move the top, which is what he did.
>> 
>> If we're talking about the same instruments, he also builds up the
>> fingerboard to bring it closer to the strings.  Indeed, I usually hear
> about
>> this style of building as "the raised fingerboard."
>> 
>> HP
>> 
>> 


http://polyhymnion.org




___
$0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer
10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
Signup at www.doteasy.com



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

>Lutenists tend stay away from lutes with moving neck >joints.

 The Schelle therobo has a hinge on the neck.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; "Howard Posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


> Lutenists tend stay away from lutes with moving neck joints.
>
>
> >
> >> I'm afraid you are wrong!
> >
> >> Howard wrote...
> >> They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF >THE NECK MAKES THE
ACTION
> >> TOO HIGH, right?  Which is to say that you can't change >the angle of
the
> >> neck to the plane of the top without changing the action
> >
> > Howard, the fatal flaw in your theory is, your assuming that the neck
> > joined at the body can't move, only the nut end can move.
> > Michael Thames
> > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Howard Posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 6:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: Built-in action?
> >
> >
> >> Michael Thames wrote:
> >>
> >>> One
> >>> could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west,
up
> > or
> >>> down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply
> > maintain a
> >>> constant height of the string over the frets.
> >>
> >> I wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a
> > different
> >>> angle from the one everyone else is talking about.  They're talking
about
> >>> changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top.  Imagine a
> > triangle
> >>> in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the
nut,
> > and
> >>> point D is a point on the string directly above above point B.  You
can't
> >>> move point C without changing the distance between points B and D.
> >>
> >> Michael Thames wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm afraid you are wrong!
> >>
> >> If I am, so are you, because your next sentence agrees with what I
wrote.
> >>
> >>> If your referring to a working functional
> >>> instrument, extreme neck angles at some point would be dysfunctional.
> >>
> >> They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF THE NECK MAKES THE
ACTION
> >> TOO HIGH, right?  Which is to say that you can't change the angle of
the
> >> neck to the plane of the top without changing the action.
> >>
> >> This happens all the time: the force of the strings over time pulls the
> > neck
> >> forward, raising the nut and increasing the depth of the triangle I
> >> described, so the action is higher.
> >>
> >>> However, in theory or on paper it works doesn't it ? Just look at
> > Humphrey's
> >>> guitar, and keep imagining more and more of an angle, but instead of
> > moving
> >>> the neck to change the angle you move the top, which is what he did.
> >>
> >> If we're talking about the same instruments, he also builds up the
> >> fingerboard to bring it closer to the strings.  Indeed, I usually hear
> > about
> >> this style of building as "the raised fingerboard."
> >>
> >> HP
> >>
> >>
>
> 
> http://polyhymnion.org
>
>
>
>
> ___
> $0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer
> 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
> Signup at www.doteasy.com
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

>Gee Michael,
>   I don't understand. Surely it is possible to angle the >neck back to the
point that the strings actually touch the >neck at the neck/body joint
unless you raise the bridge >correspondingly. It would also be possible to
angle the >neck up (foreword) until the strings were unforgettable. No?

>Craig

   Well all I can say, is that I've given two different examples of
radically different neck angles, Humphrey, and the opposite of that angle, a
cello, and both have, or can have what is considered perfect ACTION.
 So I still maintain that perfect action is attainable regardless of the
neck angle.

Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Craig Robert Pierpont" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


> Gee Michael,
>I don't understand. Surely it is possible to angle the neck back to the
point that the strings actually touch the neck at the neck/body joint unless
you raise the bridge correspondingly. It would also be possible to angle the
neck up (foreward) until the strings were unfrettable. No?
>
> Craig
>
> Craig R. Pierpont
> Another Era Lutherie
> www.anotherera.com
>
> Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Timothy,
> I stand by my first statement. First, lets define action which is
> the height of the bottom of the strings, form the top of the frets. One
> could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up
or
> down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain
a
> constant height of the string over the frets.
> This idea of the neck angle affecting the action is a popular
> misconception by many luthiers.
> Michael Thames
> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> - Original Message -
> From: "timothy motz"
> To: ; ;
> ;
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>
>
> >Michael,
> Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer
> to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and
> bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to
> how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the
> strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the
> angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the
> soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the
> height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the
> neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the
> effect of neck angle will be.
>
> Tim
> >
> >
> > Original Message 
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: Built-in action?
> >Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600
> >
> >>> Vance wrote,
> >>>This is not entirely true. The most significant influence >upon
> >the action
> >>>of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and
> >how
> >>large
> >>>the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly.
> >>
> >> Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the
> >neck
> >>will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge.
> >It has
> >>nothing to do with the action.
> >>Michael Thames
> >>www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> >>- Original Message -
> >>From: "Vance Wood"
> >>To: "lute list" ; "Herbert Ward"
> >>
> >>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM
> >>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> - Original Message -
> >>> From: "Herbert Ward"
> >>> To:
> >>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM
> >>> Subject: Built-in action?
> >>> Hi Herbert:
> >>>
> >>> You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets
> >are,
> >>> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
> >>> > diameters.
> >>> This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon
> >the action
> >>> of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and
> >how
> >>large
> >>> the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If
> >this is
> >>> not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put
> >on the
> >>> Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over
> >time will
> >

Re: Built-in action?

[EUGENE BRAIG IV]

- Original Message -
From: Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:20 pm
Subject: Re: Built-in action?
 
>   Well all I can say, is that I've given two different examples of
> radically different neck angles, Humphrey, and the opposite of 
> that angle, a
> cello, and both have, or can have what is considered perfect ACTION.
> So I still maintain that perfect action is attainable 
> regardless of the
> neck angle.


Not regardless.  Even if you can maintain a working string height above 
fingerboard, a point comes that the angle just can't work.  You can't make a 
functional necked chordophone where the neck comes into the table at 90 
degrees, e.g. (unless you count washtub bass).

I am not fond of the Humphrey paradigm.  (This is my personal taste and yours 
may differ without shame.)  Every one I've encountered I would condsider rather 
brassy toned, a bit harsh.  His Millennium system, at least in some small part, 
is a knock off of the early 19th-c. Legnani-model guitars by Staufer as well as 
his proteges and emulators.  The older paradigm featured the same neck angle, 
angled into the table.  In addition, the neck featured a clock-key adjustable 
angle.  Of course, the bridge fixed, changing the angle thus would 
substantially change action.

Eugene



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

>I am not fond of the Humphrey paradigm.  (This is my >personal taste and
yours may differ without shame.)  >Every one I've encountered I would
condsider rather >brassy toned, a bit harsh.

   I agree, don't get me going on what I think of those things.  I will
say this, the brassy tone has everything to do with the fact that the
strings  ride a good 15mm off the top.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "EUGENE BRAIG IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; "Craig Robert Pierpont" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:20 pm
> Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>
> >   Well all I can say, is that I've given two different examples of
> > radically different neck angles, Humphrey, and the opposite of
> > that angle, a
> > cello, and both have, or can have what is considered perfect ACTION.
> > So I still maintain that perfect action is attainable
> > regardless of the
> > neck angle.
>
>
> Not regardless.  Even if you can maintain a working string height above
fingerboard, a point comes that the angle just can't work.  You can't make a
functional necked chordophone where the neck comes into the table at 90
degrees, e.g. (unless you count washtub bass).
>
> I am not fond of the Humphrey paradigm.  (This is my personal taste and
yours may differ without shame.)  Every one I've encountered I would
condsider rather brassy toned, a bit harsh.  His Millennium system, at least
in some small part, is a knock off of the early 19th-c. Legnani-model
guitars by Staufer as well as his proteges and emulators.  The older
paradigm featured the same neck angle, angled into the table.  In addition,
the neck featured a clock-key adjustable angle.  Of course, the bridge
fixed, changing the angle thus would substantially change action.
>
> Eugene
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action?

[Howard Posner]

Michael Thames wrote:

> So I still maintain that perfect action is attainable regardless of the
> neck angle.

I figured we had to be talking at cross-purposes.  I think what you've been
trying to say is that whatever the neck angle is, it's possible to design an
instrument around that neck angle such that the action is perfect.  This is
quite different from saying it doesn't matter what the neck angle on a lute
is, which is what most of us assumed you meant in the context of the
discussion.

HP



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[LGS-Europe]

> course for frets 7 to 10.  Our best estimate of likely string diameters
> therefore suggests a maximum of about .80mm, .64mm, .50mm, and .42mm for
> fret diameters, perhaps even thinner for the "first course" diameter
> because D was talking about a double first course.  Has anyone tried
> using a .40mm fret?  Even allowing for the fact that he was using double

On my theorbo I go from 1.25 (b) to 0.50 (i) at the moment. Not ideal, 
perhaps, but still quite playable.
It was decent, from 1.00 (b) to 0.90 (i),  but I have lowered the string 
tension considerably and put on rather thick Pistoys at 6, 7 and 8 (all on 
the fingerboard). One thing let to another. But recently I've noticed the 
risk of buzzing has diminished (change of technique, I can put the strings 
higher at the bridge after all (I've even had an extra piece of wood there 
for a while), and I think the instrument is settling).

David




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Martyn Hodgson]

Thank you Michael,
 
I'm not suggesting any definition of the word 'action' but  that it would be 
more rational to concentrate on the displacement to fingerboard rather than to 
the fret top.
 
regards,  
 
Martyn Hodgson

Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Surely the better indicator is the absolute displacement >from the bottom of 
>the string to the fingerboard - this is a >direct measure of the effort 
>required to displace the >string. The fret could be a mile thick by yr 
>definition and >still lead to a low 'action'
 
  I don't know in my dictionary action is defined by the amount of movement 
and effort needed to press a string against the fret, in the case of a violin, 
or cello. you would indeed be correct, however.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message - 
From: Martyn Hodgson 
To: Michael Thames 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


Surely the better indicator is the absolute displacement from the bottom of the 
string to the fingerboard - this is a direct measure of the effort required to 
displace the string. The fret could be a mile thick by yr definition and still 
lead to a low 'action'.

Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Timothy,
I stand by my first statement. First, lets define action which is
the height of the bottom of the strings, form the top of the frets. One
could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or
down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a
constant height of the string over the frets.
This idea of the neck angle affecting the action is a popular
misconception by many luthiers.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "timothy motz" 
To: ; ;
; 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


>Michael,
Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer
to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and
bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to
how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the
strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the
angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the
soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the
height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the
neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the
effect of neck angle will be.

Tim
>
>
> Original Message ----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600
>
>>> Vance wrote,
>>>This is not entirely true. The most significant influence >upon
>the action
>>>of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and
>how
>>large
>>>the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly.
>>
>> Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the
>neck
>>will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge.
>It has
>>nothing to do with the action.
>>Michael Thames
>>www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Vance Wood" 
>>To: "lute list" ; "Herbert Ward"
>>
>>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM
>>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Herbert Ward" 
>>> To: 
>>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM
>>> Subject: Built-in action?
>>> Hi Herbert:
>>>
>>> You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets
>are,
>>> > which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
>>> > diameters.
>>> This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon
>the action
>>> of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and
>how
>>large
>>> the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If
>this is
>>> not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put
>on the
>>> Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over
>time will
>>> develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming
>less than
>>> 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck
>higher.
>>>
>>> Vance Wood.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers,
>>> > who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood.
>>> >
>>> > Neverth

Re: Built-in action?

[Ed Durbrow]

At 9:06 AM -0600 6/16/05, Michael Thames wrote:

> The other side to this is, playing Tarrega, Segovia's style, and the
>romantic repertoire, incorporating sliding up the fingerboard on one string.
>In this case, high frets can tend to feel like railroad ties, as your going
>down the track.  However, I've not come across this technique in any lute
>music.

At the end of a Piccinini (or is it Kapsbergger, someone else will 
know) fantasia  there is a slide. Of course, it seems not to be an 
oft notated effect
cheers,
-- 
Ed Durbrow
Saitama, Japan
http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[EUGENE BRAIG IV]

- Original Message -
From: Ed Durbrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, June 18, 2005 7:01 am
Subject: Re: Built-in action?

> At the end of a Piccinini (or is it Kapsbergger, someone else will 
> know) fantasia  there is a slide. Of course, it seems not to be an 
> oft notated effect


Are you maybe thinking of Kapsberger's little joke piece, "Colascione?"

Eugene



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

>I figured we had to be talking at cross-purposes.  I think >what you've
been
>trying to say is that whatever the neck angle is, it's >possible to design
an
>instrument around that neck angle such that the action is >perfect.  This
is
>quite different from saying it doesn't matter what the neck >angle on a
lute
>is, which is what most of us assumed you meant in the >context of the

   Exactly, I guess this rather stubborn streak in me is a result of dealing
with guitarist's and repairmen, who are very quick to jump to the conclusion
that the neck angle is the source of all evil. With the guitar there are
many things that can be done to fine tune the action beyond simply just the
neck angle.
 It's gotten to the point that most guitarist's tell me that the neck
angle affects the playability, and the feel or tension of the strings (
which is deferent than simply the height of the strings).
 This happened 2 days ago.  Customer ordered a guitar and was describing
to me the string tension he wanted and  heard that the neck angle affects
the tension.  I then said that's untrue. I  said many things affect the
tension but the most important factor is the stiffness of the top., and the
height of the strings off the top.
 In the lute it's a different story, there is no room for error.  For a
lute to be properly set up there is no choice the neck angle is a given.

Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Howard Posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


> Michael Thames wrote:
>
> > So I still maintain that perfect action is attainable regardless of the
> > neck angle.
>
> I figured we had to be talking at cross-purposes.  I think what you've
been
> trying to say is that whatever the neck angle is, it's possible to design
an
> instrument around that neck angle such that the action is perfect.  This
is
> quite different from saying it doesn't matter what the neck angle on a
lute
> is, which is what most of us assumed you meant in the context of the
> discussion.
>
> HP
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action?

[Jon Murphy]

OK guys,

I'm thoroughly confused. Someone said that the "action" is the height of the
string above the fret, others have other definitions. To me the action is a
subjective thing - the pressure needed on the string to make a clean sound.
That can vary on the same instrument with different players depending on
finger placement - close to the fret or in the middle. And on the distance
between the frets. (That may not be so clear on a lute, but on an
Appalachian dulcimer which is diatonic - so the low frets are very far
apart - it is clear. When one fingers a string one is making a small
triangle between the fret and the fret below, a bit of local string stretch
involved, and it is easier to fully depress at the midpoint between frets,
although not musically advisable).

So my point is that action is a complicated interaction of string height,
string tension, and fret separation. And that is complicated by the large
"triangle" between the bridge and the nut, the middle of the string is
relatively "softer" than the nut or bridge ends - yet it has the greatest
range of vibration when played open, so has to have the greatest spacing
above the frets to avoid buzz (these latter have contradictory effects, so
the string should be higher above the fret at mid range - except that the
frets are closer spaced there, so they have a stiffer action due to the
"fret spacing effect".)

Wow, what a lot of stuff to think of. Maybe we should have a multi-contured
neck? I don't think I'll try that. I'm over my head. This is a physics of
counter effects, and all must be considered. I think I'll let it stay
subjective and experimental.

Best, Jon



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Timothy Motz]

Michael,
No, it resulted in the opposite problem.  The strings were about 2 mm 
above the neck at the join with the body, and there wasn't enough of an 
angle to the strings for them to clear the frets as I played, no matter 
how much I dropped the diameters of the frets as I went down the neck.  
I ended up making a new bridge that was higher and increased the angle 
of the strings (I also made the bridge higher on the bass side by about 
1 mm, since most of the problem was on the 6th and 7th courses).  I had 
angled back the neck on purpose (as you say, I was following Lundberg's 
advice), but I over-did it.  The thought of taking the neck off and 
re-angling it was more than I wanted to contemplate, so the bridge 
seemed like the only alternative.  In a way, it was an interesting 
problem and taught me a lot about string set-up and how to deal with 
problems.  I learned that I could remove a bridge that had been glued 
(firmly) with hide glue and not damage the soundboard.  Fortunately, 
I'm not making a living doing this, so I can screw up without it 
affecting my income.  I would have been very unhappy if this lute had 
been intended for a client.

Tim

On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 05:57  PM, Michael Thames wrote:

>
>>   I just got finished fixing a problem with the
>> neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know >what the
>> effect of neck angle will be
>
> Timothy, sounds like you were reading Lundberg's bad advice about
> angling the neck back. It should be angled forward. As you see this 
> doesn't
> work out so well.  Unless you like the strings to float 10mm off the 
> top.
> Michael Thames
> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> - Original Message -
> From: "timothy motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>
>
>> Michael,
> Sure it does.  If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer
> to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and
> bridge stay the same.  That in turn means that there is a limit to
> how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the
> strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck.   But the
> angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the
> soundboard the strings will be.  That is mostly determined by the
> height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the
> neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the
> effect of neck angle will be.
>
> Tim
>>
>>
>>  Original Message 
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600
>>
>>>> Vance wrote,
>>>> This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence >upon
>> the action
>>>> of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and
>> how
>>> large
>>>> the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly.
>>>
>>> Vance this isn't true either.  The only thing the angle of the
>> neck
>>> will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge.
>> It has
>>> nothing to do with the action.
>>> Michael Thames
>>> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "lute list" ; "Herbert Ward"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: 
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM
>>>> Subject: Built-in action?
>>>> Hi Herbert:
>>>>
>>>> You wrote:  The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets
>> are,
>>>>> which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret
>>>>> diameters.
>>>> This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence upon
>> the action
>>>> of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and
>> how
>>> large
>>>> the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly.  If
>> this is
>>>> not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put
>> on the
>>>> Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason

Re: Built-in action?

[Timothy Motz]

I would think that the neck angle for violin and cello resulted from 
the high bridge needed for bowing.  With a very high bridge, if you 
don't angle the neck back (especially with the strings under very high 
tension) you have an increasingly difficult time fretting as you move 
down the neck.

Tim

On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 08:24  PM, Howard Posner wrote:

> Michael Thames wrote:
>
>> One more example would be a cello or violin which has an EXTREME neck 
>> angle,
>> this doesn't effect the action, now does it.
>
> Of course it does.  That's why the bridges on those instruments have 
> to be
> so high: if they weren't the strings would lie on (or slide off the 
> sides
> of) the fingerboard.  If you were to lower the neck angle on a cello a 
> few
> degrees, the action up the fingerboard would be impossibly high.
>
> HP
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action?

[Martin Shepherd]

Dear Timothy,

I'm glad to hear you managed to solve the problem.  You could also have 
replaced the fingerboard with one which was thicker at the nut end.  I 
agree that trying to remove the neck and reglue it is an absolute last 
resort.

Best wishes,

Martin


Timothy Motz wrote:

>Michael,
>No, it resulted in the opposite problem.  The strings were about 2 mm 
>above the neck at the join with the body, and there wasn't enough of an 
>angle to the strings for them to clear the frets as I played, no matter 
>how much I dropped the diameters of the frets as I went down the neck.  
>I ended up making a new bridge that was higher and increased the angle 
>of the strings (I also made the bridge higher on the bass side by about 
>1 mm, since most of the problem was on the 6th and 7th courses).  I had 
>angled back the neck on purpose (as you say, I was following Lundberg's 
>advice), but I over-did it.  The thought of taking the neck off and 
>re-angling it was more than I wanted to contemplate, so the bridge 
>seemed like the only alternative.  In a way, it was an interesting 
>problem and taught me a lot about string set-up and how to deal with 
>problems.  I learned that I could remove a bridge that had been glued 
>(firmly) with hide glue and not damage the soundboard.  Fortunately, 
>I'm not making a living doing this, so I can screw up without it 
>affecting my income.  I would have been very unhappy if this lute had 
>been intended for a client.
>
>Tim
>
>On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 05:57  PM, Michael Thames wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>  I just got finished fixing a problem with the
>>>neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know >what the
>>>effect of neck angle will be
>>>  
>>>
>>Timothy, sounds like you were reading Lundberg's bad advice about
>>angling the neck back. It should be angled forward. As you see this 
>>doesn't
>>work out so well.  Unless you like the strings to float 10mm off the 
>>top.
>>Michael Thames
>>www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "timothy motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM
>>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Michael,
>>>  
>>>
>>Sure it does.  If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer
>>to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and
>>bridge stay the same.  That in turn means that there is a limit to
>>how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the
>>strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck.   But the
>>angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the
>>soundboard the strings will be.  That is mostly determined by the
>>height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the
>>neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the
>>effect of neck angle will be.
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>
>>> Original Message 
>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Subject: Re: Built-in action?
>>>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>>>Vance wrote,
>>>>>This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence >upon
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>the action
>>>  
>>>
>>>>>of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>how
>>>  
>>>
>>>>large
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly.
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>Vance this isn't true either.  The only thing the angle of the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>neck
>>>  
>>>
>>>>will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It has
>>>  
>>>
>>>>nothing to do with the action.
>>>>Michael Thames
>>>>www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
>>>>- Original Message -
>>>>From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>To: "lute list" ; "Herbert Ward"
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>Sent: Fri

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

Timothy,
 I think we've all been there done that, not fun. My sympathies go out
to you and yours.

   But, one thing kind of puzzles me.  You say you still angled the neck
back.

   If one has a straight plane from the nut to the bridge lets say, the
height of the first course above the fingerboard at the twelfth fret, is say
4mm, and the height at the nut is 1.40, that would put the height of the
string at the bridge at 7.80 mm and that's just the first course, the sixth
course would ride at 8.80 thus calling for an actual bridge that is in the
ballpark of 10.8mm on the bass and 9.8mm on the treble...And that's if
the plane is just STRAIGHT from the nut to the bridge!!!  Angle the neck
BACK as Lundberg suggests, and you end up with something that resembles  the
bowed family of instruments.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Timothy Motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


> Michael,
> No, it resulted in the opposite problem.  The strings were about 2 mm
> above the neck at the join with the body, and there wasn't enough of an
> angle to the strings for them to clear the frets as I played, no matter
> how much I dropped the diameters of the frets as I went down the neck.
> I ended up making a new bridge that was higher and increased the angle
> of the strings (I also made the bridge higher on the bass side by about
> 1 mm, since most of the problem was on the 6th and 7th courses).  I had
> angled back the neck on purpose (as you say, I was following Lundberg's
> advice), but I over-did it.  The thought of taking the neck off and
> re-angling it was more than I wanted to contemplate, so the bridge
> seemed like the only alternative.  In a way, it was an interesting
> problem and taught me a lot about string set-up and how to deal with
> problems.  I learned that I could remove a bridge that had been glued
> (firmly) with hide glue and not damage the soundboard.  Fortunately,
> I'm not making a living doing this, so I can screw up without it
> affecting my income.  I would have been very unhappy if this lute had
> been intended for a client.
>
> Tim
>
> On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 05:57  PM, Michael Thames wrote:
>
> >
> >>   I just got finished fixing a problem with the
> >> neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know >what the
> >> effect of neck angle will be
> >
> > Timothy, sounds like you were reading Lundberg's bad advice about
> > angling the neck back. It should be angled forward. As you see this
> > doesn't
> > work out so well.  Unless you like the strings to float 10mm off the
> > top.
> > Michael Thames
> > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "timothy motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: Built-in action?
> >
> >
> >> Michael,
> > Sure it does.  If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer
> > to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and
> > bridge stay the same.  That in turn means that there is a limit to
> > how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the
> > strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck.   But the
> > angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the
> > soundboard the strings will be.  That is mostly determined by the
> > height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the
> > neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the
> > effect of neck angle will be.
> >
> > Tim
> >>
> >>
> >>  Original Message 
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: Re: Built-in action?
> >> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600
> >>
> >>>> Vance wrote,
> >>>> This is not entirely true.  The most significant influence >upon
> >> the action
> >>>> of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and
> >> how
> >>> large
> >>>> the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly.
> >>>
> >>> Vance this isn't true either.  The only thing the angle of the
> >> neck
> >>> will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the b

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

Jon,
  Another thing to bear in mind is that a string, when pressed against the
fret, never makes a perfectly straight plane.  I mean that when your finger
presses the string down in back of the fret, it produces a slight arch, not
a straight line.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


> OK guys,
>
> I'm thoroughly confused. Someone said that the "action" is the height of
the
> string above the fret, others have other definitions. To me the action is
a
> subjective thing - the pressure needed on the string to make a clean
sound.
> That can vary on the same instrument with different players depending on
> finger placement - close to the fret or in the middle. And on the distance
> between the frets. (That may not be so clear on a lute, but on an
> Appalachian dulcimer which is diatonic - so the low frets are very far
> apart - it is clear. When one fingers a string one is making a small
> triangle between the fret and the fret below, a bit of local string
stretch
> involved, and it is easier to fully depress at the midpoint between frets,
> although not musically advisable).
>
> So my point is that action is a complicated interaction of string height,
> string tension, and fret separation. And that is complicated by the large
> "triangle" between the bridge and the nut, the middle of the string is
> relatively "softer" than the nut or bridge ends - yet it has the greatest
> range of vibration when played open, so has to have the greatest spacing
> above the frets to avoid buzz (these latter have contradictory effects, so
> the string should be higher above the fret at mid range - except that the
> frets are closer spaced there, so they have a stiffer action due to the
> "fret spacing effect".)
>
> Wow, what a lot of stuff to think of. Maybe we should have a
multi-contured
> neck? I don't think I'll try that. I'm over my head. This is a physics of
> counter effects, and all must be considered. I think I'll let it stay
> subjective and experimental.
>
> Best, Jon
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action?

[Tony Chalkley]

> I would think that the neck angle for violin and cello resulted from
> the high bridge needed for bowing.  With a very high bridge, if you
> don't angle the neck back (especially with the strings under very high
> tension) you have an increasingly difficult time fretting as you move
> down the neck.

Dear Tim

The big question is, double or single frets for violins and cellos? ;-)

Just as a matter of detail, these fingerboards are convex at right angles to
the strings, to corrspond more or less to the bridge curve, but the are
slightly concave in the other plane.  Concave to about a millimetre in the
middle, but the curve has to be tested with a straight edge of about 2
inches to avoid any bumps that would cause the string to buzz when it is
fretted on the virtual frets, if you see what I mean...

Yours,

Tony




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action?

[Michael Thames]

Andy,
  Thanks for the quote.  That certainly clears things up, and explains why
modern players prefer the single frets.
   Would have been nice if some of our modern scholars would have clarified
things in the beginning of this thread.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?


> Mace describes how to tie a double fret and implies that it's the common
> thing to do. ("the best way to Tye on a Fret after the old Fashion, viz.
Double").
>   After an entire page describing in detail how to tie a double fret, he
> says:   "There is a way I have lately try'd, and I find it much Better,
which is,
> to Fret a Lute with single Strings."   He goes on to explain that   he
thinks
> the single frets sound clearer and use up less material.   But it's new to
him
> in 1676.   "This I confess is a Curiosity, yet I think it worth
Examination,
> because the Business it self is a Curious Thing."
> He also recommends graduating fret sizes, among other things.
> Musick's Monument is not that hard to come by ( check the Lute Society web
> site), and it's full of interesting tidbits   andy rutherford
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action?

[Jon Murphy]

Michael,

Andy has come up with a wonderful quote, and quite relevant to this
discussion (in which I'm a total amateur). But you do raise the point as to
why "our modern scholars" didn't bring this up at the beginning of the
thread.

There I separate from you, you seem to believe there are "scholars". With
all due respect for the academy, and the study involved, there is yet the
matter of practicality. The scholar isn't necessarily the antiquarian, he
also should be the student of the modern materials (and the one who
understands why the old boys picked, and used, what they had to work with).

The real scholar understands the time and place and purpose, the historian
may (but not always, if he is good) a descriptor of the past. We made it to
the moon on a space ship using the laws of physics as proposed by Newton,
but the materials that were developed more recently. Newton's laws have been
shown to be inaccurate at very high speeds, as in Einsteinian relativity,
and the further work of Bohr, Hawkins and others. But they were quite
adequate for the trip to the moon. In a similar sense the lutenists of many
years ago might have been quite happy to have the technology of finely
defined gut fret levels that are available to us today. I've always felt
that Columbus would have preferred a steamship to the old galleon, had he
had the availability.

Would the old lutenists really have faught the pegs, had they had "tuning
machines". I'm not sure, and the lute I'm making will have pegs. But perhaps
we worship a past that would have been more practical had they the
opportunity.

Best, Jon



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

RE: Built-in action? (OT)

[demery]

timothy motz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

> I had allowed for a bit of flexing, but none
> occurred.

Same thing happened witht he banjo neck I finished a couple weeks ago; 
published information talked about both how much deflectino to expect 
and how to install truss rods; but there was no discussino of doing 
both (or why one might choose the one approach over the other; guess 
those authors showed their bias).  I was wondering if I had allowed 
enough, my neck was the long form ala pete seeger; in fact, no 
measurable deflection occured, making lots of fret buzzing.  

The actino is still a tad low, raising the bridge is harder on a banjo 
than most other instruments cause the head stretches, making bridge 
height a kinda dynamic thing.

-- 
Dana Emery




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Craig Robert Pierpont]

   We obviously have a difference of opinion here. I would be interested to see 
Martyn's historical evidence. I have heard of using double fret loops for so 
long that I took it as a given that this was always an option of varying 
popularity, but the question being raised, I can't remember where I first got 
that information. (It would have been 30 years ago or more and some of the 
information available at that time was pretty sketchy.)

Craig

Craig R. Pierpont
Another Era Lutherie
www.anotherera.com



Martyn Hodgson wrote:

The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used;


Michael Thames wrote:

In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing double frets, not to say 
they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't seen any that I can recall. 
That being said I'm curious to go through the iconography and look specify for 
this. 


-
Yahoo! Sports
 Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Sean Smith]

On Jun 19, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Craig Robert Pierpont wrote:

>We obviously have a difference of opinion here. I would be 
> interested to see Martyn's historical evidence.

The lute in Holbein's "The Ambassadors" very clearly has doubled frets. 
As realistically as this painting is done I believe he really saw them.

This was pretty well explored a couple of years ago on this lutenet.

Sean



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Sean Smith]

>
>
>   The only possible way that double frets could work is if the fret
> closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the 
> string to
> make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have big
> intonation problems.
>

Michael,
The ridge closer to the nut quickly wears down lower than the other 
allowing only one stopping point. Alternately --and I don't know how 
historically accurate this is-- one can tie two frets of slightly 
different diameters at each position. I've been doing this for the last 
year and it works fine.


>As a guitarmaker, I go through great lengths to crown a metal fret
> exactly at the correct point, this is very important.

..and confining. One may no longer experiment with tempered fretting 
as suggested by the vihuelists and others. But, as you say, you use 
metal frets as a guitarmaker.


> The string should
> only come it contact with the crest of the fret.

This means that that same crest will constantly wear at the same point 
on the gut string and this tends to wear it out quicker. Between the 
lower action and doubled frets I'm certain one can get more milage from 
gut strings on a lute than a guitar. (I wonder if the action and frets 
were thought out differently from modern guitars when only gut strings 
were used in, say, the 19th century?)

> Any difference to this is
> a personal choice as to how much tolerance one has for out of tunness

I'll suppose this includes a tolerance for equal temperment too. ;^)

Sean



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

>Michael,
>The ridge closer to the nut quickly wears down lower >than the other
>allowing only one stopping point. Alternately --and I don't slightly
>different diameters at each position. I've been doing this >for the last
>year and it works fine.

   So I assume that for the time it takes the first fret to wear out, (
weeks or months? )  one must endure intonation problems.

>..and confining. One may no longer experiment with >tempered fretting
>as suggested by the vihuelists and others. But, as you say, >you use
>metal frets as a guitarmaker

  I'm sorry, I'm one who is non sympathetic to the idea of moving frets.
I don't find it confining at all, in fact, it frees you up, to not
constantly worry if your playing out of tune. because a fret has moved, or
in a passing moment of tonal relativity, you think that ultimately, you've
just managed to tune your lute.
Your idea of a perfectly tuned lute, and mine, might be very different
as the many systems of tuning attest too.   However, your attitude clearly
suggests that your system is superior to that of the guitarist. Good for
you, Sean.

Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Sean Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lutelist" 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


> >
> >
> >   The only possible way that double frets could work is if the fret
> > closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the
> > string to
> > make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have big
> > intonation problems.
> >
>
> Michael,
> The ridge closer to the nut quickly wears down lower than the other
> allowing only one stopping point. Alternately --and I don't know how
> historically accurate this is-- one can tie two frets of slightly
> different diameters at each position. I've been doing this for the last
> year and it works fine.
>
>
> >As a guitarmaker, I go through great lengths to crown a metal fret
> > exactly at the correct point, this is very important.
>
> ..and confining. One may no longer experiment with tempered fretting
> as suggested by the vihuelists and others. But, as you say, you use
> metal frets as a guitarmaker.
>
>
> > The string should
> > only come it contact with the crest of the fret.
>
> This means that that same crest will constantly wear at the same point
> on the gut string and this tends to wear it out quicker. Between the
> lower action and doubled frets I'm certain one can get more milage from
> gut strings on a lute than a guitar. (I wonder if the action and frets
> were thought out differently from modern guitars when only gut strings
> were used in, say, the 19th century?)
>
> > Any difference to this is
> > a personal choice as to how much tolerance one has for out of tunness
>
> I'll suppose this includes a tolerance for equal temperment too. ;^)
>
> Sean
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Tony Chalkley]

I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone through
this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems
singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect
place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some time.
Nice try...


- Original Message -
From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net"
; "Lute builder Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


>
> Martyn,
>   Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to me to
have single frets.  Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for diameters,
in which case, the first two  frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm wide and
that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means that
the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on these
lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of these
lutes.
>  On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows double
frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance.
>I'm sure your familiar with this site.
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html
> Michael Thames
> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
>   - Original Message -
>   From: Martyn Hodgson
>   To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net
>   Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM
>   Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>
>
>   Michael,
>
>   Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over stuff
which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the archives.
>
>   However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient detail in
to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it was as
much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils those
trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to estimate
historic tensions.  However, there are a few pictures with sufficient
photographic accuracy  (eg Holbien) and these show double loops.  I'd be
grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this sort of
requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop.
>
>   Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is higher up
the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the pitch;
the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier.  In short, there is
no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon.
>
>   If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so -
you'll be pleasantly surpised.
>
>   regards,
>
>   Martyn Hodgson
>
>
>   Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Martyn wrote,
> >The historical evidence is that double fret loops were >generally
used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace >(he of the Lute Dyphone - a
combined theorboe and lute >in one instrument and advocat of frequent
do-it-yourself >lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off'
>'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop >frets, when it
comes down to it describes the tying of a >double loop
>
>  Martyn,
>  In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing
double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't
seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to go through the
iconography and look specify for this. If this was as popular as you say,
one would have expected to see more, and come to think about it I not seen
one modern lute with these either.
>I've seen allot of paintings of historical lutes, and think it
probably safe to sat 99% of what I've seen are single frets.
>
>   The only possible way that double frets could work is if the
fret closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the
string to make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have
big intonation problems.
>
>As a guitarmaker, I go through great lengths to crown a metal fret
exactly at the correct point, this is very important.  The string should
only come it contact with the crest of the fret.  Any difference to this is
a personal choice as to how much tolerance one has for out of tunness.
>
>
>
> Michael Thames
> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
>   - Original Message -
>   From: Martyn Hodgson
>   To: Michael Thames
>   Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:11 AM
>   Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>
>
>
>   The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally
used; alway

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

>I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've >never gone
through
>this well known page looking for frets before, but the only >one that seems
>singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in >the perfect
>place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must >try it some
time.
>Nice try...

Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how large of a
spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look !  In these photos there is not
even a hint of what looks like two frets together.
 And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double fret
looks like.

Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lute Net" 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone
through
> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems
> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect
> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some
time.
> Nice try...
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net"
> ; "Lute builder Net"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>
>
> >
> > Martyn,
> >   Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to me
to
> have single frets.  Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for
diameters,
> in which case, the first two  frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm wide and
> that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means
that
> the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on these
> lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of these
> lutes.
> >  On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows
double
> frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance.
> >I'm sure your familiar with this site.
> > http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html
> > Michael Thames
> > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> >   - Original Message -
> >   From: Martyn Hodgson
> >   To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net
> >   Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM
> >   Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
> >
> >
> >   Michael,
> >
> >   Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over stuff
> which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the archives.
> >
> >   However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient detail
in
> to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it was
as
> much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils those
> trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to
estimate
> historic tensions.  However, there are a few pictures with sufficient
> photographic accuracy  (eg Holbien) and these show double loops.  I'd be
> grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this sort of
> requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop.
> >
> >   Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is higher
up
> the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the pitch;
> the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier.  In short, there is
> no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon.
> >
> >   If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so -
> you'll be pleasantly surpised.
> >
> >   regards,
> >
> >   Martyn Hodgson
> >
> >
> >   Michael Thames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Martyn wrote,
> > >The historical evidence is that double fret loops were >generally
> used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace >(he of the Lute Dyphone -
a
> combined theorboe and lute >in one instrument and advocat of frequent
> do-it-yourself >lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off'
> >'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop >frets, when
it
> comes down to it describes the tying of a >double loop
> >
> >  Martyn,
> >  In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing
> double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't
> seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to 

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Sean Smith]

Michael,
Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the Ambassadors on my  
hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he could send you  
one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is no  
uncertainty there.

Gernot?

Sean


On Jun 19, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thames wrote:

>> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've >never gone
> through
>> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only >one that  
>> seems
>> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in >the  
>> perfect
>> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must >try it some
> time.
>> Nice try...
>
> Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how large  
> of a
> spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look !  In these photos there  
> is not
> even a hint of what looks like two frets together.
>  And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double  
> fret
> looks like.
>
> Michael Thames
> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Lute Net" 
> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>
>
>> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone
> through
>> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that  
>> seems
>> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the  
>> perfect
>> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some
> time.
>> Nice try...
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -
>> From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net"
>> ; "Lute builder Net"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Martyn,
>>>   Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to  
>>> me
> to
>> have single frets.  Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for
> diameters,
>> in which case, the first two  frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm  
>> wide and
>> that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means
> that
>> the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on  
>> these
>> lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of  
>> these
>> lutes.
>>>  On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows
> double
>> frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance.
>>>I'm sure your familiar with this site.
>>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html
>>> Michael Thames
>>> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
>>>   - Original Message -
>>>   From: Martyn Hodgson
>>>   To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net
>>>   Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM
>>>   Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>>>
>>>
>>>   Michael,
>>>
>>>   Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over  
>>> stuff
>> which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the  
>> archives.
>>>
>>>   However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient  
>>> detail
> in
>> to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it  
>> was
> as
>> much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils  
>> those
>> trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to
> estimate
>> historic tensions.  However, there are a few pictures with sufficient
>> photographic accuracy  (eg Holbien) and these show double loops.  I'd  
>> be
>> grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this sort of
>> requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop.
>>>
>>>   Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is  
>>> higher
> up
>> the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the  
>> pitch;
>> the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier.  In short,  
>> there is
>> no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon.
>>>
>>>   If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so -
>> you'll be pleasantly surpised.
>>>
>>>   regards,
>>>
>>>   Martyn

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Gernot Hilger]

Sean and all,

it seems that the pics are still online.

www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadors.html

Enjoy!
g



On 20.06.2005, at 00:44, Sean Smith wrote:

>
> Michael,
> Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the Ambassadors on my
> hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he could send you
> one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is no
> uncertainty there.
>
> Gernot?
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thames wrote:
>
>
>>> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've >never gone
>>>
>> through
>>
>>> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only >one  
>>> that
>>> seems
>>> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in >the
>>> perfect
>>> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must >try it  
>>> some
>>>
>> time.
>>
>>> Nice try...
>>>
>>
>> Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how  
>> large
>> of a
>> spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look !  In these photos there
>> is not
>> even a hint of what looks like two frets together.
>>  And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double
>> fret
>> looks like.
>>
>> Michael Thames
>> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Lute Net" 
>> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone
>>>
>> through
>>
>>> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that
>>> seems
>>> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the
>>> perfect
>>> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it  
>>> some
>>>
>> time.
>>
>>> Nice try...
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net"
>>> ; "Lute builder Net"
>>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Martyn,
>>>>   Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page  
>>>> appears to
>>>> me
>>>>
>> to
>>
>>> have single frets.  Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for
>>>
>> diameters,
>>
>>> in which case, the first two  frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm
>>> wide and
>>> that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This  
>>> means
>>>
>> that
>>
>>> the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on
>>> these
>>> lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of
>>> these
>>> lutes.
>>>
>>>>  On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows
>>>>
>> double
>>
>>> frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance.
>>>
>>>>I'm sure your familiar with this site.
>>>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html
>>>> Michael Thames
>>>> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
>>>>   - Original Message -
>>>>   From: Martyn Hodgson
>>>>   To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net
>>>>   Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM
>>>>   Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   Michael,
>>>>
>>>>   Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over
>>>> stuff
>>>>
>>> which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the
>>> archives.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>   However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient
>>>> detail
>>>>
>> in
>>
>>> to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it
>>> was
>>>
>> as
>>
>>> much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils
>>> those
>>&

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

>Michael,
>Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the >Ambassadors on my
>hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he >could send you
>one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is >no
>uncertainty there.

>Gernot?

>Sean

  Sean,

   I would Like to see that, so everyone can see the details involved in
clearly showing double frets. As I'm sure that this painting shows DF's it
still is not convincing evidence that this was a wide spread custom.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Sean Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lutelist" 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


>
> Michael,
> Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the Ambassadors on my
> hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he could send you
> one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is no
> uncertainty there.
>
> Gernot?
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thames wrote:
>
> >> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've >never gone
> > through
> >> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only >one that
> >> seems
> >> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in >the
> >> perfect
> >> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must >try it some
> > time.
> >> Nice try...
> >
> > Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how large
> > of a
> > spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look !  In these photos there
> > is not
> > even a hint of what looks like two frets together.
> >  And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double
> > fret
> > looks like.
> >
> > Michael Thames
> > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Lute Net" 
> > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
> >
> >
> >> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone
> > through
> >> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that
> >> seems
> >> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the
> >> perfect
> >> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some
> > time.
> >> Nice try...
> >>
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >> From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net"
> >> ; "Lute builder Net"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Martyn,
> >>>   Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to
> >>> me
> > to
> >> have single frets.  Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for
> > diameters,
> >> in which case, the first two  frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm
> >> wide and
> >> that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means
> > that
> >> the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on
> >> these
> >> lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of
> >> these
> >> lutes.
> >>>  On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows
> > double
> >> frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance.
> >>>I'm sure your familiar with this site.
> >>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html
> >>> Michael Thames
> >>> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> >>>   - Original Message -
> >>>   From: Martyn Hodgson
> >>>   To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net
> >>>   Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM
> >>>   Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   Michael,
> >>>
> >>>   Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over
> >>> stuff
> >> which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the
> >> archives.
> >>>
> >>>   However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

Very interesting, this very clearly shows double frets, and yet I don't see
this kind of detail on 90% of other pictures.
One example is the well known painting of the female lutenist on the
cover of Diana Poultion's complete Dowland, clearly single frets. I could go
on and on.. yet the evidence for DF exists in only one painting? are
there more paintings?
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Gernot Hilger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sean Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Lutelist" 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


> Sean and all,
>
> it seems that the pics are still online.
>
> www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadors.html
>
> Enjoy!
> g
>
>
>
> On 20.06.2005, at 00:44, Sean Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > Michael,
> > Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the Ambassadors on my
> > hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he could send you
> > one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is no
> > uncertainty there.
> >
> > Gernot?
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> > On Jun 19, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thames wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've >never gone
> >>>
> >> through
> >>
> >>> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only >one
> >>> that
> >>> seems
> >>> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in >the
> >>> perfect
> >>> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must >try it
> >>> some
> >>>
> >> time.
> >>
> >>> Nice try...
> >>>
> >>
> >> Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how
> >> large
> >> of a
> >> spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look !  In these photos there
> >> is not
> >> even a hint of what looks like two frets together.
> >>  And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double
> >> fret
> >> looks like.
> >>
> >> Michael Thames
> >> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> >> - Original Message -
> >> From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: "Lute Net" 
> >> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone
> >>>
> >> through
> >>
> >>> this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that
> >>> seems
> >>> singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the
> >>> perfect
> >>> place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it
> >>> some
> >>>
> >> time.
> >>
> >>> Nice try...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - Original Message -
> >>> From: "Michael Thames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Net"
> >>> ; "Lute builder Net"
> >>>
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Martyn,
> >>>>   Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page
> >>>> appears to
> >>>> me
> >>>>
> >> to
> >>
> >>> have single frets.  Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for
> >>>
> >> diameters,
> >>
> >>> in which case, the first two  frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm
> >>> wide and
> >>> that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This
> >>> means
> >>>
> >> that
> >>
> >>> the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on
> >>> these
> >>> lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of
> >>> these
> >>> lutes.
> >>>
> >>>>  On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows
> >>>>
> >> double
> >>
> >>> frets. So we then 

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Peter Weiler]

Intersting to note though that the Berlin Holbein, depicting a quite
different lute, also shows clear doubles.

- Peter

"   I would Like to see that, so everyone can see the details involved in
clearly showing double frets. As I'm sure that this painting shows DF's
it
still is not convincing evidence that this was a wide spread custom."

-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Sean Smith]

Thanks Gernot! And Peter, I knew there was another Holbein that 
depicted double frets. I just couldn't remember which.
thank you.

Concerning the Poulton/Dowland image. Perhaps it was overkill to double 
the frets on a small lute. So far it hasn't been worth it to "double 
up" on my descant.

Sean


On Jun 19, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Peter Weiler wrote:

> Intersting to note though that the Berlin Holbein, depicting a quite
> different lute, also shows clear doubles.
>
> - Peter
>
> "   I would Like to see that, so everyone can see the details involved 
> in
> clearly showing double frets. As I'm sure that this painting shows DF's
> it
> still is not convincing evidence that this was a wide spread custom."
>
> -- 
> ___
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Peter Weiler]

I think that double frets are considered commonplace among our very near
cousins in the HIP viol crowd, so we shouldn't be surprised to find that
they were used on lutes of the same period.

- Peter

  - Original Message -
  From: "Sean Smith"
  To: Lutelist
  Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
  Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:25:48 -0700

  >
  >
  > Thanks Gernot! And Peter, I knew there was another Holbein that
  > depicted double frets. I just couldn't remember which.
  > thank you.
  >
  > Concerning the Poulton/Dowland image. Perhaps it was overkill to
  double
  > the frets on a small lute. So far it hasn't been worth it to
  "double
  > up" on my descant.
  >
  > Sean
  >
  >
  > On Jun 19, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Peter Weiler wrote:
  >
  > > Intersting to note though that the Berlin Holbein, depicting a
  quite
  > > different lute, also shows clear doubles.
  > >
  > > - Peter
  > >
  > > " I would Like to see that, so everyone can see the details
  involved in
  > > clearly showing double frets. As I'm sure that this painting
  shows DF's
  > > it
  > > still is not convincing evidence that this was a wide spread
  custom."
  > >
  > > -- ___
  > > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
  > > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
  > >
  > >
  > > --
  > >
  > > To get on or off this list see list information at
  > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


--

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Peter Weiler]

By the way, apart from the historical evidence matter, double frets are
very, very nice to use on lutes.  I've had some trouble getting a
double-strand tied tight enough in the past, but I really like Sean's
idea of using independent frets side-by-side.  This makes them easy to
tie and allows one to change only the worn one when needed, as well as
allowing one to choose slightly smaller upstream frets in the pair.  MT,
I would second the recommendation that you give them a try.

-Peter

-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

>By the way, apart from the historical evidence matter, >double frets are
>very, very nice to use on lutes.  I've had some trouble >getting a
>double-strand tied tight enough in the past, but I really like >Sean's
>idea of using independent frets side-by-side.  This makes >them easy to
>tie and allows one to change only the worn one when >needed, as well as
>allowing one to choose slightly smaller upstream frets in >the pair.  MT,
>I would second the recommendation that you give them a >try.

>-Peter

 Well I'm not proud !  So I will give them a try. Would it be safe to
say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so much?
What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use them
thesedays.  Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette, Wilson,
Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them?
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Weiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


> By the way, apart from the historical evidence matter, double frets are
> very, very nice to use on lutes.  I've had some trouble getting a
> double-strand tied tight enough in the past, but I really like Sean's
> idea of using independent frets side-by-side.  This makes them easy to
> tie and allows one to change only the worn one when needed, as well as
> allowing one to choose slightly smaller upstream frets in the pair.  MT,
> I would second the recommendation that you give them a try.
>
> -Peter
>
> --
> ___
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Sean Smith]

> Would it be safe to
> say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so 
> much?

I wouldn't think so. I just tie them tighter'n a fratboy on St. Paddy's 
day.

Sean



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Peter Weiler]

I've thought about this for a good hour and I have to say it is a
remarkably difficult thing to verbalize.  I don't know what commercial
pressures the big boys are subject to (and I don't think that's a good
measure) but for the rest of us... you're right about a little less
tendency to slide on the neck, but there is a certain stability or
solidity to the feeling of the note being produced by fretting which is
actually a bit more guitar-like.  The speed with which a tone is
articulated is different.  There is a very precise and decisive feel to
moderate-gauge double frets.  I hope a few others who have better English
than I will jump in here!

- Peter

" Well I'm not proud !  So I will give them a try. Would it be safe
to
say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so
much?
What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use
them
thesedays.  Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette,
Wilson,
Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them?
Michael Thames"

-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[KennethBeLute]

I have played a six course lute double-fretted, single strand of fret going 
around the neck twice, with the fretting carefully selected and tied by the 
lute's maker Ray Nurse, for many years.  The gut frets, with all gut strings on 
the lute, has lasted so well that I have only had to have the instrument 
refretted once in 12 years of continuous use of the lute.  The very slight and 
gentle "fizz" on the sound of the fretted notes is attractive to me and 
characteristic of the sound of this lute.  I think Capirola even refers to this 
effect in 
his instructions.

The key thing seems to be to have a very low action, a low nut, and very thin 
diameters for the double frets.  They grade minimally from down the neck.

Double fretting is frequent in depictions in paintings and prints throughout 
the sixteenth century and well into the seventeenth century.  It even occurs 
in Laurent de la Hyre's Allegory of Music (Metropolitan Museum of Art) theorbe 
player.

I also enjoy single frets which I have on my other two six course lutes.

Kenneth Be

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Sean Smith]

Stability is good word. Somehow, too, it requires less effort. W/ a 
single fret you feel the string bend behind the fret and you want to 
touch bottom.

I remember playing an orpharion w/ scalloped frets and it seems to take 
these ideas to the next level. Bending the string behind the fret would 
severely sharpen the metal strings as well as wear down the brass frets 
and that's the reasoning behind that, I suppose.

Having the fret area more spread out over the string means less wear on 
a single point. This is good for both small diameter gut strings as 
well as the roped bass beasties.

Only recently (March) in my fretting experiment did I switch to doubled 
frets for frets 5-8 and I immediately found it easier to get clean 
notes up there.

Sean

On Jun 19, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Peter Weiler wrote:

> I've thought about this for a good hour and I have to say it is a
> remarkably difficult thing to verbalize.  I don't know what commercial
> pressures the big boys are subject to (and I don't think that's a good
> measure) but for the rest of us... you're right about a little less
> tendency to slide on the neck, but there is a certain stability or
> solidity to the feeling of the note being produced by fretting which is
> actually a bit more guitar-like.  The speed with which a tone is
> articulated is different.  There is a very precise and decisive feel to
> moderate-gauge double frets.  I hope a few others who have better 
> English
> than I will jump in here!
>
> - Peter
>
> " Well I'm not proud !  So I will give them a try. Would it be safe
> to
> say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so
> much?
> What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use
> them
> thesedays.  Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette,
> Wilson,
> Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them?
> Michael Thames"
>
> -- 
> ___
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

>I wouldn't think so. I just tie them tighter'n a fratboy on >St. Paddy's
>day.

>Sean

   Sean,
  No I'm not worried about the tied frets>  I tie these really tight.
What I meant was when you press down a course onto the fret, the course has
a tendency to slide around a bit, I was thinking that more actual contact
surface would help this a bit?
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Sean Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lutelist" 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


>
> > Would it be safe to
> > say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so
> > much?
>
> I wouldn't think so. I just tie them tighter'n a fratboy on St. Paddy's
> day.
>
> Sean
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

Peter,
  I have to now admit you, Sean, and Kenneth have got me pretty excited to
try this.  I hope to try this out tomorrow and will report back.
   I take back all those horrible things I said about Dowland.  However I do
think the Painting show more single frets than double.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Weiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


> I've thought about this for a good hour and I have to say it is a
> remarkably difficult thing to verbalize.  I don't know what commercial
> pressures the big boys are subject to (and I don't think that's a good
> measure) but for the rest of us... you're right about a little less
> tendency to slide on the neck, but there is a certain stability or
> solidity to the feeling of the note being produced by fretting which is
> actually a bit more guitar-like.  The speed with which a tone is
> articulated is different.  There is a very precise and decisive feel to
> moderate-gauge double frets.  I hope a few others who have better English
> than I will jump in here!
>
> - Peter
>
> " Well I'm not proud !  So I will give them a try. Would it be safe
> to
> say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so
> much?
> What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use
> them
> thesedays.  Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette,
> Wilson,
> Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them?
> Michael Thames"
>
> --
> ___
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

Dear Martyn, Sean, and Peter, and all,
Last night I added another fret to each of the frets on my 6 course
lute, in the manner that Sean had suggested, with smaller diameter gut
behind it, as I was unsure as to how much the fret wear, would affect me
getting the right mix with the existing frets.
  Well, the result was phenomenal, not only in the playability, but sound as
well. I guess these old guys new something after all.
   Besides the feeling of solidity, and sure footedness,  the lute
immediately had more sustain, not in a bad way, but just enough to even out
the balance everywhere. It also eliminated, what I consider, a not musical
transient attack sound, and gave it a crystalline round fundamental attack.
I think in the way, that Peter was describing, the guitar like effect,  this
is important for the lute, as really, the only thing that  projects, is the
attack of the string.

If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and half
goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the frets
contribute would be silly.

 This was so amazing that I then did it to my baroque lute, with the
same astonishing results.
  I did get a little sizzle on the second course second fret, but I
realize this is probably the most fretted note on the Baroque lute, and the
fret wore there more than other places.
   It makes me think that when the BIG BOYS have tried it, they didn't
have time, concerts etc. to let the sizzle fade away perhaps?
   When I have tried to turn on, some of my stubborn guitar friends, to the
Baroque lute, they to my horror, declare that the baroque lute sounds like a
banjo.
These double frets, transform this, thin high partial banjo like
sound, into a full bodied rounded sound, much easier on the ear of the non
initiated, and more in line with what guitarists consider a good tone.
 I have yet to try the single double looped system,,which I will, but If
professionals who don't have the time perhaps Sean's method would be
something one could try in a matter of an hour or so.
   I will put double frets on all my lutes from now on.

   Thanks again, for the dialogue, and expertise, and your patience with my
journey
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Sean Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lutelist" 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


>
> Stability is good word. Somehow, too, it requires less effort. W/ a
> single fret you feel the string bend behind the fret and you want to
> touch bottom.
>
> I remember playing an orpharion w/ scalloped frets and it seems to take
> these ideas to the next level. Bending the string behind the fret would
> severely sharpen the metal strings as well as wear down the brass frets
> and that's the reasoning behind that, I suppose.
>
> Having the fret area more spread out over the string means less wear on
> a single point. This is good for both small diameter gut strings as
> well as the roped bass beasties.
>
> Only recently (March) in my fretting experiment did I switch to doubled
> frets for frets 5-8 and I immediately found it easier to get clean
> notes up there.
>
> Sean
>
> On Jun 19, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Peter Weiler wrote:
>
> > I've thought about this for a good hour and I have to say it is a
> > remarkably difficult thing to verbalize.  I don't know what commercial
> > pressures the big boys are subject to (and I don't think that's a good
> > measure) but for the rest of us... you're right about a little less
> > tendency to slide on the neck, but there is a certain stability or
> > solidity to the feeling of the note being produced by fretting which is
> > actually a bit more guitar-like.  The speed with which a tone is
> > articulated is different.  There is a very precise and decisive feel to
> > moderate-gauge double frets.  I hope a few others who have better
> > English
> > than I will jump in here!
> >
> > - Peter
> >
> > " Well I'm not proud !  So I will give them a try. Would it be safe
> > to
> > say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so
> > much?
> > What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use
> > them
> > thesedays.  Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette,
> > Wilson,
> > Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them?
> > Michael Thames"
> >
> > --
> > ___
> > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>
>

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Peter Weiler]

Ha ha! My diabolical plan to inflate the third-quarter share price of
fretgut manufactories is proceeding apace! Dear Martyn, Sean, and Peter,
and all,
Last night I added another fret to each of the frets on my 6 course
lute, in the manner that Sean had suggested, with smaller diameter gut
behind it, as I was unsure as to how much the fret wear, would affect me
getting the right mix with the existing frets.
Well, the result was phenomenal, not only in the playability, but sound
as
well. I guess these old guys new something after all.
Besides the feeling of solidity, and sure footedness,  the lute
immediately had more sustain, not in a bad way, but just enough to even
out
the balance everywhere. It also eliminated, what I consider, a not
musical
transient attack sound, and gave it a crystalline round fundamental
attack.
I think in the way, that Peter was describing, the guitar like effect, 
this
is important for the lute, as really, the only thing that  projects, is
the
attack of the string.

If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and
half
goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the
frets
contribute would be silly.

This was so amazing that I then did it to my baroque lute, with the
same astonishing results.
I did get a little sizzle on the second course second fret, but I
realize this is probably the most fretted note on the Baroque lute, and
the
fret wore there more than other places.
It makes me think that when the BIG BOYS have tried it, they didn't
have time, concerts etc. to let the sizzle fade away perhaps?
When I have tried to turn on, some of my stubborn guitar friends, to the
Baroque lute, they to my horror, declare that the baroque lute sounds
like a
banjo.
These double frets, transform this, thin high partial banjo like
sound, into a full bodied rounded sound, much easier on the ear of the
non
initiated, and more in line with what guitarists consider a good tone.
I have yet to try the single double looped system,,which I will, but If
professionals who don't have the time perhaps Sean's method would be
something one could try in a matter of an hour or so.
I will put double frets on all my lutes from now on.

Thanks again, for the dialogue, and expertise, and your patience with my
journey

-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

>Ha ha! My diabolical plan to inflate the third-quarter >share price of
>fretgut manufactories is proceeding apace!

   You've just doubled your projected profit!
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Weiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


> Ha ha! My diabolical plan to inflate the third-quarter share price of
> fretgut manufactories is proceeding apace! Dear Martyn, Sean, and Peter,
> and all,
> Last night I added another fret to each of the frets on my 6 course
> lute, in the manner that Sean had suggested, with smaller diameter gut
> behind it, as I was unsure as to how much the fret wear, would affect me
> getting the right mix with the existing frets.
> Well, the result was phenomenal, not only in the playability, but sound
> as
> well. I guess these old guys new something after all.
> Besides the feeling of solidity, and sure footedness,  the lute
> immediately had more sustain, not in a bad way, but just enough to even
> out
> the balance everywhere. It also eliminated, what I consider, a not
> musical
> transient attack sound, and gave it a crystalline round fundamental
> attack.
> I think in the way, that Peter was describing, the guitar like effect, 
> this
> is important for the lute, as really, the only thing that  projects, is
> the
> attack of the string.
> 
> If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and
> half
> goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the
> frets
> contribute would be silly.
> 
> This was so amazing that I then did it to my baroque lute, with the
> same astonishing results.
> I did get a little sizzle on the second course second fret, but I
> realize this is probably the most fretted note on the Baroque lute, and
> the
> fret wore there more than other places.
> It makes me think that when the BIG BOYS have tried it, they didn't
> have time, concerts etc. to let the sizzle fade away perhaps?
> When I have tried to turn on, some of my stubborn guitar friends, to the
> Baroque lute, they to my horror, declare that the baroque lute sounds
> like a
> banjo.
> These double frets, transform this, thin high partial banjo like
> sound, into a full bodied rounded sound, much easier on the ear of the
> non
> initiated, and more in line with what guitarists consider a good tone.
> I have yet to try the single double looped system,,which I will, but If
> professionals who don't have the time perhaps Sean's method would be
> something one could try in a matter of an hour or so.
> I will put double frets on all my lutes from now on.
> 
> Thanks again, for the dialogue, and expertise, and your patience with my
> journey
> 
> -- 
> ___
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> 
> 
> --
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[James A Stimson]

Dear Peter and All:
 Now this is interesting. I assume you put the slightly smaller fret on the
nut side of the "main" fret.
 It makes me think of the frets on my Forrester citterns, which are brass
and include a tiny wooden "ramp" on the nut side, which presumably keeps
one from bending the note sharp when fretting a course.
 But this means all those elaborate formulas for tying a double fret with a
single strand of gut are not applicable. It also means that if you break a
fret in the middle of a performance all is not lost.
Cheers,
Jim




   
  "Peter Weiler"
   
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To:   lute@cs.dartmouth.edu 

  om>  cc:  
   
           Subject:  Re: Built-in action? 
Double frets 
  06/21/2005 06:14  
   
  PM
   

   

   




Ha ha! My diabolical plan to inflate the third-quarter share price of
fretgut manufactories is proceeding apace! Dear Martyn, Sean, and Peter,
and all,
Last night I added another fret to each of the frets on my 6 course
lute, in the manner that Sean had suggested, with smaller diameter gut
behind it, as I was unsure as to how much the fret wear, would affect me
getting the right mix with the existing frets.
Well, the result was phenomenal, not only in the playability, but sound
as
well. I guess these old guys new something after all.
Besides the feeling of solidity, and sure footedness,  the lute
immediately had more sustain, not in a bad way, but just enough to even
out
the balance everywhere. It also eliminated, what I consider, a not
musical
transient attack sound, and gave it a crystalline round fundamental
attack.
I think in the way, that Peter was describing, the guitar like effect,
this
is important for the lute, as really, the only thing that  projects, is
the
attack of the string.

If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and
half
goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the
frets
contribute would be silly.

This was so amazing that I then did it to my baroque lute, with the
same astonishing results.
I did get a little sizzle on the second course second fret, but I
realize this is probably the most fretted note on the Baroque lute, and
the
fret wore there more than other places.
It makes me think that when the BIG BOYS have tried it, they didn't
have time, concerts etc. to let the sizzle fade away perhaps?
When I have tried to turn on, some of my stubborn guitar friends, to the
Baroque lute, they to my horror, declare that the baroque lute sounds
like a
banjo.
These double frets, transform this, thin high partial banjo like
sound, into a full bodied rounded sound, much easier on the ear of the
non
initiated, and more in line with what guitarists consider a good tone.
I have yet to try the single double looped system,,which I will, but If
professionals who don't have the time perhaps Sean's method would be
something one could try in a matter of an hour or so.
I will put double frets on all my lutes from now on.

Thanks again, for the dialogue, and expertise, and your patience with my
journey

--
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Peter Weiler]

JAS wrote: "  But this means all those elaborate formulas for tying a
double fret with a
single strand of gut are not applicable. "

Not really; as Sean (I think) pointed out, the up-neck fret tends to be
the one that takes the brunt of the wear. After a week or three of use
they seem to settle in with this morphology (slightly higher on the
bridge side). The effect is very small, but I think it's not imaginary. 
I do have a lot of trouble getting double fret knots tight for anything
greater than, say, 0.80 mm fretgut though.

-Peter

  - Original Message -
  From: "James A Stimson"
  To: "Peter Weiler"
  Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
  Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:29:25 -0400

  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > Dear Peter and All:
  > Now this is interesting. I assume you put the slightly smaller fret
  on the
  > nut side of the "main" fret.
  > It makes me think of the frets on my Forrester citterns, which are
  brass
  > and include a tiny wooden "ramp" on the nut side, which presumably
  keeps
  > one from bending the note sharp when fretting a course.
  > But this means all those elaborate formulas for tying a double fret
  with a
  > single strand of gut are not applicable. It also means that if you
  break a
  > fret in the middle of a performance all is not lost.
  > Cheers,
  > Jim
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > "Peter Weiler"
  > > om> cc:
  > Subject: Re:
  > Built-in action? Double frets
  > 06/21/2005 06:14
  > PM
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > Ha ha! My diabolical plan to inflate the third-quarter share price
  of
  > fretgut manufactories is proceeding apace! Dear Martyn, Sean, and
  Peter,
  > and all,
  > Last night I added another fret to each of the frets on my 6 course
  > lute, in the manner that Sean had suggested, with smaller diameter
  gut
  > behind it, as I was unsure as to how much the fret wear, would
  affect me
  > getting the right mix with the existing frets.
  > Well, the result was phenomenal, not only in the playability, but
  sound
  > as
  > well. I guess these old guys new something after all.
  > Besides the feeling of solidity, and sure footedness, the lute
  > immediately had more sustain, not in a bad way, but just enough to
  even
  > out
  > the balance everywhere. It also eliminated, what I consider, a not
  > musical
  > transient attack sound, and gave it a crystalline round fundamental
  > attack.
  > I think in the way, that Peter was describing, the guitar like
  effect,
  > this
  > is important for the lute, as really, the only thing that projects,
  is
  > the
  > attack of the string.
  >
  > If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge,
  and
  > half
  > goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect
  the
  > frets
  > contribute would be silly.
  >
  > This was so amazing that I then did it to my baroque lute, with the
  > same astonishing results.
  > I did get a little sizzle on the second course second fret, but I
  > realize this is probably the most fretted note on the Baroque lute,
  and
  > the
  > fret wore there more than other places.
  > It makes me think that when the BIG BOYS have tried it, they didn't
  > have time, concerts etc. to let the sizzle fade away perhaps?
  > When I have tried to turn on, some of my stubborn guitar friends,
  to the
  > Baroque lute, they to my horror, declare that the baroque lute
  sounds
  > like a
  > banjo.
  > These double frets, transform this, thin high partial banjo like
  > sound, into a full bodied rounded sound, much easier on the ear of
  the
  > non
  > initiated, and more in line with what guitarists consider a good
  tone.
  > I have yet to try the single double looped system,,which I will,
  but If
  > professionals who don't have the time perhaps Sean's method would
  be
  > something one could try in a matter of an hour or so.
  > I will put double frets on all my lutes from now on.
  >
  > Thanks again, for the dialogue, and expertise, and your patience
  with my
  > journey
  >
  > --
  > ___
  > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
  > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
  >
  >
  > --
  >
  > To get on or off this list see list information at
  > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

-- 
___
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


--

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Sean Smith]

There are a few frets that would take a while to wear down because the 
are used so seldom (such as the 5th course 1st and 6th frets) that it 
might be better to take a gentle file to the nutside.

Sean

On Jun 21, 2005, at 4:39 PM, Peter Weiler wrote:

> JAS wrote: "  But this means all those elaborate formulas for tying a
> double fret with a
> single strand of gut are not applicable. "
>
> Not really; as Sean (I think) pointed out, the up-neck fret tends to be
> the one that takes the brunt of the wear. After a week or three of use
> they seem to settle in with this morphology (slightly higher on the
> bridge side). The effect is very small, but I think it's not imaginary.
> I do have a lot of trouble getting double fret knots tight for anything
> greater than, say, 0.80 mm fretgut though.
>
> -Peter
>
>   - Original Message -
>   From: "James A Stimson"
>   To: "Peter Weiler"
>   Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>   Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:29:25 -0400
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Peter and All:
>> Now this is interesting. I assume you put the slightly smaller fret
>   on the
>> nut side of the "main" fret.
>> It makes me think of the frets on my Forrester citterns, which are
>   brass
>> and include a tiny wooden "ramp" on the nut side, which presumably
>   keeps
>> one from bending the note sharp when fretting a course.
>> But this means all those elaborate formulas for tying a double fret
>   with a
>> single strand of gut are not applicable. It also means that if you
>   break a
>> fret in the middle of a performance all is not lost.
>> Cheers,
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Peter Weiler"
>>> om> cc:
>> Subject: Re:
>> Built-in action? Double frets
>> 06/21/2005 06:14
>> PM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ha ha! My diabolical plan to inflate the third-quarter share price
>   of
>> fretgut manufactories is proceeding apace! Dear Martyn, Sean, and
>   Peter,
>> and all,
>> Last night I added another fret to each of the frets on my 6 course
>> lute, in the manner that Sean had suggested, with smaller diameter
>   gut
>> behind it, as I was unsure as to how much the fret wear, would
>   affect me
>> getting the right mix with the existing frets.
>> Well, the result was phenomenal, not only in the playability, but
>   sound
>> as
>> well. I guess these old guys new something after all.
>> Besides the feeling of solidity, and sure footedness, the lute
>> immediately had more sustain, not in a bad way, but just enough to
>   even
>> out
>> the balance everywhere. It also eliminated, what I consider, a not
>> musical
>> transient attack sound, and gave it a crystalline round fundamental
>> attack.
>> I think in the way, that Peter was describing, the guitar like
>   effect,
>> this
>> is important for the lute, as really, the only thing that projects,
>   is
>> the
>> attack of the string.
>>
>> If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge,
>   and
>> half
>> goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect
>   the
>> frets
>> contribute would be silly.
>>
>> This was so amazing that I then did it to my baroque lute, with the
>> same astonishing results.
>> I did get a little sizzle on the second course second fret, but I
>> realize this is probably the most fretted note on the Baroque lute,
>   and
>> the
>> fret wore there more than other places.
>> It makes me think that when the BIG BOYS have tried it, they didn't
>> have time, concerts etc. to let the sizzle fade away perhaps?
>> When I have tried to turn on, some of my stubborn guitar friends,
>   to the
>> Baroque lute, they to my horror, declare that the baroque lute
>   sounds
>> like a
>> banjo.
>> These double frets, transform this, thin high partial banjo like
>> sound, into a full bodied rounded sound, much easier on the ear of
>   the
>> non
>> initiated, and more in line with what guitarists consider a good
>   tone.
>> I have yet to try the single double looped system,,which I will,
>   but If
>> professionals who don't have the time perhaps Sean's method would
>   be
>> something one could try in a matter of an hour or so.
>> I will put double frets on all my lutes from now on.
>>
>> Thanks again, for the dialogue, and expertise, and your patience
>   with my
>> journey
>>
>> --
>> ___
>> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
>> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
> -- 
> ___
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
>
>
> --

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

>There are a few frets that would take a while to wear >down because the
>are used so seldom (such as the 5th course 1st and 6th >frets) that it
>might be better to take a gentle file to the nutside.

>Sean

I just had the thought, that one could cut the piece of gut long
enough for the double loop single fret, and calculate the length of the
string that will go on the nut side and somehow pre thickness it down before
you tie it on the fretborad.  I don't know what the best tool would be to
thickness down the gut.  Maybe a real sharp scraper or single edge razor
blade.  Mimo might know.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Sean Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lutelist" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


>
> There are a few frets that would take a while to wear down because the
> are used so seldom (such as the 5th course 1st and 6th frets) that it
> might be better to take a gentle file to the nutside.
>
> Sean
>
> On Jun 21, 2005, at 4:39 PM, Peter Weiler wrote:
>
> > JAS wrote: "  But this means all those elaborate formulas for tying a
> > double fret with a
> > single strand of gut are not applicable. "
> >
> > Not really; as Sean (I think) pointed out, the up-neck fret tends to be
> > the one that takes the brunt of the wear. After a week or three of use
> > they seem to settle in with this morphology (slightly higher on the
> > bridge side). The effect is very small, but I think it's not imaginary.
> > I do have a lot of trouble getting double fret knots tight for anything
> > greater than, say, 0.80 mm fretgut though.
> >
> > -Peter
> >
> >   - Original Message -
> >   From: "James A Stimson"
> >   To: "Peter Weiler"
> >   Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
> >   Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:29:25 -0400
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Peter and All:
> >> Now this is interesting. I assume you put the slightly smaller fret
> >   on the
> >> nut side of the "main" fret.
> >> It makes me think of the frets on my Forrester citterns, which are
> >   brass
> >> and include a tiny wooden "ramp" on the nut side, which presumably
> >   keeps
> >> one from bending the note sharp when fretting a course.
> >> But this means all those elaborate formulas for tying a double fret
> >   with a
> >> single strand of gut are not applicable. It also means that if you
> >   break a
> >> fret in the middle of a performance all is not lost.
> >> Cheers,
> >> Jim
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Peter Weiler"
> >>> om> cc:
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> Built-in action? Double frets
> >> 06/21/2005 06:14
> >> PM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ha ha! My diabolical plan to inflate the third-quarter share price
> >   of
> >> fretgut manufactories is proceeding apace! Dear Martyn, Sean, and
> >   Peter,
> >> and all,
> >> Last night I added another fret to each of the frets on my 6 course
> >> lute, in the manner that Sean had suggested, with smaller diameter
> >   gut
> >> behind it, as I was unsure as to how much the fret wear, would
> >   affect me
> >> getting the right mix with the existing frets.
> >> Well, the result was phenomenal, not only in the playability, but
> >   sound
> >> as
> >> well. I guess these old guys new something after all.
> >> Besides the feeling of solidity, and sure footedness, the lute
> >> immediately had more sustain, not in a bad way, but just enough to
> >   even
> >> out
> >> the balance everywhere. It also eliminated, what I consider, a not
> >> musical
> >> transient attack sound, and gave it a crystalline round fundamental
> >> attack.
> >> I think in the way, that Peter was describing, the guitar like
> >   effect,
> >> this
> >> is important for the lute, as really, the only thing that projects,
> >   is
> >> the
> >> attack of the string.
> >>
> >> If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge,
> >   and
> >> half
> >> goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect
> >   the
> >> frets
> >> contribute would be silly.
> >>
> >> This was so amazi

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Chad McAnally]

Michael Thames wrote: <<>>

Now I know this is a lute list, not an early keyboard list, but I have come 
upon a direct parallel that may be of interest to lutenist and luthiers alike. 
The same phenomenon mentioned above by Michael was recently has been noted also 
on clavichords in an article by Martin Skowroneck in "Clavichord Intenational" 
( Vol 9 #1 May 2005)
; Half the energy of the strings goes into the bridge and half into the 
tangents, equivalent to the "frets" of a clavichord. 

It appear the some of the old builders realized this and made their tangents 
progressively heavier toward the bass end of the instrument, or tried to 
concentrate more the weight of the key levers closer to the tangent end,  both 
in an effort to make the key "reflect" more of the energy of the string. Also 
critical to this was making the tangent more stable in the key than the 
traditional hammering in of the tangent. Some makers used addition small wooden 
wedges to tighten the tangent into the key to accomplish this.

So, I began to experiment with all this on an instrument I'm working on. The 
result was not only a slightly louder clavichord but the tone was totally 
different. Very much like Michael's description of the impact the double 
fretting has on Baroque lute tone, the sustain is increased, but not so much as 
to muddy the instrument and the overall tone colour was rounder, much closer to 
the antiques in good condition I've heard and played.

So, I wonder if the stability of the frets via double fretting transfers more 
energy to the neck resulting in a better tone or like the clavichord tangent, 
the double frets help reflects the motion of the string better into the air? A 
new puzzle for builders!

Chad



--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Sean Smith]

Interesting idea, Chad. I had always thought the energy of the string 
was transmitted to the body through the bridge but  it makes sense that 
some energy must go to the stopping fret as well.

There is the view that the lute should be held as loosely as possible 
and a lesson with Ronn MacFarlane showed that when the lute is 
minimally supported by, say, its lower edge, only slightly resting 
against the chest and the right arm barely touching, it creates a much 
larger, fuller sound --something that Jacob Heringmann and others 
strongly advocate, too. For the longest time I didn't understand where 
the extra volume was coming from (maybe the back vibrating more freely 
from the volume of air?). It was amazing how the sound opened up when I 
released my "fore-arm grip" on it!

So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will 
send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end would 
cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate up 
and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and back 
(relative to the bridge).

Pure speculation, mind you. And I appreciate the irony of learning 
about greater volume from a clavichordist ;^)

Sean

On Jun 21, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Chad McAnally wrote:

>
> Michael Thames wrote: << goes into the bridge, and half goes into the neck, via the frets. So 
> to not consider the effect the frets
> contribute would be silly.>>>
>
> Now I know this is a lute list, not an early keyboard list, but I have 
> come upon a direct parallel that may be of interest to lutenist and 
> luthiers alike. The same phenomenon mentioned above by Michael was 
> recently has been noted also on clavichords in an article by Martin 
> Skowroneck in "Clavichord Intenational" ( Vol 9 #1 May 2005)
> ; Half the energy of the strings goes into the bridge and half into 
> the tangents, equivalent to the "frets" of a clavichord.
>
> It appear the some of the old builders realized this and made their 
> tangents progressively heavier toward the bass end of the instrument, 
> or tried to concentrate more the weight of the key levers closer to 
> the tangent end,  both in an effort to make the key "reflect" more of 
> the energy of the string. Also critical to this was making the tangent 
> more stable in the key than the traditional hammering in of the 
> tangent. Some makers used addition small wooden wedges to tighten the 
> tangent into the key to accomplish this.
>
> So, I began to experiment with all this on an instrument I'm working 
> on. The result was not only a slightly louder clavichord but the tone 
> was totally different. Very much like Michael's description of the 
> impact the double fretting has on Baroque lute tone, the sustain is 
> increased, but not so much as to muddy the instrument and the overall 
> tone colour was rounder, much closer to the antiques in good condition 
> I've heard and played.
>
> So, I wonder if the stability of the frets via double fretting 
> transfers more energy to the neck resulting in a better tone or like 
> the clavichord tangent, the double frets help reflects the motion of 
> the string better into the air? A new puzzle for builders!
>
> Chad
>
>
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

I just finished reading some Dalsa in Italian Tab. then tried to read some
French tab. Man, my mind stopped working for a moment. So I checked my
Email.

Chad,
Interesting you picked up on this as well.  20 or so years ago, I quit
using Honduran Mahogany, for necks in exchange for a lighter wood called
Spanish cedar ( cedro).
H. Mahogany is the typical wood Hauser used, and the Spanish cedar is
typical for Spanish guitars.
H. Mahogany is heavier, and gave the guitars more sustain, especially in
the bass, but less warmth and volume.  S. Cedar gave the guitars more
warmth, and openness in the treble, more volume, but less sustain, and less
clarity in the bass.
   I've always told guitarist's that the neck can make or break an
instrument.  Also, if you make a thin neck you get more warmth, ( up to a
point) and the opposite for a thicker neck.
 I also will inlay a piece of hardwood inside the neck not to reinforce
it, but to kill the natural frequency in the neck, so it won't color the
tone.

Chad as you mentioned adding heaver tangents, for the bass, this makes
perfect sense, as the bass needs damping which is mass. This same principle
can be seen on lute bridges.  On the bass side of the bridge, it is higher,
and wider adding mass, but on the treble side it is lower, and more narrow
creating lightness, as well as stiffness.

  Anyway, in the next few days I'm making a neck for a baroque lute, and
can't decide on going with linden (light ) or Spanish cedar ( a little
heaver) for the core.


Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Chad McAnally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "lute" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


>
> Michael Thames wrote: << contribute would be silly.>>>
>
> Now I know this is a lute list, not an early keyboard list, but I have
come upon a direct parallel that may be of interest to lutenist and luthiers
alike. The same phenomenon mentioned above by Michael was recently has been
noted also on clavichords in an article by Martin Skowroneck in "Clavichord
Intenational" ( Vol 9 #1 May 2005)
> ; Half the energy of the strings goes into the bridge and half into the
tangents, equivalent to the "frets" of a clavichord.
>
> It appear the some of the old builders realized this and made their
tangents progressively heavier toward the bass end of the instrument, or
tried to concentrate more the weight of the key levers closer to the tangent
end,  both in an effort to make the key "reflect" more of the energy of the
string. Also critical to this was making the tangent more stable in the key
than the traditional hammering in of the tangent. Some makers used addition
small wooden wedges to tighten the tangent into the key to accomplish this.
>
> So, I began to experiment with all this on an instrument I'm working on.
The result was not only a slightly louder clavichord but the tone was
totally different. Very much like Michael's description of the impact the
double fretting has on Baroque lute tone, the sustain is increased, but not
so much as to muddy the instrument and the overall tone colour was rounder,
much closer to the antiques in good condition I've heard and played.
>
> So, I wonder if the stability of the frets via double fretting transfers
more energy to the neck resulting in a better tone or like the clavichord
tangent, the double frets help reflects the motion of the string better into
the air? A new puzzle for builders!
>
> Chad
>
>
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Martin Shepherd]

Peter Weiler wrote:

>I do have a lot of trouble getting double fret knots tight for anything
>greater than, say, 0.80 mm fretgut though.
>
>-Peter
>  
>
Er - what did I say Dowland's biggest fret diameter was?

Best to all,

Martin





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Martyn Hodgson]

Martin,
 
I use quite a large diameter double loop fret on bigger lutes, for example the 
first fret on my large theorbo is around 1.2mm, and have no problem at all in 
tightening it up. The key is to use the proper knot and leave sufficient length 
to grasp well - in short the double loop fret knot described by the 'Old Ones' 
(also shown in LS publications and elsewhere).  
 
Smaller lutes require smaller frets.
 
rgds
 
Martyn
Martin Shepherd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Peter Weiler wrote:

>I do have a lot of trouble getting double fret knots tight for anything
>greater than, say, 0.80 mm fretgut though.
>
>-Peter
> 
>
Er - what did I say Dowland's biggest fret diameter was?

Best to all,

Martin





To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


-
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail
--

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Chad McAnally]

Hi Michael,

I've used Spanish Cedar for harp backs. It is a lovely wood and smells 
fantastic. Same effects on tone in harps as you mentioned with Hon. Mahogany 
vs. Spanish Cedar in guitar necks.

Likewise, In the past 30 years it was almost a standard to make early harps, 
especially reproductions of Gaelic brass strung harps, entirely of hard maple 
or sycamore. More recently upon further research on the Irish antiques the wood 
of choice for the soundboard and box turned on to be willow. Black willow is 
similar to Sp. Cedar in density and surprisingly strong for it's weight, and 
its volume and clarity is much greater than maple.

The greater mass of the clavichord tangents made sense to me too; just like a 
lute, clavichord bridges raise in height and width towards the bass end. It's 
just one more bit of proof that the ancients knew what they were doing and 
built these things to achieve the results they wanted. 

>> I also will inlay a piece of hardwood inside the neck not to reinforce
it, but to kill the natural frequency in the neck, so it won't color the
tone.<< 
Wow, I would have never guessed that, but this too makes perfect sense.

It will interesting to see if I can get the same results you are seeing and 
hearing with the double frets. Going to order more fretgut in the morning! 
Chad



  - Original Message - 
  From: Michael Thames<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  To: lute<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> ; Chad McAnally<mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:17 PM
  Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


  I just finished reading some Dalsa in Italian Tab. then tried to read some
  French tab. Man, my mind stopped working for a moment. So I checked my
  Email.

  Chad,
  Interesting you picked up on this as well.  20 or so years ago, I quit
  using Honduran Mahogany, for necks in exchange for a lighter wood called
  Spanish cedar ( cedro).
  H. Mahogany is the typical wood Hauser used, and the Spanish cedar is
  typical for Spanish guitars.
  H. Mahogany is heavier, and gave the guitars more sustain, especially in
  the bass, but less warmth and volume.  S. Cedar gave the guitars more
  warmth, and openness in the treble, more volume, but less sustain, and less
  clarity in the bass.
 I've always told guitarist's that the neck can make or break an
  instrument.  Also, if you make a thin neck you get more warmth, ( up to a
  point) and the opposite for a thicker neck.
   I also will inlay a piece of hardwood inside the neck not to reinforce
  it, but to kill the natural frequency in the neck, so it won't color the
  tone.

  Chad as you mentioned adding heaver tangents, for the bass, this makes
  perfect sense, as the bass needs damping which is mass. This same principle
  can be seen on lute bridges.  On the bass side of the bridge, it is higher,
  and wider adding mass, but on the treble side it is lower, and more narrow
  creating lightness, as well as stiffness.

Anyway, in the next few days I'm making a neck for a baroque lute, and
  can't decide on going with linden (light ) or Spanish cedar ( a little
  heaver) for the core.


  Michael Thames
  www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com<http://www.thamesclassicalguitars.com/>
  - Original Message -
  From: "Chad McAnally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
  To: "lute" mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>>
  Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:06 PM
  Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


  >
  > Michael Thames wrote: << contribute would be silly.>>>
  >
  > Now I know this is a lute list, not an early keyboard list, but I have
  come upon a direct parallel that may be of interest to lutenist and luthiers
  alike. The same phenomenon mentioned above by Michael was recently has been
  noted also on clavichords in an article by Martin Skowroneck in "Clavichord
  Intenational" ( Vol 9 #1 May 2005)
  > ; Half the energy of the strings goes into the bridge and half into the
  tangents, equivalent to the "frets" of a clavichord.
  >
  > It appear the some of the old builders realized this and made their
  tangents progressively heavier toward the bass end of the instrument, or
  tried to concentrate more the weight of the key levers closer to the tangent
  end,  both in an effort to make the key "reflect" more of the energy of the
  string. Also critical to this was making the tangent more stable in the key
  than the traditional hammering in of the tangent. Some makers used addition
  small wooden wedges to tighten the tangent into the key to accomplish this.
  >
  > So, I began to experiment with all this on an instrument I'm working on.
  The result was not only a slightly louder clavichord but the tone was
  totally different. Very much like Michael's description of th

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

I just took some gut about .90mm and sanded down a length long enough to be
the double side in back ( towards the nut).
   In about 1 minute, I was able to sand off .10 mm.  From .90mm down to
.80mm.  The sanding changes the color of the gut so you can see where you've
thinned it down.  I used 220 emery paper, or as we call it in the lute
world. 220 grit shark's skin.  It's nice because you don't damage the
gut in anyway.  I mean as far as delaminating the string. or the twist etc.
I folded over the paper made a cradle with it, and sanded evenly the
whole diameter of the string.
  Now, if only I can figure out how to tie a double fret!
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Chad McAnally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "lute" 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


> Hi Michael,
>
> I've used Spanish Cedar for harp backs. It is a lovely wood and smells
fantastic. Same effects on tone in harps as you mentioned with Hon. Mahogany
vs. Spanish Cedar in guitar necks.
>
> Likewise, In the past 30 years it was almost a standard to make early
harps, especially reproductions of Gaelic brass strung harps, entirely of
hard maple or sycamore. More recently upon further research on the Irish
antiques the wood of choice for the soundboard and box turned on to be
willow. Black willow is similar to Sp. Cedar in density and surprisingly
strong for it's weight, and its volume and clarity is much greater than
maple.
>
> The greater mass of the clavichord tangents made sense to me too; just
like a lute, clavichord bridges raise in height and width towards the bass
end. It's just one more bit of proof that the ancients knew what they were
doing and built these things to achieve the results they wanted.
>
> >> I also will inlay a piece of hardwood inside the neck not to reinforce
> it, but to kill the natural frequency in the neck, so it won't color the
> tone.<<
> Wow, I would have never guessed that, but this too makes perfect sense.
>
> It will interesting to see if I can get the same results you are seeing
and hearing with the double frets. Going to order more fretgut in the
morning!
> Chad
>
>
>
>   - Original Message -
>   From: Michael Thames<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   To: lute<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> ; Chad
McAnally<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:17 PM
>   Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>
>
>   I just finished reading some Dalsa in Italian Tab. then tried to read
some
>   French tab. Man, my mind stopped working for a moment. So I checked my
>   Email.
>
>   Chad,
>   Interesting you picked up on this as well.  20 or so years ago, I
quit
>   using Honduran Mahogany, for necks in exchange for a lighter wood called
>   Spanish cedar ( cedro).
>   H. Mahogany is the typical wood Hauser used, and the Spanish cedar
is
>   typical for Spanish guitars.
>   H. Mahogany is heavier, and gave the guitars more sustain,
especially in
>   the bass, but less warmth and volume.  S. Cedar gave the guitars more
>   warmth, and openness in the treble, more volume, but less sustain, and
less
>   clarity in the bass.
>  I've always told guitarist's that the neck can make or break an
>   instrument.  Also, if you make a thin neck you get more warmth, ( up to
a
>   point) and the opposite for a thicker neck.
>I also will inlay a piece of hardwood inside the neck not to
reinforce
>   it, but to kill the natural frequency in the neck, so it won't color the
>   tone.
>
>   Chad as you mentioned adding heaver tangents, for the bass, this
makes
>   perfect sense, as the bass needs damping which is mass. This same
principle
>   can be seen on lute bridges.  On the bass side of the bridge, it is
higher,
>   and wider adding mass, but on the treble side it is lower, and more
narrow
>   creating lightness, as well as stiffness.
>
> Anyway, in the next few days I'm making a neck for a baroque lute, and
>   can't decide on going with linden (light ) or Spanish cedar ( a little
>   heaver) for the core.
>
>
>   Michael Thames
>   www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com<http://www.thamesclassicalguitars.com/>
>   - Original Message -
>   From: "Chad McAnally"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>   To: "lute" mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>>
>   Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:06 PM
>   Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>
>
>   >
>   > Michael Thames wrote: <<   goes into the bridge, and half goes into the neck, via the frets. So to
not
>   consider the effect the frets
>

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Carl Donsbach]

Michael and everyone,

Diagrams for tying frets can be found on David Van Edwards's site - the 
double fret knot is toward the bottom of the page.  David's illustration is 
based on Mace's description of the process.

<http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/fretknot.htm>

Better yet, find a viol player to demonstrate.

By the way, Mace's discussion of fret tying gave me the impression that the 
single fret was something of a new innovation at that time.  Does anyone 
know of other writings that would either support or contradict this?

-Carl

 Carl Donsbach
 http://www.unm.edu/~ctdbach/Lute/Building_Lute/Building_Lute_Main.htm
 Confounded eyeglasses... where'd I leave 'em this time...?8:-{>


--On Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:16 PM -0600 Michael Thames 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I just took some gut about .90mm and sanded down a length long enough to
> be the double side in back ( towards the nut).
>In about 1 minute, I was able to sand off .10 mm.  From .90mm down
> to .80mm.  The sanding changes the color of the gut so you can see where
> you've thinned it down.  I used 220 emery paper, or as we call it in the
> lute world. 220 grit shark's skin.  It's nice because you don't
> damage the gut in anyway.  I mean as far as delaminating the string. or
> the twist etc. I folded over the paper made a cradle with it, and
> sanded evenly the whole diameter of the string.
>   Now, if only I can figure out how to tie a double fret!
> Michael Thames
> www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> - Original Message -
> From: "Chad McAnally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "lute" 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
> 



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

 >Although Thomas Mace recommends single frets he only >gives instructions
for tying double ones:

   This quote taken from David Van Edward's excellent site.
  So in some strange way, this quote might confirm that indeed, most
lute paintings do in fact show single frets.  Although I'm now sold on
double frets, and not having a copy of Thomas Mace's book ( which I shall
order as soon as possible) I am now again confused.  What's up!
   Thanks to everyone who sent me fret tying diagrams. David Brown,
Bernd , and Carl.

Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Carl Donsbach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "lute" 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


> Michael and everyone,
>
> Diagrams for tying frets can be found on David Van Edwards's site - the
> double fret knot is toward the bottom of the page.  David's illustration
is
> based on Mace's description of the process.
>
> <http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/fretknot.htm>
>
> Better yet, find a viol player to demonstrate.
>
> By the way, Mace's discussion of fret tying gave me the impression that
the
> single fret was something of a new innovation at that time.  Does anyone
> know of other writings that would either support or contradict this?
>
> -Carl
>
>  Carl Donsbach
>  http://www.unm.edu/~ctdbach/Lute/Building_Lute/Building_Lute_Main.htm
>  Confounded eyeglasses... where'd I leave 'em this time...?8:-{>
>
>
> --On Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:16 PM -0600 Michael Thames
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I just took some gut about .90mm and sanded down a length long enough to
> > be the double side in back ( towards the nut).
> >In about 1 minute, I was able to sand off .10 mm.  From .90mm
down
> > to .80mm.  The sanding changes the color of the gut so you can see where
> > you've thinned it down.  I used 220 emery paper, or as we call it in the
> > lute world. 220 grit shark's skin.  It's nice because you don't
> > damage the gut in anyway.  I mean as far as delaminating the string. or
> > the twist etc. I folded over the paper made a cradle with it, and
> > sanded evenly the whole diameter of the string.
> >   Now, if only I can figure out how to tie a double fret!
> > Michael Thames
> > www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Chad McAnally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "lute" 
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
> >
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Fw: Built-in action? Double frets

[Chad McAnally]

>>>It was amazing how the sound opened up when I 
released my "fore-arm grip" on it!<<<

Absolutely. This has been my experience with not only the lute but with other 
string instruments as well. And the soundboard is not the only part of the 
instrument that vibrates when a string is plucked. My first guitar teacher 
always told me to not lean too much on the instrument with either limbs or body 
and give some  " breathing room" between me and the back. He was on to 
something.

>>So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will 
send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end would 
cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate up 
and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and back 
(relative to the bridge).<<<

I suspect you are right, but I don't know enough of the physics here, perhaps 
some one else on the list could give us a clear answer to that. I do know there 
are number of string instruments from India such the sitar and the rudra vina 
that capitalize on the energy the string imparts to the fret; they that 
actually have semi hollowed out necks and extra resonators such as gourds 
attached to the peg end of the instrument. 

>>>Pure speculation, mind you. And I appreciate the irony of learning 
about greater volume from a clavichordist ;^)<<<<<

An irony not lost on me either but perhaps the collective speculation of 
the folks on this list will help us all be better informed players. I know I'm 
buying more fretgut

Chad


- Original Message - 
  From: Sean Smith<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  To: Lutelist<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:09 PM
  Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets



  Interesting idea, Chad. I had always thought the energy of the string 
  was transmitted to the body through the bridge but  it makes sense that 
  some energy must go to the stopping fret as well.

  There is the view that the lute should be held as loosely as possible 
  and a lesson with Ronn MacFarlane showed that when the lute is 
  minimally supported by, say, its lower edge, only slightly resting 
  against the chest and the right arm barely touching, it creates a much 
  larger, fuller sound --something that Jacob Heringmann and others 
  strongly advocate, too. For the longest time I didn't understand where 
  the extra volume was coming from (maybe the back vibrating more freely 
  from the volume of air?). It was amazing how the sound opened up when I 
  released my "fore-arm grip" on it!

  So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will 
  send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end would 
  cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate up 
  and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and back 
  (relative to the bridge).

  Pure speculation, mind you. And I appreciate the irony of learning 
  about greater volume from a clavichordist ;^)

  Sean


To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Tony Chalkley]

>   So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will
>   send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end would
>   cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate up
>   and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and back
>   (relative to the bridge).

Dear Sean and Chad,

I didn't take in the original message well enough to reply - I was taught
(in other words, I have no personal opinion on the matter), that the
material and build of a guitar neck is far more important than those of the
back and ribs of the instrument, in terms of tone production.

This would support what you are saying.

As far as the upper gourd on a sitar is concerned, I have recently read that
it is a relatively recent affair and of little value - the upside of this is
that I have decided not to try and add one to mine - I couldn't sork out how
to do it easily.

Yours,

Tony




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Chad McAnally]

Hi Tony,
It's strange, I sent this to the list a few days ago and it suddenly popped up. 
Maybe my server is acting up again.

I'm not sure how old the idea of adding that extra gourd to the sitar neck is 
but it probably came from much older Indian instruments such as the Rudra Vina 
which has two resonators. My old Hemen sitar really did benefit from that upper 
gourd, particularly in the Bass and in the overall "presence" of tone, and it 
does make the instrument easier to balance.

As to lutes and guitars, as Michael Thames put it earlier " I've always told 
guitarist's that the neck can make or break an instrument."  I would definitely 
trust his experience on that matter. The barring is also critically important, 
given that it not only contributes to the function of the soundboard but 
greatly to it's stability.

 I've built both harps and guitars and it seems less important what the back 
and sides are made of versus how they are made;( within reasonI 
wouldn't make guitar sides of delrin or concrete!) 
I.e. that they are of the right thickness to resonate and still be strong 
enough to support to the soundboard seems the real key.

Chad

- Original Message - 
  From: Tony Chalkley<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  To: lute<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> 
  Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:51 PM
  Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


  >   So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will
  >   send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end would
  >   cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate up
  >   and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and back
  >   (relative to the bridge).

  Dear Sean and Chad,

  I didn't take in the original message well enough to reply - I was taught
  (in other words, I have no personal opinion on the matter), that the
  material and build of a guitar neck is far more important than those of the
  back and ribs of the instrument, in terms of tone production.

  This would support what you are saying.

  As far as the upper gourd on a sitar is concerned, I have recently read that
  it is a relatively recent affair and of little value - the upside of this is
  that I have decided not to try and add one to mine - I couldn't sork out how
  to do it easily.

  Yours,

  Tony




  To get on or off this list see list information at
  
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html<http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html>

--

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Alain Veylit]

How's a sitar tuned?
Alain

Chad McAnally wrote:

>Hi Tony,
>It's strange, I sent this to the list a few days ago and it suddenly popped 
>up. Maybe my server is acting up again.
>
>I'm not sure how old the idea of adding that extra gourd to the sitar neck is 
>but it probably came from much older Indian instruments such as the Rudra Vina 
>which has two resonators. My old Hemen sitar really did benefit from that 
>upper gourd, particularly in the Bass and in the overall "presence" of tone, 
>and it does make the instrument easier to balance.
>
>As to lutes and guitars, as Michael Thames put it earlier " I've always told 
>guitarist's that the neck can make or break an instrument."  I would 
>definitely trust his experience on that matter. The barring is also critically 
>important, given that it not only contributes to the function of the 
>soundboard but greatly to it's stability.
>
> I've built both harps and guitars and it seems less important what the back 
> and sides are made of versus how they are made;( within reasonI 
> wouldn't make guitar sides of delrin or concrete!) 
>I.e. that they are of the right thickness to resonate and still be strong 
>enough to support to the soundboard seems the real key.
>
>Chad
>
>- Original Message - 
>  From: Tony Chalkley<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>  To: lute<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> 
>  Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:51 PM
>  Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>
>
>  >   So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will
>  >   send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end would
>  >   cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate up
>  >   and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and back
>  >   (relative to the bridge).
>
>  Dear Sean and Chad,
>
>  I didn't take in the original message well enough to reply - I was taught
>  (in other words, I have no personal opinion on the matter), that the
>  material and build of a guitar neck is far more important than those of the
>  back and ribs of the instrument, in terms of tone production.
>
>  This would support what you are saying.
>
>  As far as the upper gourd on a sitar is concerned, I have recently read that
>  it is a relatively recent affair and of little value - the upside of this is
>  that I have decided not to try and add one to mine - I couldn't sork out how
>  to do it easily.
>
>  Yours,
>
>  Tony
>
>
>
>
>  To get on or off this list see list information at
>  
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html<http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html>
>
>--
>
>  
>

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Tony Chalkley]

> How's a sitar tuned?
> Alain

With pegs.



>
> Chad McAnally wrote:
>
> >Hi Tony,
> >It's strange, I sent this to the list a few days ago and it suddenly
popped up. Maybe my server is acting up again.
> >
> >I'm not sure how old the idea of adding that extra gourd to the sitar
neck is but it probably came from much older Indian instruments such as the
Rudra Vina which has two resonators. My old Hemen sitar really did benefit
from that upper gourd, particularly in the Bass and in the overall
"presence" of tone, and it does make the instrument easier to balance.
> >
> >As to lutes and guitars, as Michael Thames put it earlier " I've always
told guitarist's that the neck can make or break an instrument."  I would
definitely trust his experience on that matter. The barring is also
critically important, given that it not only contributes to the function of
the soundboard but greatly to it's stability.
> >
> > I've built both harps and guitars and it seems less important what the
back and sides are made of versus how they are made;( within reasonI
wouldn't make guitar sides of delrin or concrete!)
> >I.e. that they are of the right thickness to resonate and still be strong
enough to support to the soundboard seems the real key.
> >
> >Chad
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >  From: Tony Chalkley<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >  To: lute<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
> >  Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:51 PM
> >  Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
> >
> >
> >  >   So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will
> >  >   send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end
would
> >  >   cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would
vibrate up
> >  >   and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and
back
> >  >   (relative to the bridge).
> >
> >  Dear Sean and Chad,
> >
> >  I didn't take in the original message well enough to reply - I was
taught
> >  (in other words, I have no personal opinion on the matter), that the
> >  material and build of a guitar neck is far more important than those of
the
> >  back and ribs of the instrument, in terms of tone production.
> >
> >  This would support what you are saying.
> >
> >  As far as the upper gourd on a sitar is concerned, I have recently read
that
> >  it is a relatively recent affair and of little value - the upside of
this is
> >  that I have decided not to try and add one to mine - I couldn't sork
out how
> >  to do it easily.
> >
> >  Yours,
> >
> >  Tony
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  To get on or off this list see list information at
> >
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html<http://www.cs.dartmou
th.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html>
> >
> >--
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Tony Chalkley]

> How's a sitar tuned?
> Alain

Ok, then, the standard tuning, converted into Western rough equialents is.

Melody string - F
Drones 1 and 3, the C below that.
Drone 2 the C another octave below.
Drone 4 the G above the melody.

There are then the two chikari (treble drones) which are both C, an octave
and two octaves above Drone 1.

The sympathetics are variable depending on the scale of the raga, but
basically go from G to C over an octave and a half.


>
> Chad McAnally wrote:
>
> >Hi Tony,
> >It's strange, I sent this to the list a few days ago and it suddenly
popped up. Maybe my server is acting up again.
> >
> >I'm not sure how old the idea of adding that extra gourd to the sitar
neck is but it probably came from much older Indian instruments such as the
Rudra Vina which has two resonators. My old Hemen sitar really did benefit
from that upper gourd, particularly in the Bass and in the overall
"presence" of tone, and it does make the instrument easier to balance.
> >
> >As to lutes and guitars, as Michael Thames put it earlier " I've always
told guitarist's that the neck can make or break an instrument."  I would
definitely trust his experience on that matter. The barring is also
critically important, given that it not only contributes to the function of
the soundboard but greatly to it's stability.
> >
> > I've built both harps and guitars and it seems less important what the
back and sides are made of versus how they are made;( within reasonI
wouldn't make guitar sides of delrin or concrete!)
> >I.e. that they are of the right thickness to resonate and still be strong
enough to support to the soundboard seems the real key.
> >
> >Chad
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >  From: Tony Chalkley<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >  To: lute<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
> >  Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:51 PM
> >  Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
> >
> >
> >  >   So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will
> >  >   send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end
would
> >  >   cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would
vibrate up
> >  >   and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and
back
> >  >   (relative to the bridge).
> >
> >  Dear Sean and Chad,
> >
> >  I didn't take in the original message well enough to reply - I was
taught
> >  (in other words, I have no personal opinion on the matter), that the
> >  material and build of a guitar neck is far more important than those of
the
> >  back and ribs of the instrument, in terms of tone production.
> >
> >  This would support what you are saying.
> >
> >  As far as the upper gourd on a sitar is concerned, I have recently read
that
> >  it is a relatively recent affair and of little value - the upside of
this is
> >  that I have decided not to try and add one to mine - I couldn't sork
out how
> >  to do it easily.
> >
> >  Yours,
> >
> >  Tony
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  To get on or off this list see list information at
> >
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html<http://www.cs.dartmou
th.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html>
> >
> >--
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

>Some 15 years ago I did a solo recording for BBC-radio, >and the recording
>engineer came with two microphones for my theorbo: one >aimed at the
>soundboard, and one close to the neck. He wanted to >pick up the vibrations
>from the neck extension, he said. This was his way of >adding depth and
>warmth to the sound.

   I remember years ago reading an article that described, taking a
guitar, ( can easily be applied to the lute) placing it in a room with 250
microphones in the ceiling, and activating each frequency on the fretborad.
They then were able to feed the data into a computer, and photograph the
area ,or surface where each frequency came from.
  Most bass frequencies originated from near, or around the sound hole,
however the higher frequencies radiated directly off the surface of the
soundboard, and all other parts of the guitar.
The flat surface of the fingerboard acts in no small way, as a ridged
soundboard.  The condition of these surfaces are vital to the tone.  The
smoother the finish the smoother the sound.
 I've even had customers comment about replacing cheap lightweight
mechanical tuners with heavier ridged ones having a positive effect on the
tone.  It is also well known in the Flamenco world, that a traditional
flamenco guitar fitted with wooden friction pegs sounds much better than
with modern tuners etc.
  Sor, even suggested resting the head of the guitar on a wall to improve
tone

Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "lute" 
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


> >>> Absolutely. This has been my experience with not only the lute but
with
> >>> other string instruments as well. And the soundboard is not the only
> >>> part of the instrument that vibrates when a string is plucked.
> <<
>
>
> Some 15 years ago I did a solo recording for BBC-radio, and the recording
> engineer came with two microphones for my theorbo: one aimed at the
> soundboard, and one close to the neck. He wanted to pick up the vibrations
> from the neck extension, he said. This was his way of adding depth and
> warmth to the sound.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Michael Thames]

> I've built both harps and guitars and it seems less >important what the
back and sides are made of versus >how they are made;( within
reasonI wouldn't make >guitar sides of delrin or concrete!)
>I.e. that they are of the right thickness to resonate and still >be strong
enough to support to the soundboard seems the >real key.

>Chad

   Chad, I second that emotion.  Each wood contributes to the tone in one
way or another.  But who can really say one is better than the other.  Maple
makes great guitars and lutes, as does ebony or rosewood.
 Lacote, thought so little of the effect of the back and sides that he
just used pine, with a veneer over it.
   Fleta, actually made his own plywood from rosewood and spruce, for the
back, and sides, and used this on what he called his "international models",
to prevent cracking of the back.

Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
- Original Message -
From: "Chad McAnally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "lute" 
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


> Hi Tony,
> It's strange, I sent this to the list a few days ago and it suddenly
popped up. Maybe my server is acting up again.
>
> I'm not sure how old the idea of adding that extra gourd to the sitar neck
is but it probably came from much older Indian instruments such as the Rudra
Vina which has two resonators. My old Hemen sitar really did benefit from
that upper gourd, particularly in the Bass and in the overall "presence" of
tone, and it does make the instrument easier to balance.
>
> As to lutes and guitars, as Michael Thames put it earlier " I've always
told guitarist's that the neck can make or break an instrument."  I would
definitely trust his experience on that matter. The barring is also
critically important, given that it not only contributes to the function of
the soundboard but greatly to it's stability.
>
>  I've built both harps and guitars and it seems less important what the
back and sides are made of versus how they are made;( within reasonI
wouldn't make guitar sides of delrin or concrete!)
> I.e. that they are of the right thickness to resonate and still be strong
enough to support to the soundboard seems the real key.
>
> Chad
>
> - Original Message -----
>   From: Tony Chalkley<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   To: lute<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
>   Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:51 PM
>   Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
>
>
>   >   So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will
>   >   send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end
would
>   >   cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate
up
>   >   and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and
back
>   >   (relative to the bridge).
>
>   Dear Sean and Chad,
>
>   I didn't take in the original message well enough to reply - I was
taught
>   (in other words, I have no personal opinion on the matter), that the
>   material and build of a guitar neck is far more important than those of
the
>   back and ribs of the instrument, in terms of tone production.
>
>   This would support what you are saying.
>
>   As far as the upper gourd on a sitar is concerned, I have recently read
that
>   it is a relatively recent affair and of little value - the upside of
this is
>   that I have decided not to try and add one to mine - I couldn't sork out
how
>   to do it easily.
>
>   Yours,
>
>   Tony
>
>
>
>
>   To get on or off this list see list information at
>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html<http://www.cs.dartmou
th.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html>
>
> --
>

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Chad McAnally]

Alain,
There are several ways of tuning a sitar; this page is far more concise than I 
could be.

http://www.silverbushmusic.com/sitartuning.html<http://www.silverbushmusic.com/sitartuning.html>
 

For further information on the general North Indian classical tradition check 
out 
http://www.buckinghammusic.com/tall.ht<http://www.buckinghammusic.com/tall.ht> 
It has a picture of my friend Shubhendraji who taught me much about the nature 
of music and life.

Enjoy,
Chad



- Original Message - 
  From: Alain Veylit<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  To: Chad McAnally<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  Cc: lute<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> 
  Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 2:37 AM
  Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


  How's a sitar tuned?
  Alain

  Chad McAnally wrote:

  >Hi Tony,
  >It's strange, I sent this to the list a few days ago and it suddenly popped 
up. Maybe my server is acting up again.
  >
  >I'm not sure how old the idea of adding that extra gourd to the sitar neck 
is but it probably came from much older Indian instruments such as the Rudra 
Vina which has two resonators. My old Hemen sitar really did benefit from that 
upper gourd, particularly in the Bass and in the overall "presence" of tone, 
and it does make the instrument easier to balance.
  >
  >As to lutes and guitars, as Michael Thames put it earlier " I've always told 
guitarist's that the neck can make or break an instrument."  I would definitely 
trust his experience on that matter. The barring is also critically important, 
given that it not only contributes to the function of the soundboard but 
greatly to it's stability.
  >
  > I've built both harps and guitars and it seems less important what the back 
and sides are made of versus how they are made;( within reasonI 
wouldn't make guitar sides of delrin or concrete!) 
  >I.e. that they are of the right thickness to resonate and still be strong 
enough to support to the soundboard seems the real key.
  >
  >Chad
  >
  >- Original Message - 
  >  From: Tony Chalkley<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
  >  To: lute<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>> 
  >  Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:51 PM
  >  Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
  >
  >
  >  >   So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will
  >  >   send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end would
  >  >   cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate up
  >  >   and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and back
  >  >   (relative to the bridge).
  >
  >  Dear Sean and Chad,
  >
  >  I didn't take in the original message well enough to reply - I was taught
  >  (in other words, I have no personal opinion on the matter), that the
  >  material and build of a guitar neck is far more important than those of the
  >  back and ribs of the instrument, in terms of tone production.
  >
  >  This would support what you are saying.
  >
  >  As far as the upper gourd on a sitar is concerned, I have recently read 
that
  >  it is a relatively recent affair and of little value - the upside of this 
is
  >  that I have decided not to try and add one to mine - I couldn't sork out 
how
  >  to do it easily.
  >
  >  Yours,
  >
  >  Tony
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >  To get on or off this list see list information at
  >  
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html<http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html<http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html<http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html>>
  >
  >--
  >
  >  
  >


--

Re: Built-in action? Double frets

[Chad McAnally]

Michael,
Fleta was a really interesting chap. Years ago I had chance to play a 
colleague's Fleta, it almost played itself to was so co-operative!!!

In lutes, I've read that 1.) the harder the wood the ribs are made of, the 
louder the lute, and 2.) towards the end of the 16th century makers started to 
use Yew for the ribs, simply because large amounts of it had been freed up from 
military uses. It seems that the use of woods like ebony increased as well. 

 Were these makers looking for more forward projection in their instruments Or 
was it just a matter of having new "exotic" materials to experiment with? ( or 
both? ) Imagine the advertisements: "New for 1587 Ebony and Snakewood 7 course 
models!!!" 

Chad



Original Message - 
  From: Michael Thames<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  To: lute<mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> ; Chad McAnally<mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> 
  Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 6:15 PM
  Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets



  > I've built both harps and guitars and it seems less >important what the
  back and sides are made of versus >how they are made;( within
  reasonI wouldn't make >guitar sides of delrin or concrete!)
  >I.e. that they are of the right thickness to resonate and still >be strong
  enough to support to the soundboard seems the >real key.

  >Chad

 Chad, I second that emotion.  Each wood contributes to the tone in one
  way or another.  But who can really say one is better than the other.  Maple
  makes great guitars and lutes, as does ebony or rosewood.
   Lacote, thought so little of the effect of the back and sides that he
  just used pine, with a veneer over it.
 Fleta, actually made his own plywood from rosewood and spruce, for the
  back, and sides, and used this on what he called his "international models",
  to prevent cracking of the back.

  Michael Thames
  www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com<http://www.thamesclassicalguitars.com/>
  - Original Message -
  From: "Chad McAnally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
  To: "lute" mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>>
  Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 10:50 PM
  Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets


  > Hi Tony,

--

To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html