[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[jslute]

Dear Bruno and All:
 If you're talking about carbon-fiber, I prefer them on the middle courses -- 
3, 4 and 5. Anything to avoid a wound fourth course!
Cheers,
Jim



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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Edward Martin]

Bruno,

I used these strings years ago.  They are durable, and have a loud sound, 
and are very stable in pitch.  That is the good part.

For the bad part, they do not "feel" good to the fingers, and have, in my 
opinion, a very nasty sound.  If I were to use carbon now, I would start at 
the 4th course, as the trebles are too bright & strident, in my opinion.

ed




At 10:48 PM 6/8/2007 -0300, Bruno Correia wrote:
>Does anybody in the list use carbon strings? I changed my nylgut set for
>carbon but I'm experiencing some troubles with the second course. Sometimes
>when I play, both strings get too  close on the fingerboard, resulting in a
>bad tone. The first and second courses are very thin, 0.37 and
>0.41respectively, my lute has 59 cm of string lenght. Is it OK for the
>first
>course to be a little over 4 kg? Is there anything to help to get a better
>grip on the string since carbon has a very smooth surface?
>
>Regards.
>
>--
>
>To get on or off this list see list information at
>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/838 - Release Date: 6/7/2007 
>2:21 PM



Edward Martin
2817 East 2nd Street
Duluth, Minnesota  55812
e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice:  (218) 728-1202

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Bruno Correia]

Dear Edward,

I agree entirely with you, carbon fiber strings are loud, durable, very
stable and not to forget the great sustain. Unfortunately, the first courses
have to be very thin, which provides an extremely bright sound.  In your
opinion which option would be better: To use 1 and 2nd in Nylgut or nylon?




2007/6/9, Edward Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Bruno,
>
> I used these strings years ago.  They are durable, and have a loud sound,
> and are very stable in pitch.  That is the good part.
>
> For the bad part, they do not "feel" good to the fingers, and have, in my
> opinion, a very nasty sound.  If I were to use carbon now, I would start
> at
> the 4th course, as the trebles are too bright & strident, in my opinion.
>
> ed
>
>
>
>
> At 10:48 PM 6/8/2007 -0300, Bruno Correia wrote:
> >Does anybody in the list use carbon strings? I changed my nylgut set for
> >carbon but I'm experiencing some troubles with the second course.
> Sometimes
> >when I play, both strings get too  close on the fingerboard, resulting in
> a
> >bad tone. The first and second courses are very thin, 0.37 and
> >0.41respectively, my lute has 59 cm of string lenght. Is it OK for the
> >first
> >course to be a little over 4 kg? Is there anything to help to get a
> better
> >grip on the string since carbon has a very smooth surface?
> >
> >Regards.
> >
> >--
> >
> >To get on or off this list see list information at
> >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/838 - Release Date: 6/7/2007
> >2:21 PM
>
>
>
> Edward Martin
> 2817 East 2nd Street
> Duluth, Minnesota  55812
> e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> voice:  (218) 7...
>
>
>

--

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[LGS-Europe]

I have used them for years: nails on carbon. Loud, bright, clean and stable. 
SciFi lute, a 20th century invention for convenience. Nothing to do with the 
sound a lute was made for. Don't let your modern ears fool you, a lute is 
not a thin guitar. Carbon sound has nothing to do with anything even 
remotely connected to an 'authentic' sound. An abberation. I have changed to 
fingers on gut. My duet partner on the Terzi cd still uses nails on carbon.
If you insist on carbon, go for a very high tension first course, that will 
avoid the overly thin feel as well as sound. I have used nr. 6 (0.41) for 
the first course on a 59cm lute. That's 50N! I have a 59cm stuiterluitje for 
teaching, up and down between 415 and 440 and even to d-minor within one 
lesson)  that's stil on carbon, and there I've changed to 0.33 on the first 
course. That's a decent 33N but a very thin and scrapy tone. Not good; I 
feel ashamed when I bring that to my lessons.
Because the strings are so thin, you might experience setup problems on the 
nut: carbon strings can be too thin for the grooves.
To get more grip you can try roughing them up with _very_ fine grained sand 
paper, like nail polish paper. Twist them first (hand drill, up to 200 
times). I'm not sure the thin strings will survive this treatment without 
getting false. The thicker ones should be ok, as carbon strings are like 
those C-10 planes: even with loosing a wing they still won't crash. The hand 
drill is also a good trick to get a slightly heavier gauge that's not 
available. Then you have to twist them and secure them, so twist with the 
string attached to the nut and guided through te peg.

Better: change to gut and start playing lute.

David



David van Ooijen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.davidvanooijen.nl



- Original Message - 
From: "Bruno Correia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LuteNet list" 
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 3:48 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Carbon strings


> Does anybody in the list use carbon strings? I changed my nylgut set for
> carbon but I'm experiencing some troubles with the second course. 
> Sometimes
> when I play, both strings get too  close on the fingerboard, resulting in 
> a
> bad tone. The first and second courses are very thin, 0.37 and
> 0.41respectively, my lute has 59 cm of string lenght. Is it OK for the
> first
> course to be a little over 4 kg? Is there anything to help to get a better
> grip on the string since carbon has a very smooth surface?
>
> Regards.
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html 

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Anthony Hind]

Bruno
Yesterday, I was with a player who has just changed back to nylgut,  
from carbon fibre. He told me that carbon was too slippery to the  
touch and not very subtle in sound. According to him, Nylgut was  
closer to gut from that point of view. Personally, I have never used  
carbon fibre, but I have used nylgut on the top string. However,  
although it doesn't break, it gradually stretches, and then seems to  
go out of tune. I do agree, Jim, that it is best to avoid metal  
wounds on the 4th and 5th, but I don't like them on the 6th or 7th,  
either.
Anthony

Le 9 juin 07 à 05:38, Edward Martin a écrit :

> Bruno,
>
> I used these strings years ago.  They are durable, and have a loud  
> sound,
> and are very stable in pitch.  That is the good part.
>
> For the bad part, they do not "feel" good to the fingers, and have,  
> in my
> opinion, a very nasty sound.  If I were to use carbon now, I would  
> start at
> the 4th course, as the trebles are too bright & strident, in my  
> opinion.
>
> ed
>
>
>
>
> At 10:48 PM 6/8/2007 -0300, Bruno Correia wrote:
>> Does anybody in the list use carbon strings? I changed my nylgut  
>> set for
>> carbon but I'm experiencing some troubles with the second course.  
>> Sometimes
>> when I play, both strings get too  close on the fingerboard,  
>> resulting in a
>> bad tone. The first and second courses are very thin, 0.37 and
>> 0.41respectively, my lute has 59 cm of string lenght. Is it OK for  
>> the
>> first
>> course to be a little over 4 kg? Is there anything to help to get  
>> a better
>> grip on the string since carbon has a very smooth surface?
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> --
>>
>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/838 - Release Date:  
>> 6/7/2007
>> 2:21 PM
>
>
>
> Edward Martin
> 2817 East 2nd Street
> Duluth, Minnesota  55812
> e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> voice:  (218) 728-1202
>
>
>

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[wolfgang wiehe]

I used them on the 4th and since some time on the 5th course in unisono
(wounded copper before, terrible!), on the 6th and 7th as octaves and i
am very pleased.
W.

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Bruno Correia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Gesendet: Samstag, 9. Juni 2007 03:48
An: LuteNet list
Betreff: [LUTE] Carbon strings


Does anybody in the list use carbon strings? I changed my nylgut set for
carbon but I'm experiencing some troubles with the second course.
Sometimes when I play, both strings get too  close on the fingerboard,
resulting in a bad tone. The first and second courses are very thin,
0.37 and 0.41respectively, my lute has 59 cm of string lenght. Is it OK
for the first course to be a little over 4 kg? Is there anything to help
to get a better grip on the string since carbon has a very smooth
surface?

Regards.

--

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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[ariel]

>
> Better: change to gut and start playing lute.
>
> David
>
>

I'll email Paul O'Dette and Hoppy Smith right away and tell them that, so 
they can finally start playing the lute and not the funny toy they've been 
using for ages. I'll forward the info to Eugène Ferré, who's also quite 
naive and seem to be very bad informed.


Bruno,

We've been here before.

Nylgut are more flexible in terms of what you can do with them. They're 
reasonable stable, and last quite a lot. For my taste, the best synthetic 
option.
Carbon are difficult to deal with for people with oversensitive skin, but 
their sound can be very interesting.
It is always difficult to be conclusive, as some people make an excellent 
sound with every type of string, and some other would blame the string and 
wouldn't question themselves.
There're cases of people satisfied with a mediocre and poor sound claming 
how good they and their strings are, but I wouldn't worry about them.
As carbon and nylgut are affordable, try both, play them for a while, and 
you will make your choice.
While it is true that different strings feel different and of course sound 
different, it is mostly the plucking technique what defines your sound 
quality.
Working on tone production is the answer. Then you can make your choice. I 
guess you know all this.
Some player will say that there's a difference in developing a sound for gut 
or for synthetic, but this is not fully correct.
I've used both, and they both require serious and constant training. 
There're no different techniques for one and the other. Hear someone like 
O'Dette playing a gut strung instrument and then a synthetic one. Leaving 
apart the taste, there will be no difference in the technique used.

For a 6 course (or even a 8 course) lute or vihuela  I'd choose gut basses, 
or at least try to avoid overspun strings, but again I wouldn't claim that's 
the only option to make things work properly.
You can always train your fingers so they do exactly what you want to hear.

Ariel.





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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[wolfgang wiehe]

Maybe that gut is the best choice, but i tend to wet fingertips so gut
is terrible. I tried nylgut, it has a good sound, but with wet
fingertips nylgut on the 1th and 2th  tends to squeak, when i play it.
So my combination is nylon on 1th to 3th, carbon on 4th and 5th and a
combination of copperwounded nylgut and carbon on 6th and 7th.
W.
P.s. and i heard wet fingertips are not my problem alone



-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: ariel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Gesendet: Samstag, 9. Juni 2007 11:29
An: LuteNet list; Bruno Correia
Betreff: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings




>
> Better: change to gut and start playing lute.
>
> David
>
>

I'll email Paul O'Dette and Hoppy Smith right away and tell them that,
so 
they can finally start playing the lute and not the funny toy they've
been 
using for ages. I'll forward the info to Eugène Ferré, who's also quite 
naive and seem to be very bad informed.


Bruno,

We've been here before.

Nylgut are more flexible in terms of what you can do with them. They're 
reasonable stable, and last quite a lot. For my taste, the best
synthetic 
option.
Carbon are difficult to deal with for people with oversensitive skin,
but 
their sound can be very interesting.
It is always difficult to be conclusive, as some people make an
excellent 
sound with every type of string, and some other would blame the string
and 
wouldn't question themselves.
There're cases of people satisfied with a mediocre and poor sound
claming 
how good they and their strings are, but I wouldn't worry about them. As
carbon and nylgut are affordable, try both, play them for a while, and 
you will make your choice.
While it is true that different strings feel different and of course
sound 
different, it is mostly the plucking technique what defines your sound 
quality.
Working on tone production is the answer. Then you can make your choice.
I 
guess you know all this.
Some player will say that there's a difference in developing a sound for
gut 
or for synthetic, but this is not fully correct.
I've used both, and they both require serious and constant training. 
There're no different techniques for one and the other. Hear someone
like 
O'Dette playing a gut strung instrument and then a synthetic one.
Leaving 
apart the taste, there will be no difference in the technique used.

For a 6 course (or even a 8 course) lute or vihuela  I'd choose gut
basses, 
or at least try to avoid overspun strings, but again I wouldn't claim
that's 
the only option to make things work properly.
You can always train your fingers so they do exactly what you want to
hear.

Ariel.





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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Roman Turovsky]

I have carbon on 4 upper courses of my 72 cm baroque lute and I am perfectly 
happy with both sound and stability.
RT




- Original Message - 
From: "Bruno Correia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LuteNet list" 
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 9:48 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Carbon strings


> Does anybody in the list use carbon strings? I changed my nylgut set for
> carbon but I'm experiencing some troubles with the second course. 
> Sometimes
> when I play, both strings get too  close on the fingerboard, resulting in 
> a
> bad tone. The first and second courses are very thin, 0.37 and
> 0.41respectively, my lute has 59 cm of string lenght. Is it OK for the
> first
> course to be a little over 4 kg? Is there anything to help to get a better
> grip on the string since carbon has a very smooth surface?
>
> Regards.
>
> --
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Edward Martin]

In my opinion, nylon.  Keep in mind, that I am primarily a gut user.

ed

At 02:05 AM 6/9/2007 -0300, Bruno Correia wrote:


>Dear Edward,
>
>I agree entirely with you, carbon fiber strings are loud, durable, very 
>stable and not to forget the great sustain. Unfortunately, the first 
>courses have to be very thin, which provides an extremely bright 
>sound.  In your opinion which option would be better: To use 1 and 2nd in 
>Nylgut or nylon?
>
>
>
>
>2007/6/9, Edward Martin 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Bruno,
>
>I used these strings years ago.  They are durable, and have a loud sound,
>and are very stable in pitch.  That is the good part.
>
>For the bad part, they do not "feel" good to the fingers, and have, in my
>opinion, a very nasty sound.  If I were to use carbon now, I would start at
>the 4th course, as the trebles are too bright & strident, in my opinion.
>
>ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 10:48 PM 6/8/2007 -0300, Bruno Correia wrote:
> >Does anybody in the list use carbon strings? I changed my nylgut set for
> >carbon but I'm experiencing some troubles with the second course. Sometimes
> >when I play, both strings get too  close on the fingerboard, resulting in a
> >bad tone. The first and second courses are very thin, 0.37 and
> >0.41respectively, my lute has 59 cm of string lenght. Is it OK for the
> >first
> >course to be a little over 4 kg? Is there anything to help to get a better
> >grip on the string since carbon has a very smooth surface?
> >
> >Regards.
> >
> >--
> >
> >To get on or off this list see list information at
> >http://www.cs.dar 
> tmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/838 - Release Date: 6/7/2007
> >2:21 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>Edward Martin
>2817 East 2nd Street
>Duluth, Minnesota  55812
>e-mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>voice:  (218) 7...
>
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/840 - Release Date: 6/8/2007 
>3:15 PM



Edward Martin
2817 East 2nd Street
Duluth, Minnesota  55812
e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice:  (218) 728-1202

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[LGS-Europe]

>> Better: change to gut and start playing lute.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>
> I'll email Paul O'Dette and Hoppy Smith right away and tell them that, so
> they can finally start playing the lute and not the funny toy they've been
> using for ages. I'll forward the info to Eugène Ferré, who's also quite
> naive and seem to be very bad informed.

Ariel

Lighten up! You know me. ;-) I told Bruno what I think of carbon versus gut, 
predictable I admit, but I also gave him practical advice on carbon.
Besides, my first 17 or so cds were on carbon, and the're not that bad. I 
even made one on nylgut ...

David - cheerful 




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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[ariel]

I assume we're both on a same humoristic kind of level, David... I wouldn't 
get annoyed because of something so trivial!

I think Bruno has an idea now, after all!

A

>>> Better: change to gut and start playing lute.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'll email Paul O'Dette and Hoppy Smith right away and tell them that, so
>> they can finally start playing the lute and not the funny toy they've 
>> been
>> using for ages. I'll forward the info to Eugène Ferré, who's also quite
>> naive and seem to be very bad informed.
>
> Ariel
>
> Lighten up! You know me. ;-) I told Bruno what I think of carbon versus 
> gut, predictable I admit, but I also gave him practical advice on carbon.
> Besides, my first 17 or so cds were on carbon, and the're not that bad. I 
> even made one on nylgut ...
>
> David - cheerful
>
> 



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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Roman Turovsky]

Could not resist:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-3426805-8154405?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=david+van+oojen&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go
RT



- Original Message - 
From: "ariel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LuteNet list" 

Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 10:12 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings


>
> I assume we're both on a same humoristic kind of level, David... I 
> wouldn't
> get annoyed because of something so trivial!
>
> I think Bruno has an idea now, after all!
>
> A
>
>>>> Better: change to gut and start playing lute.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll email Paul O'Dette and Hoppy Smith right away and tell them that, 
>>> so
>>> they can finally start playing the lute and not the funny toy they've
>>> been
>>> using for ages. I'll forward the info to Eugène Ferré, who's also quite
>>> naive and seem to be very bad informed.
>>
>> Ariel
>>
>> Lighten up! You know me. ;-) I told Bruno what I think of carbon versus
>> gut, predictable I admit, but I also gave him practical advice on carbon.
>> Besides, my first 17 or so cds were on carbon, and the're not that bad. I
>> even made one on nylgut ...
>>
>> David - cheerful
>>
>>
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
> 




_
Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy
with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[LGS-Europe]

Cool!

Next time try my name spelled correctly. You seem to have more problems with 
Dutch spelling, I remember a broodje paling that came out a little weird, 
lately. ;-)

David


- Original Message - 
From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LuteNet list" 
; "ariel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings


> Could not resist:
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-3426805-8154405?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=david+van+oojen&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go
> RT
>
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "ariel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LuteNet list" 
> 
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 10:12 AM
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings
>
>
>>
>> I assume we're both on a same humoristic kind of level, David... I 
>> wouldn't
>> get annoyed because of something so trivial!
>>
>> I think Bruno has an idea now, after all!
>>
>> A
>>
>>>>> Better: change to gut and start playing lute.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll email Paul O'Dette and Hoppy Smith right away and tell them that, 
>>>> so
>>>> they can finally start playing the lute and not the funny toy they've
>>>> been
>>>> using for ages. I'll forward the info to Eugène Ferré, who's also quite
>>>> naive and seem to be very bad informed.
>>>
>>> Ariel
>>>
>>> Lighten up! You know me. ;-) I told Bruno what I think of carbon versus
>>> gut, predictable I admit, but I also gave him practical advice on 
>>> carbon.
>>> Besides, my first 17 or so cds were on carbon, and the're not that bad. 
>>> I
>>> even made one on nylgut ...
>>>
>>> David - cheerful
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _
> Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy
> with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com
> 

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Roman Turovsky]

Well, corrected spelling brought back one item:
http://www.amazon.com/Footsteps-Herman-Hollanders-Bas-Ramselarr/dp/B000FEBQLI/ref=sr_1_1/002-3426805-8154405?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1181403655&sr=8-1
RT



- Original Message - 
From: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LuteNet list" 

Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings


> Cool!
>
> Next time try my name spelled correctly. You seem to have more problems 
> with Dutch spelling, I remember a broodje paling that came out a little 
> weird, lately. ;-)
>
> David
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LuteNet list" 
> ; "ariel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 4:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings
>
>
>> Could not resist:
>> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-3426805-8154405?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=david+van+oojen&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go
>> RT
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "ariel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LuteNet list" 
>> 
>> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 10:12 AM
>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I assume we're both on a same humoristic kind of level, David... I 
>>> wouldn't
>>> get annoyed because of something so trivial!
>>>
>>> I think Bruno has an idea now, after all!
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>>>>> Better: change to gut and start playing lute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll email Paul O'Dette and Hoppy Smith right away and tell them that, 
>>>>> so
>>>>> they can finally start playing the lute and not the funny toy they've
>>>>> been
>>>>> using for ages. I'll forward the info to Eugène Ferré, who's also 
>>>>> quite
>>>>> naive and seem to be very bad informed.
>>>>
>>>> Ariel
>>>>
>>>> Lighten up! You know me. ;-) I told Bruno what I think of carbon versus
>>>> gut, predictable I admit, but I also gave him practical advice on 
>>>> carbon.
>>>> Besides, my first 17 or so cds were on carbon, and the're not that bad. 
>>>> I
>>>> even made one on nylgut ...
>>>>
>>>> David - cheerful
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _
>> Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy
>> with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com
>>
>
>
>
> 




_
Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy
with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Roman Turovsky]

Bedanckt, oude boon. I haven't had that broodje since the 1988 Utrecht 
festival...
RT
- Original Message - 
From: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LuteNet list" 

Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 11:34 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings


> Cool!
>
> Next time try my name spelled correctly. You seem to have more problems 
> with
> Dutch spelling, I remember a broodje paling that came out a little weird,
> lately. ;-)
>
> David
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LuteNet list"
> ; "ariel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 4:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings
>
>
>> Could not resist:
>> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-3426805-8154405?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=david+van+oojen&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go
>> RT
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "ariel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LuteNet list"
>> 
>> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 10:12 AM
>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I assume we're both on a same humoristic kind of level, David... I
>>> wouldn't
>>> get annoyed because of something so trivial!
>>>
>>> I think Bruno has an idea now, after all!
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>>>>> Better: change to gut and start playing lute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll email Paul O'Dette and Hoppy Smith right away and tell them that,
>>>>> so
>>>>> they can finally start playing the lute and not the funny toy they've
>>>>> been
>>>>> using for ages. I'll forward the info to Eugène Ferré, who's also 
>>>>> quite
>>>>> naive and seem to be very bad informed.
>>>>
>>>> Ariel
>>>>
>>>> Lighten up! You know me. ;-) I told Bruno what I think of carbon versus
>>>> gut, predictable I admit, but I also gave him practical advice on
>>>> carbon.
>>>> Besides, my first 17 or so cds were on carbon, and the're not that bad.
>>>> I
>>>> even made one on nylgut ...
>>>>
>>>> David - cheerful
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _
>> Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy
>> with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com
>>
>
>
>
>
> 




_
Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy
with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[LGS-Europe]

Dear Roman

And I, in my innocence, was thinking you were pointing me to David
Ringtones, the dailyringtones.com. That really made my day. :-)

I'm surprised the Hollanders cd comes up at Amazon. It's a three-in-a-box
with the complete works of local hero Herman Hollanders, 17th century cantor
of the church in Eindhoven, amongst other jobs in life. The project to
record his music was set up by the now cantor of the same church. During the
recording period we played at other churches were Hollanders worked, too.
The music is not as great as Monteverdi's, how can it be, but it was fun to
work our way through all of it to really get a feel of this man. Some good
singers at this recording, and I've changed from carbon to gut on my theorbo
in the period of this recording (two years?), so all the in-between steps 
are
on it, too. Mainly all the unsatisfactory trials of string 6, 7 and 8 on the
fingerboard and my switch from nail to no-nails. Slowly getting there, but 
still a long way to go.

But back to Amazon. I'd rather think the recording with Sumi Jo should turn
up, it didn't, but the complete Corelli (10 cds) did:
http://www.amazon.com/Corelli-Complete-Works-Albert-Bruggen/dp/B0009IW8SK/ref=sr_1_7/002-8016722-1025600?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1181423319&sr=1-7
as did the Dido & Aeneas (just two minutes of guitar by me, not much to
speak of)
http://www.amazon.com/Purcell-Dido-Aeneas-Galliard-Syrinx/dp/B0008ENHVW/ref=sr_1_29/002-8016722-1025600?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1181423460&sr=1-29
this is fun, the historic recorders are in Amazon too, my name is not in the
list of performers but at least it's visible in the picture of the cover :-)
http://www.amazon.com/Recorders-Recorded-Elias-Bronnenmuller/dp/B0002TLJRW/ref=sr_1_6/002-8016722-1025600?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1181423561&sr=1-6
I'm somewhere in these complete Bach cantata's, too, but it's rather a lot
to listen to:
http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Masterworks-Box-Bas-Ramselarr/dp/B00062FLII/ref=sr_1_1/002-8016722-1025600?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1181423791&sr=1-1
and even The Spirit of Gambo and Friends are present!
http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Gambo-F/dp/B0B3VB/ref=sr_1_10/002-8016722-1025600?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1181423955&sr=1-10

I give up, for an almost complete list of my cds go to my website. That's
enough commercial break for today.

David - cleaned the inbox of a lute friend today, and surprised to find
self-adverstising mail from you in there! Not quite the unsigned Sautcheck
direct mail of some (7?) years ago, but still. ;-)



David van Ooijen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.davidvanooijen.nl


- Original Message - 
From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LuteNet list"

Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings


> Well, corrected spelling brought back one item:
> http://www.amazon.com/Footsteps-Herman-Hollanders-Bas-Ramselarr/dp/B000FEBQLI/ref=sr_1_1/002-3426805-8154405?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1181403655&sr=8-1
> RT
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message - 
> From: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LuteNet list"
> 
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 11:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings
>
>
>> Cool!
>>
>> Next time try my name spelled correctly. You seem to have more problems
>> with Dutch spelling, I remember a broodje paling that came out a little
>> weird, lately. ;-)
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LuteNet list"
>> ; "ariel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 4:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings
>>
>>
>>> Could not resist:
>>> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-3426805-8154405?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=david+van+oojen&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go
>>> RT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "ariel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "LuteNet list"
>>> 
>>> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 10:12 AM
>>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I assume we're both on a same humoristic kind of level, David... I
>>>> wouldn't
>>>> get annoyed because of something so trivial!
>>>>
>>>> I think Bruno has an idea now, afte

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Bruno Correia]

Thanks Ariel,

Your message was very instructive. I strongly believe that what makes a
person a lutenist is not the type of string he uses, it is rather his
knowledge of lute technique, control of his sound production and good taste.
I remember Eugene Ferre playing on an all carbon set and his sound was
excellent, not to mention his great playing. I personally have the
impression that nylgut is not very projective and has a poor sustain,
although it feels good under the fingers. The first and the second courses
might work fine.

Regards.




I'll email Paul O'Dette and Hoppy Smith right away and tell them that, so
> they can finally start playing the lute and not the funny toy they've been
> using for ages. I'll forward the info to Eug=E8ne Ferre, who's also quite
> naive and seem to be very bad informed.
>
>
> Bruno,
>
> We've been here before.
>
> Nylgut are more flexible in terms of what you can do with them. They're
> reasonable stable, and last quite a lot. For my taste, the best synthetic
> option.
> Carbon are difficult to deal with for people with oversensitive skin, but
> their sound can be very interesting.
> It is always difficult to be conclusive, as some people make an excellent
> sound with every type of string, and some other would blame the string and
> wouldn't question themselves.
> There're cases of people satisfied with a mediocre and poor sound claming
> how good they and their strings are, but I wouldn't worry about them.
> As carbon and nylgut are affordable, try both, play them for a while, and
> you will make your choice.
> While it is true that different strings feel different and of course sound
> different, it is mostly the plucking technique what defines your sound
> quality.
> Working on tone production is the answer. Then you can make your choice. I
> guess you know all this.
> Some player will say that there's a difference in developing a sound for
> gut
> or for synthetic, but this is not fully correct.
> I've used both, and they both require serious and constant training.
> There're no different techniques for one and the other. Hear someone like
> O'Dette playing a gut strung instrument and then a synthetic one. Leaving
> apart the taste, there will be no difference in the technique used.
>
> For a 6 course (or even a 8 course) lute or vihuela  I'd choose gut
> basses,
> or at least try to avoid overspun strings, but again I wouldn't claim
> that's
> the only option to make things work properly.
> You can always train your fingers so they do exactly what you want to
> hear.
>
> Ariel.
>
>
>
>

--

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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Bruno Correia]

  Thanks to everybody for all the information about the topic!
> >
> >
> >
>

--

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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Roman Turovsky]

From: "LGS-Europe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I'll email Paul O'Dette and Hoppy Smith right away and tell them that, so
>> they can finally start playing the lute and not the funny toy they've 
>> been
>> using for ages. I'll forward the info to Eugène Ferré, who's also quite
>> naive and seem to be very bad informed.
> Ariel
>
> Lighten up! You know me. ;-) I told Bruno what I think of carbon versus 
> gut,
> predictable I admit, but I also gave him practical advice on carbon.
> Besides, my first 17 or so cds were on carbon, and the're not that bad. 
> ...
> David - cheerful
Hej,
Really impressive- That's more than Barto and Egüez combined!
RT 




_
Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy
with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more 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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[bill kilpatrick]

it's a recurring nighmare/fantasy of mine that i
stumble into a huntin'fishin'-type shop with only a
few pennies in my pocket, trying to replace a busted
string on my charango - my only means of support.

i don't know what sort of lute you have or if the
following has any relevance ... but in the treble
range of the charango (apropos fishing line) here are
the diameters listed:

E 0.4 mm 0.016 inch 
A 0.6mm 0.024 inch 
E 0.7 mm 0.028 inch
e 0.4 mm 
C 0.5 mm 0.02 inch
G 0.7 mm

E 0.4mm
A 1st string of a guitar
E 2nd string of a guitar
e 0.4 mm
C 0.5mm
G 1st string of a guitar

ping - bill

--- Charles Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
> I have three carbon strings, at least I had three,
> marked No.6, No.8 and No,
> 10. Presumably these were from reels of fishing
> line. Is there a standard
> relationship between this type of numbering and
> string diameter?
> thanks
> Charles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 


http://earlymusiccharango.blogspot.com/


  ___ 
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for
your free account today 
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html 

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[LGS-Europe]

Carbon 4 = 0.33mm = Gut Equivalent 0.39mm = Nylon 0.42mm
Carbon 5 = 0.37mm = Gut Equivalent 0.44mm = Nylon 0.46mm
Carbon 6 = 0.405mm = Gut Equivalent 0.48mm = Nylon 0.52mm
Carbon 7 = 0.436mm = Gut Equivalent 0.52mm = Nylon 0.56mm
Carbon 8 = 0.47mm = Gut Equivalent 0.55mm = Nylon 0.60mm
Carbon 10 = 0.52mm = Gut Equivalent 0.61mm = Nylon 0.66mm

Or something near enough for practical purposes. I believe the Carbon 
numbers have something to do with the size (weight) of fish you're able to 
catch, and they go up to at least 24. Presumably for whaling ... ;-)

David

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lutelist" 
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 11:34 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Carbon strings


> Dear colleagues,
> I have three carbon strings, at least I had three, marked No.6, No.8 and 
> No,
> 10. Presumably these were from reels of fishing line. Is there a standard
> relationship between this type of numbering and string diameter?
> thanks
> Charles
>
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[David Van Edwards]

Indeed the carbon music strings are just fishing line, as has been 
revealed by the withdrawal of 0.7 size [the one I find most useful 
for the 4th course] from the string-makers list at the same time as 
it has vanished from the fishing line range. I went looking around 
fishing sites and shops hoping for an old unsold reel of 0.7 but no 
luck.

Apparently the large sizes have been superceded in the  fishing world 
fashion stakes in favour of braided strings which are stronger and 
more flexible. I didn't try a braided string, but maybe I should have.

When you start trawling [sorry!] round, it's whole different world 
out there underwater, where they are interested in the refractive 
index being close to that of seawater so the lines are invisible (the 
big attraction of carbon apparently) and the amount of friction as 
they drag on the bottom.

Best wishes,

David


At 08:39 +0200 19/6/07, LGS-Europe wrote:
>Carbon 4 = 0.33mm = Gut Equivalent 0.39mm = Nylon 0.42mm
>Carbon 5 = 0.37mm = Gut Equivalent 0.44mm = Nylon 0.46mm
>Carbon 6 = 0.405mm = Gut Equivalent 0.48mm = Nylon 0.52mm
>Carbon 7 = 0.436mm = Gut Equivalent 0.52mm = Nylon 0.56mm
>Carbon 8 = 0.47mm = Gut Equivalent 0.55mm = Nylon 0.60mm
>Carbon 10 = 0.52mm = Gut Equivalent 0.61mm = Nylon 0.66mm
>
>Or something near enough for practical purposes. I believe the Carbon
>numbers have something to do with the size (weight) of fish you're able to
>catch, and they go up to at least 24. Presumably for whaling ... ;-)
>
>David
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Charles Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Lutelist" 
>Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 11:34 PM
>Subject: [LUTE] Carbon strings
>
>
>>  Dear colleagues,
>>  I have three carbon strings, at least I had three, marked No.6, No.8 and
>>  No,
>>  10. Presumably these were from reels of fishing line. Is there a standard
>>  relationship between this type of numbering and string diameter?
>>  thanks
>>  Charles
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  To get on or off this list see list information at
>>  http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>


-- 
The Smokehouse,
6 Whitwell Road,
Norwich,  NR1 4HB  
England.

Telephone: + 44 (0)1603 629899
Website: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Eugene C. Braig IV]

At 03:42 AM 6/19/2007, David Van Edwards wrote:
>Apparently the large sizes have been superceded in the  fishing world
>fashion stakes in favour of braided strings which are stronger and
>more flexible. I didn't try a braided string, but maybe I should have.

Modern braids have almost no stretch to them whatsoever.  I don't think 
they'd make very good musical instrument strings, at least not for punteado.


>When you start trawling [sorry!] round, it's whole different world
>out there underwater, where they are interested in the refractive
>index being close to that of seawater so the lines are invisible (the
>big attraction of carbon apparently) and the amount of friction as
>they drag on the bottom.

Sorry indeed!  You "troll" with fishing line.  "Trawling" is the domain of 
cumbersome, towed net gears.

Best,
Eugene 



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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[David Van Edwards]

At 14:41 -0400 19/6/07, Eugene C. Braig IV wrote:
>
>>When you start trawling [sorry!] round, it's whole different world
>>out there underwater, where they are interested in the refractive
>>index being close to that of seawater so the lines are invisible (the
>>big attraction of carbon apparently) and the amount of friction as
>>they drag on the bottom.
>
>Sorry indeed!  You "troll" with fishing line.  "Trawling" is the 
>domain of cumbersome, towed net gears.
>
>Best,
>Eugene

I wasn't trawling with a fishing line, I was using the net to gather 
stuff from the underwater world!

Best wishes,

David

-- 
The Smokehouse,
6 Whitwell Road,
Norwich,  NR1 4HB  
England.

Telephone: + 44 (0)1603 629899
Website: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk



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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Roman Turovsky]

BTW, carbon line fit for lutes is mainly freshwater gauges.
RT

- Original Message - 
From: "David Van Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Lutelist" 
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:19 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings


> At 14:41 -0400 19/6/07, Eugene C. Braig IV wrote:
>>
>>>When you start trawling [sorry!] round, it's whole different world
>>>out there underwater, where they are interested in the refractive
>>>index being close to that of seawater so the lines are invisible (the
>>>big attraction of carbon apparently) and the amount of friction as
>>>they drag on the bottom.
>>
>>Sorry indeed!  You "troll" with fishing line.  "Trawling" is the 
>>domain of cumbersome, towed net gears.
>>
>>Best,
>>Eugene
> 
> I wasn't trawling with a fishing line, I was using the net to gather 
> stuff from the underwater world!
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> David
> 
> -- 
> The Smokehouse,
> 6 Whitwell Road,
> Norwich,  NR1 4HB  
> England.
> 
> Telephone: + 44 (0)1603 629899
> Website: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 
>



_
Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy
with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[David Van Edwards]

At 09:43 -0400 20/6/07, Roman Turovsky wrote:
>BTW, carbon line fit for lutes is mainly freshwater gauges.
>RT

Dear Roman,

That may be the root of the problem since 0.7mm, the size I'm after, 
implies a fish bigger than most freshwater fish.
David

-- 
The Smokehouse,
6 Whitwell Road,
Norwich,  NR1 4HB  
England.

Telephone: + 44 (0)1603 629899
Website: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk



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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Jason Yoshida]

I guess it would depend on the size of your local freshwater fish. For
Howard and me in Southern California, on lakes you would be using
fluorocarbon diameters much smaller than .30mm. Here, most diameters of
fluorocarbon applicable to a lute would be used in saltwater fishing or
maybe for very large freshwater fish (bigger then salmon). .41mm in
Seaguar's standard fluorocarbon is equal to 25 pound line.

David,
.70mm fluorocarbon is still readily available at least here in LA and in
online stores. Online sources would probably be your best bet, because
depending on where you live, stores that carry fishing equipment will
generally carry what is needed to be able fish in the local environments.
DIY lute string hunting is easy here because all the stores carry fishing
equipment for the ocean as well as for lakes and streams in the mountains.
The companyYo-Zuri has a brand called "H.D. Carbon" and the 50 pound line
has a .71mm diameter. Seaguar's (the brand that seems most readily
available) standard fluorocarbon 50 pound is equal to .67mm and the 60 pound
is equal to .74mm. I have found that most of the standard Seaguar diameters
seem to have a slightly less density then the internet lute calculators.
They do have a couple of others product lines which are of higher quality,
some only available in Japan, and I think I remember seeing one of those
being closer to .70mm (55 pound). I go to the hardcore fishing stores, when
my father goes, and I take my digital calipers all the time. Unfortunately
you can't just pick any line of a similar pound rating because of density
variances and quality they will have different diameters. Some nylon
monofilament brands are nice too.

But when in doubt for most, I think we are better off supporting the few
that we have that actually have the patience to be lute string suppliers.
With the amount of time invested you don't save that much money.
Regards,
Jason

Jason Yoshida
North Hills, CA
http://www.jasonyoshida.com
http://www.musiclas.com
- Original Message -
From: "Howard Posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lutelist" 
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:13 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings


> On Wednesday, Jun 20, 2007, at 06:43 America/Los_Angeles, Roman
> Turovsky wrote:
>
> > BTW, carbon line fit for lutes is mainly freshwater gauges.
>
> Because they're smaller?
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[David Van Edwards]

Dear Jason,

That's very kind and helpful. I did search about online but couldn't 
find anything a few months ago, I'll look on the site you recommend.

BTW I'm not trying to go behind the string suppliers, Kuerschner had 
discontinued 0.70mm carbon because he said that it is no longer 
available when I last spoke to him. (but it is still on his price 
list, so maybe he's found the LA fishing stores, I'll ask again!) And 
that was what prompted my searching about for old fishing stock.

Best wishes,

David

At 14:26 -0700 20/6/07, Jason Yoshida wrote:
>I guess it would depend on the size of your local freshwater fish. For
>Howard and me in Southern California, on lakes you would be using
>fluorocarbon diameters much smaller than .30mm. Here, most diameters of
>fluorocarbon applicable to a lute would be used in saltwater fishing or
>maybe for very large freshwater fish (bigger then salmon). .41mm in
>Seaguar's standard fluorocarbon is equal to 25 pound line.
>
>David,
>.70mm fluorocarbon is still readily available at least here in LA and in
>online stores. Online sources would probably be your best bet, because
>depending on where you live, stores that carry fishing equipment will
>generally carry what is needed to be able fish in the local environments.
>DIY lute string hunting is easy here because all the stores carry fishing
>equipment for the ocean as well as for lakes and streams in the mountains.
>The companyYo-Zuri has a brand called "H.D. Carbon" and the 50 pound line
>has a .71mm diameter. Seaguar's (the brand that seems most readily
>available) standard fluorocarbon 50 pound is equal to .67mm and the 60 pound
>is equal to .74mm. I have found that most of the standard Seaguar diameters
>seem to have a slightly less density then the internet lute calculators.
>They do have a couple of others product lines which are of higher quality,
>some only available in Japan, and I think I remember seeing one of those
>being closer to .70mm (55 pound). I go to the hardcore fishing stores, when
>my father goes, and I take my digital calipers all the time. Unfortunately
>you can't just pick any line of a similar pound rating because of density
>variances and quality they will have different diameters. Some nylon
>monofilament brands are nice too.
>
>But when in doubt for most, I think we are better off supporting the few
>that we have that actually have the patience to be lute string suppliers.
>With the amount of time invested you don't save that much money.
>Regards,
>Jason
>
>Jason Yoshida
>North Hills, CA
>http://www.jasonyoshida.com
>http://www.musiclas.com
>- Original Message -
>From: "Howard Posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Lutelist" 
>Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:13 AM
>Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings
>
>
>>  On Wednesday, Jun 20, 2007, at 06:43 America/Los_Angeles, Roman
>>  Turovsky wrote:
>>
>>  > BTW, carbon line fit for lutes is mainly freshwater gauges.
>>
>>  Because they're smaller?
>>
>>
>>
>>  To get on or off this list see list information at
>>  http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html


-- 
The Smokehouse,
6 Whitwell Road,
Norwich,  NR1 4HB  
England.

Telephone: + 44 (0)1603 629899
Website: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Edward Martin]

Such  a fresh point of view from an old salty!

ed

At 09:43 AM 6/20/2007 -0400, Roman Turovsky wrote:
>BTW, carbon line fit for lutes is mainly freshwater gauges.
>RT
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "David Van Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: "Lutelist" 
>Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:19 AM
>Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings
>
>
> > At 14:41 -0400 19/6/07, Eugene C. Braig IV wrote:
> >>
> >>>When you start trawling [sorry!] round, it's whole different world
> >>>out there underwater, where they are interested in the refractive
> >>>index being close to that of seawater so the lines are invisible (the
> >>>big attraction of carbon apparently) and the amount of friction as
> >>>they drag on the bottom.
> >>
> >>Sorry indeed!  You "troll" with fishing line.  "Trawling" is the
> >>domain of cumbersome, towed net gears.
> >>
> >>Best,
> >>Eugene
> >
> > I wasn't trawling with a fishing line, I was using the net to gather
> > stuff from the underwater world!
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > David
> >
> > --
> > The Smokehouse,
> > 6 Whitwell Road,
> > Norwich,  NR1 4HB
> > England.
> >
> > Telephone: + 44 (0)1603 629899
> > Website: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
>_
>Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy
>with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.1/854 - Release Date: 6/19/2007 
>1:12 PM



Edward Martin
2817 East 2nd Street
Duluth, Minnesota  55812
e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice:  (218) 728-1202

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[Roman Turovsky]

For some unknown reason Seaguar is hard to find in the NYC area  (most 
carbon sold here is usually way too thick), and I was advised to look in 
shops that specialize in freshwater gear, rare here.
One day I went deep into the boonies of New Jersey on a film job, and there 
was a fishing shop across the street from the shooting location, with a fine 
selection of Seaguar spools in every gauge!
RT
- Original Message - 
From: "Edward Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Eugene C. Braig IV" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "David Van Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Lutelist" 
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings


> Such  a fresh point of view from an old salty!
>
> ed
>
> At 09:43 AM 6/20/2007 -0400, Roman Turovsky wrote:
>>BTW, carbon line fit for lutes is mainly freshwater gauges.
>>RT
>>
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "David Van Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Cc: "Lutelist" 
>>Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:19 AM
>>Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings
>>
>>
>> > At 14:41 -0400 19/6/07, Eugene C. Braig IV wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>When you start trawling [sorry!] round, it's whole different world
>> >>>out there underwater, where they are interested in the refractive
>> >>>index being close to that of seawater so the lines are invisible (the
>> >>>big attraction of carbon apparently) and the amount of friction as
>> >>>they drag on the bottom.
>> >>
>> >>Sorry indeed!  You "troll" with fishing line.  "Trawling" is the
>> >>domain of cumbersome, towed net gears.
>> >>
>> >>Best,
>> >>Eugene
>> >
>> > I wasn't trawling with a fishing line, I was using the net to gather
>> > stuff from the underwater world!
>> >
>> > Best wishes,
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> > --
>> > The Smokehouse,
>> > 6 Whitwell Road,
>> > Norwich,  NR1 4HB
>> > England.
>> >
>> > Telephone: + 44 (0)1603 629899
>> > Website: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > To get on or off this list see list information at
>> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>_
>>Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy
>>with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.1/854 - Release Date: 6/19/2007 
>>1:12 PM
>
>
>
> Edward Martin
> 2817 East 2nd Street
> Duluth, Minnesota  55812
> e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> voice:  (218) 728-1202
>
>
>
> 




_
Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy
with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

[EUGENE BRAIG IV]

- Original Message -
From: David Van Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:19 am
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings

> I wasn't trawling with a fishing line, I was using the net to 
> gather stuff from the underwater world!

Very nice!  Sounds like a day on the job for me.

Eugene



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

[LUTE] Re: carbon strings

[bill kilpatrick]

chat concerning carbon strings does nothing to
diminish our carbon foot ... er ... finger print(s) -
cooking oil strings?

just found out that one of the lunatics in our village
(lunatic in the genuine sense of the word) caused some
concern with the local health officials some time ago
when it was discovered she was cooking cats -
alternate string users take note.

http://earlymusiccharango.blogspot.com/


  ___
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ 



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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Edward Martin]

The company that used to make it (and I presume they still do)  is in 
Japan, and called, "Seaguar".



At 03:31 PM 6/7/2010, wikla wrote:
>Dearest lute gang,
>
>one question about the "carbon" string material (=high density hydrocarbon
>polymer):
>
>I have been using it much, but I have always ordered it from lute string
>makers. But as far as I know, this material was developed for a non lute
>world (fishing?). So, does anyone here really know, if the lute string
>"carbon" and the fishing line "carbon" are the same thing and the same
>quality? If yes, please let me know, where to get this quality "fishing
>carbon"? I guess the fishers order their stuff in 100's of meters, and to
>me a couple of meters is the maximum per one string. In the fisher's way,
>those "unpackaged" strings could be _very_ economical to us lutenists?
>
>Arto
>
>
>
>To get on or off this list see list information at
>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html



Edward Martin
2817 East 2nd Street
Duluth, Minnesota  55812
e-mail:  e...@gamutstrings.com
voice:  (218) 728-1202
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
http://www.myspace.com/edslute

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Stathis Skandalidis]

   Dear Arto,
   according to Makoto Tsuruta and his intuitive site
   [1]http://www.crane.gr.jp/CRANE_Strings/strings_linesE.html it's the
   same material.
   As I am living on an island, it is quite easy at least for me to find
   fishing line.
   Regardless your place of residence there are many on-line shops where
   you could order it from.
   A 25 m spool Seaguar Grand Max fishing line 0.405mm diameter costs
   around 10 euros. That spool could give you 3 dozens of strings for a
   g-lute, not a bad business at all!
   Stathis
 __

   From: wikla 
   To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 11:31:23 PM
   Subject: [LUTE] Carbon strings?
   Dearest lute gang,
   one question about the "carbon" string material (=high density
   hydrocarbon
   polymer):
   I have been using it much, but I have always ordered it from lute
   string
   makers. But as far as I know, this material was developed for a non
   lute
   world (fishing?). So, does anyone here really know, if the lute string
   "carbon" and the fishing line "carbon" are the same thing and the same
   quality? If yes, please let me know, where to get this quality "fishing
   carbon"? I guess the fishers order their stuff in 100's of meters, and
   to
   me a couple of meters is the maximum per one string. In the fisher's
   way,
   those "unpackaged" strings could be _very_ economical to us lutenists?
   Arto
   To get on or off this list see list information at
   [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. http://www.crane.gr.jp/CRANE_Strings/strings_linesE.html
   2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Eugene C. Braig IV]

Not all fluorocarbon fishing lines make good strings.  I've had pretty poor
luck with Berkley's house brand of fluorocarbon fishing line.  Under
continuous tension (e.g., as an instrument string), I have found it to fray
and lose intonation along its length.  I've had much better luck with P-Line
CFX flourocarbon fly fishing leader material.  It's much more expensive than
large spools of line, but still much less expensive than an equivalent
length of gut string.  Most of the fluorocarbon made for fishing you'll find
will be ca. 0.5 mm or thinner.

Best,
Eugene



> -Original Message-
> From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
> Behalf Of Stathis Skandalidis
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 5:04 PM
> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
> 
>Dear Arto,
>according to Makoto Tsuruta and his intuitive site
>[1]http://www.crane.gr.jp/CRANE_Strings/strings_linesE.html it's the
>same material.
>As I am living on an island, it is quite easy at least for me to find
>fishing line.
>Regardless your place of residence there are many on-line shops where
>you could order it from.
>A 25 m spool Seaguar Grand Max fishing line 0.405mm diameter costs
>around 10 euros. That spool could give you 3 dozens of strings for a
>g-lute, not a bad business at all!
>Stathis
>  __
> 
>From: wikla 
>To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
>Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 11:31:23 PM
>Subject: [LUTE] Carbon strings?
>Dearest lute gang,
>one question about the "carbon" string material (=high density
>hydrocarbon
>polymer):
>I have been using it much, but I have always ordered it from lute
>string
>makers. But as far as I know, this material was developed for a non
>lute
>world (fishing?). So, does anyone here really know, if the lute string
>"carbon" and the fishing line "carbon" are the same thing and the same
>quality? If yes, please let me know, where to get this quality "fishing
>carbon"? I guess the fishers order their stuff in 100's of meters, and
>to
>me a couple of meters is the maximum per one string. In the fisher's
>way,
>those "unpackaged" strings could be _very_ economical to us lutenists?
>Arto
>To get on or off this list see list information at
>[2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 
>--
> 
> References
> 
>1. http://www.crane.gr.jp/CRANE_Strings/strings_linesE.html
>2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[A.J. Padilla, M.D.]

So does the end with the hook go on the bridge or the nut?


-Original Message-
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf
Of Paul Kieffer
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:08 PM
To: Eugene C. Braig IV
Cc: Stathis Skandalidis; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

   I've been using carbon fishing line for some time now for just the top
   'g' string on my 10 course lute.  It works tremendously well, lasts
   incredibly long, and is about 1000 times cheaper than "lute string."

   If you live in any big or medium sized city, you should be able to find
   a store with the right diameter fishing line.

   They have the perfect diameters for the top string, I've tried anything
   from .36 mm to .42 mm.

   Make sure you don't get wound fishing line, because it won't stretch,
   of course.  It just comes apart.

   Just yesterday I bought 140 meters of fishing line at .41mm diameter.
   It was around $20 Canadian.  This new line has been on my lute for a
   day now, and it sounds and works amazing.

   I break the top string quite a bit, and having 140 meters of the top
   string is comforting.  (If you're in a concert and the g string
   breaks...what are you going to do...go backstage and put another gut
   string on it, and then wait for it to settle in and then break again?
   Or you can just unravel some fishing line, stick it on there, and bam.
It doesn't need any time to stretch or get settle really.)

   IMO, it's much better to go with this option, than it is to order
   strings online from expensive sources (*and many times unreliable).
   Also, when you order that stuff online, you pay huge shipping costs,
   and you have to wait 1-2 weeks (or 4 or 5).  I've wasted a lot of money
   ordering actual lute strings when my top string would break.

   I've had very bad experiences with gut when it comes to the top g
   string... it's just not worth the effort or money if you ask me.

   I was weary at first about using fishing line, but when I put it on the
   lute and started playing, it was a miracle.  And then I just keep the
   remaining 139 meters of string in the case...

   .40 mm tends to be on the larger side for fishing line. but almost all
   outdoor and fishing stores have it (and anything from .38-.48).  They
   will probably think you are some fly fishing expert

   Paul

   On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Eugene C. Braig IV <[1]brai...@osu.edu>
   wrote:

 Not all fluorocarbon fishing lines make good strings.  I've had
 pretty poor
 luck with Berkley's house brand of fluorocarbon fishing line.  Under
 continuous tension (e.g., as an instrument string), I have found it
 to fray
 and lose intonation along its length.  I've had much better luck
 with P-Line
 CFX flourocarbon fly fishing leader material.  It's much more
 expensive than
 large spools of line, but still much less expensive than an
 equivalent
 length of gut string.  Most of the fluorocarbon made for fishing
 you'll find
 will be ca. 0.5 mm or thinner.
 Best,
 Eugene

   > -Original Message-
   > From: [2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   [mailto:[3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
   > Behalf Of Stathis Skandalidis
   > Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 5:04 PM
   > To: [4]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu

   > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
   >
   >Dear Arto,
   >according to Makoto Tsuruta and his intuitive site
   >[1][5]http://www.crane.gr.jp/CRANE_Strings/strings_linesE.html
   it's the
   >same material.
   >As I am living on an island, it is quite easy at least for me to
   find
   >fishing line.
   >Regardless your place of residence there are many on-line shops
   where
   >you could order it from.
   >A 25 m spool Seaguar Grand Max fishing line 0.405mm diameter costs
   >around 10 euros. That spool could give you 3 dozens of strings for
   a
   >g-lute, not a bad business at all!
   >Stathis
   >
   __
   >
   >From: wikla <[6]wi...@cs.helsinki.fi>
   >To: [7]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   >Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 11:31:23 PM
   >Subject: [LUTE] Carbon strings?
   >Dearest lute gang,
   >one question about the "carbon" string material (=high density
   >hydrocarbon
   >polymer):
   >I have been using it much, but I have always ordered it from lute
   >string
   >makers. But as far as I know, this material was developed for a
   non
   >lute
   >world (fishing?). So, does anyone here really know, if the lute
   string
   >"carbon" and the fishing line "carbon" are the same thing and the
   s

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[tom]

> So does the end with the hook go on the bridge or the nut?
It's those lead weights that I can't figure out ... 
do they go between the rose and the neck?
  T
> -Original Message-
> From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
> Behalf Of Paul Kieffer Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:08 PM To: Eugene
> C. Braig IV Cc: Stathis Skandalidis; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject:
> [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
> 
>I've been using carbon fishing line for some time now for just the
>top 'g' string on my 10 course lute.  It works tremendously well,
>lasts incredibly long, and is about 1000 times cheaper than "lute
>string."
> 
>If you live in any big or medium sized city, you should be able to
>find a store with the right diameter fishing line.
> 
>They have the perfect diameters for the top string, I've tried
>anything from .36 mm to .42 mm.
> 
>Make sure you don't get wound fishing line, because it won't
>stretch, of course.  It just comes apart.
> 
>Just yesterday I bought 140 meters of fishing line at .41mm
>diameter. It was around $20 Canadian.  This new line has been on my
>lute for a day now, and it sounds and works amazing.
> 
>I break the top string quite a bit, and having 140 meters of the
>top string is comforting.  (If you're in a concert and the g string
>breaks...what are you going to do...go backstage and put another
>gut string on it, and then wait for it to settle in and then break
>again? Or you can just unravel some fishing line, stick it on
>there, and bam.
> It doesn't need any time to stretch or get settle really.)
> 
>IMO, it's much better to go with this option, than it is to order
>strings online from expensive sources (*and many times unreliable).
>Also, when you order that stuff online, you pay huge shipping
>costs, and you have to wait 1-2 weeks (or 4 or 5).  I've wasted a
>lot of money ordering actual lute strings when my top string would
>break.
> 
>I've had very bad experiences with gut when it comes to the top g
>string... it's just not worth the effort or money if you ask
>me.
> 
>I was weary at first about using fishing line, but when I put it on
>the lute and started playing, it was a miracle.  And then I just
>keep the remaining 139 meters of string in the case...
> 
>.40 mm tends to be on the larger side for fishing line. but almost
>all outdoor and fishing stores have it (and anything from .38-.48).
> They will probably think you are some fly fishing expert
> 
>Paul
> 
>On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Eugene C. Braig IV
><[1]brai...@osu.edu> wrote:
> 
>  Not all fluorocarbon fishing lines make good strings.  I've had
>  pretty poor luck with Berkley's house brand of fluorocarbon
>  fishing line.  Under continuous tension (e.g., as an instrument
>  string), I have found it to fray and lose intonation along its
>  length.  I've had much better luck with P-Line CFX flourocarbon
>  fly fishing leader material.  It's much more expensive than large
>  spools of line, but still much less expensive than an equivalent
>  length of gut string.  Most of the fluorocarbon made for fishing
>  you'll find will be ca. 0.5 mm or thinner. Best, Eugene
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
>[mailto:[3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Stathis Skandalidis
>> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 5:04 PM
>> To: [4]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
> 
>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
>>
>>Dear Arto,
>>according to Makoto Tsuruta and his intuitive site
>>[1][5]http://www.crane.gr.jp/CRANE_Strings/strings_linesE.html
>it's the >same material. >As I am living on an island, it
>is quite easy at least for me to find >fishing line. >   
>Regardless your place of residence there are many on-line shops
>where >you could order it from. >A 25 m spool Seaguar Grand
>Max fishing line 0.405mm diameter costs >around 10 euros. That
>spool could give you 3 dozens of strings for a >g-lute, not a
>bad business at all! >Stathis >
>__
>> >From: wikla <[6]wi...@cs.helsinki.fi> >To:
>[7]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu >Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 11:31:23 PM >
>   Subject: [LUTE] Carbon strings? >Dearest lute gang, >one

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[tom]

> So does the end with the hook go on the bridge or the nut?
Perhaps this fishing line would be good for "bass" strings?
  T
> -Original Message-
> From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
> Behalf Of Paul Kieffer Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:08 PM To: Eugene
> C. Braig IV Cc: Stathis Skandalidis; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject:
> [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
> 
>I've been using carbon fishing line for some time now for just the
>top 'g' string on my 10 course lute.  It works tremendously well,
>lasts incredibly long, and is about 1000 times cheaper than "lute
>string."
> 
>If you live in any big or medium sized city, you should be able to
>find a store with the right diameter fishing line.
> 
>They have the perfect diameters for the top string, I've tried
>anything from .36 mm to .42 mm.
> 
>Make sure you don't get wound fishing line, because it won't
>stretch, of course.  It just comes apart.
> 
>Just yesterday I bought 140 meters of fishing line at .41mm
>diameter. It was around $20 Canadian.  This new line has been on my
>lute for a day now, and it sounds and works amazing.
> 
>I break the top string quite a bit, and having 140 meters of the
>top string is comforting.  (If you're in a concert and the g string
>breaks...what are you going to do...go backstage and put another
>gut string on it, and then wait for it to settle in and then break
>again? Or you can just unravel some fishing line, stick it on
>there, and bam.
> It doesn't need any time to stretch or get settle really.)
> 
>IMO, it's much better to go with this option, than it is to order
>strings online from expensive sources (*and many times unreliable).
>Also, when you order that stuff online, you pay huge shipping
>costs, and you have to wait 1-2 weeks (or 4 or 5).  I've wasted a
>lot of money ordering actual lute strings when my top string would
>break.
> 
>I've had very bad experiences with gut when it comes to the top g
>string... it's just not worth the effort or money if you ask
>me.
> 
>I was weary at first about using fishing line, but when I put it on
>the lute and started playing, it was a miracle.  And then I just
>keep the remaining 139 meters of string in the case...
> 
>.40 mm tends to be on the larger side for fishing line. but almost
>all outdoor and fishing stores have it (and anything from .38-.48).
> They will probably think you are some fly fishing expert
> 
>Paul
> 
>On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Eugene C. Braig IV
><[1]brai...@osu.edu> wrote:
> 
>  Not all fluorocarbon fishing lines make good strings.  I've had
>  pretty poor luck with Berkley's house brand of fluorocarbon
>  fishing line.  Under continuous tension (e.g., as an instrument
>  string), I have found it to fray and lose intonation along its
>  length.  I've had much better luck with P-Line CFX flourocarbon
>  fly fishing leader material.  It's much more expensive than large
>  spools of line, but still much less expensive than an equivalent
>  length of gut string.  Most of the fluorocarbon made for fishing
>  you'll find will be ca. 0.5 mm or thinner. Best, Eugene
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
>[mailto:[3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Stathis Skandalidis
>> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 5:04 PM
>> To: [4]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
> 
>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
>>
>>Dear Arto,
>>according to Makoto Tsuruta and his intuitive site
>>[1][5]http://www.crane.gr.jp/CRANE_Strings/strings_linesE.html
>it's the >same material. >As I am living on an island, it
>is quite easy at least for me to find >fishing line. >   
>Regardless your place of residence there are many on-line shops
>where >you could order it from. >A 25 m spool Seaguar Grand
>Max fishing line 0.405mm diameter costs >around 10 euros. That
>spool could give you 3 dozens of strings for a >g-lute, not a
>bad business at all! >Stathis >
>__
>> >From: wikla <[6]wi...@cs.helsinki.fi> >To:
>[7]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu >Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 11:31:23 PM >
>   Subject: [LUTE] Carbon strings? >Dearest lute gang, >one
>question about the &qu

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Laura Maschi]

> De: Laura Maschi 
> Fecha: 9 de junio de 2010 1:03:30 GMT-03:00
> Para: Paul Kieffer 
> Cc: Miguel de Olaso 
> Asunto: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
>

> Hi Paul, can you recommend any fishing line maker?
> Which brands have you tríed? And is ir better the line or the leader 
>  type?
> So far I have only the reference for 'seaguar' a japanese maker,  
> that unfortunately is very difficult to get here in Argentina.  
> Suggestions welcomed!
> Thanks
> Laura
>
> Enviado desde mi iPod
>
> El 08/06/2010, a las 21:07, Paul Kieffer  > escribió:
>
>>  I've been using carbon fishing line for some time now for just the  
>> top
>>  'g' string on my 10 course lute.  It works tremendously well, lasts
>>  incredibly long, and is about 1000 times cheaper than "lute string."
>>
>>  If you live in any big or medium sized city, you should be able to  
>> find
>>  a store with the right diameter fishing line.
>>
>>  They have the perfect diameters for the top string, I've tried  
>> anything
>>  from .36 mm to .42 mm.
>>
>>  Make sure you don't get wound fishing line, because it won't  
>> stretch,
>>  of course.  It just comes apart.
>>
>>  Just yesterday I bought 140 meters of fishing line at .41mm  
>> diameter.
>>  It was around $20 Canadian.  This new line has been on my lute for a
>>  day now, and it sounds and works amazing.
>>
>>  I break the top string quite a bit, and having 140 meters of the top
>>  string is comforting.  (If you're in a concert and the g string
>>  breaks...what are you going to do...go backstage and put another gut
>>  string on it, and then wait for it to settle in and then break  
>> again?
>>  Or you can just unravel some fishing line, stick it on there, and  
>> bam.
>>   It doesn't need any time to stretch or get settle really.)
>>
>>  IMO, it's much better to go with this option, than it is to order
>>  strings online from expensive sources (*and many times unreliable).
>>  Also, when you order that stuff online, you pay huge shipping costs,
>>  and you have to wait 1-2 weeks (or 4 or 5).  I've wasted a lot of  
>> money
>>  ordering actual lute strings when my top string would break.
>>
>>  I've had very bad experiences with gut when it comes to the top g
>>  string... it's just not worth the effort or money if you ask me.
>>
>>  I was weary at first about using fishing line, but when I put it  
>> on the
>>  lute and started playing, it was a miracle.  And then I just keep  
>> the
>>  remaining 139 meters of string in the case...
>>
>>  .40 mm tends to be on the larger side for fishing line. but almost  
>> all
>>  outdoor and fishing stores have it (and anything from .38-.48).   
>> They
>>  will probably think you are some fly fishing expert
>>
>>  Paul
>>
>>  On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Eugene C. Braig IV <[1]brai...@osu.edu 
>> >
>>  wrote:
>>
>>Not all fluorocarbon fishing lines make good strings.  I've had
>>pretty poor
>>luck with Berkley's house brand of fluorocarbon fishing line.   
>> Under
>>continuous tension (e.g., as an instrument string), I have found  
>> it
>>to fray
>>and lose intonation along its length.  I've had much better luck
>>with P-Line
>>CFX flourocarbon fly fishing leader material.  It's much more
>>expensive than
>>large spools of line, but still much less expensive than an
>>equivalent
>>length of gut string.  Most of the fluorocarbon made for fishing
>>you'll find
>>will be ca. 0.5 mm or thinner.
>>Best,
>>Eugene
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
>>  [mailto:[3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
>>> Behalf Of Stathis Skandalidis
>>> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 5:04 PM
>>> To: [4]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
>>
>>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
>>>
>>>  Dear Arto,
>>>  according to Makoto Tsuruta and his intuitive site
>>>  [1][5]http://www.crane.gr.jp/CRANE_Strings/strings_linesE.html
>>  it's the
>>>  same material.
>>>  As I am living on an island, it is quite easy at least for me to
>>  find
>>>  fishing line.
>>>  Regardless your place of residence there are many on-line shops
>>  where
>>>  you could order it from.
>>>  A 25 m sp

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[EUGENE BRAIG IV]

Be careful to be just a little more specific on this subject.  The generic 
description of "fishing line" is not sufficient to arrive at appropriate 
instrument strings.  I can't find enough detail to determine the material 
you're using, Paul, but I would guess it's nylon from your descriptions of 
quantity and price.

Most monofilament fishing lines are nylon and of different density from 
fluorocarbon, the different materials requiring different diameters at any 
given pitch and scale length.  To dabble in fishing lines as strings, use a 
string calculator to estimate appropriate diameters and be certain you know 
what material you're buying.  Again, almost anything labeled simply 
"monofilament" will be some variant of nylon.  If a monofilament is made of 
fluorocarbon (what instrumentalists often simply call "carbon"), the package 
will say so: i.e., packaging will state "fluorocarbon", "100% fluorocarbon", or 
similar.  As Paul mentioned, any braided, Kevlar, or "fusion" fishing lines 
won't really be appropriate as instrument strings.  You can even find 
fluorocarbon-coated nylon, which I would also avoid.  Again, read the package 
if you intend to pluck fishing line!

Nylon monofilament fishing lines can be really cheap.  Fluorocarbon is much 
more expensive than nylon monofilament, but still much, much cheaper than gut 
or even fluorocarbon packaged as individual strings by musical instrument 
string manufacturers.  Unfortunately, to find such synthetics in appropriate 
diameters for most instruments' lower courses (say the 3rd and below in many 
cases and even 2nd in some), you'll probably have to buy designated instrument 
strings.

I've had a little less time with fluorocarbon lines than nylon.  However, as 
I'd mentioned before, I've had plain bad luck with Berkley's "Vanish" brand 
fluorocarbon which tends to fray very quickly along its whole length when under 
modest sustained tension.  It will begin to look rather hairy and loses 
consistent intonation too quickly.  I've had much better luck with P-Line 
CFX flourocarbon fly fishing leader.

I've found most nylon monofilament fishing lines by brand-name manufacturers to 
be pretty similar.  Berkley's nylon monofilament (branded "Trilene") seems more 
dependable than their fluorocarbon as instrument strings.

Best,
Eugene


- Original Message -
From: Laura Maschi 
Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 12:12 am
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
To: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" 

> 
> 
> > De: Laura Maschi 
> > Fecha: 9 de junio de 2010 1:03:30 GMT-03:00
> > Para: Paul Kieffer 
> > Cc: Miguel de Olaso 
> > Asunto: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
> >
> 
> > Hi Paul, can you recommend any fishing line maker?
> > Which brands have you tríed? And is ir better the line or the 
> leader 
> >  type?
> > So far I have only the reference for 'seaguar' a japanese 
> maker,  
> > that unfortunately is very difficult to get here in 
> Argentina.  
> > Suggestions welcomed!
> > Thanks
> > Laura
> >
> > Enviado desde mi iPod
> >
> > El 08/06/2010, a las 21:07, Paul Kieffer 
>  > > escribió:
> >
> >>  I've been using carbon fishing line for some time now 
> for just the  
> >> top
> >>  'g' string on my 10 course lute.  It works 
> tremendously well, lasts
> >>  incredibly long, and is about 1000 times cheaper than 
> "lute string."
> >>
> >>  If you live in any big or medium sized city, you should 
> be able to  
> >> find
> >>  a store with the right diameter fishing line.
> >>
> >>  They have the perfect diameters for the top string, 
> I've tried  
> >> anything
> >>  from .36 mm to .42 mm.
> >>
> >>  Make sure you don't get wound fishing line, because it 
> won't  
> >> stretch,
> >>  of course.  It just comes apart.
> >>
> >>  Just yesterday I bought 140 meters of fishing line at 
> .41mm  
> >> diameter.
> >>  It was around $20 Canadian.  This new line has 
> been on my lute for a
> >>  day now, and it sounds and works amazing.
> >>
> >>  I break the top string quite a bit, and having 140 
> meters of the top
> >>  string is comforting.  (If you're in a concert and 
> the g string
> >>  breaks...what are you going to do...go backstage and 
> put another gut
> >>  string on it, and then wait for it to settle in and 
> then break  
> >> again?
> >>  Or you can just unravel some fishing line, stick it on 
> there, and  

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Eugene C. Braig IV]

   Actually, nylon fishing lines are perfectly adequate...if you like
   nylon and don't mind buying decent quality fishing line.


   Best,

   Eugene

   ___

   From: Laura Maschi [mailto:lmas...@gmail.com]
   Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:44 AM
   To: EUGENE BRAIG IV
   Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Miguel de Olaso
   Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?


   Thanks for the help. In fact, I refer to carbon lines. I know that
   nylon lines are not good enough for this.

   I think the best will be just trying first with one or two strings, and
   then decide.

   I normally use nylgut, but need a quick replacement in case I don't get
   "real" strings soon enough when I need them.

   Cost and availability are strong reasons too!

   thanks all again for the help

   regards,

   Laura


   2010/6/9 EUGENE BRAIG IV <[1]brai...@osu.edu>

   Be careful to be just a little more specific on this subject.  The
   generic description of "fishing line" is not sufficient to arrive at
   appropriate instrument strings.  I can't find enough detail to
   determine the material you're using, Paul, but I would guess it's nylon
   from your descriptions of quantity and price.
   Most monofilament fishing lines are nylon and of different density from
   fluorocarbon, the different materials requiring different diameters at
   any given pitch and scale length.  To dabble in fishing lines as
   strings, use a string calculator to estimate appropriate diameters and
   be certain you know what material you're buying.  Again, almost
   anything labeled simply "monofilament" will be some variant of nylon.
   If a monofilament is made of fluorocarbon (what instrumentalists often
   simply call "carbon"), the package will say so: i.e., packaging will
   state "fluorocarbon", "100% fluorocarbon", or similar.  As Paul
   mentioned, any braided, Kevlar, or "fusion" fishing lines won't really
   be appropriate as instrument strings.  You can even find
   fluorocarbon-coated nylon, which I would also avoid.  Again, read the
   package if you intend to pluck fishing line!
   Nylon monofilament fishing lines can be really cheap.  Fluorocarbon is
   much more expensive than nylon monofilament, but still much, much
   cheaper than gut or even fluorocarbon packaged as individual strings by
   musical instrument string manufacturers.  Unfortunately, to find such
   synthetics in appropriate diameters for most instruments' lower courses
   (say the 3rd and below in many cases and even 2nd in some), you'll
   probably have to buy designated instrument strings.
   I've had a little less time with fluorocarbon lines than nylon.
   However, as I'd mentioned before, I've had plain bad luck with
   Berkley's "Vanish" brand fluorocarbon which tends to fray very quickly
   along its whole length when under modest sustained tension.  It will
   begin to look rather hairy and loses consistent intonation too quickly.
I've had much better luck with P-Line CFX flourocarbon fly fishing
   leader.
   I've found most nylon monofilament fishing lines by brand-name
   manufacturers to be pretty similar.  Berkley's nylon
   monofilament (branded "Trilene") seems more dependable than their
   fluorocarbon as instrument strings.
   Best,
   Eugene

   - Original Message -
   From: Laura Maschi <[2]lmas...@gmail.com>
   Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 12:12 am
   Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

   To: "[3]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu" <[4]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
   >
   >
   > > De: Laura Maschi <[5]lmas...@gmail.com>
   > > Fecha: 9 de junio de 2010 1:03:30 GMT-03:00
   > > Para: Paul Kieffer <[6]paul.nicholas.kief...@gmail.com>
   > > Cc: Miguel de Olaso <[7]migol...@ciudad.com.ar>
   > > Asunto: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
   > >
   >
   > > Hi Paul, can you recommend any fishing line maker?
   > > Which brands have you trAed? And is ir better the line or the
   > leader
   > >  type?
   > > So far I have only the reference for 'seaguar' a japanese
   > maker,
   > > that unfortunately is very difficult to get here in
   > Argentina.
   > > Suggestions welcomed!
   > > Thanks
   > > Laura
   > >
   > > Enviado desde mi iPod
   > >
   > > El 08/06/2010, a las 21:07, Paul Kieffer
   > <[8]paul.nicholas.kief...@gmail.com
   > > > escribiA^3:
   > >
   > >>  I've been using carbon fishing line for some time now
   > for just the
   > >> top
   > >>  'g' string on my 10 course lute.  It works
   > tremendously well, lasts
   > >>  incredibly long, 

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Laura Maschi]

   Thanks for the help. In fact, I refer to carbon lines. I know that
   nylon lines are not good enough for this.

   I think the best will be just trying first with one or two strings, and
   then decide.

   I normally use nylgut, but need a quick replacement in case I don't get
   "real" strings soon enough when I need them.

   Cost and availability are strong reasons too!

   thanks all again for the help

   regards,

   Laura



   2010/6/9 EUGENE BRAIG IV <[1]brai...@osu.edu>

 Be careful to be just a little more specific on this subject.  The
 generic description of "fishing line" is not sufficient to arrive at
 appropriate instrument strings.  I can't find enough detail to
 determine the material you're using, Paul, but I would guess it's
 nylon from your descriptions of quantity and price.
 Most monofilament fishing lines are nylon and of different density
 from fluorocarbon, the different materials requiring different
 diameters at any given pitch and scale length.  To dabble in fishing
 lines as strings, use a string calculator to estimate appropriate
 diameters and be certain you know what material you're buying.
 Again, almost anything labeled simply "monofilament" will be some
 variant of nylon.  If a monofilament is made of fluorocarbon (what
 instrumentalists often simply call "carbon"), the package will say
 so: i.e., packaging will state "fluorocarbon", "100% fluorocarbon",
 or similar.  As Paul mentioned, any braided, Kevlar, or "fusion"
 fishing lines won't really be appropriate as instrument strings.
 You can even find fluorocarbon-coated nylon, which I would also
 avoid.  Again, read the package if you intend to pluck fishing line!
 Nylon monofilament fishing lines can be really cheap.  Fluorocarbon
 is much more expensive than nylon monofilament, but still much, much
 cheaper than gut or even fluorocarbon packaged as individual strings
 by musical instrument string manufacturers.  Unfortunately, to find
 such synthetics in appropriate diameters for most instruments' lower
 courses (say the 3rd and below in many cases and even 2nd in some),
 you'll probably have to buy designated instrument strings.
 I've had a little less time with fluorocarbon lines than nylon.
 However, as I'd mentioned before, I've had plain bad luck with
 Berkley's "Vanish" brand fluorocarbon which tends to fray very
 quickly along its whole length when under modest sustained tension.
  It will begin to look rather hairy and loses consistent intonation
 too quickly.  I've had much better luck with P-Line
 CFX flourocarbon fly fishing leader.
 I've found most nylon monofilament fishing lines by brand-name
 manufacturers to be pretty similar.  Berkley's nylon
 monofilament (branded "Trilene") seems more dependable than their
 fluorocarbon as instrument strings.
     Best,
 Eugene

   - Original Message -
   From: Laura Maschi <[2]lmas...@gmail.com>
   Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 12:12 am
   Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

   To: "[3]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu" <[4]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
   >
   >
   > > De: Laura Maschi <[5]lmas...@gmail.com>
   > > Fecha: 9 de junio de 2010 1:03:30 GMT-03:00
   > > Para: Paul Kieffer <[6]paul.nicholas.kief...@gmail.com>
   > > Cc: Miguel de Olaso <[7]migol...@ciudad.com.ar>
   > > Asunto: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
   > >
   >
   > > Hi Paul, can you recommend any fishing line maker?
   > > Which brands have you trAed? And is ir better the line or the
   > leader
   > >  type?
   > > So far I have only the reference for 'seaguar' a japanese
   > maker,
   > > that unfortunately is very difficult to get here in
   > Argentina.
   > > Suggestions welcomed!
   > > Thanks
   > > Laura
   > >
   > > Enviado desde mi iPod
   > >
   > > El 08/06/2010, a las 21:07, Paul Kieffer
   > <[8]paul.nicholas.kief...@gmail.com
   > > > escribiA^3:
   > >
   > >>  I've been using carbon fishing line for some time now
   > for just the
   > >> top
   > >>  'g' string on my 10 course lute.  It works
   > tremendously well, lasts
   > >>  incredibly long, and is about 1000 times cheaper than
   > "lute string."
   > >>
   > >>  If you live in any big or medium sized city, you should
   > be able to
   > >> find
   > >>  a store with the right diameter fishing line.
   > >>
   > >>  They have the perfect diameters for the top string,
   > I

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Leonard Williams]

The weights are for tuning--loop the string over one of those knobby things
sticking out from the end of the neck and tie an appropriate sinker thereto.

Leonard

On 6/8/10 11:06 PM, "t...@heartistrymusic.com" 
wrote:

>> So does the end with the hook go on the bridge or the nut?
> It's those lead weights that I can't figure out ...
> do they go between the rose and the neck?
> T
>> -Original Message-
>> From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Paul Kieffer Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:08 PM To: Eugene
>> C. Braig IV Cc: Stathis Skandalidis; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject:
>> [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
>> 
>>I've been using carbon fishing line for some time now for just the
>>top 'g' string on my 10 course lute.  It works tremendously well,
>>lasts incredibly long, and is about 1000 times cheaper than "lute
>>string."
>> 
>>If you live in any big or medium sized city, you should be able to
>>find a store with the right diameter fishing line.
>> 
>>They have the perfect diameters for the top string, I've tried
>>anything from .36 mm to .42 mm.
>> 
>>Make sure you don't get wound fishing line, because it won't
>>stretch, of course.  It just comes apart.
>> 
>>Just yesterday I bought 140 meters of fishing line at .41mm
>>diameter. It was around $20 Canadian.  This new line has been on my
>>lute for a day now, and it sounds and works amazing.
>> 
>>I break the top string quite a bit, and having 140 meters of the
>>top string is comforting.  (If you're in a concert and the g string
>>breaks...what are you going to do...go backstage and put another
>>gut string on it, and then wait for it to settle in and then break
>>again? Or you can just unravel some fishing line, stick it on
>>there, and bam.
>> It doesn't need any time to stretch or get settle really.)
>> 
>>IMO, it's much better to go with this option, than it is to order
>>strings online from expensive sources (*and many times unreliable).
>>Also, when you order that stuff online, you pay huge shipping
>>costs, and you have to wait 1-2 weeks (or 4 or 5).  I've wasted a
>>lot of money ordering actual lute strings when my top string would
>>break.
>> 
>>I've had very bad experiences with gut when it comes to the top g
>>string... it's just not worth the effort or money if you ask
>>me.
>> 
>>I was weary at first about using fishing line, but when I put it on
>>the lute and started playing, it was a miracle.  And then I just
>>keep the remaining 139 meters of string in the case...
>> 
>>.40 mm tends to be on the larger side for fishing line. but almost
>>all outdoor and fishing stores have it (and anything from .38-.48).
>> They will probably think you are some fly fishing expert
>> 
>>Paul
>> 
>>On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Eugene C. Braig IV
>><[1]brai...@osu.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>  Not all fluorocarbon fishing lines make good strings.  I've had
>>  pretty poor luck with Berkley's house brand of fluorocarbon
>>  fishing line.  Under continuous tension (e.g., as an instrument
>>  string), I have found it to fray and lose intonation along its
>>  length.  I've had much better luck with P-Line CFX flourocarbon
>>  fly fishing leader material.  It's much more expensive than large
>>  spools of line, but still much less expensive than an equivalent
>>  length of gut string.  Most of the fluorocarbon made for fishing
>>  you'll find will be ca. 0.5 mm or thinner. Best, Eugene
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
>>[mailto:[3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
>>> Behalf Of Stathis Skandalidis
>>> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 5:04 PM
>>> To: [4]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
>> 
>>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
>>> 
>>>Dear Arto,
>>>according to Makoto Tsuruta and his intuitive site
>>>[1][5]http://www.crane.gr.jp/CRANE_Strings/strings_linesE.html
>>it's the >same material. >As I am living on an island, it
>>is quite easy at least for me to find >fishing line. >
>>Regardless your place of residence there are many on-line shops
>>where >you could order it from. >A 25 m spool S

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Laura Maschi]

   Thank you all...

   so Inow I'll go to the fishing store and check what we have there.

   By the way...I think I will tie all my nylguts and go fishing!

   :-)

   Laura

   2010/6/10 EUGENE BRAIG IV <[1]brai...@osu.edu>

 - Original Message -
 From: Paul Kieffer <[2]paul.nicholas.kief...@gmail.com>
 Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 10:44 pm
     Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

 To: EUGENE BRAIG IV <[3]brai...@osu.edu>
 Cc: "[4]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu" <[5]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
 >I'm not sure why you guessed I'm using nylon.
 > Every fishing line I've
 >used has said "100 % Fluorocarbon, Professional Grade."

   Voila.  If it said fluorocarbon, that's what it was.  Cheers.
   Eugene --

   To get on or off this list see list information at

   [6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. mailto:brai...@osu.edu
   2. mailto:paul.nicholas.kief...@gmail.com
   3. mailto:brai...@osu.edu
   4. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   5. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Sean Smith]

So, do theorboes work better for casting or trawling?

Sean


On Jun 9, 2010, at 9:05 PM, Laura Maschi wrote:


  Thank you all...

  so Inow I'll go to the fishing store and check what we have there.

  By the way...I think I will tie all my nylguts and go fishing!

  :-)

  Laura

  2010/6/10 EUGENE BRAIG IV <[1]brai...@osu.edu>

- Original Message -
From: Paul Kieffer <[2]paul.nicholas.kief...@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 10:44 pm
    Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

To: EUGENE BRAIG IV <[3]brai...@osu.edu>
Cc: "[4]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu" <[5]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>

  I'm not sure why you guessed I'm using nylon.
Every fishing line I've
  used has said "100 % Fluorocarbon, Professional Grade."


  Voila.  If it said fluorocarbon, that's what it was.  Cheers.
  Eugene --

  To get on or off this list see list information at

  [6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

  --

References

  1. mailto:brai...@osu.edu
  2. mailto:paul.nicholas.kief...@gmail.com
  3. mailto:brai...@osu.edu
  4. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
  5. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
  6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[EUGENE BRAIG IV]

I think you mean trolling.  Trawling is conducted with large net gears.  ...But 
a theorbo could hold a hearty serving of bouillabaisse. 

Eugene

- Original Message -
From: Sean Smith 
Date: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:36 am
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
To: "lute-cs.dartmouth.edu" 

> 
> So, do theorboes work better for casting or trawling?
> 
> Sean
> 
> 
> On Jun 9, 2010, at 9:05 PM, Laura Maschi wrote:
> 
> >   Thank you all...
> >
> >   so Inow I'll go to the fishing store and check 
> what we have there.
> >
> >   By the way...I think I will tie all my nylguts and 
> go fishing!
> >
> >   :-)
> >
> >   Laura
> >
> >   2010/6/10 EUGENE BRAIG IV <[1]brai...@osu.edu>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >     From: Paul Kieffer 
> <[2]paul.nicholas.kief...@gmail.com>> 
> Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2010 10:44 pm
> > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
> >
> > To: EUGENE BRAIG IV <[3]brai...@osu.edu>
> > Cc: "[4]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu" 
> <[5]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>>>   I'm not sure why you 
> guessed I'm using nylon.
> >> Every fishing line I've
> >>   used has said "100 % Fluorocarbon, Professional Grade."
> >
> >   Voila.  If it said 
> fluorocarbon, that's what it was.  Cheers.
> >   Eugene --
> >
> >   To get on or off this list see list information at
> >
> >   [6]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-
> admin/index.html>
> >   --
> >
> > References
> >
> >   1. mailto:brai...@osu.edu
> >   2. mailto:paul.nicholas.kief...@gmail.com
> >   3. mailto:brai...@osu.edu
> >   4. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> >   5. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> >   6. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-
> admin/index.html>
> 
>

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Roman Turovsky]

A question to all ye carbon experts:
What is the difference between LINE and LEADER, for our lutenistic purposes?
RT





- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Kieffer" 

To: "EUGENE BRAIG IV" 
Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:43 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?



  I'm not sure why you guessed I'm using nylon.  Every fishing line I've
  used has said "100 % Fluorocarbon, Professional Grade."

  It is very cheap and a good deal.
  And the one that I bought two days ago is actually even longer than I
  mentioned:  It's 182 meters, not 140, and it was indeed $20.
  Here are two brands and types:
"Orvis:  Mirage, Tippet Material.  Made in Japan"
  This one I bought is 40 meters long, is .40 mm diameter, and costs
  about $18.
  Another one is:
  "Berkley:   Super Strong Trilene, 100% Fluorocarbon.  Made in Iowa."
  This one I have is .41 mm in diameter.  I haven't had any problems with
  intonation and the problems Eugene mentioned he had with Berkley.  At
  least not yet.  Maybe there are other factors that can play into that.
   Although it seems we used a different type (mine doesn't say Vanish).
  Anyways, most stores should have stuff like this, as long as you're in
  a big enough city, with some kind of outdoors store, regardless of what
  country you're in.
  Don't be fooled by going after a specific brand and then ordering it
  online...I would think it's better just to go to the store and see for
  yourself what is there.  You can examine the line and look at it to
  determine if you think it would be good.  Like Eugene was saying, there
  are many different types.  It's good to look at what you're actually
  getting.  You will be able to tell by looking at it, if it would maybe
  work.
  I'm glad I found this option, because it's much better than ordering
  strings IMO.
  When you order strings, it's expensive, the string is small (1-2
  meters), and they still put the individual strings in those little
  foldable "dime-baggies,"  (a weird practice that I never understood,
  but all guitar and lute strings have used this packaging for quite some
  time I hear.  Probably other instruments as well.)
  On the other hand, when you buy fishing line, it comes on a nice
  attractive reel, it's going to be many, many meters long, and it's
  cheap (considering the quantity).  You can just stick the reel in your
  case so you have unlimited string whenever you need.
  Paul

  On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:40 AM, EUGENE BRAIG IV <[1]brai...@osu.edu>
  wrote:

Be careful to be just a little more specific on this subject.  The
generic description of "fishing line" is not sufficient to arrive at
appropriate instrument strings.  I can't find enough detail to
determine the material you're using, Paul, but I would guess it's
nylon from your descriptions of quantity and price.
Most monofilament fishing lines are nylon and of different density
from fluorocarbon, the different materials requiring different
diameters at any given pitch and scale length.  To dabble in fishing
lines as strings, use a string calculator to estimate appropriate
diameters and be certain you know what material you're buying.
Again, almost anything labeled simply "monofilament" will be some
variant of nylon.  If a monofilament is made of fluorocarbon (what
instrumentalists often simply call "carbon"), the package will say
so: i.e., packaging will state "fluorocarbon", "100% fluorocarbon",
or similar.  As Paul mentioned, any braided, Kevlar, or "fusion"
fishing lines won't really be appropriate as instrument strings.
You can even find fluorocarbon-coated nylon, which I would also
avoid.  Again, read the package if you intend to pluck fishing line!
Nylon monofilament fishing lines can be really cheap.  Fluorocarbon
is much more expensive than nylon monofilament, but still much, much
cheaper than gut or even fluorocarbon packaged as individual strings
by musical instrument string manufacturers.  Unfortunately, to find
such synthetics in appropriate diameters for most instruments' lower
courses (say the 3rd and below in many cases and even 2nd in some),
you'll probably have to buy designated instrument strings.
I've had a little less time with fluorocarbon lines than nylon.
However, as I'd mentioned before, I've had plain bad luck with
Berkley's "Vanish" brand fluorocarbon which tends to fray very
quickly along its whole length when under modest sustained tension.
 It will begin to look rather hairy and loses consistent intonation
too quickly.  I've had much better luck with P-Line
CFX flourocarbon fly fishing leader.

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Edward Mast]

On further reading of this post I do see that carbon fishing line may only be 
available in a size suitable for the top course.  Sorry I didn't see that at 
first.
Edward
On Oct 3, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Roman Turovsky wrote:

> A question to all ye carbon experts:
> What is the difference between LINE and LEADER, for our lutenistic purposes?
> RT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Paul Kieffer" 
> 
> To: "EUGENE BRAIG IV" 
> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:43 PM
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
> 
> 
>>  I'm not sure why you guessed I'm using nylon.  Every fishing line I've
>>  used has said "100 % Fluorocarbon, Professional Grade."
>> 
>>  It is very cheap and a good deal.
>>  And the one that I bought two days ago is actually even longer than I
>>  mentioned:  It's 182 meters, not 140, and it was indeed $20.
>>  Here are two brands and types:
>>"Orvis:  Mirage, Tippet Material.  Made in Japan"
>>  This one I bought is 40 meters long, is .40 mm diameter, and costs
>>  about $18.
>>  Another one is:
>>  "Berkley:   Super Strong Trilene, 100% Fluorocarbon.  Made in Iowa."
>>  This one I have is .41 mm in diameter.  I haven't had any problems with
>>  intonation and the problems Eugene mentioned he had with Berkley.  At
>>  least not yet.  Maybe there are other factors that can play into that.
>>   Although it seems we used a different type (mine doesn't say Vanish).
>>  Anyways, most stores should have stuff like this, as long as you're in
>>  a big enough city, with some kind of outdoors store, regardless of what
>>  country you're in.
>>  Don't be fooled by going after a specific brand and then ordering it
>>  online...I would think it's better just to go to the store and see for
>>  yourself what is there.  You can examine the line and look at it to
>>  determine if you think it would be good.  Like Eugene was saying, there
>>  are many different types.  It's good to look at what you're actually
>>  getting.  You will be able to tell by looking at it, if it would maybe
>>  work.
>>  I'm glad I found this option, because it's much better than ordering
>>  strings IMO.
>>  When you order strings, it's expensive, the string is small (1-2
>>  meters), and they still put the individual strings in those little
>>  foldable "dime-baggies,"  (a weird practice that I never understood,
>>  but all guitar and lute strings have used this packaging for quite some
>>  time I hear.  Probably other instruments as well.)
>>  On the other hand, when you buy fishing line, it comes on a nice
>>  attractive reel, it's going to be many, many meters long, and it's
>>  cheap (considering the quantity).  You can just stick the reel in your
>>  case so you have unlimited string whenever you need.
>>  Paul
>> 
>>  On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:40 AM, EUGENE BRAIG IV <[1]brai...@osu.edu>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>Be careful to be just a little more specific on this subject.  The
>>generic description of "fishing line" is not sufficient to arrive at
>>appropriate instrument strings.  I can't find enough detail to
>>determine the material you're using, Paul, but I would guess it's
>>nylon from your descriptions of quantity and price.
>>Most monofilament fishing lines are nylon and of different density
>>from fluorocarbon, the different materials requiring different
>>diameters at any given pitch and scale length.  To dabble in fishing
>>lines as strings, use a string calculator to estimate appropriate
>>diameters and be certain you know what material you're buying.
>>Again, almost anything labeled simply "monofilament" will be some
>>variant of nylon.  If a monofilament is made of fluorocarbon (what
>>instrumentalists often simply call "carbon"), the package will say
>>so: i.e., packaging will state "fluorocarbon", "100% fluorocarbon",
>>or similar.  As Paul mentioned, any braided, Kevlar, or "fusion"
>>fishing lines won't really be appropriate as instrument strings.
>>You can even find fluorocarbon-coated nylon, which I would also
>>avoid.  Again, read the package if you intend to pluck fishing line!
>>Nylon monofilament fishing lines can be really cheap.  Fluorocarbon
>>is much more expensive than nylon monofilament, but still much, much
>>cheaper than gut or even fluorocar

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Roman Turovsky]

I use it on top four courses, on both of my baroque lutes (72cm both).
RT


- Original Message - 
From: "Edward Mast" 

To: "Roman Turovsky" 
Cc: "Paul Kieffer" ; "EUGENE BRAIG IV" 
; 

Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?


On further reading of this post I do see that carbon fishing line may only 
be available in a size suitable for the top course.  Sorry I didn't see 
that at first.

Edward
On Oct 3, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Roman Turovsky wrote:


A question to all ye carbon experts:
What is the difference between LINE and LEADER, for our lutenistic 
purposes?

RT





- Original Message - From: "Paul Kieffer" 


To: "EUGENE BRAIG IV" 
Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:43 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?



 I'm not sure why you guessed I'm using nylon.  Every fishing line I've
 used has said "100 % Fluorocarbon, Professional Grade."

 It is very cheap and a good deal.
 And the one that I bought two days ago is actually even longer than I
 mentioned:  It's 182 meters, not 140, and it was indeed $20.
 Here are two brands and types:
   "Orvis:  Mirage, Tippet Material.  Made in Japan"
 This one I bought is 40 meters long, is .40 mm diameter, and costs
 about $18.
 Another one is:
 "Berkley:   Super Strong Trilene, 100% Fluorocarbon.  Made in Iowa."
 This one I have is .41 mm in diameter.  I haven't had any problems with
 intonation and the problems Eugene mentioned he had with Berkley.  At
 least not yet.  Maybe there are other factors that can play into that.
  Although it seems we used a different type (mine doesn't say Vanish).
 Anyways, most stores should have stuff like this, as long as you're in
 a big enough city, with some kind of outdoors store, regardless of what
 country you're in.
 Don't be fooled by going after a specific brand and then ordering it
 online...I would think it's better just to go to the store and see for
 yourself what is there.  You can examine the line and look at it to
 determine if you think it would be good.  Like Eugene was saying, there
 are many different types.  It's good to look at what you're actually
 getting.  You will be able to tell by looking at it, if it would maybe
 work.
 I'm glad I found this option, because it's much better than ordering
 strings IMO.
 When you order strings, it's expensive, the string is small (1-2
 meters), and they still put the individual strings in those little
 foldable "dime-baggies,"  (a weird practice that I never understood,
 but all guitar and lute strings have used this packaging for quite some
 time I hear.  Probably other instruments as well.)
 On the other hand, when you buy fishing line, it comes on a nice
 attractive reel, it's going to be many, many meters long, and it's
 cheap (considering the quantity).  You can just stick the reel in your
 case so you have unlimited string whenever you need.
 Paul

 On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:40 AM, EUGENE BRAIG IV <[1]brai...@osu.edu>
 wrote:

   Be careful to be just a little more specific on this subject.  The
   generic description of "fishing line" is not sufficient to arrive at
   appropriate instrument strings.  I can't find enough detail to
   determine the material you're using, Paul, but I would guess it's
   nylon from your descriptions of quantity and price.
   Most monofilament fishing lines are nylon and of different density
   from fluorocarbon, the different materials requiring different
   diameters at any given pitch and scale length.  To dabble in fishing
   lines as strings, use a string calculator to estimate appropriate
   diameters and be certain you know what material you're buying.
   Again, almost anything labeled simply "monofilament" will be some
   variant of nylon.  If a monofilament is made of fluorocarbon (what
   instrumentalists often simply call "carbon"), the package will say
   so: i.e., packaging will state "fluorocarbon", "100% fluorocarbon",
   or similar.  As Paul mentioned, any braided, Kevlar, or "fusion"
   fishing lines won't really be appropriate as instrument strings.
   You can even find fluorocarbon-coated nylon, which I would also
   avoid.  Again, read the package if you intend to pluck fishing line!
   Nylon monofilament fishing lines can be really cheap.  Fluorocarbon
   is much more expensive than nylon monofilament, but still much, much
   cheaper than gut or even fluorocarbon packaged as individual strings
   by musical instrument string manufacturers.  Unfortunately, to find
   such synthetics in appropriate diameters for most instruments' lower
   courses (say the 3rd and below in many cases and even 2nd in some),
   you'll probably have to buy designated instrument strings.
   I

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Edward Mast]

Is carbon fishing line available in sizes suitable for the top four courses of 
a G lute, and can it be found in stores other than fishing specialty stores?  
(Any national chain stores?).  The .40-.41 mm diameter line sounds like it 
would be suitable for the top course, yes?
Edward 
On Oct 3, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Roman Turovsky wrote:

> A question to all ye carbon experts:
> What is the difference between LINE and LEADER, for our lutenistic purposes?
> RT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Paul Kieffer" 
> 
> To: "EUGENE BRAIG IV" 
> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:43 PM
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
> 
> 
>>  I'm not sure why you guessed I'm using nylon.  Every fishing line I've
>>  used has said "100 % Fluorocarbon, Professional Grade."
>> 
>>  It is very cheap and a good deal.
>>  And the one that I bought two days ago is actually even longer than I
>>  mentioned:  It's 182 meters, not 140, and it was indeed $20.
>>  Here are two brands and types:
>>"Orvis:  Mirage, Tippet Material.  Made in Japan"
>>  This one I bought is 40 meters long, is .40 mm diameter, and costs
>>  about $18.
>>  Another one is:
>>  "Berkley:   Super Strong Trilene, 100% Fluorocarbon.  Made in Iowa."
>>  This one I have is .41 mm in diameter.  I haven't had any problems with
>>  intonation and the problems Eugene mentioned he had with Berkley.  At
>>  least not yet.  Maybe there are other factors that can play into that.
>>   Although it seems we used a different type (mine doesn't say Vanish).
>>  Anyways, most stores should have stuff like this, as long as you're in
>>  a big enough city, with some kind of outdoors store, regardless of what
>>  country you're in.
>>  Don't be fooled by going after a specific brand and then ordering it
>>  online...I would think it's better just to go to the store and see for
>>  yourself what is there.  You can examine the line and look at it to
>>  determine if you think it would be good.  Like Eugene was saying, there
>>  are many different types.  It's good to look at what you're actually
>>  getting.  You will be able to tell by looking at it, if it would maybe
>>  work.
>>  I'm glad I found this option, because it's much better than ordering
>>  strings IMO.
>>  When you order strings, it's expensive, the string is small (1-2
>>  meters), and they still put the individual strings in those little
>>  foldable "dime-baggies,"  (a weird practice that I never understood,
>>  but all guitar and lute strings have used this packaging for quite some
>>  time I hear.  Probably other instruments as well.)
>>  On the other hand, when you buy fishing line, it comes on a nice
>>  attractive reel, it's going to be many, many meters long, and it's
>>  cheap (considering the quantity).  You can just stick the reel in your
>>  case so you have unlimited string whenever you need.
>>  Paul
>> 
>>  On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:40 AM, EUGENE BRAIG IV <[1]brai...@osu.edu>
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>Be careful to be just a little more specific on this subject.  The
>>generic description of "fishing line" is not sufficient to arrive at
>>appropriate instrument strings.  I can't find enough detail to
>>determine the material you're using, Paul, but I would guess it's
>>nylon from your descriptions of quantity and price.
>>Most monofilament fishing lines are nylon and of different density
>>from fluorocarbon, the different materials requiring different
>>diameters at any given pitch and scale length.  To dabble in fishing
>>lines as strings, use a string calculator to estimate appropriate
>>diameters and be certain you know what material you're buying.
>>Again, almost anything labeled simply "monofilament" will be some
>>variant of nylon.  If a monofilament is made of fluorocarbon (what
>>instrumentalists often simply call "carbon"), the package will say
>>so: i.e., packaging will state "fluorocarbon", "100% fluorocarbon",
>>or similar.  As Paul mentioned, any braided, Kevlar, or "fusion"
>>fishing lines won't really be appropriate as instrument strings.
>>You can even find fluorocarbon-coated nylon, which I would also
>>avoid.  Again, read the package if you intend to pluck fishing line!
>>Nylon monofilament fishing lines can be really cheap.  Fluorocarbon
>>is much

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Edward Martin]

No, it would have too much tension.  The density of carbon is so much 
more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a 0.38 
or so.  Because of the need for  a smaller diameter, the sound is 
certainly more sharp sounding.

ed





At 07:50 AM 10/4/2010, Edward Mast wrote:
>The .40-.41 mm diameter line sounds like it would be suitable for 
>the top course, yes?



Edward Martin
2817 East 2nd Street
Duluth, Minnesota  55812
e-mail:  e...@gamutstrings.com
voice:  (218) 728-1202
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1660298871&ref=name
http://www.myspace.com/edslute




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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[demery]

> A question to all ye carbon experts:
> What is the difference between LINE and LEADER, for our lutenistic
> purposes?
> RT

The difference is most easily understood in the idiom of the marketplace
for which they are originally intended - fishing.

Line is constant diameter thruout the spool.

Leaders are often tapered in various manners to influence casting behavior.

--
Dana Emery



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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Eugene C. Braig IV]

Somehow, I'd been deleted from the list.  Here are my comments once more.
Hopefully you can swim through the angling minutiae to arrive at something
useful.

Best,
Eugene

> -Original Message-
> From: Eugene C. Braig IV [mailto:brai...@osu.edu]
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:39 PM
> To: 'lute@cs.dartmouth.edu'
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us [mailto:dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us]
> > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:01 PM
> > To: Roman Turovsky
> > Cc: Paul Kieffer; EUGENE BRAIG IV; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> > Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
> >
> >
> > > A question to all ye carbon experts:
> > > What is the difference between LINE and LEADER, for our lutenistic
> > > purposes?
> > > RT
> >
> > The difference is most easily understood in the idiom of the marketplace
> > for which they are originally intended - fishing.
> >
> > Line is constant diameter thruout the spool.
> >
> > Leaders are often tapered in various manners to influence casting
> > behavior.
> >
> > --
> > Dana Emery
> 
> 
> 
> [Eugene C. Braig IV]
> Depends a little on the situation.  Fluorocarbon fly fishing leader
> material is often sold in small spools (well, small compared to spools of
> monofilament lines: 25 yards is common to fluorocarbon leader material) of
> consistent and non-tapered diameter.  So sold, the material is intended to
> be cut from the spool as needed and tied between line and fly.  It thus
> would need to be of consistent diameter for cut pieces to perform
> consistently.
> 
> Fly lines are also very often tapered to affect casting.  Beyond the fly
> line and leader, each of which are sometimes tapered (as mentioned by 
> Dana) and both of which must be cast, is usually some backing material 
> which is of consistent diameter and usually only engaged if a fish runs 
> out the line.
> 
> Fly line or backing is NOT appropriate string material, but many spooled
> fluorocarbon fly leader brands and spooled fluorocarbon lines manufactured
> for other fishing techniques are suitable.
> 
> Fluorocarbon line or leader, if sold by spools of consistent diameter
> (i.e., if NOT tapered) are functionally equivalent as string material.  If
> a 25-yd spool of fluorocarbon leader is labeled with a single diameter,
> you can expect that diameter to be consistent for the length of the spool.
> If individually packaged leaders are tapered, it will say so on the
> package.
> 
> I have used a few brands (not remotely exhaustive) and found those spools
> packaged as fly fishing leader material to be of better functionality as
> string material, but they tend to be more expensive.  The only brand of
> fluorocarbon line I have tried is Berkley Vanish, and I found it to fray
> too quickly under continuous tension as instrument strings.  (I think
> somebody else posted to the list some time ago regarding Berkley Vanish
> who did not share my poor experience with the stuff.)
> 
> Best,
> Eugene




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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Roman Turovsky]

Thanks, Euge.
RT

- Original Message - 
From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 2:39 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?



Somehow, I'd been deleted from the list.  Here are my comments once more.
Hopefully you can swim through the angling minutiae to arrive at something
useful.

Best,
Eugene


-Original Message-
From: Eugene C. Braig IV [mailto:brai...@osu.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:39 PM
To: 'lute@cs.dartmouth.edu'
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

> -Original Message-
> From: dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us [mailto:dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us]
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:01 PM
> To: Roman Turovsky
> Cc: Paul Kieffer; EUGENE BRAIG IV; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
>
>
> > A question to all ye carbon experts:
> > What is the difference between LINE and LEADER, for our lutenistic
> > purposes?
> > RT
>
> The difference is most easily understood in the idiom of the 
> marketplace

> for which they are originally intended - fishing.
>
> Line is constant diameter thruout the spool.
>
> Leaders are often tapered in various manners to influence casting
> behavior.
>
> --
> Dana Emery



[Eugene C. Braig IV]
Depends a little on the situation.  Fluorocarbon fly fishing leader
material is often sold in small spools (well, small compared to spools of
monofilament lines: 25 yards is common to fluorocarbon leader material) 
of
consistent and non-tapered diameter.  So sold, the material is intended 
to

be cut from the spool as needed and tied between line and fly.  It thus
would need to be of consistent diameter for cut pieces to perform
consistently.

Fly lines are also very often tapered to affect casting.  Beyond the fly
line and leader, each of which are sometimes tapered (as mentioned by
Dana) and both of which must be cast, is usually some backing material
which is of consistent diameter and usually only engaged if a fish runs
out the line.

Fly line or backing is NOT appropriate string material, but many spooled
fluorocarbon fly leader brands and spooled fluorocarbon lines 
manufactured

for other fishing techniques are suitable.

Fluorocarbon line or leader, if sold by spools of consistent diameter
(i.e., if NOT tapered) are functionally equivalent as string material. 
If

a 25-yd spool of fluorocarbon leader is labeled with a single diameter,
you can expect that diameter to be consistent for the length of the 
spool.

If individually packaged leaders are tapered, it will say so on the
package.

I have used a few brands (not remotely exhaustive) and found those spools
packaged as fly fishing leader material to be of better functionality as
string material, but they tend to be more expensive.  The only brand of
fluorocarbon line I have tried is Berkley Vanish, and I found it to fray
too quickly under continuous tension as instrument strings.  (I think
somebody else posted to the list some time ago regarding Berkley Vanish
who did not share my poor experience with the stuff.)

Best,
Eugene





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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?

[Eugene C. Braig IV]

My Pleasure.

E

> -Original Message-
> From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On
> Behalf Of Roman Turovsky
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 8:11 PM
> To: Eugene C. Braig IV; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
> 
> Thanks, Euge.
> RT
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 2:39 PM
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
> 
> 
> > Somehow, I'd been deleted from the list.  Here are my comments once
> more.
> > Hopefully you can swim through the angling minutiae to arrive at
> something
> > useful.
> >
> > Best,
> > Eugene
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Eugene C. Braig IV [mailto:brai...@osu.edu]
> >> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:39 PM
> >> To: 'lute@cs.dartmouth.edu'
> >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
> >>
> >> > -Original Message-
> >> > From: dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us [mailto:dem...@suffolk.lib.ny.us]
> >> > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:01 PM
> >> > To: Roman Turovsky
> >> > Cc: Paul Kieffer; EUGENE BRAIG IV; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> >> > Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > A question to all ye carbon experts:
> >> > > What is the difference between LINE and LEADER, for our lutenistic
> >> > > purposes?
> >> > > RT
> >> >
> >> > The difference is most easily understood in the idiom of the
> >> > marketplace
> >> > for which they are originally intended - fishing.
> >> >
> >> > Line is constant diameter thruout the spool.
> >> >
> >> > Leaders are often tapered in various manners to influence casting
> >> > behavior.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Dana Emery
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [Eugene C. Braig IV]
> >> Depends a little on the situation.  Fluorocarbon fly fishing leader
> >> material is often sold in small spools (well, small compared to spools
> of
> >> monofilament lines: 25 yards is common to fluorocarbon leader material)
> >> of
> >> consistent and non-tapered diameter.  So sold, the material is intended
> >> to
> >> be cut from the spool as needed and tied between line and fly.  It thus
> >> would need to be of consistent diameter for cut pieces to perform
> >> consistently.
> >>
> >> Fly lines are also very often tapered to affect casting.  Beyond the
> fly
> >> line and leader, each of which are sometimes tapered (as mentioned by
> >> Dana) and both of which must be cast, is usually some backing material
> >> which is of consistent diameter and usually only engaged if a fish runs
> >> out the line.
> >>
> >> Fly line or backing is NOT appropriate string material, but many
> spooled
> >> fluorocarbon fly leader brands and spooled fluorocarbon lines
> >> manufactured
> >> for other fishing techniques are suitable.
> >>
> >> Fluorocarbon line or leader, if sold by spools of consistent diameter
> >> (i.e., if NOT tapered) are functionally equivalent as string material.
> >> If
> >> a 25-yd spool of fluorocarbon leader is labeled with a single diameter,
> >> you can expect that diameter to be consistent for the length of the
> >> spool.
> >> If individually packaged leaders are tapered, it will say so on the
> >> package.
> >>
> >> I have used a few brands (not remotely exhaustive) and found those
> spools
> >> packaged as fly fishing leader material to be of better functionality
> as
> >> string material, but they tend to be more expensive.  The only brand of
> >> fluorocarbon line I have tried is Berkley Vanish, and I found it to
> fray
> >> too quickly under continuous tension as instrument strings.  (I think
> >> somebody else posted to the list some time ago regarding Berkley Vanish
> >> who did not share my poor experience with the stuff.)
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Eugene
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> >

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings versus KF?

[Anthony Hind]

Several previous messages from synthetics users mention the advantage  
of using carbon strings on the 4th and 5th course to avoid wire- 
wounds. Nobody, in that discussion (i can recall) mentioned Savarez  
KF. Some answers contrasted carbon and nylgut, others carbon and gut.
However, I notice that Jacob Heringman, who uses gut for recording,  
says,"For touring and performing, as opposed to recording, I use  
nylgut in the treble and mid-range, down to the fifth course (though  
I'm experimenting with Savarez KF strings for the fifth course at the  
moment), and the above-mentioned gut basses, with nylgut octaves."
http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/Heringman.html

The KF might be an alternative then to carbon for the 5th also for  
synthetic users (Savarez, in fact, claim the KF are closer in sound  
and texture to gut), perhaps they have properties in between carbon  
and nylgut, hopefully, being less slippery than carbon?

I have heard people calling them carbon strings, but I think they may  
be a fluor based product.
I have never, tried them myself, but they might be a serious but more  
expensive alternative for the fifth course for someone using  
synthetics, who did not want to use wire-wounds, and who does not  
like carbon fishing line.
Personally, I have been comparing Aquila Venice and Gamut Lyons on my  
5th course, of which more, perhaps, later. Choices for 4th and 5th  
strings do seem to be critical for gut users too.
Anthony


Le 19 juin 07 à 09:42, David Van Edwards a écrit :

> Indeed the carbon music strings are just fishing line, as has been
> revealed by the withdrawal of 0.7 size [the one I find most useful
> for the 4th course] from the string-makers list at the same time as
> it has vanished from the fishing line range. I went looking around
> fishing sites and shops hoping for an old unsold reel of 0.7 but no
> luck.
>
> Apparently the large sizes have been superceded in the  fishing world
> fashion stakes in favour of braided strings which are stronger and
> more flexible. I didn't try a braided string, but maybe I should have.
>
> When you start trawling [sorry!] round, it's whole different world
> out there underwater, where they are interested in the refractive
> index being close to that of seawater so the lines are invisible (the
> big attraction of carbon apparently) and the amount of friction as
> they drag on the bottom.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> David
>
>
> At 08:39 +0200 19/6/07, LGS-Europe wrote:
>> Carbon 4 = 0.33mm = Gut Equivalent 0.39mm = Nylon 0.42mm
>> Carbon 5 = 0.37mm = Gut Equivalent 0.44mm = Nylon 0.46mm
>> Carbon 6 = 0.405mm = Gut Equivalent 0.48mm = Nylon 0.52mm
>> Carbon 7 = 0.436mm = Gut Equivalent 0.52mm = Nylon 0.56mm
>> Carbon 8 = 0.47mm = Gut Equivalent 0.55mm = Nylon 0.60mm
>> Carbon 10 = 0.52mm = Gut Equivalent 0.61mm = Nylon 0.66mm
>>
>> Or something near enough for practical purposes. I believe the Carbon
>> numbers have something to do with the size (weight) of fish you're  
>> able to
>> catch, and they go up to at least 24. Presumably for whaling ... ;-)
>>
>> David
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Charles Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Lutelist" 
>> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 11:34 PM
>> Subject: [LUTE] Carbon strings
>>
>>
>>>  Dear colleagues,
>>>  I have three carbon strings, at least I had three, marked No.6,  
>>> No.8 and
>>>  No,
>>>  10. Presumably these were from reels of fishing line. Is there a  
>>> standard
>>>  relationship between this type of numbering and string diameter?
>>>  thanks
>>>  Charles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  To get on or off this list see list information at
>>>  http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>>
>
>
> -- 
> The Smokehouse,
> 6 Whitwell Road,
> Norwich,  NR1 4HB
> England.
>
> Telephone: + 44 (0)1603 629899
> Website: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk
>
>

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings versus KF?

[Martin Shepherd]

Dear Anthony,

As far as I know, the KF strings are made from PVF.  How it is that they 
are less clear and have a less shiny surface I don't know.  I just wish 
they made them in slightly smaller sizes - the thinnest is .95mm, 
supposedly the equivalent of a gut string of about 1.1mm, though I doubt 
they are quite that heavy as I find they work well for a 5th course on a 
60cm lute.  I first came across one of these on one of Jacob's lutes, 
and thought it was a gut string - it looked and felt exactly like a 
perfect, low-twist gut string.  Even at this diameter, it is quite a 
stiff string, with very little peg movement resulting in a big change in 
pitch, and it takes a while to settle, but once settled in it works 
really well.  I'm using it with an octave, of course, on 6c lute, and 
I'm not convinced it would necessarily be successful on a unison course, 
but it makes a very handy alternative for a gut string when you want to 
be "waterproof".

Best wishes,

Martin

Anthony Hind wrote:

>Several previous messages from synthetics users mention the advantage  
>of using carbon strings on the 4th and 5th course to avoid wire- 
>wounds. Nobody, in that discussion (i can recall) mentioned Savarez  
>KF. Some answers contrasted carbon and nylgut, others carbon and gut.
>However, I notice that Jacob Heringman, who uses gut for recording,  
>says,"For touring and performing, as opposed to recording, I use  
>nylgut in the treble and mid-range, down to the fifth course (though  
>I'm experimenting with Savarez KF strings for the fifth course at the  
>moment), and the above-mentioned gut basses, with nylgut octaves."
>http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/Heringman.html
>
>The KF might be an alternative then to carbon for the 5th also for  
>synthetic users (Savarez, in fact, claim the KF are closer in sound  
>and texture to gut), perhaps they have properties in between carbon  
>and nylgut, hopefully, being less slippery than carbon?
>
>I have heard people calling them carbon strings, but I think they may  
>be a fluor based product.
>I have never, tried them myself, but they might be a serious but more  
>expensive alternative for the fifth course for someone using  
>synthetics, who did not want to use wire-wounds, and who does not  
>like carbon fishing line.
>Personally, I have been comparing Aquila Venice and Gamut Lyons on my  
>5th course, of which more, perhaps, later. Choices for 4th and 5th  
>strings do seem to be critical for gut users too.
>Anthony
>
>
>  
>



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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings versus KF?

[Eugene C. Braig IV]

At 05:32 AM 6/19/2007, Anthony Hind wrote:
>I have heard people calling them carbon strings, but I think they may
>be a fluor based product.



Eugene 



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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Anthony Hind]

   Dear Ed and All
 For the reason you state below :
   %
   > The density of carbon is so much
   > more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a 0.38
   > or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
   > certainly more sharp sounding.
   >
   > ed
   %
   two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic strings
   for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost), and who are
   ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for, have
   adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for their top
   strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore, sweeter warmer
   sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high density KF
   carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to slightly
   higher density nylon.
   %
   They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close to gut),
   but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which presumably has
   been resolved with the latest version)..
   %
   In fact, they were looking for a sound similar to that which is
   achieved with titanium nylon guitar strings, but these do not exist in
   diameters suitable for the lute.
   It would seem that such a string can be found in a suitable diameter
   (0,35 to 0,50) in fishing line, under the name, Nylon Powerline
   Titanium; but there is also Asari Falcon titanium G2, which might be
   suitable.
   (for those interested these are special fishing lines for surf casting)
   %
   FranAS:ois Pizette gave the following comparative table of densities
   (which I have not checked out):
   %
   titanium nylon :1.04
   nylon: 1.12
   perlon: 1.22
   nylgut: 1.3
   gut: 1.36
   KF pvf: 1.81
   %
   FranAS:ois actually sent me a trial string for my Renaissance lute, but
   I never got round to trying it out, myself. I had just begun
   experimenting a Kathedral gut top string at the time, so I passed it on
   to a friend who was using a nylon top string, and I believe he found
   the Titanium Nylon quite good, but a little "too sweet".  Nevertheless,
   he kept it on for a time, so it may not have been at all bad to his
   taste.
   %
   As you say, string density determines the diameter, and presumably, all
   things being equal, 'thinner than nylon' could lead to a sharper tone,
   while thicker could lead to a sweeter one. However, FranAS:ois Pizette
   claimed he heard the carbon top string as "colder", and the titanium
   nylon as "warmer".
   Nevertheless, relative top string thickness also plays a role in terms
   of feel and playability. It is not easy to "dig into" a thin string,
   although an over thick string could possibly become too damped.
   %
   A comparison between Alliance Savrez carbon and Addario Titanium-nylon
   can be heard here on a Ukelele in this You/Tube video (if you have the
   patience, as there are two other strings tested):
   [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
   %
   One player's comments on this test seem interesting. He says it is more
   the feel of the Titanium Nylon he prefers than the sound difference
   with the Savarez:
   "You were the one that goti>>? me into Savarez strings, though I still
   prefer my D'Addrios only because they are thicker and give me a little
   more "feel" under my fingers." (a Ukele player)
   %
   Is this not why some Baroque lutenist gut users prefer a lower diapason
   (say 392 over  415, with the same tension). This also gives a thicker
   top string, with more material to "dig into"?
   %
   I think this question may be just as interesting for gut as for
   synthetics users.
   While personally, I have been experimenting with the sound and feel of
   gut in relation to hypotheses about historic strings, I am happy to
   report on these synthetic string user's experiments, attempting to
   achieve a better sound and playability with their choice of strings.
   Best regards
   Anthony
   ---- Message d'origine 
   >De : "Edward Martin" 
   >A : "Edward Mast" ;
   > "Roman Turovsky" 
   >Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings?
   >Date : 04/10/2010 15:10:06 CEST
   >Copie A  : "Paul Kieffer" ;
   > "EUGENE BRAIG IV" ;
   > lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   >
   >No, it would have too much tension. The density of carbon is so much
   > more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a 0.38
   > or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
   > certainly more sharp sounding.
   >
   > ed
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > At 07:50 AM 10/4/2010, Edward Mast wrote:
   > >The .40-.41 mm diameter line sounds like it would be suitable for
   > >the top course, yes?
   >
   >
   >
   > Edward Martin
   > 2817 East 2nd Street
   > Duluth, Minne

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Edward Mast]

Thanks for posting these experiences and observations, Anthony.  As with most 
issues, the factors to consider are more complex than might first appear.  I 
personally have never had serious problems with strings breaking, but am more 
bothered by wound strings wearing at the frets and buzzing.  Partly for that 
reason, I'm now using carbon for the fifth course rather than wound strings.

Ned
On Oct 5, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Anthony Hind wrote:

>   Dear Ed and All
> For the reason you state below :
>   %
>> The density of carbon is so much
>> more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a 0.38
>> or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
>> certainly more sharp sounding.
>> 
>> ed
>   %
>   two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic strings
>   for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost), and who are
>   ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for, have
>   adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for their top
>   strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore, sweeter warmer
>   sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high density KF
>   carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to slightly
>   higher density nylon.
>   %
>   They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close to gut),
>   but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which presumably has
>   been resolved with the latest version)..
>   %
>   In fact, they were looking for a sound similar to that which is
>   achieved with titanium nylon guitar strings, but these do not exist in
>   diameters suitable for the lute.
>   It would seem that such a string can be found in a suitable diameter
>   (0,35 to 0,50) in fishing line, under the name, Nylon Powerline
>   Titanium; but there is also Asari Falcon titanium G2, which might be
>   suitable.
>   (for those interested these are special fishing lines for surf casting)
>   %
>   FranAS:ois Pizette gave the following comparative table of densities
>   (which I have not checked out):
>   %
>   titanium nylon :1.04
>   nylon: 1.12
>   perlon: 1.22
>   nylgut: 1.3
>   gut: 1.36
>   KF pvf: 1.81
>   %
>   FranAS:ois actually sent me a trial string for my Renaissance lute, but
>   I never got round to trying it out, myself. I had just begun
>   experimenting a Kathedral gut top string at the time, so I passed it on
>   to a friend who was using a nylon top string, and I believe he found
>   the Titanium Nylon quite good, but a little "too sweet".  Nevertheless,
>   he kept it on for a time, so it may not have been at all bad to his
>   taste.
>   %
>   As you say, string density determines the diameter, and presumably, all
>   things being equal, 'thinner than nylon' could lead to a sharper tone,
>   while thicker could lead to a sweeter one. However, FranAS:ois Pizette
>   claimed he heard the carbon top string as "colder", and the titanium
>   nylon as "warmer".
>   Nevertheless, relative top string thickness also plays a role in terms
>   of feel and playability. It is not easy to "dig into" a thin string,
>   although an over thick string could possibly become too damped.
>   %
>   A comparison between Alliance Savrez carbon and Addario Titanium-nylon
>   can be heard here on a Ukelele in this You/Tube video (if you have the
>   patience, as there are two other strings tested):
>   [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
>   %
>   One player's comments on this test seem interesting. He says it is more
>   the feel of the Titanium Nylon he prefers than the sound difference
>   with the Savarez:
>   "You were the one that goti>>? me into Savarez strings, though I still
>   prefer my D'Addrios only because they are thicker and give me a little
>   more "feel" under my fingers." (a Ukele player)
>   %
>   Is this not why some Baroque lutenist gut users prefer a lower diapason
>   (say 392 over  415, with the same tension). This also gives a thicker
>   top string, with more material to "dig into"?
>   %
>   I think this question may be just as interesting for gut as for
>   synthetics users.
>   While personally, I have been experimenting with the sound and feel of
>   gut in relation to hypotheses about historic strings, I am happy to
>   report on these synthetic string user's experiments, attempting to
>   achieve a better sound and playability with their choice of strings.
>   Best regards
>   Anthony
>    Message d'origine 
>> De : "Edward Martin" 
>> A : "Edward Mast" ;
>> "Roman Turovsky" 
>>

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Martyn Hodgson]

   Dear Anthony,

   This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
   something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
   eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they had.
   Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no reason to
   suppose their density has changed significantly since then - in short a
   material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for these
   strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence thicker (and
   plummier sounding), strings.

   Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which you
   refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite like
   the modern guitar type tone..

   regards

   M.
   --- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind  wrote:

 From: Anthony Hind 
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Edward Martin" 
 Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24

  Dear Ed and All
For the reason you state below :
  %
  > The density of carbon is so much
  > more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
   0.38
  > or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
  > certainly more sharp sounding.
  >
  > ed
  %
  two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic strings
  for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost), and who
   are
  ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for, have
  adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for their top
  strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore, sweeter
   warmer
  sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high density
   KF
  carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to
   slightly
  higher density nylon.
  %
  They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close to
   gut),
  but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which presumably
   has
  been resolved with the latest version)..
  %
  In fact, they were looking for a sound similar to that which is
  achieved with titanium nylon guitar strings, but these do not exist
   in
  diameters suitable for the lute.
  It would seem that such a string can be found in a suitable diameter
  (0,35 to 0,50) in fishing line, under the name, Nylon Powerline
  Titanium; but there is also Asari Falcon titanium G2, which might be
  suitable.
  (for those interested these are special fishing lines for surf
   casting)
  %
  FranAS:ois Pizette gave the following comparative table of densities
  (which I have not checked out):
  %
  titanium nylon :1.04
  nylon: 1.12
  perlon: 1.22
  nylgut: 1.3
  gut: 1.36
  KF pvf: 1.81
  %
  FranAS:ois actually sent me a trial string for my Renaissance lute,
   but
  I never got round to trying it out, myself. I had just begun
  experimenting a Kathedral gut top string at the time, so I passed it
   on
  to a friend who was using a nylon top string, and I believe he found
  the Titanium Nylon quite good, but a little "too sweet".
   Nevertheless,
  he kept it on for a time, so it may not have been at all bad to his
  taste.
  %
  As you say, string density determines the diameter, and presumably,
   all
  things being equal, 'thinner than nylon' could lead to a sharper
   tone,
  while thicker could lead to a sweeter one. However, FranAS:ois
   Pizette
  claimed he heard the carbon top string as "colder", and the titanium
  nylon as "warmer".
  Nevertheless, relative top string thickness also plays a role in
   terms
  of feel and playability. It is not easy to "dig into" a thin string,
  although an over thick string could possibly become too damped.
  %
  A comparison between Alliance Savrez carbon and Addario
   Titanium-nylon
  can be heard here on a Ukelele in this You/Tube video (if you have
   the
  patience, as there are two other strings tested):
  [1][1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
  %
  One player's comments on this test seem interesting. He says it is
   more
  the feel of the Titanium Nylon he prefers than the sound difference
  with the Savarez:
  "You were the one that goti>>? me into Savarez strings, though I
   still
  prefer my D'Addrios only because they are thicker and give me a
   little
  more "feel" under my fingers." (a Ukele player)
  %
  Is this not why some Baroque lutenist gut users prefer a lower
   diapason
  (say 392 over  415, with the same tension). This also gives a
   thicker
  top string, with more material to "dig into"?
  %
  I think this question 

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Anthony Hind]

   Dear Martyn
   "This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
   something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
   eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they had. "
   Martyn
  I think I would agree with you, I was informing but not
   advocating.
   While there are strong arguments for gut having been made more dense by
   loading of basses so as to obtain a less "tubby" sound), there is none
   (as far as I know) in favour of some treatment that lowers its
   intrinsic density for trebles (for a less bright sound), although there
   is speculation that historic top strings may have been thicker than
   they are today (I believe) and so perhaps less bright sounding.
   Nevertheless, the same "retrograde step" must surely be true for
   adopting higher density than gut trebles in carbon, which some, here,
   seem to be considering (with a potentially more unpleasant metallic
   sound than that of Titanium Nylon).
   And to be fair to these experimenters, the use of wirewound basses,
   could be surely be considered even less historic than the use of a
   synthetic top, from the point of view of the sound of the old ones.
   In fact, these French players may have just been looking for a
   replacement for the old Nylgut, because of its stretchiness (which is
   different from gut). I think Titanium nylon might be less slippery than
   nylon. If so, they may now adopt the new nylgut, as they did say they
   liked the sound of the old Nylgut, and they were not just looking for a
   cheap solution.
   "Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which you
   refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite like
   the modern guitar type tone.." Martyn
   That is possible, although they would not say so. They would perhaps
   claim that synthetic strings have qualities that were just not
   available at the time, but would have been adopted if they had been
   (you know the arguments that we have also heard, here, at times).
   Indeed, one of them did argue that the fact Baroque lutenists were
   playing back towards the bridge indicates they were striving for the
   bright sound that modern carbon affords.
   That, as you know, is not my position. What was of interest to me was
   rather the effect of thick versus thin top strings, as shown in their
   experiment, and this remains relevant, I think, to gut users (if we
   leave aside the question of density).
   Thicker treble strings, giving a less bright sound, can be used, as you
   know, by lowering the diapason while maintaining the same tension, or
   maintaining the same diapason while raising the tension.
   I think David Tayler is perhaps implying this here:
   "As a starting point for French baroque lute, on a "French Frey", 399
   or 400 is a very good choice. I often find 415 a bit too high, and 392
   a bit tubby due to the relatively small scale."
   [1]http://www.mail-archive.com/lute@cs.dartmouth.edu/msg25126.html
   Tubbiness, presumably due to the thicker strings.
   I have found the trebles on my 70 cm Baroque lute a little bright (ie
   too thin), and I don't think I have quite tweaked this aspect of my
   stringing; while I am entirely happy with my Basses and Meanes. I may
   try raising the tension a little (ie a 46 instead of a 44 on the top
   string), but ideally, I would have liked to lower the diapason from 407
   to 392, which would give the same 46 thickness (with no change of
   tension). However, the bother of replacing all the basses and Meanes
   that are so well run-in, rather makes me hesitate.
   It is also true that different makes of gut treble string can vary in
   brightness for the same diameter (and, presumably, density) and I may
   play around with this.
   Best wishes from
   Anthony (who is not about to go all "synthetic")
 __

   De : Martyn Hodgson 
   A : Edward Martin ; Anthony Hind
   
   Cc : lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   Envoye le : Mer 6 octobre 2010, 9h 01min 43s
   Objet : Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

   Dear Anthony,

   This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
   something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
   eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they had.
   Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no reason to
   suppose their density has changed significantly since then - in short a
   material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for these
   strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence thicker (and
   plummier sounding), strings.

   Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which you
   refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite like
   the modern guitar type

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[alexander]

Well, just for a giggle, here is a totally opposite speculation:

from Samuel Pepys' diary:
"This day Mr Caesar told me a pretty
experiment of his, of angling with a minikin, a gut string varnished over
which keeps it from swelling and is beyond any hair for strength and
smallness. The secret I like mightily!"

Please note, that the minikin is the top lute string, and note the  
"smallness" exceeding that of the horse hair. Now, how's that for a  
speculation?...

alexander

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 05:53:47 -0400, Anthony Hind   
wrote:



   Dear Martyn
   "This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
   something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
   eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they had.  
"

   Martyn
  I think I would agree with you, I was informing but not
   advocating.
   While there are strong arguments for gut having been made more dense  
by

   loading of basses so as to obtain a less "tubby" sound), there is none
   (as far as I know) in favour of some treatment that lowers its
   intrinsic density for trebles (for a less bright sound),


!!
 although

there
   is speculation that historic top strings may have been thicker than
   they are today (I believe) and so perhaps less bright sounding.


!!



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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Edward Martin]

Thanks for the note, Marytn.  I agree with you, totally.  For the 
most part, I have played gut exclusively for the past 18 years or so, 
as the sound is so beautiful, not to mention that it _is_ the way 
lutes sounded.


ed




At 02:01 AM 10/6/2010, Martyn Hodgson wrote:


>Dear Anthony,
>
>This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
>something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
>eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they had.
>Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no reason to
>suppose their density has changed significantly since then - in short a
>material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for these
>strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence thicker (and
>plummier sounding), strings.
>
>Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which you
>refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite like
>the modern guitar type tone..
>
>regards
>
>M.
>--- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind  wrote:
>
>  From: Anthony Hind 
>  Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
>  To: "Edward Martin" 
>  Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
>  Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24
>
>   Dear Ed and All
> For the reason you state below :
>   %
>   > The density of carbon is so much
>   > more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
>0.38
>   > or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
>   > certainly more sharp sounding.
>   >
>   > ed
>   %
>   two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic strings
>   for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost), and who
>are
>   ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for, have
>   adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for their top
>   strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore, sweeter
>warmer
>   sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high density
>KF
>   carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to
>slightly
>   higher density nylon.
>   %
>   They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close to
>gut),
>   but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which presumably
>has
>   been resolved with the latest version)..
>   %
>   In fact, they were looking for a sound similar to that which is
>   achieved with titanium nylon guitar strings, but these do not exist
>in
>   diameters suitable for the lute.
>   It would seem that such a string can be found in a suitable diameter
>   (0,35 to 0,50) in fishing line, under the name, Nylon Powerline
>   Titanium; but there is also Asari Falcon titanium G2, which might be
>   suitable.
>   (for those interested these are special fishing lines for surf
>casting)
>   %
>   FranAS:ois Pizette gave the following comparative table of densities
>   (which I have not checked out):
>   %
>   titanium nylon :1.04
>   nylon: 1.12
>   perlon: 1.22
>   nylgut: 1.3
>   gut: 1.36
>   KF pvf: 1.81
>   %
>   FranAS:ois actually sent me a trial string for my Renaissance lute,
>but
>   I never got round to trying it out, myself. I had just begun
>   experimenting a Kathedral gut top string at the time, so I passed it
>on
>   to a friend who was using a nylon top string, and I believe he found
>   the Titanium Nylon quite good, but a little "too sweet".
>Nevertheless,
>   he kept it on for a time, so it may not have been at all bad to his
>   taste.
>   %
>   As you say, string density determines the diameter, and presumably,
>all
>   things being equal, 'thinner than nylon' could lead to a sharper
>tone,
>   while thicker could lead to a sweeter one. However, FranAS:ois
>Pizette
>   claimed he heard the carbon top string as "colder", and the titanium
>   nylon as "warmer".
>   Nevertheless, relative top string thickness also plays a role in
>terms
>   of feel and playability. It is not easy to "dig into" a thin string,
>   although an over thick string could possibly become too damped.
>   %
>   A comparison between Alliance Savrez carbon and Addario
>Titanium-nylon
>   can be heard here on a Ukelele in this You/Tube video (if you have
>the
>   patience,

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Roman Turovsky]

From: "Martyn Hodgson" 

  This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
  something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
  eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they had.

Quite a few of the Current Ones far exceed the Old Ones, methinks...



  Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no reason to
  suppose their density has changed significantly since then - in short a
  material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for these
  strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence thicker (and
  plummier sounding), strings.

Or thuddier ans squeekier, to some.


  Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which you
  refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite like
  the modern guitar type tone..

There is nothing "guitar type" in the tone of carbon on lutes.
So until the improvement of gut technology that would some day assure
stability, intonation and economic justification we'd be using carbon.
RT



  --- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind  wrote:

    From: Anthony Hind 
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
To: "Edward Martin" 
Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24

 Dear Ed and All
   For the reason you state below :
 %
 > The density of carbon is so much
 > more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
  0.38
 > or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
 > certainly more sharp sounding.
 >
 > ed
 %
 two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic strings
 for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost), and who
  are
 ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for, have
 adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for their top
 strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore, sweeter
  warmer
 sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high density
  KF
 carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to
  slightly
 higher density nylon.
 %
 They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close to
  gut),
 but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which presumably
  has
 been resolved with the latest version)..
 %
 In fact, they were looking for a sound similar to that which is
 achieved with titanium nylon guitar strings, but these do not exist
  in
 diameters suitable for the lute.
 It would seem that such a string can be found in a suitable diameter
 (0,35 to 0,50) in fishing line, under the name, Nylon Powerline
 Titanium; but there is also Asari Falcon titanium G2, which might be
 suitable.
 (for those interested these are special fishing lines for surf
  casting)
 %
 FranAS:ois Pizette gave the following comparative table of densities
 (which I have not checked out):
 %
 titanium nylon :1.04
 nylon: 1.12
 perlon: 1.22
 nylgut: 1.3
 gut: 1.36
 KF pvf: 1.81
 %
 FranAS:ois actually sent me a trial string for my Renaissance lute,
  but
 I never got round to trying it out, myself. I had just begun
 experimenting a Kathedral gut top string at the time, so I passed it
  on
 to a friend who was using a nylon top string, and I believe he found
 the Titanium Nylon quite good, but a little "too sweet".
  Nevertheless,
 he kept it on for a time, so it may not have been at all bad to his
 taste.
 %
 As you say, string density determines the diameter, and presumably,
  all
 things being equal, 'thinner than nylon' could lead to a sharper
  tone,
 while thicker could lead to a sweeter one. However, FranAS:ois
  Pizette
 claimed he heard the carbon top string as "colder", and the titanium
 nylon as "warmer".
 Nevertheless, relative top string thickness also plays a role in
  terms
 of feel and playability. It is not easy to "dig into" a thin string,
 although an over thick string could possibly become too damped.
 %
 A comparison between Alliance Savrez carbon and Addario
  Titanium-nylon
 can be heard here on a Ukelele in this You/Tube video (if you have
  the
 patience, as there are two other strings tested):
 [1][1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGK8pXqr9yY
 %
 One player's comments on this test seem interesting. He says it is
  more
 the feel of the Titanium Nylon he prefers than the sound difference
 with the Savarez:
 "You were the one that goti>>? me into Savarez strings, though I
  still
 prefer my D'Addrios only because they are thicker and give me a
  little
 more "feel" under my fingers." (a Ukele player)
 %
 Is this not why some Baroque lut

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Mayes, Joseph]

Just to be contrary, I should point out that we have no idea how lutes
sounded. Admittedly, carbon fiber was not all that prevalent in the
renaissance.

Joseph Mayes


On 10/6/10 7:37 AM, "Edward Martin"  wrote:

> Thanks for the note, Marytn.  I agree with you, totally.  For the
> most part, I have played gut exclusively for the past 18 years or so,
> as the sound is so beautiful, not to mention that it _is_ the way
> lutes sounded.
> 
> 
> ed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 02:01 AM 10/6/2010, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
> 
> 
>>Dear Anthony,
>> 
>>This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
>>something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
>>eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they had.
>>Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no reason to
>>suppose their density has changed significantly since then - in short a
>>material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for these
>>strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence thicker (and
>>plummier sounding), strings.
>> 
>>Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which you
>>refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite like
>>the modern guitar type tone..
>> 
>>regards
>> 
>>M.
>>--- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind  wrote:
>> 
>>  From: Anthony Hind 
>>  Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
>>  To: "Edward Martin" 
>>  Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
>>  Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24
>> 
>>   Dear Ed and All
>> For the reason you state below :
>>   %
>>> The density of carbon is so much
>>> more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
>>0.38
>>> or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
>>> certainly more sharp sounding.
>>> 
>>> ed
>>   %
>>   two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic strings
>>   for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost), and who
>>are
>>   ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for, have
>>   adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for their top
>>   strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore, sweeter
>>warmer
>>   sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high density
>>KF
>>   carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to
>>slightly
>>   higher density nylon.
>>   %
>>   They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close to
>>gut),
>>   but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which presumably
>>has
>>   been resolved with the latest version)..
>>   %
>>   In fact, they were looking for a sound similar to that which is
>>   achieved with titanium nylon guitar strings, but these do not exist
>>in
>>   diameters suitable for the lute.
>>   It would seem that such a string can be found in a suitable diameter
>>   (0,35 to 0,50) in fishing line, under the name, Nylon Powerline
>>   Titanium; but there is also Asari Falcon titanium G2, which might be
>>   suitable.
>>   (for those interested these are special fishing lines for surf
>>casting)
>>   %
>>   FranAS:ois Pizette gave the following comparative table of densities
>>   (which I have not checked out):
>>   %
>>   titanium nylon :1.04
>>   nylon: 1.12
>>   perlon: 1.22
>>   nylgut: 1.3
>>   gut: 1.36
>>   KF pvf: 1.81
>>   %
>>   FranAS:ois actually sent me a trial string for my Renaissance lute,
>>but
>>   I never got round to trying it out, myself. I had just begun
>>   experimenting a Kathedral gut top string at the time, so I passed it
>>on
>>   to a friend who was using a nylon top string, and I believe he found
>>   the Titanium Nylon quite good, but a little "too sweet".
>>Nevertheless,
>>   he kept it on for a time, so it may not have been at all bad to his
>>   taste.
>>   %
>>   As you say, string density determines the diameter, and presumably,
>>all
>>   things being equal, 'thinner than nylon' could lead to a sharper
>>tone,
>>   while thicker could lead to a sweeter one. How

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Martyn Hodgson]

Where does Pepys say a single strand of hair?
   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, alexander  wrote:

 From: alexander 
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Anthony Hind" 
 Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 12:28

   Well, just for a giggle, here is a totally opposite speculation:
   from Samuel Pepys' diary:
   "This day Mr Caesar told me a pretty
   experiment of his, of angling with a minikin, a gut string varnished
   over
   which keeps it from swelling and is beyond any hair for strength and
   smallness. The secret I like mightily!"
   Please note, that the minikin is the top lute string, and note the
   "smallness" exceeding that of the horse hair. Now, how's that for a
   speculation?...
   alexander
   On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 05:53:47 -0400, Anthony Hind
   <[1]agno3ph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
   >Dear Martyn
   >"This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to
   hear
   >something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
   >eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they
   had. "
   >Martyn
   >   I think I would agree with you, I was informing but not
   >advocating.
   >While there are strong arguments for gut having been made more
   dense by
   >loading of basses so as to obtain a less "tubby" sound), there is
   none
   >(as far as I know) in favour of some treatment that lowers its
   >intrinsic density for trebles (for a less bright sound),
   !!
   although
   > there
   >is speculation that historic top strings may have been thicker
   than
   >they are today (I believe) and so perhaps less bright sounding.
   !!
   To get on or off this list see list information at
   [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoo.com
   2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Martyn Hodgson]

   But, as I understand Anthony, they are not using advocating 'carbon'
   strings but something even less dense than modern nylon!

   MH
   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Roman Turovsky  wrote:

 From: Roman Turovsky 
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Martyn Hodgson" , "Edward Martin"
 , "Anthony Hind" 
 Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 12:40

   From: "Martyn Hodgson" <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
   >   This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
   >   something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
   >   eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they
   had.
   Quite a few of the Current Ones far exceed the Old Ones, methinks...
   >   Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no reason to
   >   suppose their density has changed significantly since then - in
   short a
   >   material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for these
   >   strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence thicker
   (and
   >   plummier sounding), strings.
   Or thuddier ans squeekier, to some.
   >   Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which you
   >   refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite
   like
   >   the modern guitar type tone..
   There is nothing "guitar type" in the tone of carbon on lutes.
   So until the improvement of gut technology that would some day assure
   stability, intonation and economic justification we'd be using carbon.
   RT
   >   --- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind <[2]agno3ph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
   >
   > From: Anthony Hind <[3]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
   > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   > To: "Edward Martin" <[4...@gamutstrings.com>
   > Cc: [5]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   > Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24
   >
   >  Dear Ed and All
   >For the reason you state below :
   >  %
   >  > The density of carbon is so much
   >  > more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around
   a
   >   0.38
   >  > or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound
   is
   >  > certainly more sharp sounding.
   >  >
   >  > ed
   >  %
   >  two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic
   strings
   >  for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost), and
   who
   >   are
   >  ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for,
   have
   >  adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for their
   top
   >  strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore, sweeter
   >   warmer
   >  sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high
   density
   >   KF
   >  carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to
   >   slightly
   >  higher density nylon.
   >  %
   >  They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close
   to
   >   gut),
   >  but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which
   presumably
   >   has
   >  been resolved with the latest version)..
   >  %
   >  In fact, they were looking for a sound similar to that which is
   >  achieved with titanium nylon guitar strings, but these do not
   exist
   >   in
   >  diameters suitable for the lute.
   >  It would seem that such a string can be found in a suitable
   diameter
   >  (0,35 to 0,50) in fishing line, under the name, Nylon Powerline
   >  Titanium; but there is also Asari Falcon titanium G2, which
   might be
   >  suitable.
   >  (for those interested these are special fishing lines for surf
   >   casting)
   >  %
   >  FranAS:ois Pizette gave the following comparative table of
   densities
   >  (which I have not checked out):
   >  %
   >  titanium nylon :1.04
   >  nylon: 1.12
   >  perlon: 1.22
   >  nylgut: 1.3
   >  gut: 1.36
   >  KF pvf: 1.81
   >  %
   >  FranAS:ois actually sent me a trial string for my Renaissance
   lute,
   >   but
   >  I never got round to trying it out, myself. I had just begun
   >  experimenting a Kathedral gut top string at the time, so I
   passed it
   >   on
   >  to a friend who was using a nylon top string, and I believe he
   found
   >  the Titanium Nylon quite good, but a little "too sweet".
   >   Nevertheless,
   >  he kept it on for a time, so it may not have been at all bad to
   his
   >  taste.
   >  %
   >  As you say, strin

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Roman Turovsky]

I generally don't understand Anthony.
The acoustic differences between nylon and carbon are negligible from a 
distance of 2 meters anyway, and gut sounds like washtub-bass outside that 
radius.

RT

- Original Message - 
From: "Martyn Hodgson" 
To: "Edward Martin" ; "Anthony Hind" 
; "Roman Turovsky" 

Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 8:57 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?





  But, as I understand Anthony, they are not using advocating 'carbon'
  strings but something even less dense than modern nylon!

  MH
  --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Roman Turovsky  wrote:

    From: Roman Turovsky 
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
To: "Martyn Hodgson" , "Edward Martin"
, "Anthony Hind" 
Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 12:40

  From: "Martyn Hodgson" <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
  >   This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
  >   something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
  >   eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they
  had.
  Quite a few of the Current Ones far exceed the Old Ones, methinks...
  >   Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no reason to
  >   suppose their density has changed significantly since then - in
  short a
  >   material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for these
  >   strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence thicker
  (and
  >   plummier sounding), strings.
  Or thuddier ans squeekier, to some.
  >   Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which you
  >   refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite
  like
  >   the modern guitar type tone..
  There is nothing "guitar type" in the tone of carbon on lutes.
  So until the improvement of gut technology that would some day assure
  stability, intonation and economic justification we'd be using carbon.
  RT
  >   --- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind <[2]agno3ph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
  >
  > From: Anthony Hind <[3]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
  > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
  > To: "Edward Martin" <[4...@gamutstrings.com>
  > Cc: [5]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
  > Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24
  >
  >  Dear Ed and All
  >For the reason you state below :
  >  %
  >  > The density of carbon is so much
  >  > more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around
  a
  >   0.38
  >  > or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound
  is
  >  > certainly more sharp sounding.
  >  >
  >  > ed
  >  %
  >  two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic
  strings
  >  for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost), and
  who
  >   are
  >  ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for,
  have
  >  adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for their
  top
  >  strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore, sweeter
  >   warmer
  >  sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high
  density
  >   KF
  >  carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to
  >   slightly
  >  higher density nylon.
  >  %
  >  They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close
  to
  >   gut),
  >  but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which
  presumably
  >   has
  >  been resolved with the latest version)..
  >  %
  >  In fact, they were looking for a sound similar to that which is
  >  achieved with titanium nylon guitar strings, but these do not
  exist
  >   in
  >  diameters suitable for the lute.
  >  It would seem that such a string can be found in a suitable
  diameter
  >  (0,35 to 0,50) in fishing line, under the name, Nylon Powerline
  >  Titanium; but there is also Asari Falcon titanium G2, which
  might be
  >  suitable.
  >  (for those interested these are special fishing lines for surf
  >   casting)
  >  %
  >  FranAS:ois Pizette gave the following comparative table of
  densities
  >  (which I have not checked out):
  >  %
  >  titanium nylon :1.04
  >  nylon: 1.12
  >  perlon: 1.22
  >  nylgut: 1.3
  >  gut: 1.36
  >  KF pvf: 1.81
  >  %
  >  FranAS:ois actually sent me a trial string for my Renaissance
  lute,
  >   but
  >  I never got round to trying it out, myself. I had just begun
  >  experimenting a Kathedral gut top string at the time, so I
  passed i

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Martyn Hodgson]

   Well - that's your opinion.

   MH
   urovsky  wrote:

 From: Roman Turovsky 
 Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Edward Martin" , "Anthony Hind"
 , "Martyn Hodgson" 
 Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 14:05

   I generally don't understand Anthony.
   The acoustic differences between nylon and carbon are negligible from a
   distance of 2 meters anyway, and gut sounds like washtub-bass outside
   that radius.
   RT
   - Original Message - From: "Martyn Hodgson"
   <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
   To: "Edward Martin" <[2...@gamutstrings.com>; "Anthony Hind"
   <[3]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>; "Roman Turovsky" <[4]r.turov...@verizon.net>
   Cc: <[5]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
   Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 8:57 AM
   Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   >
   >
   >   But, as I understand Anthony, they are not using advocating
   'carbon'
   >   strings but something even less dense than modern nylon!
   >
   >   MH
   >   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Roman Turovsky <[6]r.turov...@verizon.net>
   wrote:
   >
   > From: Roman Turovsky <[7]r.turov...@verizon.net>
   > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   > To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[8]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>, "Edward
   Martin"
   > <[9...@gamutstrings.com>, "Anthony Hind"
   <[10]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
   > Cc: [11]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   > Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 12:40
   >
   >   From: "Martyn Hodgson" <[1][12]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
   >   >   This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to
   hear
   >   >   something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
   >   >   eschew treble strings which are so very different from what
   they
   >   had.
   >   Quite a few of the Current Ones far exceed the Old Ones,
   methinks...
   >   >   Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no
   reason to
   >   >   suppose their density has changed significantly since then - in
   >   short a
   >   >   material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for
   these
   >   >   strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence
   thicker
   >   (and
   >   >   plummier sounding), strings.
   >   Or thuddier ans squeekier, to some.
   >   >   Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which
   you
   >   >   refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and
   quite
   >   like
   >   >   the modern guitar type tone..
   >   There is nothing "guitar type" in the tone of carbon on lutes.
   >   So until the improvement of gut technology that would some day
   assure
   >   stability, intonation and economic justification we'd be using
   carbon.
   >   RT
   >   >   --- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind <[2][13]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
   wrote:
   >   >
   >   > From: Anthony Hind <[3][14]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
   >   > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   >   > To: "Edward Martin" <[4][15...@gamutstrings.com>
   >   > Cc: [5][16]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   >   > Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24
   >   >
   >   >  Dear Ed and All
   >   >For the reason you state below :
   >   >  %
   >   >  > The density of carbon is so much
   >   >  > more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate,
   around
   >   a
   >   >   0.38
   >   >  > or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the
   sound
   >   is
   >   >  > certainly more sharp sounding.
   >   >  >
   >   >  > ed
   >   >  %
   >   >  two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic
   >   strings
   >   >  for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost),
   and
   >   who
   >   >   are
   >   >  ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking
   for,
   >   have
   >   >  adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for
   their
   >   top
   >   >  strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore,
   sweeter
   >   >   warmer
   >   >  sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high
   >   density
   >   >   KF
   >   >  carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to
   >   >   slightly
   >   >  higher density nylon.
   >   >  %
   >   >  They liked

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Martyn Hodgson]

   Well, we don't know absolutely - but it would surely be incorrect to
   say we don't have any idea whatsover.

   Certainly we know gut trebles were used and 'titanium nylon' were not,
   which is the point at issue.

   MH

 From: Mayes, Joseph 
     Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Edward Martin" , "Martyn Hodgson"
 , "Anthony Hind" 
 Cc: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" 
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 13:04

   Just to be contrary, I should point out that we have no idea how lutes
   sounded. Admittedly, carbon fiber was not all that prevalent in the
   renaissance.
   Joseph Mayes
   On 10/6/10 7:37 AM, "Edward Martin" <[1...@gamutstrings.com> wrote:
   > Thanks for the note, Marytn.  I agree with you, totally.  For the
   > most part, I have played gut exclusively for the past 18 years or so,
   > as the sound is so beautiful, not to mention that it _is_ the way
   > lutes sounded.
   >
   >
   > ed
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > At 02:01 AM 10/6/2010, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
   >
   >
   >>Dear Anthony,
   >>
   >>This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to
   hear
   >>something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
   >>eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they
   had.
   >>Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no reason
   to
   >>suppose their density has changed significantly since then - in
   short a
   >>material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for these
   >>strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence
   thicker (and
   >>plummier sounding), strings.
   >>
   >>Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which
   you
   >>refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite
   like
   >>the modern guitar type tone......
   >>
   >>regards
   >>
   >>M.
   >>--- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind <[2]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
   wrote:
   >>
   >>  From: Anthony Hind <[3]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
   >>  Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   >>  To: "Edward Martin" <[4...@gamutstrings.com>
   >>  Cc: [5]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   >>  Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24
   >>
   >>   Dear Ed and All
   >> For the reason you state below :
   >>   %
   >>> The density of carbon is so much
   >>> more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
   >>0.38
   >>> or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
   >>> certainly more sharp sounding.
   >>>
   >>> ed
   >>   %
   >>   two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic
   strings
   >>   for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost),
   and who
   >>are
   >>   ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for,
   have
   >>   adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for
   their top
   >>   strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore,
   sweeter
   >>warmer
   >>   sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high
   density
   >>KF
   >>   carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to
   >>slightly
   >>   higher density nylon.
   >>   %
   >>   They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close
   to
   >>gut),
   >>   but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which
   presumably
   >>has
   >>   been resolved with the latest version)..
   >>   %
   >>   In fact, they were looking for a sound similar to that which
   is
   >>   achieved with titanium nylon guitar strings, but these do not
   exist
   >>in
   >>   diameters suitable for the lute.
   >>   It would seem that such a string can be found in a suitable
   diameter
   >>   (0,35 to 0,50) in fishing line, under the name, Nylon
   Powerline
   >>   Titanium; but there is also Asari Falcon titanium G2, which
   might be
   >>   suitable.
   >>   (for those interested these are special fishing lines for surf
   >>casting)
   >>   %
   >>   FranAS:ois Pizette gave the following comparative table of
   densities
   >>   (which I have not checked out):
   >>   %
   >>   titanium nylon :1.04
   >>   nylon: 1.12
   >>   perl

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Sauvage Valéry]

Can we imagine at the renaissance-baroque time if they had choice to play
with nice sounding strings, but so expensive, fragile and difficult to stay
in tune, or less expensive strings, staying in tune and lasting longer, (and
even sounding louder and not so bad) what would have been their choice ? 
I don't know for them, I know for me (and I know some have different
opinion...)
Don't forget the quality of sound is also very much the way we pluck the
strings (perhaps more than the material and quality of strings...)
So much talk about this subject. Lets just spend this time playing, than
cutting hairs (or strings) in four (in the longer side) ;-)
Valéry


-Message d'origine-
De : lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] De la part
de Martyn Hodgson
Envoyé : mercredi 6 octobre 2010 15:06
À : Edward Martin; Anthony Hind; JosephMayes
Cc : lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?



   Well, we don't know absolutely - but it would surely be incorrect to
   say we don't have any idea whatsover.

   Certainly we know gut trebles were used and 'titanium nylon' were not,
   which is the point at issue.

   MH

 From: Mayes, Joseph 
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Edward Martin" , "Martyn Hodgson"
 , "Anthony Hind" 
 Cc: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" 
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 13:04

   Just to be contrary, I should point out that we have no idea how lutes
   sounded. Admittedly, carbon fiber was not all that prevalent in the
   renaissance.
   Joseph Mayes
   On 10/6/10 7:37 AM, "Edward Martin" <[1...@gamutstrings.com> wrote:
   > Thanks for the note, Marytn.  I agree with you, totally.  For the
   > most part, I have played gut exclusively for the past 18 years or so,
   > as the sound is so beautiful, not to mention that it _is_ the way
   > lutes sounded.
   >
   >
   > ed
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > At 02:01 AM 10/6/2010, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
   >
   >
   >>Dear Anthony,
   >>
   >>This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to
   hear
   >>something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
   >>eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they
   had.
   >>Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no reason
   to
   >>suppose their density has changed significantly since then - in
   short a
   >>material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for these
   >>strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence
   thicker (and
   >>plummier sounding), strings.
   >>
   >>Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which
   you
   >>refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite
   like
   >>the modern guitar type tone..
   >>
   >>regards
   >>
   >>M.
   >>--- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind <[2]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
   wrote:
   >>
   >>  From: Anthony Hind <[3]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
   >>  Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   >>  To: "Edward Martin" <[4...@gamutstrings.com>
   >>  Cc: [5]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   >>  Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24
   >>
   >>   Dear Ed and All
   >> For the reason you state below :
   >>   %
   >>> The density of carbon is so much
   >>> more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
   >>0.38
   >>> or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
   >>> certainly more sharp sounding.
   >>>
   >>> ed
   >>   %
   >>   two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic
   strings
   >>   for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost),
   and who
   >>are
   >>   ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for,
   have
   >>   adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for
   their top
   >>   strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore,
   sweeter
   >>warmer
   >>   sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high
   density
   >>KF
   >>   carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to
   >>slightly
   >>   higher density nylon.
   >>   %
   >>   They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close
   to
   >>gut),
   >>   but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which
   presumably
   >>has
   >>   

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Sean Smith]

Dear Anthony,

Thank you kindly for the news of these strings. When I need that  
perfect gut sound I'll, as you can well imagine, use a gut string. If  
I'm simply practicing, playing for or accompanying those who won't  
notice or care or replacing a treble (or 4th course 8ve) on one of the  
"second shelf" lutes I will probably appreciate this information.  
Please continue to keep us posted.


Best wishes,
Sean



On Oct 6, 2010, at 2:53 AM, Anthony Hind  wrote:


  Dear Martyn
  "This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
  something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
  eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they  
had. "

  Martyn
 I think I would agree with you, I was informing but not
  advocating.
  While there are strong arguments for gut having been made more  
dense by
  loading of basses so as to obtain a less "tubby" sound), there is  
none

  (as far as I know) in favour of some treatment that lowers its
  intrinsic density for trebles (for a less bright sound), although  
there

  is speculation that historic top strings may have been thicker than
  they are today (I believe) and so perhaps less bright sounding.
  Nevertheless, the same "retrograde step" must surely be true for
  adopting higher density than gut trebles in carbon, which some,  
here,

  seem to be considering (with a potentially more unpleasant metallic
  sound than that of Titanium Nylon).
  And to be fair to these experimenters, the use of wirewound basses,
  could be surely be considered even less historic than the use of a
  synthetic top, from the point of view of the sound of the old ones.
  In fact, these French players may have just been looking for a
  replacement for the old Nylgut, because of its stretchiness (which  
is
  different from gut). I think Titanium nylon might be less slippery  
than
  nylon. If so, they may now adopt the new nylgut, as they did say  
they
  liked the sound of the old Nylgut, and they were not just looking  
for a

  cheap solution.
  "Of course it's quite possible these particular players to which you
  refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and quite  
like

  the modern guitar type tone.." Martyn
  That is possible, although they would not say so. They would perhaps
  claim that synthetic strings have qualities that were just not
  available at the time, but would have been adopted if they had been
  (you know the arguments that we have also heard, here, at times).
  Indeed, one of them did argue that the fact Baroque lutenists were
  playing back towards the bridge indicates they were striving for the
  bright sound that modern carbon affords.
  That, as you know, is not my position. What was of interest to me  
was
  rather the effect of thick versus thin top strings, as shown in  
their

  experiment, and this remains relevant, I think, to gut users (if we
  leave aside the question of density).
  Thicker treble strings, giving a less bright sound, can be used,  
as you
  know, by lowering the diapason while maintaining the same tension,  
or

  maintaining the same diapason while raising the tension.
  I think David Tayler is perhaps implying this here:
  "As a starting point for French baroque lute, on a "French Frey",  
399
  or 400 is a very good choice. I often find 415 a bit too high, and  
392

  a bit tubby due to the relatively small scale."
  [1]http://www.mail-archive.com/lute@cs.dartmouth.edu/msg25126.html
  Tubbiness, presumably due to the thicker strings.
  I have found the trebles on my 70 cm Baroque lute a little bright  
(ie

  too thin), and I don't think I have quite tweaked this aspect of my
  stringing; while I am entirely happy with my Basses and Meanes. I  
may

  try raising the tension a little (ie a 46 instead of a 44 on the top
  string), but ideally, I would have liked to lower the diapason  
from 407

  to 392, which would give the same 46 thickness (with no change of
  tension). However, the bother of replacing all the basses and Meanes
  that are so well run-in, rather makes me hesitate.
  It is also true that different makes of gut treble string can vary  
in
  brightness for the same diameter (and, presumably, density) and I  
may

  play around with this.
  Best wishes from
  Anthony (who is not about to go all "synthetic")
__

  De : Martyn Hodgson 
  A : Edward Martin ; Anthony Hind
  
  Cc : lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
  Envoye le : Mer 6 octobre 2010, 9h 01min 43s
  Objet : Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

  Dear Anthony,

  This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
  something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
  eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they  
had.

  Clearly gut was generally used 

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Anthony Hind]

Dear Ed
I am also an all gut user, and a strong advocate for this closest
   (Roman) to historic solution; besides it sounds better to my ears than
   any synthetics.
   We have strong arguments from DvO relating T. Satoh's experience, to
   consider that playing a particular piece of music on the stringing-type
   with which it was created gives the best results : some compositions
   that Satoh made on
   synthetic strings apparently don't work well on gut, while some he made
   on
   gut don't work on synthetics (no problem here for Roman, then when he
   plays his own compositions).
   %
   Nevertheless, many synthetics users, even those who use nylgut, often
   use nylon on the top string. This has a closer density to gut than
   Titanium nylon, but sounds worse than nylgut to my ears. I did feel
   that the Titanium nylon sounded a little better than nylon (and
   certainly better than carbon on the top).
   %
   I have not heard  the new nylgut, but think it should be much closer to
   gut, and a better solution than either Carbon, nylon or Titanium Nylon.
   I hope we will soon receive reports.
   Evidently, like yourselves, I would prefer everyone to use gut, and for
   gut users to seriously experiment with their stringing (as I know you
   do).
   %
   That said, I would prefer synthetic users to at least make experiments.
   This could even lead to them finally to experiment with gut. I know
   some here, have done so.
   %
   In fact, it was Charles Besnainou's experiments with polymer stringing
   for the lute that lead to Savarez' "creation" of KF, following his
   demonstration of this material-type to them, and this is often now used
   as a substitute by gut users (Jacob Heringman) on Meanes, for difficult
   concert situations.
   %
   Interestingly for Ned, Charles had been trying to find a way of
   completely eliminating the need for wirewounds basses (or Meanes),
   which he considered totally unsuitable for lute music, when he
   discovered the advantages of PVF for creating his spring "Garachoir"
   bass strings (which he can now make in gut).
   I still find that wirewounds are the greatest problem area for
   synthetic stringing (although, I would admit that has been a difficult
   problem for gut stringing also. I am very thankful for the existence of
   Mimmo's loaded strings, as I know you are also for Dan's gimped
   strings).
   %
   Ned
" personally have never had serious problems with strings breaking,
   but am more bothered by wound strings wearing at the frets and
   buzzing.  Partly for that reason, I'm now using carbon for the fifth
   course rather than wound strings." Ned
   %
   As an amateur gut user, top strings breaking, is not a problem for me
   either. I am used to it. Perhaps during a concert, I would be worried.
   I saw POD's top string snap to amazing effect, just in the very last
   bar of the final piece in a superb concert. Perhaps he hade rehearsed
   the whole thing ...
   %
   I agree that wirewounds are the real problem, and I am glad not to have
   any at all on my lute.
   %
   Martyn
   They were using Savarez Carbon for Meanes, and Titanium nylon for 1st
   and 2nd.
   I am wondering why using Titanium nylon which has a lower density than
   gut is less historic than using Carbon which has a higher density, or
   indeed using wirewounds, both of which many do, here. Not that I am
   advocating any of these, I agree they are all non historic.
   %
   Alexander
That is a lovely fishing tale, and could this mean that Minikins
   were smaller than previously thought: "beyond any hair for strength and
   smallness".
   %
   Regards
   Anthony
 __

   De : Martyn Hodgson 
   A : Edward Martin ; Anthony Hind
   ; Roman Turovsky 
   Cc : lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   Envoye le : Mer 6 octobre 2010, 14h 57min 48s
   Objet : Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

   But, as I understand Anthony, they are not using advocating 'carbon'
   strings but something even less dense than modern nylon!

   MH
   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Roman Turovsky  wrote:

 From: Roman Turovsky 
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Martyn Hodgson" , "Edward Martin"
 , "Anthony Hind" 
 Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 12:40

   From: "Martyn Hodgson" <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
   >   This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to hear
   >   something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought to
   >   eschew treble strings which are so very different from what they
   had.
   Quite a few of the Current Ones far exceed the Old Ones, methinks...
   >   Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no reason

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Martyn Hodgson]

   But they didn't have such strings. If we are trying to seek the sounds
   heard by the Old Ones it's necessary to start from what we do know ie
   they generally used gut trebles.
   MH

   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Sauvage Valery  wrote:

 From: Sauvage Valery 
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 14:47

   Can we imagine at the renaissance-baroque time if they had choice to
   play
   with nice sounding strings, but so expensive, fragile and difficult to
   stay
   in tune, or less expensive strings, staying in tune and lasting longer,
   (and
   even sounding louder and not so bad) what would have been their choice
   ?
   I don't know for them, I know for me (and I know some have different
   opinion...)
   Don't forget the quality of sound is also very much the way we pluck
   the
   strings (perhaps more than the material and quality of strings...)
   So much talk about this subject. Lets just spend this time playing,
   than
   cutting hairs (or strings) in four (in the longer side) ;-)
   Valery
   -Message d'origine-
   De : [1]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:[2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu]
   De la part
   de Martyn Hodgson
   Envoye : mercredi 6 octobre 2010 15:06
   A : Edward Martin; Anthony Hind; JosephMayes
   Cc : [3]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
  Well, we don't know absolutely - but it would surely be incorrect to
  say we don't have any idea whatsover.
  Certainly we know gut trebles were used and 'titanium nylon' were
   not,
  which is the point at issue.
  MH
From: Mayes, Joseph <[4]ma...@rowan.edu>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
To: "Edward Martin" <[5...@gamutstrings.com>, "Martyn Hodgson"
<[6]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>, "Anthony Hind"
   <[7]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "[8]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu" <[9]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 13:04
  Just to be contrary, I should point out that we have no idea how
   lutes
  sounded. Admittedly, carbon fiber was not all that prevalent in the
  renaissance.
  Joseph Mayes
  On 10/6/10 7:37 AM, "Edward Martin" <[1][10...@gamutstrings.com>
   wrote:
  > Thanks for the note, Marytn.  I agree with you, totally.  For the
  > most part, I have played gut exclusively for the past 18 years or
   so,
  > as the sound is so beautiful, not to mention that it _is_ the way
  > lutes sounded.
  >
  >
  > ed
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > At 02:01 AM 10/6/2010, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
  >
  >
  >>Dear Anthony,
  >>
  >>This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to
  hear
  >>something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought
   to
  >>eschew treble strings which are so very different from what
   they
  had.
  >>Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no
   reason
  to
  >>suppose their density has changed significantly since then -
   in
  short a
  >>material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for
   these
  >>strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence
  thicker (and
  >>plummier sounding), strings.
  >>
  >>Of course it's quite possible these particular players to
   which
  you
  >>refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and
   quite
  like
  >>the modern guitar type tone..
  >>
  >>regards
  >>
  >>M.
  >>--- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind
   <[2][11]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
  wrote:
  >>
  >>  From: Anthony Hind <[3][12]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
  >>  Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
  >>  To: "Edward Martin" <[4][13...@gamutstrings.com>
  >>  Cc: [5][14]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
  >>  Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24
  >>
  >>   Dear Ed and All
  >> For the reason you state below :
  >>   %
  >>> The density of carbon is so much
  >>> more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
  >>0.38
  >>> or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
  >>> certainly more sharp sounding.
  >>>
  >>> ed
  >>   %
  >>   two lutenists on the French list, who have ad

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Martyn Hodgson]

   Dear Anthony,

   Both  'carbon' and these 'titanium nylon' were uknown before modern
   times so both are surely to be avoided for trebles: being either
   significantly less dense (ie much thicker and 'plummier') or denser (ie
   much thinner or 'mettalic') than gut.

   Martyn
   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Anthony Hind  wrote:

 From: Anthony Hind 
 Subject: Re : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Edward Martin" , "Martyn Hodgson"
 , "Edward Mast" ,
 "alexander" , "Roman Turovsky"
 
 Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 16:36

Dear Ed
I am also an all gut user, and a strong advocate for this closest
   (Roman) to historic solution; besides it sounds better to my ears than
   any synthetics.
   We have strong arguments from DvO relating T. Satoh's experience, to
   consider that playing a particular piece of music on the stringing-type
   with which it was created gives the best results : some compositions
   that Satoh made on
   synthetic strings apparently don't work well on gut, while some he made
   on
   gut don't work on synthetics (no problem here for Roman, then when he
   plays his own compositions).
   %
   Nevertheless, many synthetics users, even those who use nylgut, often
   use nylon on the top string. This has a closer density to gut than
   Titanium nylon, but sounds worse than nylgut to my ears. I did feel
   that the Titanium nylon sounded a little better than nylon (and
   certainly better than carbon on the top).
   %
   I have not heard  the new nylgut, but think it should be much closer to
   gut, and a better solution than either Carbon, nylon or Titanium Nylon.
   I hope we will soon receive reports.
   Evidently, like yourselves, I would prefer everyone to use gut, and for
   gut users to seriously experiment with their stringing (as I know you
   do).
   %
   That said, I would prefer synthetic users to at least make experiments.
   This could even lead to them finally to experiment with gut. I know
   some here, have done so.
   %
   In fact, it was Charles Besnainou's experiments with polymer stringing
   for the lute that lead to Savarez' "creation" of KF, following his
   demonstration of this material-type to them, and this is often now used
   as a substitute by gut users (Jacob Heringman) on Meanes, for difficult
   concert situations.
   %
   Interestingly for Ned, Charles had been trying to find a way of
   completely eliminating the need for wirewounds basses (or Meanes),
   which he considered totally unsuitable for lute music, when he
   discovered the advantages of PVF for creating his spring "Garachoir"
   bass strings (which he can now make in gut).
   I still find that wirewounds are the greatest problem area for
   synthetic stringing (although, I would admit that has been a difficult
   problem for gut stringing also. I am very thankful for the existence of
   Mimmo's loaded strings, as I know you are also for Dan's gimped
   strings).
   %
   Ned
" personally have never had serious problems with strings breaking,
   but am more bothered by wound strings wearing at the frets and
   buzzing.  Partly for that reason, I'm now using carbon for the fifth
   course rather than wound strings." Ned
   %
   As an amateur gut user, top strings breaking, is not a problem for me
   either. I am used to it. Perhaps during a concert, I would be worried.
   I saw POD's top string snap to amazing effect, just in the very last
   bar of the final piece in a superb concert. Perhaps he hade rehearsed
   the whole thing ...
   %
   I agree that wirewounds are the real problem, and I am glad not to have
   any at all on my lute.
   %
   Martyn
   They were using Savarez Carbon for Meanes, and Titanium nylon for 1st
   and 2nd.
   I am wondering why using Titanium nylon which has a lower density than
   gut is less historic than using Carbon which has a higher density, or
   indeed using wirewounds, both of which many do, here. Not that I am
   advocating any of these, I agree they are all non historic.
   %
   Alexander
That is a lovely fishing tale, and could this mean that Minikins
   were smaller than previously thought: "beyond any hair for strength and
   smallness".
   %
   Regards
   Anthony
 __

   De : Martyn Hodgson 
   A : Edward Martin ; Anthony Hind
   ; Roman Turovsky 
   Cc : lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   Envoye le : Mer 6 octobre 2010, 14h 57min 48s
   Objet : Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

   But, as I understand Anthony, they are not using advocating 'carbon'
   strings but something even less dense than modern nylon!

   MH
   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Roman Turovsky  wrote:

 From: Roman Turovsky 
 Sub

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Anthony Hind]

   Dear Martyn
I do agree with the general tendancy of what you seem to be
   saying, and indeed I will stick with my all gut stringing, and hope
   that others may follow suit. However, I am not sure how strong a point
   you are making? Are you saying that all gut-stringing is the only
   historically compatible solution in all cases (for recording and
   performance, whatever the situation), or let us say, a goal to aim at,
   whenever possible (Ed, and some others, I think, adopt the first both
   for concerts and for recordings; but Jacob Heringman and Jakob Lindberg
   differentiate the concert situation and the recording situation using
   some carbon and nylgut, I think).
   Are you implying that all synthetics (carbon, nylon, Titanium Nylon,
   etc...), and wirewounds, should be avoided, or are you differentiating
   between those that are closest to gut (carbon Meanes and nylgut trebles
   perhaps) from those that are furthest (carbon and Titanium Nylon top
   strings).
   %
   I rather understand the second, and probably would broadly in agree.
   However, I believe most string makers do not have the equipment to
   attempt to make synthetic strings that closely imitate gut, which is
   perhaps why some of those sold as pseudo-gut may be very similar to
   fishing lines.
   %
   Hopefully, Mimmo at Aquila, having an extrudor and the chemical
   knowledge to do such things, may gradually come up with good synthetic
   basses, meanes and trebles, all as close as possible to his hypotheses
   of what hsitorical gut strings may have been like. Perhaps the fishing
   community will find a use for these new polymers (and we can at last
   see the removal of wirewounds from lutes).
   %
   I still think I will stick with gut stringing, but considering many
   lutenists are holding on to their synthetics for "dear life", this
   would be a relatively good outcome for the ancient music society (I
   believe).
   Regards
   Anthony
 __

   De : Martyn Hodgson 
   A : Edward Martin ; Edward Mast
   ; alexander ; Roman Turovsky
   ; Anthony Hind 
   Cc : lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   Envoye le : Mer 6 octobre 2010, 17h 46min 59s
   Objet : Re: Re : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   Dear Anthony,

   Both  'carbon' and these 'titanium nylon' were uknown before modern
   times so both are surely to be avoided for trebles: being either
   significantly less dense (ie much thicker and 'plummier') or denser (ie
   much thinner or 'mettalic') than gut.

   Martyn
   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Anthony Hind  wrote:

     From: Anthony Hind 
 Subject: Re : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Edward Martin" , "Martyn Hodgson"
 , "Edward Mast" ,
 "alexander" , "Roman Turovsky"
 
 Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 16:36

Dear Ed
I am also an all gut user, and a strong advocate for this closest
   (Roman) to historic solution; besides it sounds better to my ears than
   any synthetics.
   We have strong arguments from DvO relating T. Satoh's experience, to
   consider that playing a particular piece of music on the stringing-type
   with which it was created gives the best results : some compositions
   that Satoh made on
   synthetic strings apparently don't work well on gut, while some he made
   on
   gut don't work on synthetics (no problem here for Roman, then when he
   plays his own compositions).
   %
   Nevertheless, many synthetics users, even those who use nylgut, often
   use nylon on the top string. This has a closer density to gut than
   Titanium nylon, but sounds worse than nylgut to my ears. I did feel
   that the Titanium nylon sounded a little better than nylon (and
   certainly better than carbon on the top).
   %
   I have not heard  the new nylgut, but think it should be much closer to
   gut, and a better solution than either Carbon, nylon or Titanium Nylon.
   I hope we will soon receive reports.
   Evidently, like yourselves, I would prefer everyone to use gut, and for
   gut users to seriously experiment with their stringing (as I know you
   do).
   %
   That said, I would prefer synthetic users to at least make experiments.
   This could even lead to them finally to experiment with gut. I know
   some here, have done so.
   %
   In fact, it was Charles Besnainou's experiments with polymer stringing
   for the lute that lead to Savarez' "creation" of KF, following his
   demonstration of this material-type to them, and this is often now used
   as a substitute by gut users (Jacob Heringman) on Meanes, for difficult
   concert situations.
   %
   Interestingly for Ned, Charles had been trying to find a way of
   completely eliminating the need for wirewounds basses (or Meanes),
   which he consid

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Sauvage Valéry]

 
Seeking the sound of "old ones" is a lost battle in my opinion... Even with
"modern" gut strings... 
For my sake I'm just trying to play some music. Not making musical
archeology. And many "amateurs" I think don't need to waste time and money
playing gut strings, they should just try to play and have a good sound on
their lutes as much as they are able to. 
I would only play with gut strings (perhaps) If I have to record in a studio
with good hygrometric conditions. But for a daily work... Gut is too
fragile.

The best recital I ever heard was Paul O'Dette in Gijon (Spain) playing on
his two Thomson's lutes, 6 and 8 courses, with Nylgut strings... 

What I would like to say is that if some people want to spend their money
and time playing gut, it's fine for me. What makes my reaction is that I
often heard: "whithout Gut, no salvation" and that is intolerance. In Gut I
don't believe, let me be a gut atheist... And don't be too sectarist.
V. 

Did someone try the new Nylgut ?


-Message d'origine-
De : lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] De la part
de Martyn Hodgson
Envoyé : mercredi 6 octobre 2010 17:38
À : lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Sauvage Valéry
Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?




   But they didn't have such strings. If we are trying to seek the sounds
   heard by the Old Ones it's necessary to start from what we do know ie
   they generally used gut trebles.
   MH

   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Sauvage Valery  wrote:

 From: Sauvage Valery 
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 14:47

   Can we imagine at the renaissance-baroque time if they had choice to
   play
   with nice sounding strings, but so expensive, fragile and difficult to
   stay
   in tune, or less expensive strings, staying in tune and lasting longer,
   (and
   even sounding louder and not so bad) what would have been their choice
   ?
   I don't know for them, I know for me (and I know some have different
   opinion...)
   Don't forget the quality of sound is also very much the way we pluck
   the
   strings (perhaps more than the material and quality of strings...)
   So much talk about this subject. Lets just spend this time playing,
   than
   cutting hairs (or strings) in four (in the longer side) ;-)
   Valery
   -Message d'origine-
   De : [1]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:[2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu]
   De la part
   de Martyn Hodgson
   Envoye : mercredi 6 octobre 2010 15:06
   A : Edward Martin; Anthony Hind; JosephMayes
   Cc : [3]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
  Well, we don't know absolutely - but it would surely be incorrect to
  say we don't have any idea whatsover.
  Certainly we know gut trebles were used and 'titanium nylon' were
   not,
      which is the point at issue.
  MH
From: Mayes, Joseph <[4]ma...@rowan.edu>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
To: "Edward Martin" <[5...@gamutstrings.com>, "Martyn Hodgson"
<[6]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>, "Anthony Hind"
   <[7]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "[8]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu" <[9]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 13:04
  Just to be contrary, I should point out that we have no idea how
   lutes
  sounded. Admittedly, carbon fiber was not all that prevalent in the
  renaissance.
  Joseph Mayes
  On 10/6/10 7:37 AM, "Edward Martin" <[1][10...@gamutstrings.com>
   wrote:
  > Thanks for the note, Marytn.  I agree with you, totally.  For the
  > most part, I have played gut exclusively for the past 18 years or
   so,
  > as the sound is so beautiful, not to mention that it _is_ the way
  > lutes sounded.
  >
  >
  > ed
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > At 02:01 AM 10/6/2010, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
  >
  >
  >>Dear Anthony,
  >>
  >>This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to
  hear
  >>something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought
   to
  >>eschew treble strings which are so very different from what
   they
  had.
  >>Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no
   reason
  to
  >>suppose their density has changed significantly since then -
   in
  short a
  >>material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for
   these
  >>strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence
  thicker (and
  >>plummier sounding), strings.
  >>
  >>O

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Mayes, Joseph]

   But, But, But, I would posit that gut trebles, played with a flat
   angle, close to the bridge with some force could sound like carbon /
   titanium played with taste.
   JM
   On 10/6/10 9:05 AM, "Martyn Hodgson" <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
   wrote:

 Well, we don't know absolutely - but it would surely be incorrect to
 say we don't have any idea whatsover.

 Certainly we know gut trebles were used and 'titanium nylon' were
 not, which is the point at issue.

 MH

 From: Mayes, Joseph <[2]ma...@rowan.edu>
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Edward Martin" <[3...@gamutstrings.com>, "Martyn Hodgson"
 <[4]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>, "Anthony Hind"
 <[5]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
 Cc: "[6]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu" <[7]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 13:04
 Just to be contrary, I should point out that we have no idea how
 lutes
 sounded. Admittedly, carbon fiber was not all that prevalent in the
 renaissance.
 Joseph Mayes
 On 10/6/10 7:37 AM, "Edward Martin" <[8...@gamutstrings.com
 <[9]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to...@gamutstrings.com
 > > wrote:
 > Thanks for the note, Marytn.  I agree with you, totally.  For the
 > most part, I have played gut exclusively for the past 18 years or
 so,
 > as the sound is so beautiful, not to mention that it _is_ the way
 > lutes sounded.
 >
 >
 > ed
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > At 02:01 AM 10/6/2010, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
 >
 >
 >>Dear Anthony,
 >>
 >>This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to
 hear
 >>something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought
 to
 >>eschew treble strings which are so very different from what
 they had.
 >>Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no
 reason to
 >>suppose their density has changed significantly since then -
 in short a
 >>material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for
 these
 >>strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence
 thicker (and
 >>plummier sounding), strings.
 >>
 >>Of course it's quite possible these particular players to
 which you
 >>refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and
 quite like
 >>the modern guitar type tone..
 >>
 >>regards
 >>
 >>M.
 >>--- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind <[10]agno3ph...@yahoo.com
 <[11]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoo.c
 om> > wrote:
 >>
 >>  From: Anthony Hind <[12]agno3ph...@yahoo.com
 <[13]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoo.c
 om> >
 >>  Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 >>  To: "Edward Martin" <[14...@gamutstrings.com
 <[15]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to...@gamutstrings.co
 m> >
 >>  Cc: [16]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
 <[17]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=l...@cs.dartmouth.
 edu>
 >>  Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24
 >>
 >>   Dear Ed and All
 >> For the reason you state below :
 >>   %
 >>> The density of carbon is so much
 >>> more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
 >>0.38
 >>> or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
 >>> certainly more sharp sounding.
 >>>
 >>> ed
 >>   %
 >>   two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted
 synthetic strings
 >>   for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost),
 and who
 >>are
 >>   ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking
 for, have
 >>   adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for
 their top
 >>   strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore,
 sweeter
 >>warmer
 >>   sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high
 density
 >>KF
 >>   carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared
 to
 >>slightly
 >>   higher density nylon.
 >>   %
 >>   They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density
 close to
 >>gut),
 

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Edward Mast]

A good discussion, this, on strings.  Valery makes such wonderful music on his 
synthetic strung lute - I wouldn't question his opinion for a moment!  I think 
it's grand that we have the choices we do.  I have three renaissance 
instruments - each sounding quite different from the others - and its a 
pleasure to switch among them.  I've had gut on one of them and will again be 
putting gut on to one of them.  The sound and the feel of gut is simply unique. 
 It's not a matter of historicity (for me); it's simply a matter of sound and 
feel.  I say viva la difference (sorry, Valery, French is not one of my 
languages) and play what suits your ear and hands.

Ned 
On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Sauvage Valéry wrote:

> 
> Seeking the sound of "old ones" is a lost battle in my opinion... Even with
> "modern" gut strings... 
> For my sake I'm just trying to play some music. Not making musical
> archeology. And many "amateurs" I think don't need to waste time and money
> playing gut strings, they should just try to play and have a good sound on
> their lutes as much as they are able to. 
> I would only play with gut strings (perhaps) If I have to record in a studio
> with good hygrometric conditions. But for a daily work... Gut is too
> fragile.
> 
> The best recital I ever heard was Paul O'Dette in Gijon (Spain) playing on
> his two Thomson's lutes, 6 and 8 courses, with Nylgut strings... 
> 
> What I would like to say is that if some people want to spend their money
> and time playing gut, it's fine for me. What makes my reaction is that I
> often heard: "whithout Gut, no salvation" and that is intolerance. In Gut I
> don't believe, let me be a gut atheist... And don't be too sectarist.
> V. 
> 
> Did someone try the new Nylgut ?
> 
> 
> -Message d'origine-
> De : lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] De la part
> de Martyn Hodgson
> Envoyé : mercredi 6 octobre 2010 17:38
> À : lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Sauvage Valéry
> Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   But they didn't have such strings. If we are trying to seek the sounds
>   heard by the Old Ones it's necessary to start from what we do know ie
>   they generally used gut trebles.
>   MH
> 
>   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Sauvage Valery  wrote:
> 
> From: Sauvage Valery 
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
> To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 14:47
> 
>   Can we imagine at the renaissance-baroque time if they had choice to
>   play
>   with nice sounding strings, but so expensive, fragile and difficult to
>   stay
>   in tune, or less expensive strings, staying in tune and lasting longer,
>   (and
>   even sounding louder and not so bad) what would have been their choice
>   ?
>   I don't know for them, I know for me (and I know some have different
>   opinion...)
>   Don't forget the quality of sound is also very much the way we pluck
>   the
>   strings (perhaps more than the material and quality of strings...)
>   So much talk about this subject. Lets just spend this time playing,
>   than
>   cutting hairs (or strings) in four (in the longer side) ;-)
>   Valery
>   -Message d'origine-
>   De : [1]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:[2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu]
>   De la part
>   de Martyn Hodgson
>   Envoye : mercredi 6 octobre 2010 15:06
>   A : Edward Martin; Anthony Hind; JosephMayes
>   Cc : [3]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
>   Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
>  Well, we don't know absolutely - but it would surely be incorrect to
>  say we don't have any idea whatsover.
>  Certainly we know gut trebles were used and 'titanium nylon' were
>   not,
>  which is the point at issue.
>  MH
>From: Mayes, Joseph <[4]ma...@rowan.edu>
>Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
>To: "Edward Martin" <[5...@gamutstrings.com>, "Martyn Hodgson"
><[6]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>, "Anthony Hind"
>   <[7]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
>Cc: "[8]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu" <[9]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
>Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 13:04
>  Just to be contrary, I should point out that we have no idea how
>   lutes
>  sounded. Admittedly, carbon fiber was not all that prevalent in the
>  renaissance.
>  Joseph Mayes
>  On 10/6/10 7:37 AM, "Edward Martin" <[1][10...@gamutstrings.com>
>   wrote:
>> Thanks for the note, Marytn.  I agree with you, t

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Martyn Hodgson]

   Dear Anthony,

   You'll see that, in fact, I restricted my observations to trebles only:
   stringing of other courses is more problematical - speculation on
   loaded gut, catlines, very high twist strings and the like have yet to
   be resolved.

   I was simply reaffirming that we do know what trebles were made of -
   gut - and that if we have any pretensions to seek the sound the Old
   Ones heard we should string the highest courses with gut (or very close
   gut substitutes).

   Martyn
   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Anthony Hind  wrote:

 From: Anthony Hind 
 Subject: Re : Re : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Martyn Hodgson" 
 Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 18:21

   Dear Martyn
I do agree with the general tendancy of what you seem to be
   saying, and indeed I will stick with my all gut stringing, and hope
   that others may follow suit. However, I am not sure how strong a point
   you are making? Are you saying that all gut-stringing is the only
   historically compatible solution in all cases (for recording and
   performance, whatever the situation), or let us say, a goal to aim at,
   whenever possible (Ed, and some others, I think, adopt the first both
   for concerts and for recordings; but Jacob Heringman and Jakob Lindberg
   differentiate the concert situation and the recording situation using
   some carbon and nylgut, I think).
   Are you implying that all synthetics (carbon, nylon, Titanium Nylon,
   etc...), and wirewounds, should be avoided, or are you differentiating
   between those that are closest to gut (carbon Meanes and nylgut trebles
   perhaps) from those that are furthest (carbon and Titanium Nylon top
   strings).
   %
   I rather understand the second, and probably would broadly in agree.
   However, I believe most string makers do not have the equipment to
   attempt to make synthetic strings that closely imitate gut, which is
   perhaps why some of those sold as pseudo-gut may be very similar to
   fishing lines.
   %
   Hopefully, Mimmo at Aquila, having an extrudor and the chemical
   knowledge to do such things, may gradually come up with good synthetic
   basses, meanes and trebles, all as close as possible to his hypotheses
   of what hsitorical gut strings may have been like. Perhaps the fishing
   community will find a use for these new polymers (and we can at last
   see the removal of wirewounds from lutes).
   %
   I still think I will stick with gut stringing, but considering many
   lutenists are holding on to their synthetics for "dear life", this
   would be a relatively good outcome for the ancient music society (I
   believe).
   Regards
   Anthony
 __

   De : Martyn Hodgson 
   A : Edward Martin ; Edward Mast
   ; alexander ; Roman Turovsky
   ; Anthony Hind 
   Cc : lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   Envoye le : Mer 6 octobre 2010, 17h 46min 59s
   Objet : Re: Re : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   Dear Anthony,

   Both  'carbon' and these 'titanium nylon' were uknown before modern
   times so both are surely to be avoided for trebles: being either
   significantly less dense (ie much thicker and 'plummier') or denser (ie
   much thinner or 'mettalic') than gut.

   Martyn
   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Anthony Hind  wrote:

 From: Anthony Hind 
 Subject: Re : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Edward Martin" , "Martyn Hodgson"
 , "Edward Mast" ,
 "alexander" , "Roman Turovsky"
 
 Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 16:36

Dear Ed
I am also an all gut user, and a strong advocate for this closest
   (Roman) to historic solution; besides it sounds better to my ears than
   any synthetics.
   We have strong arguments from DvO relating T. Satoh's experience, to
   consider that playing a particular piece of music on the stringing-type
   with which it was created gives the best results : some compositions
   that Satoh made on
   synthetic strings apparently don't work well on gut, while some he made
   on
   gut don't work on synthetics (no problem here for Roman, then when he
   plays his own compositions).
   %
   Nevertheless, many synthetics users, even those who use nylgut, often
   use nylon on the top string. This has a closer density to gut than
   Titanium nylon, but sounds worse than nylgut to my ears. I did feel
   that the Titanium nylon sounded a little better than nylon (and
   certainly better than carbon on the top).
   %
   I have not heard  the new nylgut, but think it should be much closer to
   gut, and a better solution than either Carbon, nylon or Titanium Nylon.
   I hope we will soon receive reports.
   Evidently, like yourselves, I would prefer everyone to use gut, and for
   

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Martyn Hodgson]

   You raise the very problem you seek to avoid: what is a 'good' sound.

   MH
   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Sauvage Valery  wrote:

 From: Sauvage Valery 
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 18:49

   Seeking the sound of "old ones" is a lost battle in my opinion... Even
   with
   "modern" gut strings...
   For my sake I'm just trying to play some music. Not making musical
   archeology. And many "amateurs" I think don't need to waste time and
   money
   playing gut strings, they should just try to play and have a good sound
   on
   their lutes as much as they are able to.
   I would only play with gut strings (perhaps) If I have to record in a
   studio
   with good hygrometric conditions. But for a daily work... Gut is too
   fragile.
   The best recital I ever heard was Paul O'Dette in Gijon (Spain) playing
   on
   his two Thomson's lutes, 6 and 8 courses, with Nylgut strings...
   What I would like to say is that if some people want to spend their
   money
   and time playing gut, it's fine for me. What makes my reaction is that
   I
   often heard: "whithout Gut, no salvation" and that is intolerance. In
   Gut I
   don't believe, let me be a gut atheist... And don't be too sectarist.
   V.
   Did someone try the new Nylgut ?
   -Message d'origine-
   De : [1]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:[2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu]
   De la part
   de Martyn Hodgson
   Envoye : mercredi 6 octobre 2010 17:38
   A : [3]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu; Sauvage Valery
   Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
  But they didn't have such strings. If we are trying to seek the
   sounds
  heard by the Old Ones it's necessary to start from what we do know
   ie
  they generally used gut trebles.
  MH
  --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Sauvage Valery <[4]sauvag...@orange.fr> wrote:
From: Sauvage Valery <[5]sauvag...@orange.fr>
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
To: [6]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 14:47
  Can we imagine at the renaissance-baroque time if they had choice to
  play
  with nice sounding strings, but so expensive, fragile and difficult
   to
  stay
  in tune, or less expensive strings, staying in tune and lasting
   longer,
  (and
  even sounding louder and not so bad) what would have been their
   choice
  ?
  I don't know for them, I know for me (and I know some have different
  opinion...)
  Don't forget the quality of sound is also very much the way we pluck
  the
  strings (perhaps more than the material and quality of strings...)
  So much talk about this subject. Lets just spend this time playing,
  than
  cutting hairs (or strings) in four (in the longer side) ;-)
  Valery
  -Message d'origine-
  De : [1][7]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   [mailto:[2][8]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu]
  De la part
  de Martyn Hodgson
  Envoye : mercredi 6 octobre 2010 15:06
  A : Edward Martin; Anthony Hind; JosephMayes
  Cc : [3][9]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
  Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 Well, we don't know absolutely - but it would surely be incorrect
   to
 say we don't have any idea whatsover.
 Certainly we know gut trebles were used and 'titanium nylon' were
  not,
 which is the point at issue.
 MH
   From: Mayes, Joseph <[4][10]ma...@rowan.edu>
   Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   To: "Edward Martin" <[5][11...@gamutstrings.com>, "Martyn
   Hodgson"
   <[6][12]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>, "Anthony Hind"
  <[7][13]agno3ph...@yahoo.com>
   Cc: "[8][14]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu"
   <[9][15]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
   Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 13:04
 Just to be contrary, I should point out that we have no idea how
  lutes
 sounded. Admittedly, carbon fiber was not all that prevalent in
   the
 renaissance.
 Joseph Mayes
 On 10/6/10 7:37 AM, "Edward Martin"
   <[1][10][16...@gamutstrings.com>
  wrote:
 > Thanks for the note, Marytn.  I agree with you, totally.  For
   the
 > most part, I have played gut exclusively for the past 18 years
   or
  so,
 > as the sound is so beautiful, not to mention that it _is_ the
   way
 > lutes sounded.
 >
 >
 > ed
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > At 02:01 AM 10/6/2010, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
 >
 >
 >>Dear Anthony,
 >

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Martyn Hodgson]

   Well, that's your view. But please note that these 'titanium nylon'
   strings reported by Anthony appear to be the very opposite of 'carbon'
   strings: in that they are less dense than gut and even plain nylon
   whereas 'carbon' strings are significantly denser than gut.

   MH
   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Mayes, Joseph  wrote:

 From: Mayes, Joseph 
 Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Martyn Hodgson" , "Edward Martin"
 , "Anthony Hind" 
 Cc: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" 
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 21:29

   But, But, But, I would posit that gut trebles, played with a flat
   angle, close to the bridge with some force could sound like carbon /
   titanium played with taste.
   JM
   On 10/6/10 9:05 AM, "Martyn Hodgson"  wrote:

 Well, we don't know absolutely - but it would surely be incorrect to
 say we don't have any idea whatsover.

 Certainly we know gut trebles were used and 'titanium nylon' were
     not, which is the point at issue.

 MH

 From: Mayes, Joseph 
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Edward Martin" , "Martyn Hodgson"
 , "Anthony Hind" 
 Cc: "lute@cs.dartmouth.edu" 
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 13:04
 Just to be contrary, I should point out that we have no idea how
 lutes
 sounded. Admittedly, carbon fiber was not all that prevalent in the
 renaissance.
 Joseph Mayes
 On 10/6/10 7:37 AM, "Edward Martin" http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to...@gamutstrings.com
 > > wrote:
 > Thanks for the note, Marytn.  I agree with you, totally.  For the
 > most part, I have played gut exclusively for the past 18 years or
 so,
 > as the sound is so beautiful, not to mention that it _is_ the way
 > lutes sounded.
 >
 >
 > ed
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > At 02:01 AM 10/6/2010, Martyn Hodgson wrote:
 >
 >
 >>Dear Anthony,
 >>
 >>This seems a very retrograde step. Surely if we are wishing to
 hear
 >>something even approaching how the Old Ones sounded we ought
 to
 >>eschew treble strings which are so very different from what
 they had.
 >>Clearly gut was generally used for trebles and there's no
 reason to
 >>suppose their density has changed significantly since then -
 in short a
 >>material close to gut, if not gut, ought to be our goal for
 these
 >>strings rather than significantly lower density, and hence
 thicker (and
 >>plummier sounding), strings.
 >>
 >>Of course it's quite possible these particular players to
 which you
 >>refer don't wish to try and achieve this sort of sound and
 quite like
 >>the modern guitar type tone..
 >>
     >>    regards
 >>
 >>M.
 >>--- On Tue, 5/10/10, Anthony Hind http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoo.co
 m> > wrote:
 >>
 >>  From: Anthony Hind http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=agno3ph...@yahoo.co
 m> >
 >>  Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 >>  To: "Edward Martin" http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to...@gamutstrings.com
 > >
 >>  Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 <[5]http://uk.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=l...@cs.dartmouth.e
 du>
 >>  Date: Tuesday, 5 October, 2010, 14:24
 >>
 >>   Dear Ed and All
 >> For the reason you state below :
 >>   %
 >>> The density of carbon is so much
 >>> more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
 >>0.38
 >>> or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
 >>> certainly more sharp sounding.
 >>>
 >>> ed
 >>   %
 >>   two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted
 synthetic strings
 >>   for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost),
 and who
 >>are
 >>   ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking
 for, have
 >>   adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for
 their top
 >>   strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore,
 sweeter
 >>warmer
 >>   sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high
 density
 >>KF
 >>   carb

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Martyn Hodgson]

   No problem here - what consenting adults do on their own is their own
   business. It's simply that if we are seeking a sound as close as
   possible to what the Old Ones heard we ought to replicate what is known
   of early stringing - and one thing is very clear: gut was generally
   used for trebles.

   MH


   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Edward Mast  wrote:

 From: Edward Mast 
 Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 To: "Sauvage Valery" 
 Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
 Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 22:13

   A good discussion, this, on strings.  Valery makes such wonderful music
   on his synthetic strung lute - I wouldn't question his opinion for a
   moment!  I think it's grand that we have the choices we do.  I have
   three renaissance instruments - each sounding quite different from the
   others - and its a pleasure to switch among them.  I've had gut on one
   of them and will again be putting gut on to one of them.  The sound and
   the feel of gut is simply unique.  It's not a matter of historicity
   (for me); it's simply a matter of sound and feel.  I say viva la
   difference (sorry, Valery, French is not one of my languages) and play
   what suits your ear and hands.
   Ned
   On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Sauvage Valery wrote:
   >
   > Seeking the sound of "old ones" is a lost battle in my opinion...
   Even with
   > "modern" gut strings...
   > For my sake I'm just trying to play some music. Not making musical
   > archeology. And many "amateurs" I think don't need to waste time and
   money
   > playing gut strings, they should just try to play and have a good
   sound on
   > their lutes as much as they are able to.
   > I would only play with gut strings (perhaps) If I have to record in a
   studio
   > with good hygrometric conditions. But for a daily work... Gut is too
   > fragile.
   >
   > The best recital I ever heard was Paul O'Dette in Gijon (Spain)
   playing on
   > his two Thomson's lutes, 6 and 8 courses, with Nylgut strings...
   >
   > What I would like to say is that if some people want to spend their
   money
   > and time playing gut, it's fine for me. What makes my reaction is
   that I
   > often heard: "whithout Gut, no salvation" and that is intolerance. In
   Gut I
   > don't believe, let me be a gut atheist... And don't be too sectarist.
   > V.
   >
   > Did someone try the new Nylgut ?
   >
   >
   > -Message d'origine-
   > De : [1]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   [mailto:[2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] De la part
   > de Martyn Hodgson
   > Envoye : mercredi 6 octobre 2010 17:38
   > A : [3]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu; Sauvage Valery
   > Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >   But they didn't have such strings. If we are trying to seek the
   sounds
   >   heard by the Old Ones it's necessary to start from what we do know
   ie
   >   they generally used gut trebles.
   >   MH
   >
   >   --- On Wed, 6/10/10, Sauvage Valery <[4]sauvag...@orange.fr> wrote:
   >
   > From: Sauvage Valery <[5]sauvag...@orange.fr>
   > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   > To: [6]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   > Date: Wednesday, 6 October, 2010, 14:47
   >
   >   Can we imagine at the renaissance-baroque time if they had choice
   to
   >   play
   >   with nice sounding strings, but so expensive, fragile and difficult
   to
   >   stay
   >   in tune, or less expensive strings, staying in tune and lasting
   longer,
   >   (and
   >   even sounding louder and not so bad) what would have been their
   choice
   >   ?
   >   I don't know for them, I know for me (and I know some have
   different
   >   opinion...)
   >   Don't forget the quality of sound is also very much the way we
   pluck
   >   the
   >   strings (perhaps more than the material and quality of strings...)
   >   So much talk about this subject. Lets just spend this time playing,
   >   than
   >   cutting hairs (or strings) in four (in the longer side) ;-)
   >   Valery
   >   -Message d'origine-
   >   De : [1][7]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   [mailto:[2][8]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu]
   >   De la part
   >   de Martyn Hodgson
   >   Envoye : mercredi 6 octobre 2010 15:06
   >   A : Edward Martin; Anthony Hind; JosephMayes
   >   Cc : [3][9]l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
   >   Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   >  Well, we don't know absolutely - but it would surely be
   incorrect to
   >  say we don't have any idea whatsover.
   >  Certainly we know gut trebles were used and 'titanium nylon'

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Anthony Hind]

   Dear Valery
  I know of at least one modern professional lutenist, living near
   me, who has changed to all gut (including expensive loaded basses on
   two of his Baroque lutes), this in spite of the price, just to achieve
   an improved sound, particularly because he felt wound basses just do
   not sound right.
   I frequently hear him play, and I can assure you that his sound
   signature is made up of his touch, his string choice and his choice of
   lute (and of course these are not independant). His sound is very
   different from that of other players I know, using synthetics, and
   different (to my ears) from his own sound when he used synthetics.
   Now, I am not condemning those that go the synthetic way. There are
   compromises in all choices, including when we choose all gut. I do
   hope, however, that future advances in synthetic stringing remove the
   need for wirewounds. I know many learn to live with them (seeking out
   old tarnished copper ones that are a little less bright, or Aquilas
   that have a very thick nylgut core), but I do think this is a far more
   audible problem here than with the present synthetic top strings
   (particularly now that the new Nylgut will be even closer to gut)
   Roman may be correct in saying that, in certain accoustic conditions,
   it would be very hard to hear the difference between nylgut tops and
   gut, but I think we can all hear the slightly silver-blue shimmering
   sound of metal wirewounds.
   Now, many gut users do stick with them in spite of this, so I am not
   saying it is a simple problem to resolve; but personally (and I agree
   that is my personal perception) I feel loaded strings, or gimped (as
   used by Ed) are a far better compromise.
   %
   Indeed, I do think it is good for musicians to remain open to trying
   different stringing even if, as some say, stringing might be only 5% of
   a musician's touch. I don't actually agree with that evaluation; but
   let us admit it. Wouldn't you agree that music is all in the "nuance",
   and that this 5% could be the determining element that really makes a
   performance.
   %
   Yes, I have heard superb performances from POD using wirewounds, but I
   constantly play his old LP AS76 and prefer his all gut stringing there.
   I can't say whether his recent recordings are problematic, because of
   his string choices or because of his choice of sound engineer, but I
   suspect it might be both. I admit that this is my ear and my taste, and
   I would not of course consider myself a more competent musical judge
   than POD, who made these choices, knowing what is best for his present
   style of play, and I would defend his right to make to do so. I am not
   against a wide variation in playing styles and musical goals. It may be
   a good thing that some players are more concerned with historical
   issues (as well as musicality), while others are just concerned with
   musicality (with a wide range in between these extremes).
   I remember in the late 70s superb discussions on this topic in the
   Early Music review of the time, where you could find very similar
   discussions to those we are having today.
   I think this is musically healthy, and not a waste of time, as you seem
   to suggest.We have both made our choices, no doubt, but there are young
   students reading this list, who will perhaps feel as excited as I did,
   when I first read those pioneering debates in the EMR. Let us try to
   keep up that pioneering open spirit.
   %
   Best regards
   Anthony

   Can we imagine at the renaissance-baroque time if they had choice to
   play
   with nice sounding strings, but so expensive, fragile and difficult to
   stay
   in tune, or less expensive strings, staying in tune and lasting longer,
   (and
   even sounding louder and not so bad) what would have been their choice
   ?
   I don't know for them, I know for me (and I know some have different
   opinion...)
   Don't forget the quality of sound is also very much the way we pluck
   the
   strings (perhaps more than the material and quality of strings...)
   So much talk about this subject. Lets just spend this time playing,
   than
   cutting hairs (or strings) in four (in the longer side) ;-)
   Valery
   -Message d'origine-
   De : lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] De la
   part
   de Martyn Hodgson
   Envoye : mercredi 6 octobre 2010 15:06
   A : Edward Martin; Anthony Hind; JosephMayes
   Cc : lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
   Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
 Well, we don't know absolutely - but it would surely be incorrect to
 say we don't have any idea whatsover.
 Certainly we know gut trebles were used and 'titanium nylon' were
   not,
 which is the point at issue.
 MH
   From: Mayes, Joseph 
   Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   To: &quo

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[François Pizette]

Dear Anthony, and allI was one of these two french luthenists.In fact 
Titanium nylon trebles is  my best solution to have a great tensile strengh 
and an easy to handle diameter, so a lower density is the most important 
thing. My aim is to play on my "classical" archlute by Gyorgy Lorinczi 
according with my personal choice of a 67 cm string lenght in Ensemble Music 
at modern pitch  A =440Hz with the first course doubled.A very good surprise 
is the smootheness of the contact and an easier expressivity compared with 
Perlon or Nylon.Nylgut and gut would breakCarbon would be too thin.Please 
Excuse my ...English  Original message:[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium 
Nylon?Anthony HindTue, 05 Oct 2010 06:26:03 -0700Dear Ed and All

For the reason you state below :
  %
  > The density of carbon is so much
  > more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a 0.38
  > or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
  > certainly more sharp sounding.
  >
  > ed
  %
  two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic strings
  for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost), and who are
  ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for, have
  adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for their top
  strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore, sweeter warmer
  sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high density KF
  carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to slightly
  higher density nylon.
  %
  They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close to gut),
  but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which presumably has
  been resolved with the latest version)..
  %
  In fact, they were looking for a sound similar to that which is
  achieved with titanium nylon guitar strings, but these do not exist in
  diameters suitable for the lute.
  It would seem that such a string can be found in a suitable diameter
  (0,35 to 0,50) in fishing line, under the name, Nylon Powerline
  Titanium; but there is also Asari Falcon titanium G2, which might be
  suitable.
  (for those interested these are special fishing lines for surf casting)
  %
  FranAS:ois Pizette gave the following comparative table of densities
  (which I have not checked out):
  %
  titanium nylon :1.04
  nylon: 1.12
  perlon: 1.22
  nylgut: 1.3
  gut: 1.36
  KF pvf: 1.81





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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Anthony Hind]

   Dear Franc,ois
Thank you for contributing to the discussion. Perhaps you could
   say what diameter you would need for the double top string on this
   instrument, if it was gut, and what you actually have with Titanium
   Nylon?
   Would 67cm have been the historic length for such an instrument, and if
   so, what would have been its likely historic diapason, as only gut
   would have been available at the time?
   If I understand you correctly, it is ensemble playing that has forced
   you to adopt a higher diapason than one would expect with such an
   instrument, and so to look for a string that can support this sort of
   tension?
   Best wishes
   Anthony
    Message d'origine 
   >De : "Franc,ois Pizette" 
   >A : "Lute net" 
   >Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   >Date : 07/10/2010 14:52:07 CEST
   >
   >Dear Anthony, and allI was one of these two french luthenists.In fact
   > Titanium nylon trebles is my best solution to have a great tensile
   strengh
   >
   > and an easy to handle diameter, so a lower density is the most
   important
   > thing. My aim is to play on my "classical" archlute by Gyorgy
   Lorinczi
   > according with my personal choice of a 67 cm string lenght in
   Ensemble Music
   >
   > at modern pitch A =440Hz with the first course doubled.A very good
   surprise
   >
   > is the smootheness of the contact and an easier expressivity compared
   with
   > Perlon or Nylon.Nylgut and gut would breakCarbon would be too
   thin.Please
   > Excuse my ...English Original message:[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings +
   Titanium
   >
   > Nylon?Anthony HindTue, 05 Oct 2010 06:26:03 -0700Dear Ed and All
   > For the reason you state below :
   > %
   > > The density of carbon is so much
   > > more than gut, therefore a smaller size is appropriate, around a
   0.38
   > > or so. Because of the need for a smaller diameter, the sound is
   > > certainly more sharp sounding.
   > >
   > > ed
   > %
   > two lutenists on the French list, who have adopted synthetic strings
   > for their stability, (rather than just for their low cost), and who
   are
   > ready to experiment to achieve the sound they are looking for, have
   > adopted very low density Titanium Nylon fishing lines for their top
   > strings, which they claim give a thicker, and therefore, sweeter
   warmer
   > sounding top string for the same tension, compared to high density KF
   > carbon (which they use for their Meanes) or even compared to slightly
   > higher density nylon.
   > %
   > They liked the sound of the old nylgut (with its density close to
   gut),
   > but claimed that it tended to break too easilly (which presumably has
   > been resolved with the latest version)..
   > %
   > In fact, they were looking for a sound similar to that which is
   > achieved with titanium nylon guitar strings, but these do not exist
   in
   > diameters suitable for the lute.
   > It would seem that such a string can be found in a suitable diameter
   > (0,35 to 0,50) in fishing line, under the name, Nylon Powerline
   > Titanium; but there is also Asari Falcon titanium G2, which might be
   > suitable.
   > (for those interested these are special fishing lines for surf
   casting)
   > %
   > FranAS:ois Pizette gave the following comparative table of densities
   > (which I have not checked out):
   > %
   > titanium nylon :1.04
   > nylon: 1.12
   > perlon: 1.22
   > nylgut: 1.3
   > gut: 1.36
   > KF pvf: 1.81
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > To get on or off this list see list information at
   > [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   >

   --

References

   1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Martin Shepherd]

 Dear All,

On 07/10/2010 13:52, François Pizette wrote:
Dear Anthony, and allI was one of these two french luthenists.In fact 
Titanium nylon trebles is  my best solution to have a great tensile 
strengh and an easy to handle diameter, so a lower density is the most 
important thing. My aim is to play on my "classical" archlute by 
Gyorgy Lorinczi according with my personal choice of a 67 cm string 
lenght in Ensemble Music at modern pitch  A =440Hz with the first 
course doubled.A very good surprise is the smootheness of the contact 
and an easier expressivity compared with Perlon or Nylon.Nylgut and 
gut would breakCarbon would be too thin.Please Excuse my ...English  
Original message:[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?Anthony 
HindTue, 05 Oct 2010 06:26:03 -0700
I felt I just had to comment on this.  It may well be that Titanium 
nylon is the only way that Francois can get a 67cm archlute up to G at 
a'=440, especially with a double first, but what is the point?


17th C archlutes were indeed about 67cm string length and used gut 
strings for which the highest practical pitch was about a'=392 or 
possibly lower.  It follows that the ensembles in which they played must 
have used these low pitches.  Incidentally this is one area in which 
lutenists have an important role to play in informing any debates about 
historical pitch standards - the modern standard "baroque = 415" is as 
unhistorical as anything else.


For me, the music is what is important, not the "historical accuracy" - 
so matters of tempo, phrasing and articulation are easily more important 
than whether or not you use gut strings, or what pitch you play at.   
That does not diminish my fascination with what this music *might* have 
sounded like, an enterprise which is very much concerned with things 
like pitch and string materials.


For modern performances we can use whatever instruments and materials we 
like, but we don't see too many electric guitars in early music 
ensembles because they might frighten the public - so I think there's a 
danger of dishonesty here as well.  Apparently there are some ensembles 
who are happy to use "historical-looking" instruments but are unwilling 
to play at a pitch other than 440 and as a result have to make all sorts 
of nasty compromises.  I'm not joking about the electric guitar - why 
not use it?


Best wishes to all, and sympathies to Francois who is obliged to suffer 
these indignities,


Martin



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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Anthony Hind]

   Martin
I can't resist, how about this to fit your bill, certainly no
   cheating or pretence here?
   The Orfeo, ba-rock opera - Vi ricorda
   [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKJWS9Jtbas
   It was a rehearsal for a larger performance, I believe.
   Apparently this reminded some on the French list of an Orfeo, by
   Luciano Berio, created for the opening of the Grande Halle de la
   Vilette, which included l'harmonie des PTT, a baroque orchestra, a
   group of mandoline players from Argenteuil, a rock group, and a tape
   recorder; a harpsichordist was responding to an electronic key-board
   artist.
   However, the Berio performance, it is claimed by one on the list, did
   surpass that of the Orfeo Barock Orchestra.
   Regards
   Anthony
Cette version rock me rappelle les solos d'Eurydice dans la version
   > "Orfeo
   > > II" de Luciano Berio, qui avait ete donnee lors de l'inauguration
   de la
   > > Grande Halle de la Villette en 1985... Il y avait l`a un ensemble
   > baroque,
   > > l'harmonie des PTT, l'ensemble de mandolines d'Argenteuil, un
   groupe
   > rock, a harpsichodist and an electronic keyboard.
   > > et bien sur une bande magnetique... tout le monde etait sonorise,
   le
   > public
   > > se baladait entre les groupes de musiciens qui se repondaient d'un
   > lieu `a
   > > l'autre, une ambulance et des motards casques sur scene...
   Regards
   Anthony
   ---- Message d'origine 
   >De : "Martin Shepherd" 
   >A : "Lute List" 
   >Objet : [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?
   >Date : 07/10/2010 15:55:23 CEST
   >
   > Dear All,
   >
   > On 07/10/2010 13:52, Franc,ois Pizette wrote:
   > > Dear Anthony, and allI was one of these two french luthenists.In
   fact
   > > Titanium nylon trebles is my best solution to have a great tensile
   > > strengh and an easy to handle diameter, so a lower density is the
   most
   > > important thing. My aim is to play on my "classical" archlute by
   > > Gyorgy Lorinczi according with my personal choice of a 67 cm string
   > > lenght in Ensemble Music at modern pitch A =440Hz with the first
   > > course doubled.A very good surprise is the smootheness of the
   contact
   > > and an easier expressivity compared with Perlon or Nylon.Nylgut and
   > > gut would breakCarbon would be too thin.Please Excuse my ...English
   > > Original message:[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?Anthony
   > > HindTue, 05 Oct 2010 06:26:03 -0700
   > I felt I just had to comment on this. It may well be that Titanium
   > nylon is the only way that Francois can get a 67cm archlute up to G
   at
   > a'=440, especially with a double first, but what is the point?
   >
   > 17th C archlutes were indeed about 67cm string length and used gut
   > strings for which the highest practical pitch was about a'=392 or
   > possibly lower. It follows that the ensembles in which they played
   must
   > have used these low pitches. Incidentally this is one area in which
   > lutenists have an important role to play in informing any debates
   about
   > historical pitch standards - the modern standard "baroque = 415" is
   as
   > unhistorical as anything else.
   >
   > For me, the music is what is important, not the "historical accuracy"
   -
   > so matters of tempo, phrasing and articulation are easily more
   important
   > than whether or not you use gut strings, or what pitch you play at.
   > That does not diminish my fascination with what this music *might*
   have
   > sounded like, an enterprise which is very much concerned with things
   > like pitch and string materials.
   >
   > For modern performances we can use whatever instruments and materials
   we
   > like, but we don't see too many electric guitars in early music
   > ensembles because they might frighten the public - so I think there's
   a
   > danger of dishonesty here as well. Apparently there are some
   ensembles
   > who are happy to use "historical-looking" instruments but are
   unwilling
   > to play at a pitch other than 440 and as a result have to make all
   sorts
   > of nasty compromises. I'm not joking about the electric guitar - why
   > not use it?
   >
   > Best wishes to all, and sympathies to Francois who is obliged to
   suffer
   > these indignities,
   >
   > Martin
   >
   >
   >
   > To get on or off this list see list information at
   > [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   >

   --

References

   1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKJWS9Jtbas
   2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[howard posner]

On Oct 7, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Martin Shepherd wrote:

> 17th C archlutes were indeed about 67cm string length and used gut strings 
> for which the highest practical pitch was about a'=392 or possibly lower.  It 
> follows that the ensembles in which they played must have used these low 
> pitches.  


This makes assumptions about 17th-century gut strings, and ignores surviving 
17th-century archlutes shorter than 67cm.



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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[François Pizette]

dear Martin, dear all,
In fact, accepting to play at modern pich A = 440 Hz with the maximum string
lengh possible with this pitch AND modern strings comes to that critical 
size of 67 cm for the

strings lenght.
Most of he archlute original repertoire is (just) playable with this string
lenght.
In fact the Roman archlute used with lower pitch had a greater string
lenght. but <78 cm (Harz etc...)
We don't forget the role of the string tension we prefer, and its
consequences upon stringing AND sound AND playing technique. (to have a
lower densitie enlarges the diameter spectrum for the trebles, it's the
contrary for the basses)

My compromises with  historicity and mostly having a very good instrument 
reward me with such a lot of musical pleasures, in solo or Ensemble Music 
that, from my point of view, I can't be

so innaccurate ...

This comparative Video on the Ukulele is  very useful to choose lute strings 
too. Thank's Anthony for the link...


- Original Message - 
From: "Martin Shepherd" 

To: "Lute List" 
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 3:55 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?




 Dear All,

On 07/10/2010 13:52, François Pizette wrote:
Dear Anthony, and allI was one of these two french luthenists.In fact 
Titanium nylon trebles is  my best solution to have a great tensile 
strengh and an easy to handle diameter, so a lower density is the most 
important thing. My aim is to play on my "classical" archlute by Gyorgy 
Lorinczi according with my personal choice of a 67 cm string lenght in 
Ensemble Music at modern pitch  A =440Hz with the first course doubled.A 
very good surprise is the smootheness of the contact and an easier 
expressivity compared with Perlon or Nylon.Nylgut and gut would 
breakCarbon would be too thin.Please Excuse my ...English  Original 
message:[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?Anthony HindTue, 05 
Oct 2010 06:26:03 -0700
I felt I just had to comment on this.  It may well be that Titanium nylon 
is the only way that Francois can get a 67cm archlute up to G at a'=440, 
especially with a double first, but what is the point?


17th C archlutes were indeed about 67cm string length and used gut strings 
for which the highest practical pitch was about a'=392 or possibly lower. 
It follows that the ensembles in which they played must have used these 
low pitches.  Incidentally this is one area in which lutenists have an 
important role to play in informing any debates about historical pitch 
standards - the modern standard "baroque = 415" is as unhistorical as 
anything else.


For me, the music is what is important, not the "historical accuracy" - so 
matters of tempo, phrasing and articulation are easily more important than 
whether or not you use gut strings, or what pitch you play at.   That does 
not diminish my fascination with what this music *might* have sounded 
like, an enterprise which is very much concerned with things like pitch 
and string materials.


For modern performances we can use whatever instruments and materials we 
like, but we don't see too many electric guitars in early music ensembles 
because they might frighten the public - so I think there's a danger of 
dishonesty here as well.  Apparently there are some ensembles who are 
happy to use "historical-looking" instruments but are unwilling to play at 
a pitch other than 440 and as a result have to make all sorts of nasty 
compromises.  I'm not joking about the electric guitar - why not use it?


Best wishes to all, and sympathies to Francois who is obliged to suffer 
these indignities,


Martin



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



- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin Shepherd" 

To: "Lute List" 
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 3:55 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?




 Dear All,

On 07/10/2010 13:52, François Pizette wrote:
Dear Anthony, and allI was one of these two french luthenists.In fact 
Titanium nylon trebles is  my best solution to have a great tensile 
strengh and an easy to handle diameter, so a lower density is the most 
important thing. My aim is to play on my "classical" archlute by Gyorgy 
Lorinczi according with my personal choice of a 67 cm string lenght in 
Ensemble Music at modern pitch  A =440Hz with the first course doubled.A 
very good surprise is the smootheness of the contact and an easier 
expressivity compared with Perlon or Nylon.Nylgut and gut would 
breakCarbon would be too thin.Please Excuse my ...English  Original 
message:[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?Anthony HindTue, 05 
Oct 2010 06:26:03 -0700
I felt I just had to comment on this.  It may well be that Titanium nylon 
is the only way that Francois can get a 67cm archlute up to G at a'=440, 
especially with a double first, but wha

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[Martin Shepherd]

 Howard is right - I was making assumptions about 17th C strings (that 
their breaking pitch was roughly the same as modern gut strings, for 
which issue I refer you to Mimmo) but even if their strings were much 
stronger, we still have to contend with the tension problem - just how 
tight can you stand your trebles?  Without having my string calculator 
handy, I guesstimate a tension of at least 45 Newtons for a .42mm gut 
string tuned to g' at a'=440 on a string length of 67cm - and of course 
twice that for a double string (though I think the double top string is 
a feature of the first type of archlute rather than the second (see 
below), if the surviving instruments are anything to go by).


The issue about "archlutes" with shorter string lengths is muddying the 
waters a bit - I was assuming that everyone accepted a differentiation 
(dating right back to Robert Spencer's paper in 1976) between "liuti 
attiorbati" (surviving examples from Venice c.1630s and 40s with string 
lengths as short as 58cm and presumably intended for solo music) and 
"continuo archlutes" (dates variable but somewhat later and tending to 
Roman origin like the Harz, and presumably the continuo instrument 
specified by Corelli and Handel) which I took to be the focus of 
discussion.  By the way, as I remember the Harz is roughly the size we 
were talking about (is it 69cm rather than 67?  I can't remember) rather 
than hugely bigger.


Martin

On 07/10/2010 16:53, howard posner wrote:

On Oct 7, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Martin Shepherd wrote:


17th C archlutes were indeed about 67cm string length and used gut strings for 
which the highest practical pitch was about a'=392 or possibly lower.  It 
follows that the ensembles in which they played must have used these low 
pitches.


This makes assumptions about 17th-century gut strings, and ignores surviving 
17th-century archlutes shorter than 67cm.



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

[LUTE] Re: Carbon strings + Titanium Nylon?

[howard posner]

On Oct 7, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Martin Shepherd wrote:

> The issue about "archlutes" with shorter string lengths is muddying the 
> waters a bit - I was assuming that everyone accepted a differentiation 
> (dating right back to Robert Spencer's paper in 1976) between "liuti 
> attiorbati" (surviving examples from Venice c.1630s and 40s with string 
> lengths as short as 58cm and presumably intended for solo music) and 
> "continuo archlutes" (dates variable but somewhat later and tending to Roman 
> origin like the Harz, and presumably the continuo instrument specified by 
> Corelli and Handel) which I took to be the focus of discussion. 

I was thinking about instruments in the 63-64 cm range, but I'll point out that 
if pitch in Rome was around A=390 and pitch in Venice or Mantua was around 465, 
a 56cm string length in the north would have roughly the same relationship of 
length to pitch as a 67cm instrument in Rome, so your view of what instruments 
are "continuo instruments" and what instruments are "presumablly intended for 
solo music" may be too narrow.  Who knows? 




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