[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
Dear Francesco and All: Isn't there an inventory of the Maler workshop on his death indicating several hundred lutes in various stages of construction? That would indicate a lute every few days. Perhaps his was not a typical operation and probably employed many masters and apprentices, but it does indicate that they churned them out at a pretty steady pace -- probably much faster than today's makers. No offense intended! 8^) Thanks. Well, to partial defense of our luthiers there is that we ask them all sort of veneereing and decorations while if one looks at the original lutes in the museums in most cases can see how imprecisely the rosette was cut and how much crude is sometimes the construction. We want lutes that in the past were built only for princes and earls. On the other hand they hadn't the technology that our luthiers can access... Francesco To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
Francesco Tribioli wrote: When I went to collect the new marvelous 6c that Martin Shepherd built me, he showed me that the two main chains under a Renaissance top where not parallel but slightly angled. I think that this was done to counterbalance the effect of reinforcement of the oscillating modes which have the nodes where the bars are, making different part of the top responding better to different frequencies. Dear All, Francesco is referring to an old top I showed him which had the bars not at right angles to the centreline of the soundboard but angled slightly this way and that. I said that this was because I had seen this kind of thing on old lutes and wondered if there was a reason for it, other than mere carelessness on the part of the old makers. It is, after all, very easy to glue the bars on perfectly straight by eye, so we can't explain it simply by saying that they didn't mark it out. I wondered vaguely about the oscillating nodes idea, but I'm not a physicist and I can't really judge the likelihood of that hypothesis, though I am sympathetic to the idea that a degree of randomness might be a useful characteristic in terms of discouraging the dominance of particular frequencies. On the other hand it could just be another example of the old makers working very quickly and even sloppily, taking care only for the important aspects of the work and not being (as we tend to be) obsessed by right angles and straight lines. I think of the 1592 Venere lute in Bologna - a very beautiful, decorated instrument where the pegbox is glued on at the crazy angle (i.e., the centre line of the pegbox is nowhere near parallel with the centre line of the neck). Some things just don't matter. Best wishes, Martin To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
- Original Message - From: Martin Shepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 9:02 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration? ... On the other hand it could just be another example of the old makers working very quickly and even sloppily, taking care only for the important aspects of the work and not being (as we tend to be) obsessed by right angles and straight lines. I think of the 1592 Venere lute in Bologna - a very beautiful, decorated instrument where the pegbox is glued on at the crazy angle (i.e., the centre line of the pegbox is nowhere near parallel with the centre line of the neck). Some things just don't matter. How true indeed this is! Alexander To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
... On the other hand it could just be another example of the old makers working very quickly and even sloppily, taking Just a curiosity... Has anyone an idea of how big might have been the production rate of a lute builder workshop? How much was the lute diffused in that time population? I guess it was an expensive instrument at the time, even the plainer lute, surely much more expensive than it's nowadays a common guitar... Francesco To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
Dear Francesco and All: Isn't there an inventory of the Maler workshop on his death indicating several hundred lutes in various stages of construction? That would indicate a lute every few days. Perhaps his was not a typical operation and probably employed many masters and apprentices, but it does indicate that they churned them out at a pretty steady pace -- probably much faster than today's makers. No offense intended! 8^) -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
.. after the 'waves of vibration' seem to have subsided ... On Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:06 PM David van Ooijen wrote: Beliefs and convictions ...? Just down to earth physics. ... In my simplified way of looking at the physics' world I should think the sound board must vibrate as much as possibe. Up and down that is. So if we give up and down energy to the string, the string will impart that to the sound board. In a very simplified way indeed! The only situation that I can think of when soundboards would really 'obey' us is when they are blown with a hammer. Otherwise, they've got the mind of their own. It may seem paradoxical to you but the very idea of the lute soundboard construction that it has had evolved to is to minimize such up and down movements, or at least bring them under control. And for a good reason! A typical lute soundboard has a fairly developed transverse barring structure in front of the bridge and a really clever one behind it, sort of combination of transverse (j-bar) and 'mixed' (two to four fan bars) variety. The first of the main transverse bars is set close to the front of bridge and thus, quite effectively, helps to suppress its side to side and up and down movements. Fan-bars on the treble end of the bridge act a step further to stiffening the soundboard in this area and blocking such movements even more - not for the detriment but the most optimum way of energy transmission from vibrating string to the soundboard. As somebody have already noted earlier, the purpose for the nut and the bridge is to provide a firm 'resting' or 'nodal' points for a string to vibrate: the disturbance caused by plucking of the string spreads along it, reflects from the 'nodal' points at the bridge and nut and forms a standing wave of vibration. The nut, by default, is a fairly steady 'nodal' point; the bridge is a point of compromise. It can't be as steady as the nut (there'll be no sound transmission to the soundboard) but if it's too limply the vibrating string would start to 'carry it along', in up and down movements. This may give a louder initial attack to the sound but it will start dying out rather quickly: the standing wave of vibrating string will simply dissipate from the lack of a firm 'nodal' point. This sort of phenomena can be observed on lutes with over-thinned soundboards or too lightly constructed barring or both. The sound, of the first string in particular, is rather 'rough', distorted, lacking clarity, not 'defined in pitch'; the basses are boomy but lacking sustain. There is a very clever phrase describing how soundboard parameters affect the sound (don't remember where I came across this expression and who said it but it sits in my memory ever since): Both stiffness and mass impede the sound, but mass impedes treble more than bass and stiffness impedes bass more than treble. This is exactly what barring arrangement in the bridge area of the lute does: fan-bars stiffen the soundboard at the treble end of the bridge and suppress its up and down movement (by saving the energy of vibrating string and, at the same time, optimising its transmission to the soundboard); while the j-bar curving around the bass end of the bridge gives it more freedom to vibrate in all planes. Such soundboard / bridge structure as well as its behaviour is further exemplified by the very idea of resting the little finger either on the soundboard, in close vicinity of or on the bridge itself. If only the mechanism of sound production 'relied', to some notable degree, on up and down movements of the bridge, they would inevitably be blocked by even the lightest pressure (which would also act as a mass in the quotation above). As for the rocking movements of the bridge though, they largely remain unaffected even with the little finger rested firmly on it - for the bridge is a 'nodal' point after all. It may well be that this particular barring structure was developed as a result of trial and error approach at utilising the maximum amount of vibrating energy from thick gut basses but in the later period (late 17th - early 18th century), with a possible use of open-wound (demi-file) or even close-wound bass strings began to be replaced with fan-barring type of arrangement (I mean in the area below the bridge). Anyway, this is just a thought ... --- The baroque guitar soundboard (if constructed in the authentic way, with just two bars, one above and one below the sound hole) has a noticeably larger degree of flexibility in the transverse direction (i.e. across the grain). The nearest transverse bar is much farther than that in the lute; no j-bar and fan-bars either. So its bridge's side to side and up and down movements are certainly less constricted than in case with the lute soundboard. The only way to control the soundboard (and bridge) behaviour here is mainly through appropriate thicknessing of it. Sufficient amount of rigidity
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
Thank you, Alexander, for your long explanation. No arguments here. I thought my puzzle was already solved: direction of plucking influences the start of the sound (attack), hence the marked difference in sound between parallel and perpendicular plucking. The article about technical aspects of the guitar and its tone production kindly brought to our attention by someone else on this list (I forgot who! shame on me) said it quite clearly, too. David - Original Message - From: Alexander Batov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Cc: LGS-Europe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 9:13 PM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration? ... after the 'waves of vibration' seem to have subsided ... On Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:06 PM David van Ooijen wrote: Beliefs and convictions ...? Just down to earth physics. ... In my simplified way of looking at the physics' world I should think the sound board must vibrate as much as possibe. Up and down that is. So if we give up and down energy to the string, the string will impart that to the sound board. In a very simplified way indeed! The only situation that I can think of when soundboards would really 'obey' us is when they are blown with a hammer. Otherwise, they've got the mind of their own. It may seem paradoxical to you but the very idea of the lute soundboard construction that it has had evolved to is to minimize such up and down movements, or at least bring them under control. And for a good reason! A typical lute soundboard has a fairly developed transverse barring structure in front of the bridge and a really clever one behind it, sort of combination of transverse (j-bar) and 'mixed' (two to four fan bars) variety. The first of the main transverse bars is set close to the front of bridge and thus, quite effectively, helps to suppress its side to side and up and down movements. Fan-bars on the treble end of the bridge act a step further to stiffening the soundboard in this area and blocking such movements even more - not for the detriment but the most optimum way of energy transmission from vibrating string to the soundboard. As somebody have already noted earlier, the purpose for the nut and the bridge is to provide a firm 'resting' or 'nodal' points for a string to vibrate: the disturbance caused by plucking of the string spreads along it, reflects from the 'nodal' points at the bridge and nut and forms a standing wave of vibration. The nut, by default, is a fairly steady 'nodal' point; the bridge is a point of compromise. It can't be as steady as the nut (there'll be no sound transmission to the soundboard) but if it's too limply the vibrating string would start to 'carry it along', in up and down movements. This may give a louder initial attack to the sound but it will start dying out rather quickly: the standing wave of vibrating string will simply dissipate from the lack of a firm 'nodal' point. This sort of phenomena can be observed on lutes with over-thinned soundboards or too lightly constructed barring or both. The sound, of the first string in particular, is rather 'rough', distorted, lacking clarity, not 'defined in pitch'; the basses are boomy but lacking sustain. There is a very clever phrase describing how soundboard parameters affect the sound (don't remember where I came across this expression and who said it but it sits in my memory ever since): Both stiffness and mass impede the sound, but mass impedes treble more than bass and stiffness impedes bass more than treble. This is exactly what barring arrangement in the bridge area of the lute does: fan-bars stiffen the soundboard at the treble end of the bridge and suppress its up and down movement (by saving the energy of vibrating string and, at the same time, optimising its transmission to the soundboard); while the j-bar curving around the bass end of the bridge gives it more freedom to vibrate in all planes. Such soundboard / bridge structure as well as its behaviour is further exemplified by the very idea of resting the little finger either on the soundboard, in close vicinity of or on the bridge itself. If only the mechanism of sound production 'relied', to some notable degree, on up and down movements of the bridge, they would inevitably be blocked by even the lightest pressure (which would also act as a mass in the quotation above). As for the rocking movements of the bridge though, they largely remain unaffected even with the little finger rested firmly on it - for the bridge is a 'nodal' point after all. It may well be that this particular barring structure was developed as a result of trial and error approach at utilising the maximum amount of vibrating energy from thick gut basses but in the later period (late 17th - early 18th century), with a possible use of open-wound (demi-file) or even close-wound bass
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
I feel hesitant to bring this up, because on the one hand I thought it was more or less evident and on the other hand I couldn't care less about how you make your own beautiful tone as long as you're happy with it. But it came up in a conversation, and it turned out opinions were not as united as I would except. So here goes: What direction should the strings get their maximum vibration for an optimum tone? I made an instrument from an oatmeal box, a rubber band, and tape. The sound was indeed much louder when the string travels perpedicular to the soundboard (especially the lower harmonics). I repeated the experiment with a clothepin bridge (about 18 mm high) between the string and the soundboard. With the clothespin, the volumen difference between perpendicular and parallel was much smaller. Indeed, I suspect it might be negligible if the clothespin were firmly glued to the soundboard. This result (small/negilible volumen difference) supports the importance of the rocking mechanism mentioned by an earlier contributor to this thread. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
I made an instrument from an oatmeal box, a rubber band, and tape. The sound was indeed much louder when the string travels perpedicular to the soundboard (especially the lower harmonics). I repeated the experiment with a clothepin bridge (about 18 mm high) between the string and the soundboard. Fun! I'll make somthing like that, first thing tomorrow morning. After studying lute, that is. ;-) Thanks for the idea. David To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
vibrate in front of the monitor. Pluck, pull, strike or otherwise make the string vibrate. Anyone able to get it to vibrate in a parallel plane to the soundboard? Stay with it, we just agreed that it's the initial direction of plucking that does influence the attack of the sound. The best theory was to set the bridge in motion. After that intial pluck the vibration is like you can see in front of your TV (love that experiment especially with theorbo basses, beats watching tv itself). To quote the study in guitar acoustics that Charles brought to our attention (page 17): When the string is plucked perpendicular to the top plate a strong but short tone is obtained. If the string is plucked parallel with the plate a weak but long tone is obtained. Normally the string is plucked at an angle slightly towards or away from the plate. Therefore the guitar tone can be regarded as consisting of two parts, one part resulting from the plucking perpendicular to and a second part from the plucking in parallel with the top plate. During the beginning of the tone, i.e., the initial part, vibrations from the plucking perpendicular to the plate dominate. After a while, in the late part, the vibrations in parallel take over and dominate. During the intervening time the two parts contribute equally, which results in a smooth transition from the initial part to the late part. And for those cynics who replied that such experiments have no influence on their actual playing, or were questioning their influence on mine, I am sorry to hear they are not open to improvements by experiment. Two very concrete, albeit onorthodox techniques I use to advantage and that have resulted from experiments like these: - Rest stroke (one finger is enough) for single notes in slow moving lines on the first string of a lute for a beautiful round sound. This is a different tone than the one you get from altrenating thumb-index with lots of relaxing swing in the elbow to obtain a free, singing tone, as would be more orthodox for these passages. - Especially on a baroque guitar and theorbo: slow arpeggio by placing the thumb rather flatly on the strings, pressing them all the way to the sound board (touching it) and releasing them by moving the thumbs to the next string, ending with the thumb moving over the sound board after releasing the first string. Round, evenly coloured, full-bodied chord without sharpness as we would get with a more angled pluck. On the baroque guitar you can actually see the top jump up and down. Drowns out the neigbouring theorbo. ;-) In both cases the initial pluck is as perpendicular as possible. Enough said, time to study. David David van Ooijen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidvanooijen.nl To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
could i suggest that a pick be used as its lifting of the string to produce an up and down vibration wouldn't be that much different than the back and forth vibration produced by pushing the string. plucking (up) and pushing (down) with the finger are distinctly different functions - yielding different (i would assume) results. i haven't followed all the comments but is there data from relevant accoustical experiments? would, for example, there be varying chladni patterns with the two strokes? - bill --- LGS-Europe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this description is that it doesn't even presupposes quick release of the string to provide it with the necessary impulse of energy after it's pulled sideways. And wouldn't the effect be the same if the pulling is made in the upward direction? No, that's the beauty of it. Get out your lute and try! On a lute it works even better than on a guitar. Parallel movement of the string gives almost no volume, perpendicular movement gives SOUND. Try with a theorbo extended bass for even better results, as then you'll avoid possible string rattling. And of course the release is quick: you just let go of the string at its point of maximum deviation, you cann't get a quicker release than that. It's a nice, clean, laboratory pluck. Like shooting with a bow. And it eliminates factors like nails/no nails or hard and soft fingers. direction) than parallel to it. So this greater initial, as you say, attack needed to set the bridge in motion is what indeed may help to 'kick off' the sound, subsequently making it fuller, louder etc. I see. Then perpendicular plucking is 'better', for want of a better word, because of the attack of the tone. David To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html ___ Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
The following link to the proceedings of a 1983 conference of Swedish guitar makers is quite interesting and there is a reference to the acoustic differences between plucking 'vertically' or 'in parallel' to the soundboard. A vertical 'pluck' producing a strong ,but short, tone and a parallel 'pluck produces a weaker but more sustained tone. Jonsson makes the point that the direction of pluck is normally a mixture of these two extremes and the resulting combination gives both the initial 'attack' and the ensuing 'sustain'. There is a lot of background research information including Chladni Interferograms. The whole publication is about 106 pages long! have a good read! Charles http://www.speech.kth.se/music/publications/kma/papers/kma38-ocr.pdf#search=%22 Jonsson%20Acoustics%20for%20guitar%20makers%22 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
Thank you, Charles, I'll shut up for a while and read. David - Original Message - From: Charles Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: bill kilpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Cc: LGS-Europe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:42 PM Subject: RE: [LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration? The following link to the proceedings of a 1983 conference of Swedish guitar makers is quite interesting and there is a reference to the acoustic differences between plucking 'vertically' or 'in parallel' to the soundboard. A vertical 'pluck' producing a strong ,but short, tone and a parallel 'pluck produces a weaker but more sustained tone. Jonsson makes the point that the direction of pluck is normally a mixture of these two extremes and the resulting combination gives both the initial 'attack' and the ensuing 'sustain'. There is a lot of background research information including Chladni Interferograms. The whole publication is about 106 pages long! have a good read! Charles http://www.speech.kth.se/music/publications/kma/papers/kma38-ocr.pdf#search=%22 Jonsson%20Acoustics%20for%20guitar%20makers%22 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
As a habitual lurker on this list I have read this exchange with interest and it sent me to my copy of the sixth edition (1962) of the classic book The Physics of Music by Alexander Wood. This produced an observation that is not directly relevant, but perhaps interesting nevertheless, that the way the violin bridge is constructed facilitates the transmission of vertical, rather than longitudinal vibrations to the soundboard. Those of us who haven't looked recently might need to be reminded that the violin bridge has a pattern of cutouts that give it a narrow waist (and therefore flexibility in the longitudinal direction) and two feet, one of which is above the soundpost and therefore acts as a pivot and the other of which transmits the vibrations to the soundboard (except, I suppose, if you have an authentic early violin without a soundpost). According to this account the flexible waist tends to absorb the longitudinal vibrations and the foot to transmit the vertical vibrations. Eric Crouch On 28 Aug 2006, at 11:42, Charles Browne wrote: The following link to the proceedings of a 1983 conference of Swedish guitar makers is quite interesting and there is a reference to the acoustic differences between plucking 'vertically' or 'in parallel' to the soundboard. A vertical 'pluck' producing a strong ,but short, tone and a parallel 'pluck produces a weaker but more sustained tone. Jonsson makes the point that the direction of pluck is normally a mixture of these two extremes and the resulting combination gives both the initial 'attack' and the ensuing 'sustain'. There is a lot of background research information including Chladni Interferograms. The whole publication is about 106 pages long! have a good read! Charles http://www.speech.kth.se/music/publications/kma/papers/kma38- ocr.pdf#search=%22 Jonsson%20Acoustics%20for%20guitar%20makers%22 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
Here is a little experiment you can all do right now which will help you to see the vibration of a string. Pick up a lute or guitar and hold it in front of a computer monitor so that you can see the string vibrate in front of the monitor. Pluck, pull, strike or otherwise make the string vibrate. Anyone able to get it to vibrate in a parallel plane to the soundboard? cheers, Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
you know ... that's a very intelligent observation. if you stretch a jumping rope taught and then pluck it or pull it or otherwise make contact with it, no matter what may happen initally, the rope begins to move in a circular pattern ... is this some of that there inscrutable eastern wisdom we've heard so much about out here on the farm? - bill --- Ed Durbrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is a little experiment you can all do right now which will help you to see the vibration of a string. Pick up a lute or guitar and hold it in front of a computer monitor so that you can see the string vibrate in front of the monitor. Pluck, pull, strike or otherwise make the string vibrate. Anyone able to get it to vibrate in a parallel plane to the soundboard? cheers, Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html ___ All new Yahoo! Mail The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use. - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
But if you slowly draw a bow and arrow and then release it, the arrow will travel just as fast as if you drew it quickly. The initial addressing of the string can be slow, but the stroke itself must be quick, like a mousetrap, or touching a hot stove, as one teacher once put it. Beginning practice of producing single notes to refine one's tone as an early student should be intentionally slowed down, at least the initial part of the action. Also, has anyone mentioned the fact that we're talking about TWO strings here? I think if you displace the strings sideways rather than toward the soundboard you are actually displacing one string more than the other. Also, if they are vibrating sideways, there's much more chance of them striking each other, a real possibility, for example, with the bass strings of a large lute. When contemporary luters recommended playing deeply into the mouth of the lute I think they may have been telling students to depress the strings into the soundboard. In any event, practice certainly confirms the fact that on a lute one achieves a much rounder, fuller tone by depressing the string toward the soundboard rather than dissplacing it sideways. 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: strings: direction of vibration?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:09 AM Subject: [LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration? But if you slowly draw a bow and arrow and then release it, the arrow will travel just as fast as if you drew it quickly. The initial addressing of the string can be slow, but the stroke itself must be quick, like a mousetrap, or touching a hot stove, as one teacher once put it. Beginning practice of producing single notes to refine one's tone as an early student should be intentionally slowed down, at least the initial part of the action. Also, has anyone mentioned the fact that we're talking about TWO strings here? I think if you displace the strings sideways rather than toward the soundboard you are actually displacing one string more than the other. Also, if they are vibrating sideways, there's much more chance of them striking each other, a real possibility, for example, with the bass strings of a large lute. When contemporary luters recommended playing deeply into the mouth of the lute I think they may have been telling students to depress the strings into the soundboard. In any event, practice certainly confirms the fact that on a lute one achieves a much rounder, fuller tone by depressing the string toward the soundboard rather than dissplacing it sideways. Cheers, Jim I agree with what you say. The stroke itself must be quick is the key point here, otherwise we'd just be listening to silence ): The thing is that the original question then was not correct, so instead of What direction should the strings get their maximum vibration for an optimum tone? it should perhaps be: What direction should the strings be plucked in for an optimum tone? Then we'd have no quibbles ... But to answer the original question: it doesn't matter (at least from the point of view of how the energy from vibrating string is transmitted to the bridge) which way / plan strings 'choose' to vibrate in after they've been plucked (either with the intention at production of an 'optimum tone' in mind or whatever ...). Alexander To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
Only a bowed instrument has ANY control over the direction that a free string will vibrate. An optimist says the glass is half full, a pessimist says the glass is half empty, an engineer says the container is improperly sized. Engineering in Atlanta Lou Aull -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
Alexander Batov wrote that the question should be: What direction should the strings be plucked in for an optimum tone? And what is the Just down to earth physics answer to that question? David If physics, or physicists for that matter, start to meddle with matters like that we'd better put our lutes aside :) Players who play with a beautiful sound, I suppose, just do it. So you'd better ask them how. I've answered your original question which is a kind of down to earth physics one. And if my answer doesn't satisfy you, I do apologise. Alexander To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
What direction should the strings be plucked in for an optimum tone? physics one. And if my answer doesn't satisfy you, I do apologise. Dear Alexander All these emails seem to misrepresent the intentions of the writers. Let's start afresh. I am very happy with the response you gave me. It showed me I didn't understand all of the physics involved. Flexing of the top by means of fluctuating energy imparted by the string to the bridge. Very good. Here the direction of the attack of the string doesn't matter. Very clear. That's the sustain part of the sound, I suppose. But Paul's experiment, and many players' experiences, show that the angle of plucking does influence the sound. Why? Is it the attack of the sound we influence? And how? On an instrument with a bridge on which the strings rest (guitar) I imagine the string to 'bounce' on the bridge, giving lots of energy through the bridge to the top. Parallel vibrations just make the string 'slide' over that bridge. My imagination, I know, but what of it? A parallel plucking motion gives almost no volume. Then what about all the fluctuating and flexing going on? Is the attack needed to set the bridge in motion? Cannot imagne that, somehow. David - innocently curious, but hapy with his tone most of the time nonetheless David van Ooijen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidvanooijen.nl To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
All these emails seem to misrepresent the intentions of the writers. Let's start afresh. I am very happy with the response you gave me. It showed me I didn't understand all of the physics involved. Flexing of the top by means of fluctuating energy imparted by the string to the bridge. Very good. Here the direction of the attack of the string doesn't matter. Very clear. That's the sustain part of the sound, I suppose. Thank you, David. At least this one is cleared. But Paul's experiment, and many players' experiences, show that the angle of plucking does influence the sound. I've no idea what other player's experiences or experiments were like, so can't comment on those. Unfortunately Paul's experiment doesn't involve plucking as such and so, in my view, is rather irrelevant to this discussion. In his own words: (quote) Don't play like you're used to. Just try to make the string move parallel to the soundboard. You can do it by pulling it sideways with two fingers (one over, one under the string) and releasing it. If you got it right, you'll hear almost NO sound, despite quite formidable string movement ... (end of quote). What I realise from this description is that it doesn't even presupposes quick release of the string to provide it with the necessary impulse of energy after it's pulled sideways. And wouldn't the effect be the same if the pulling is made in the upward direction? As Jim pointed out earlier, the stroke itself must be quick. If we want to carry out a successful experiment in order to investigate which way of plucking is more favourable we've got to actually imitate plucking, not trying to 'fake' it. And with this in mind lets move further. Why? Is it the attack of the sound we influence? And how? On an instrument with a bridge on which the strings rest (guitar) I imagine the string to 'bounce' on the bridge, giving lots of energy through the bridge to the top. Parallel vibrations just make the string 'slide' over that bridge. My imagination, I know, but what of it? A parallel plucking motion gives almost no volume. Then what about all the fluctuating and flexing going on? Is the attack needed to set the bridge in motion? Cannot imagne that, somehow. What I think is happening here is this: when the plucking force (or at least some part of it) is directed towards the soundboard , the initial impulse of pressure transmits via the string to the bridge and causes it to tilt forward, thus initiating its 'favourable' rocking movement (from back to front). The degree of this initial displacement would be comparably far greater in the direction perpendicular to the soundboard surface (because of the greater flexibility of the soundboard / bridge structure in this direction) than parallel to it. So this greater initial, as you say, attack needed to set the bridge in motion is what indeed may help to 'kick off' the sound, subsequently making it fuller, louder etc. Alexander To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
On Saturday 26 August 2006 15:29, you wrote: I feel hesitant to bring this up, because on the one hand I thought it was more or less evident and on the other hand I couldn't care less about how you make your own beautiful tone as long as you're happy with it. But it came up in a conversation, and it turned out opinions were not as united as I would except. So here goes: What direction should the strings get their maximum vibration for an optimum tone? Parallel to the sound board, perpendicular (at a right angle with the sound board) or something in between? My feeling is that every way of stringplucking will result in a combination of horizontal and vertical planes of vibration, but the way of plucking will give a different relation between these two. a downward pluck gives a better tone on a lute and this is correct with the physical explanation of the tone: the string vibration perpendicular to the soundboard (the downward movement) will directly move the entire soundboard. Of course the guitarpluck movement will also move the soundboard but will give a tone which is weaker and higher harmonics will also be less. The lute body works as sound cavity will amplify this coupling of string and soundboard in a certain way. Don't know exactly how this will help the downward movement compared with a guitar for example. The way how one should pluck is directly coupled with the body form of the instrument. Perhaps some lutemakers can tell something about this. taco And do people feel there is a difference between instruments with single strings and double strings? And between instruments with a bridge on which the string rest (classical guitar) and instruments where the strings are only tied to the bridge (lute)? David - not trying to start a war, just curious about people's believes and convictions David van Ooijen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidvanooijen.nl To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
This is pretty certainly true and I'd be really surprised if not true on lute too... but I think the original question was basically about religious conviction, not science :o) What direction should the strings get their maximum vibration for an optimum tone? For a guitar (sorry to mention this word) this is quite clear, as John Taylor pointed out (in his book Tone production on the classical guitar). Max tone comes from up-down vibration (towards the top and back). This is very easily tested on an actual instrument: try to pull the string perfectly sideways by quite a margin, and let it snap loose. When the direction is spot on, there's almost NO sound, while the vibration envelope is large. Now lift up a string at the nut end of the instrument, and there's a lot of sound when letting it go. On a guitar, sideways motion (although inevitable) is wasted motion. Is this the same on a lute? Paul Pleijsier To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- http://DoctorOakroot.com - Rough-edged songs on homemade GIT-tars.
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
On Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:29 PM LGS-Europe wrote: What direction should the strings get their maximum vibration for an optimum tone? Parallel to the sound board, perpendicular (at a right angle with the sound board) or something in between? This doesn't matter. The stings stretch (points of max deviation) and relax (when they come through the point of 'no vibration' - straight line) and thus transmit the vibration energy to the bridge, so that it moves in a 'rocking' way of motion (not up and down) and sends the waives of vibrations along and across the soundboard. And do people feel there is a difference between instruments with single strings and double strings? From what point of view? And between instruments with a bridge on which the string rest (classical guitar) and instruments where the strings are only tied to the bridge (lute)? In the context of your question, again this doesn't matter (in both cases, strings are _tied_ to the bridge). What mainly matters here is the distance from the string(s) to the soundboard (i.e. the larger the distance the more energy from vibrating string is transmitted to the soundboard). David - not trying to start a war, just curious about people's believes and convictions Beliefs and convictions ...? Just down to earth physics. Alexander To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
My understanding is that double, rather than single, stringing is likely to have an effect on how a course will vibrate. I say this having read, somewhere, I can't remember where, a description of the physics of the sound of the piano. Here is the piano logic applied to the lute: When you pluck the two strings simultaneously, they start vibrating together in phase. However, they quickly adjust to vibrating together, more comfortably, with a phase separation of 180 degrees i.e. they vibrate in counter- motion. And, I suppose, that they would settle down vibrating parallel to the soundboard, even if they had been initially plucked to vibrate perpendicular to the soundboard. This phenomenon of a quick shifting from 0 to 180 degrees phase shift is used to explain (in the case of the piano, anyway ) the difference between the tone of the attack and the more fluty aftersound. Miles Dempster On Aug 26, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Alexander Batov wrote: On Saturday, August 26, 2006 2:29 PM LGS-Europe wrote: What direction should the strings get their maximum vibration for an optimum tone? Parallel to the sound board, perpendicular (at a right angle with the sound board) or something in between? This doesn't matter. The stings stretch (points of max deviation) and relax (when they come through the point of 'no vibration' - straight line) and thus transmit the vibration energy to the bridge, so that it moves in a 'rocking' way of motion (not up and down) and sends the waives of vibrations along and across the soundboard. And do people feel there is a difference between instruments with single strings and double strings? From what point of view? And between instruments with a bridge on which the string rest (classical guitar) and instruments where the strings are only tied to the bridge (lute)? In the context of your question, again this doesn't matter (in both cases, strings are _tied_ to the bridge). What mainly matters here is the distance from the string(s) to the soundboard (i.e. the larger the distance the more energy from vibrating string is transmitted to the soundboard). David - not trying to start a war, just curious about people's believes and convictions Beliefs and convictions ...? Just down to earth physics. Alexander To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
A. Batov wrote: This doesn't matter. The stings stretch (points of max deviation) and relax (when they come through the point of 'no vibration' - straight line) and thus transmit the vibration energy to the bridge, so that it moves in a 'rocking' way of motion (not up and down) When I move a string exclusively sideways, there is amost NO sound (depite stretching and relaxing). How do you explain? PP To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
When I move a string sideways, there is amost NO sound (depite stretching and relaxing). How do you explain? PP Sorry, I don't quite see what you are describing here. Do you mean if you pluck the string in the direction parallel to the soundboard there is 'almost NO sound'? Alexander To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
- Original Message - From: Miles Dempster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute list Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 4:30 PM Subject: [LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration? My understanding is that double, rather than single, stringing is likely to have an effect on how a course will vibrate. I say this having read, somewhere, I can't remember where, a description of the physics of the sound of the piano. Here is the piano logic applied to the lute: Well, I'm not quite sure if you can, strictly speaking, apply piano logic to the lute. Too many differences here, starting from how strings are set into vibration mode to comparably much higher tension, differences in uniformity of the strings, exceedingly much more rigid construction of the piano v lute etc etc. When you pluck the two strings simultaneously, they start vibrating together in phase. However, they quickly adjust to vibrating together, more comfortably, with a phase separation of 180 degrees i.e. they vibrate in counter- motion. ... And, I suppose, that they would settle down vibrating parallel to the soundboard, even if they had been initially plucked to vibrate perpendicular to the soundboard. It would be best to know the exact picture how or rather which plan they'd settle to vibrate in, then we know ... Perhaps there is such information already (shouldn't be that difficult to obtain with laser beam technology). This phenomenon of a quick shifting from 0 to 180 degrees phase shift is used to explain (in the case of the piano, anyway ) the difference between the tone of the attack and the more fluty aftersound. I can quite agree with this. Harmonics do settle down and / or rather die out (in a stiff, high-tension piano string in particularly) and hence the more fluty, harmonically poorer sound. Alexander To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
Sorry, I don't quite see what you are describing here. Do you mean if you pluck the string in the direction parallel to the soundboard there is 'almost NO sound'? Alexander Don't play like your're used to. Just try to make the string move parallel to the soundboard. You can do it by pulling it sideways with two fingers (one over, one under the string) and releasing it. If you got it right, you'll hear almost NO sound, despite quite formidable string movement (this is on a guitar, I don't know how it is on a lute). PP To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
Duarte says, however, that a string should be plucked in such a way that it vibrates as much as possible parallel to the sound board of the instrument Did he say so, funny, because he criticised Sor for saying just the same thing. He added: people can do the right thing while believing they're doing something different, or something in that vein. PP In my simplified way of looking at the physics' world I should think the sound board must vibrate as much as possibe. Up and down that is. So if we give up and down energy to the string, the string will impart that to the sound board. That's where a bridge on which the strings rests (guitar) comes into play: a string 'bouning' on a bridge will give more energy to the sound board than a string 'sliding' on that bridge . But what do I know about physics? Perhaps a plucked string will very quickly vibrate in all directions alike, so it doesn't matter in what direction we pluck it initially? Or perhaps the sound board wants to flex in all directions, not just up and down? So hence my question. David David van Ooijen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.davidvanooijen.nl To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
On Aug 26, 2006, at 3:06 PM, LGS-Europe wrote: ...a string plucked parallel to the sound board will only make the string vibrate without setting the sound board into action: boring no-sound! But a string plucked at right angles with the sound board will give a full (and satisfying) tone because the sound board is happily vibrating along In order to play a rest-stroke on guitar, don't you have to pluck the string parallel to the soundboard? I don't recall ever getting no- sound from doing that! David R [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rastallmusic.com -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
Don't play like your're used to.
You mean I'd better aim at producing no sound while playing?
Just try to make the string move parallel
to the soundboard. You can do it by pulling it sideways with two fingers
(one over, one under the string) and releasing it. If you got it right,
you'll hear almost NO sound, despite quite formidable string movement
(this
is on a guitar, I don't know how it is on a lute).
If you slowly dip your finger in water there'll be no wave formation, if you
slowly depress the drum skin and then release, there'll be no sound too ...
I thought we are discussing different ways of sound production by actually
plucking the string either more parallel to the soundboard or towards it and
the
resulting effect on the sound spectrum ... not ticks of trying to pluck with
no sound ):{
Alexander
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: strings: direction of vibration?
I would say that the direction of the plucking should be almost irrelevant. The bridge represents a node of the wave while the antinodes (where the mass of the string moves) is in the middle of the string (if you are not playing harmonics otherwise there are more nodes and antinodes but always a node at the bridge and one at the nut). So there shouldn't be a relevant effect due to the orientation of the plan in which the strings vibrates because at the bridge there is no transversal string movement, in the ideal case. So, what does actually make the sound? The way the pull of the string on the bridge changes when the string vibrates and the way the top and the bridge react to it. When vibrating, in the instant when the string is stressed (in a curved shape to say so) there is the maximum pull on the bridge, in the instant when it's straight it's again in the equilibrium position and the pull is the same pull of the string at rest. Of course the picture is much more complicated as the string envelope is not a simple sinusoid but the sum of the many sinusoids, which are the harmonics, that produces the timbre of the instrument. As anyone knows one can control the power spectrum of the harmonics plucking the strings in different positions with respect to the bridge. If the top was perfectly rigid you wouldn't hear any relevant sound, just the sound produced by the turbulence produced in the air by the moving string. On the contrary the whole which consists of the bridge, the top and the chains is a complex system of springs and masses. Simplifying, one can consider the top as a foil of some uniform and elastic material. At some height from the top there is the bridge hole where the string is tied. In rest conditions the string pulls the top of the bridge which tends to rotate toward the nut to ease the pull. This is very important. If the hole was done just over the top the bridge would not rotate. There wouldn't be a significant torque but only a pull parallel to the top which couldn't create any oscillation in the top itself. The higher the holes over the top the higher is the torque which the strings apply to the bridge. To counteract this torque the top bends because it's solidly glued to the bridge. You can easily see on your lutes that the part of the top which is in front of the bridge is a little bit curved inside the lute and the contrary is for the part of the top behind the bridge. When you remove the strings the top tends to go back in a plane shape. This is one of the reason for which is advisable to change one string at once, that is to maintain the top under a constant tension. Well, you have got the picture: when the strings vibrate, the torque it applies to the bridge changes periodically and so the top curves more or less to counteract the extra torque. The weight of the bridge is important too as it's a moving mass which interacts with the oscillations of the top. Also the rotation of the bridge interacts with the string itself being a movable point instead of a fixed one as the nut is. The pull of the string is very important. If one uses strings too heavy for the thickness of the top, the bend of the top is so strong that the amplitude of the oscillation is smaller: the bridge has not enough freedom to oscillate. The sound decays soon and it's percussive. If the strings are too light on the contrary there is not enough strength involved and you get a too weak even if resonating sound. Of course there is a quite ample range between the two extremes. The chains are very important not only to avoid the collapse of the top but mostly to modulate the way the top oscillates. In fact to make the top more rigid against the torque applied by the bridge the chains should be parallel to the strings but they are on the contrary almost all perpendicular to the strings and perpendicular to the oscillations mode of the top. Just a few chains near the bridge are shaped differently. The other chains are weights which makes more difficult to the top to oscillate where they are, so they let the oscillation modes which have the nodes in correspondence of their position to resonate freely and dump the modes which have the antinodes there. Also they add mass to the top and so probably prolongs the oscillation which otherwise would be dumped soon. When I went to collect the new marvelous 6c that Martin Shepherd built me, he showed me that the two main chains under a Renaissance top where not parallel but slightly angled. I think that this was done to counterbalance the effect of reinforcement of the oscillating modes which have the nodes where the bars are, making different part of the top responding better to different frequencies. Said this (I hope it isn't just a mountain of baloney 8^))), I think there is actually a difference if one plucks inside the lute or semi parallel to the top, but I think it has more to do with the attack of the finger to the strings, the
