Re: Built-in action?
Michael, Andy has come up with a wonderful quote, and quite relevant to this discussion (in which I'm a total amateur). But you do raise the point as to why our modern scholars didn't bring this up at the beginning of the thread. There I separate from you, you seem to believe there are scholars. With all due respect for the academy, and the study involved, there is yet the matter of practicality. The scholar isn't necessarily the antiquarian, he also should be the student of the modern materials (and the one who understands why the old boys picked, and used, what they had to work with). The real scholar understands the time and place and purpose, the historian may (but not always, if he is good) a descriptor of the past. We made it to the moon on a space ship using the laws of physics as proposed by Newton, but the materials that were developed more recently. Newton's laws have been shown to be inaccurate at very high speeds, as in Einsteinian relativity, and the further work of Bohr, Hawkins and others. But they were quite adequate for the trip to the moon. In a similar sense the lutenists of many years ago might have been quite happy to have the technology of finely defined gut fret levels that are available to us today. I've always felt that Columbus would have preferred a steamship to the old galleon, had he had the availability. Would the old lutenists really have faught the pegs, had they had tuning machines. I'm not sure, and the lute I'm making will have pegs. But perhaps we worship a past that would have been more practical had they the opportunity. Best, Jon To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
We take it more or less for granted that the reason so many ivory or ebony lutes have survived is because of their price, rarity and decorative qualities, rather than because they were common in the past. I wonder whether yew comes into the same category (though it is undoubtedly a better material for the job than ivory or ebony). From reading DAS History of the lute I get the impression that Yew was very common, if not the most common for lutes. In the inventory Magno Diafaberker it lists... 140 lutes of yew and maple, 100 ordinary lutes, 110 lutes of yew and other, 10 lutes of alternating sandalwood and ivory, 4 lutes of ivory, on and on. Also, it lists by far, much more yew rib material than any other. 8800 yew ribs to be exact. In the inventory of Fugger, it shows that he collected more lutes made of ebony, ivory, and other exotic woods, rather than the common lutes made of yew. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Martin Shepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 2:52 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Dear Chad and All, The question of what effect different woods have on lute tone is one which I am often asked but I don't have any easy answers. But I just wanted to say something about yew. Some modern makers are convinced that lutemakers started to use yew because it was simply the ideal material, even though it was often difficult to get. There is no doubt it is an excellent material for lute backs, but I wonder whether its main importance was decorative. Nearly all of the old yew lutes are multi-rib instruments where the use of heart/sap yew gives a wonderfully stripey appearance - the lutes look almost as though they have twice as many ribs as they actually have. I just wonder whether this wood was prized because it was rare and beautiful, rather than because it was better acoustically than anything else? I can't find the source at the moment, but there is a letter from a lutemaker complaining that he could only get enough yew to make three or four lutes a year - so what did he make the other 996 lutes out of? We take it more or less for granted that the reason so many ivory or ebony lutes have survived is because of their price, rarity and decorative qualities, rather than because they were common in the past. I wonder whether yew comes into the same category (though it is undoubtedly a better material for the job than ivory or ebony). Best wishes, Martin Chad McAnally wrote: Michael, Fleta was a really interesting chap. Years ago I had chance to play a colleague's Fleta, it almost played itself to was so co-operative!!! In lutes, I've read that 1.) the harder the wood the ribs are made of, the louder the lute, and 2.) towards the end of the 16th century makers started to use Yew for the ribs, simply because large amounts of it had been freed up from military uses. It seems that the use of woods like ebony increased as well. Were these makers looking for more forward projection in their instruments Or was it just a matter of having new exotic materials to experiment with? ( or both? ) Imagine the advertisements: New for 1587 Ebony and Snakewood 7 course models!!! Chad Original Message - From: Michael Thamesmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lutemailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu ; Chad McAnallymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 6:15 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets I've built both harps and guitars and it seems less important what the back and sides are made of versus how they are made;( within reasonI wouldn't make guitar sides of delrin or concrete!) I.e. that they are of the right thickness to resonate and still be strong enough to support to the soundboard seems the real key. Chad Chad, I second that emotion. Each wood contributes to the tone in one way or another. But who can really say one is better than the other. Maple makes great guitars and lutes, as does ebony or rosewood. Lacote, thought so little of the effect of the back and sides that he just used pine, with a veneer over it. Fleta, actually made his own plywood from rosewood and spruce, for the back, and sides, and used this on what he called his international models, to prevent cracking of the back. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.comhttp://www.thamesclassicalguitars.com/ - Original Message - From: Chad McAnally [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edumailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 10:50 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Hi Tony, -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Your certainly welcome, Alain, Chad - Original Message - From: Alain Veylitmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chad McAnallymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:25 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Thank you, Chad, Alain Chad McAnally wrote: Alain, There are several ways of tuning a sitar; this page is far more concise than I could be. http://www.silverbushmusic.com/sitartuning.htmlhttp://www.silverbushmusic.com/sitartuning.htmlhttp://www.silverbushmusic.com/sitartuning.html For further information on the general North Indian classical tradition check out http://www.buckinghammusic.com/tall.hthttp://www.buckinghammusic.com/tall.hthttp://www.buckinghammusic.com/tall.hthttp://www.buckinghammusic.com/tall.ht It has a picture of my friend Shubhendraji who taught me much about the nature of music and life. Enjoy, Chad - Original Message - From: Alain Veylitmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chad McAnallymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lutemailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edumailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 2:37 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets How's a sitar tuned? Alain Chad McAnally wrote: Hi Tony, It's strange, I sent this to the list a few days ago and it suddenly popped up. Maybe my server is acting up again. I'm not sure how old the idea of adding that extra gourd to the sitar neck is but it probably came from much older Indian instruments such as the Rudra Vina which has two resonators. My old Hemen sitar really did benefit from that upper gourd, particularly in the Bass and in the overall presence of tone, and it does make the instrument easier to balance. As to lutes and guitars, as Michael Thames put it earlier I've always told guitarist's that the neck can make or break an instrument. I would definitely trust his experience on that matter. The barring is also critically important, given that it not only contributes to the function of the soundboard but greatly to it's stability. I've built both harps and guitars and it seems less important what the back and sides are made of versus how they are made;( ...within reasonI wouldn't make guitar sides of delrin or concrete!) I.e. that they are of the right thickness to resonate and still be strong enough to support to the soundboard seems the real key. Chad - Original Message - From: Tony Chalkleymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lutemailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edumailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edumailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edumailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:51 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end would cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate up and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and back (relative to the bridge). Dear Sean and Chad, I didn't take in the original message well enough to reply - I was taught (in other words, I have no personal opinion on the matter), that the material and build of a guitar neck is far more important than those of the back and ribs of the instrument, in terms of tone production. This would support what you are saying. As far as the upper gourd on a sitar is concerned, I have recently read that it is a relatively recent affair and of little value - the upside of this is that I have decided not to try and add one to mine - I couldn't sork out how to do it easily. Yours, Tony To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.htmlhttp://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.htmlhttp://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.htmlhttp://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.htmlhttp://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.htmlhttp://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.htmlhttp://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.htmlhttp://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- -- --
Fw: Built-in action? Double frets
It was amazing how the sound opened up when I released my fore-arm grip on it! Absolutely. This has been my experience with not only the lute but with other string instruments as well. And the soundboard is not the only part of the instrument that vibrates when a string is plucked. My first guitar teacher always told me to not lean too much on the instrument with either limbs or body and give some breathing room between me and the back. He was on to something. So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end would cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate up and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and back (relative to the bridge). I suspect you are right, but I don't know enough of the physics here, perhaps some one else on the list could give us a clear answer to that. I do know there are number of string instruments from India such the sitar and the rudra vina that capitalize on the energy the string imparts to the fret; they that actually have semi hollowed out necks and extra resonators such as gourds attached to the peg end of the instrument. Pure speculation, mind you. And I appreciate the irony of learning about greater volume from a clavichordist ;^) An irony not lost on me either but perhaps the collective speculation of the folks on this list will help us all be better informed players. I know I'm buying more fretgut Chad - Original Message - From: Sean Smithmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lutelistmailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:09 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Interesting idea, Chad. I had always thought the energy of the string was transmitted to the body through the bridge but it makes sense that some energy must go to the stopping fret as well. There is the view that the lute should be held as loosely as possible and a lesson with Ronn MacFarlane showed that when the lute is minimally supported by, say, its lower edge, only slightly resting against the chest and the right arm barely touching, it creates a much larger, fuller sound --something that Jacob Heringmann and others strongly advocate, too. For the longest time I didn't understand where the extra volume was coming from (maybe the back vibrating more freely from the volume of air?). It was amazing how the sound opened up when I released my fore-arm grip on it! So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end would cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate up and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and back (relative to the bridge). Pure speculation, mind you. And I appreciate the irony of learning about greater volume from a clavichordist ;^) Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end would cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate up and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and back (relative to the bridge). Dear Sean and Chad, I didn't take in the original message well enough to reply - I was taught (in other words, I have no personal opinion on the matter), that the material and build of a guitar neck is far more important than those of the back and ribs of the instrument, in terms of tone production. This would support what you are saying. As far as the upper gourd on a sitar is concerned, I have recently read that it is a relatively recent affair and of little value - the upside of this is that I have decided not to try and add one to mine - I couldn't sork out how to do it easily. Yours, Tony To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Hi Tony, It's strange, I sent this to the list a few days ago and it suddenly popped up. Maybe my server is acting up again. I'm not sure how old the idea of adding that extra gourd to the sitar neck is but it probably came from much older Indian instruments such as the Rudra Vina which has two resonators. My old Hemen sitar really did benefit from that upper gourd, particularly in the Bass and in the overall presence of tone, and it does make the instrument easier to balance. As to lutes and guitars, as Michael Thames put it earlier I've always told guitarist's that the neck can make or break an instrument. I would definitely trust his experience on that matter. The barring is also critically important, given that it not only contributes to the function of the soundboard but greatly to it's stability. I've built both harps and guitars and it seems less important what the back and sides are made of versus how they are made;( within reasonI wouldn't make guitar sides of delrin or concrete!) I.e. that they are of the right thickness to resonate and still be strong enough to support to the soundboard seems the real key. Chad - Original Message - From: Tony Chalkleymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lutemailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:51 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end would cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate up and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and back (relative to the bridge). Dear Sean and Chad, I didn't take in the original message well enough to reply - I was taught (in other words, I have no personal opinion on the matter), that the material and build of a guitar neck is far more important than those of the back and ribs of the instrument, in terms of tone production. This would support what you are saying. As far as the upper gourd on a sitar is concerned, I have recently read that it is a relatively recent affair and of little value - the upside of this is that I have decided not to try and add one to mine - I couldn't sork out how to do it easily. Yours, Tony To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.htmlhttp://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Michael and everyone, Diagrams for tying frets can be found on David Van Edwards's site - the double fret knot is toward the bottom of the page. David's illustration is based on Mace's description of the process. http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/fretknot.htm Better yet, find a viol player to demonstrate. By the way, Mace's discussion of fret tying gave me the impression that the single fret was something of a new innovation at that time. Does anyone know of other writings that would either support or contradict this? -Carl Carl Donsbach http://www.unm.edu/~ctdbach/Lute/Building_Lute/Building_Lute_Main.htm Confounded eyeglasses... where'd I leave 'em this time...?8:-{ --On Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:16 PM -0600 Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just took some gut about .90mm and sanded down a length long enough to be the double side in back ( towards the nut). In about 1 minute, I was able to sand off .10 mm. From .90mm down to .80mm. The sanding changes the color of the gut so you can see where you've thinned it down. I used 220 emery paper, or as we call it in the lute world. 220 grit shark's skin. It's nice because you don't damage the gut in anyway. I mean as far as delaminating the string. or the twist etc. I folded over the paper made a cradle with it, and sanded evenly the whole diameter of the string. Now, if only I can figure out how to tie a double fret! Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Chad McAnally [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:30 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Although Thomas Mace recommends single frets he only gives instructions for tying double ones: This quote taken from David Van Edward's excellent site. So in some strange way, this quote might confirm that indeed, most lute paintings do in fact show single frets. Although I'm now sold on double frets, and not having a copy of Thomas Mace's book ( which I shall order as soon as possible) I am now again confused. What's up! Thanks to everyone who sent me fret tying diagrams. David Brown, Bernd , and Carl. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Carl Donsbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:36 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Michael and everyone, Diagrams for tying frets can be found on David Van Edwards's site - the double fret knot is toward the bottom of the page. David's illustration is based on Mace's description of the process. http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/fretknot.htm Better yet, find a viol player to demonstrate. By the way, Mace's discussion of fret tying gave me the impression that the single fret was something of a new innovation at that time. Does anyone know of other writings that would either support or contradict this? -Carl Carl Donsbach http://www.unm.edu/~ctdbach/Lute/Building_Lute/Building_Lute_Main.htm Confounded eyeglasses... where'd I leave 'em this time...?8:-{ --On Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:16 PM -0600 Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just took some gut about .90mm and sanded down a length long enough to be the double side in back ( towards the nut). In about 1 minute, I was able to sand off .10 mm. From .90mm down to .80mm. The sanding changes the color of the gut so you can see where you've thinned it down. I used 220 emery paper, or as we call it in the lute world. 220 grit shark's skin. It's nice because you don't damage the gut in anyway. I mean as far as delaminating the string. or the twist etc. I folded over the paper made a cradle with it, and sanded evenly the whole diameter of the string. Now, if only I can figure out how to tie a double fret! Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Chad McAnally [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:30 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Peter Weiler wrote: I do have a lot of trouble getting double fret knots tight for anything greater than, say, 0.80 mm fretgut though. -Peter Er - what did I say Dowland's biggest fret diameter was? Best to all, Martin To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Martin, I use quite a large diameter double loop fret on bigger lutes, for example the first fret on my large theorbo is around 1.2mm, and have no problem at all in tightening it up. The key is to use the proper knot and leave sufficient length to grasp well - in short the double loop fret knot described by the 'Old Ones' (also shown in LS publications and elsewhere). Smaller lutes require smaller frets. rgds Martyn Martin Shepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Weiler wrote: I do have a lot of trouble getting double fret knots tight for anything greater than, say, 0.80 mm fretgut though. -Peter Er - what did I say Dowland's biggest fret diameter was? Best to all, Martin To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html - Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail --
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Hi Michael, I've used Spanish Cedar for harp backs. It is a lovely wood and smells fantastic. Same effects on tone in harps as you mentioned with Hon. Mahogany vs. Spanish Cedar in guitar necks. Likewise, In the past 30 years it was almost a standard to make early harps, especially reproductions of Gaelic brass strung harps, entirely of hard maple or sycamore. More recently upon further research on the Irish antiques the wood of choice for the soundboard and box turned on to be willow. Black willow is similar to Sp. Cedar in density and surprisingly strong for it's weight, and its volume and clarity is much greater than maple. The greater mass of the clavichord tangents made sense to me too; just like a lute, clavichord bridges raise in height and width towards the bass end. It's just one more bit of proof that the ancients knew what they were doing and built these things to achieve the results they wanted. I also will inlay a piece of hardwood inside the neck not to reinforce it, but to kill the natural frequency in the neck, so it won't color the tone. Wow, I would have never guessed that, but this too makes perfect sense. It will interesting to see if I can get the same results you are seeing and hearing with the double frets. Going to order more fretgut in the morning! Chad - Original Message - From: Michael Thamesmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lutemailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu ; Chad McAnallymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:17 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets I just finished reading some Dalsa in Italian Tab. then tried to read some French tab. Man, my mind stopped working for a moment. So I checked my Email. Chad, Interesting you picked up on this as well. 20 or so years ago, I quit using Honduran Mahogany, for necks in exchange for a lighter wood called Spanish cedar ( cedro). H. Mahogany is the typical wood Hauser used, and the Spanish cedar is typical for Spanish guitars. H. Mahogany is heavier, and gave the guitars more sustain, especially in the bass, but less warmth and volume. S. Cedar gave the guitars more warmth, and openness in the treble, more volume, but less sustain, and less clarity in the bass. I've always told guitarist's that the neck can make or break an instrument. Also, if you make a thin neck you get more warmth, ( up to a point) and the opposite for a thicker neck. I also will inlay a piece of hardwood inside the neck not to reinforce it, but to kill the natural frequency in the neck, so it won't color the tone. Chad as you mentioned adding heaver tangents, for the bass, this makes perfect sense, as the bass needs damping which is mass. This same principle can be seen on lute bridges. On the bass side of the bridge, it is higher, and wider adding mass, but on the treble side it is lower, and more narrow creating lightness, as well as stiffness. Anyway, in the next few days I'm making a neck for a baroque lute, and can't decide on going with linden (light ) or Spanish cedar ( a little heaver) for the core. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.comhttp://www.thamesclassicalguitars.com/ - Original Message - From: Chad McAnally [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edumailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:06 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Michael Thames wrote: If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and half goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the frets contribute would be silly. Now I know this is a lute list, not an early keyboard list, but I have come upon a direct parallel that may be of interest to lutenist and luthiers alike. The same phenomenon mentioned above by Michael was recently has been noted also on clavichords in an article by Martin Skowroneck in Clavichord Intenational ( Vol 9 #1 May 2005) ; Half the energy of the strings goes into the bridge and half into the tangents, equivalent to the frets of a clavichord. It appear the some of the old builders realized this and made their tangents progressively heavier toward the bass end of the instrument, or tried to concentrate more the weight of the key levers closer to the tangent end, both in an effort to make the key reflect more of the energy of the string. Also critical to this was making the tangent more stable in the key than the traditional hammering in of the tangent. Some makers used addition small wooden wedges to tighten the tangent into the key to accomplish this. So, I began to experiment with all this on an instrument I'm working on. The result was not only a slightly louder clavichord but the tone was totally different. Very much like Michael's description of the impact the double fretting has on Baroque lute tone
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
I just took some gut about .90mm and sanded down a length long enough to be the double side in back ( towards the nut). In about 1 minute, I was able to sand off .10 mm. From .90mm down to .80mm. The sanding changes the color of the gut so you can see where you've thinned it down. I used 220 emery paper, or as we call it in the lute world. 220 grit shark's skin. It's nice because you don't damage the gut in anyway. I mean as far as delaminating the string. or the twist etc. I folded over the paper made a cradle with it, and sanded evenly the whole diameter of the string. Now, if only I can figure out how to tie a double fret! Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Chad McAnally [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:30 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Hi Michael, I've used Spanish Cedar for harp backs. It is a lovely wood and smells fantastic. Same effects on tone in harps as you mentioned with Hon. Mahogany vs. Spanish Cedar in guitar necks. Likewise, In the past 30 years it was almost a standard to make early harps, especially reproductions of Gaelic brass strung harps, entirely of hard maple or sycamore. More recently upon further research on the Irish antiques the wood of choice for the soundboard and box turned on to be willow. Black willow is similar to Sp. Cedar in density and surprisingly strong for it's weight, and its volume and clarity is much greater than maple. The greater mass of the clavichord tangents made sense to me too; just like a lute, clavichord bridges raise in height and width towards the bass end. It's just one more bit of proof that the ancients knew what they were doing and built these things to achieve the results they wanted. I also will inlay a piece of hardwood inside the neck not to reinforce it, but to kill the natural frequency in the neck, so it won't color the tone. Wow, I would have never guessed that, but this too makes perfect sense. It will interesting to see if I can get the same results you are seeing and hearing with the double frets. Going to order more fretgut in the morning! Chad - Original Message - From: Michael Thamesmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lutemailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu ; Chad McAnallymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:17 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets I just finished reading some Dalsa in Italian Tab. then tried to read some French tab. Man, my mind stopped working for a moment. So I checked my Email. Chad, Interesting you picked up on this as well. 20 or so years ago, I quit using Honduran Mahogany, for necks in exchange for a lighter wood called Spanish cedar ( cedro). H. Mahogany is the typical wood Hauser used, and the Spanish cedar is typical for Spanish guitars. H. Mahogany is heavier, and gave the guitars more sustain, especially in the bass, but less warmth and volume. S. Cedar gave the guitars more warmth, and openness in the treble, more volume, but less sustain, and less clarity in the bass. I've always told guitarist's that the neck can make or break an instrument. Also, if you make a thin neck you get more warmth, ( up to a point) and the opposite for a thicker neck. I also will inlay a piece of hardwood inside the neck not to reinforce it, but to kill the natural frequency in the neck, so it won't color the tone. Chad as you mentioned adding heaver tangents, for the bass, this makes perfect sense, as the bass needs damping which is mass. This same principle can be seen on lute bridges. On the bass side of the bridge, it is higher, and wider adding mass, but on the treble side it is lower, and more narrow creating lightness, as well as stiffness. Anyway, in the next few days I'm making a neck for a baroque lute, and can't decide on going with linden (light ) or Spanish cedar ( a little heaver) for the core. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.comhttp://www.thamesclassicalguitars.com/ - Original Message - From: Chad McAnally [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edumailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:06 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Michael Thames wrote: If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and half goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the frets contribute would be silly. Now I know this is a lute list, not an early keyboard list, but I have come upon a direct parallel that may be of interest to lutenist and luthiers alike. The same phenomenon mentioned above by Michael was recently has been noted also on clavichords in an article by Martin Skowroneck in Clavichord Intenational ( Vol 9 #1 May 2005) ; Half
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Dear Martyn, Sean, and Peter, and all, Last night I added another fret to each of the frets on my 6 course lute, in the manner that Sean had suggested, with smaller diameter gut behind it, as I was unsure as to how much the fret wear, would affect me getting the right mix with the existing frets. Well, the result was phenomenal, not only in the playability, but sound as well. I guess these old guys new something after all. Besides the feeling of solidity, and sure footedness, the lute immediately had more sustain, not in a bad way, but just enough to even out the balance everywhere. It also eliminated, what I consider, a not musical transient attack sound, and gave it a crystalline round fundamental attack. I think in the way, that Peter was describing, the guitar like effect, this is important for the lute, as really, the only thing that projects, is the attack of the string. If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and half goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the frets contribute would be silly. This was so amazing that I then did it to my baroque lute, with the same astonishing results. I did get a little sizzle on the second course second fret, but I realize this is probably the most fretted note on the Baroque lute, and the fret wore there more than other places. It makes me think that when the BIG BOYS have tried it, they didn't have time, concerts etc. to let the sizzle fade away perhaps? When I have tried to turn on, some of my stubborn guitar friends, to the Baroque lute, they to my horror, declare that the baroque lute sounds like a banjo. These double frets, transform this, thin high partial banjo like sound, into a full bodied rounded sound, much easier on the ear of the non initiated, and more in line with what guitarists consider a good tone. I have yet to try the single double looped system,,which I will, but If professionals who don't have the time perhaps Sean's method would be something one could try in a matter of an hour or so. I will put double frets on all my lutes from now on. Thanks again, for the dialogue, and expertise, and your patience with my journey Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Sean Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lutelist lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 8:50 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Stability is good word. Somehow, too, it requires less effort. W/ a single fret you feel the string bend behind the fret and you want to touch bottom. I remember playing an orpharion w/ scalloped frets and it seems to take these ideas to the next level. Bending the string behind the fret would severely sharpen the metal strings as well as wear down the brass frets and that's the reasoning behind that, I suppose. Having the fret area more spread out over the string means less wear on a single point. This is good for both small diameter gut strings as well as the roped bass beasties. Only recently (March) in my fretting experiment did I switch to doubled frets for frets 5-8 and I immediately found it easier to get clean notes up there. Sean On Jun 19, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Peter Weiler wrote: I've thought about this for a good hour and I have to say it is a remarkably difficult thing to verbalize. I don't know what commercial pressures the big boys are subject to (and I don't think that's a good measure) but for the rest of us... you're right about a little less tendency to slide on the neck, but there is a certain stability or solidity to the feeling of the note being produced by fretting which is actually a bit more guitar-like. The speed with which a tone is articulated is different. There is a very precise and decisive feel to moderate-gauge double frets. I hope a few others who have better English than I will jump in here! - Peter Well I'm not proud ! So I will give them a try. Would it be safe to say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so much? What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use them thesedays. Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette, Wilson, Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them? Michael Thames -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Ha ha! My diabolical plan to inflate the third-quarter share price of fretgut manufactories is proceeding apace! Dear Martyn, Sean, and Peter, and all, Last night I added another fret to each of the frets on my 6 course lute, in the manner that Sean had suggested, with smaller diameter gut behind it, as I was unsure as to how much the fret wear, would affect me getting the right mix with the existing frets. Well, the result was phenomenal, not only in the playability, but sound as well. I guess these old guys new something after all. Besides the feeling of solidity, and sure footedness, the lute immediately had more sustain, not in a bad way, but just enough to even out the balance everywhere. It also eliminated, what I consider, a not musical transient attack sound, and gave it a crystalline round fundamental attack. I think in the way, that Peter was describing, the guitar like effect, this is important for the lute, as really, the only thing that projects, is the attack of the string. If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and half goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the frets contribute would be silly. This was so amazing that I then did it to my baroque lute, with the same astonishing results. I did get a little sizzle on the second course second fret, but I realize this is probably the most fretted note on the Baroque lute, and the fret wore there more than other places. It makes me think that when the BIG BOYS have tried it, they didn't have time, concerts etc. to let the sizzle fade away perhaps? When I have tried to turn on, some of my stubborn guitar friends, to the Baroque lute, they to my horror, declare that the baroque lute sounds like a banjo. These double frets, transform this, thin high partial banjo like sound, into a full bodied rounded sound, much easier on the ear of the non initiated, and more in line with what guitarists consider a good tone. I have yet to try the single double looped system,,which I will, but If professionals who don't have the time perhaps Sean's method would be something one could try in a matter of an hour or so. I will put double frets on all my lutes from now on. Thanks again, for the dialogue, and expertise, and your patience with my journey -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Ha ha! My diabolical plan to inflate the third-quarter share price of fretgut manufactories is proceeding apace! You've just doubled your projected profit! Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Peter Weiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 4:14 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Ha ha! My diabolical plan to inflate the third-quarter share price of fretgut manufactories is proceeding apace! Dear Martyn, Sean, and Peter, and all, Last night I added another fret to each of the frets on my 6 course lute, in the manner that Sean had suggested, with smaller diameter gut behind it, as I was unsure as to how much the fret wear, would affect me getting the right mix with the existing frets. Well, the result was phenomenal, not only in the playability, but sound as well. I guess these old guys new something after all. Besides the feeling of solidity, and sure footedness, the lute immediately had more sustain, not in a bad way, but just enough to even out the balance everywhere. It also eliminated, what I consider, a not musical transient attack sound, and gave it a crystalline round fundamental attack. I think in the way, that Peter was describing, the guitar like effect, this is important for the lute, as really, the only thing that projects, is the attack of the string. If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and half goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the frets contribute would be silly. This was so amazing that I then did it to my baroque lute, with the same astonishing results. I did get a little sizzle on the second course second fret, but I realize this is probably the most fretted note on the Baroque lute, and the fret wore there more than other places. It makes me think that when the BIG BOYS have tried it, they didn't have time, concerts etc. to let the sizzle fade away perhaps? When I have tried to turn on, some of my stubborn guitar friends, to the Baroque lute, they to my horror, declare that the baroque lute sounds like a banjo. These double frets, transform this, thin high partial banjo like sound, into a full bodied rounded sound, much easier on the ear of the non initiated, and more in line with what guitarists consider a good tone. I have yet to try the single double looped system,,which I will, but If professionals who don't have the time perhaps Sean's method would be something one could try in a matter of an hour or so. I will put double frets on all my lutes from now on. Thanks again, for the dialogue, and expertise, and your patience with my journey -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Dear Peter and All: Now this is interesting. I assume you put the slightly smaller fret on the nut side of the main fret. It makes me think of the frets on my Forrester citterns, which are brass and include a tiny wooden ramp on the nut side, which presumably keeps one from bending the note sharp when fretting a course. But this means all those elaborate formulas for tying a double fret with a single strand of gut are not applicable. It also means that if you break a fret in the middle of a performance all is not lost. Cheers, Jim Peter Weiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu om cc: Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets 06/21/2005 06:14 PM Ha ha! My diabolical plan to inflate the third-quarter share price of fretgut manufactories is proceeding apace! Dear Martyn, Sean, and Peter, and all, Last night I added another fret to each of the frets on my 6 course lute, in the manner that Sean had suggested, with smaller diameter gut behind it, as I was unsure as to how much the fret wear, would affect me getting the right mix with the existing frets. Well, the result was phenomenal, not only in the playability, but sound as well. I guess these old guys new something after all. Besides the feeling of solidity, and sure footedness, the lute immediately had more sustain, not in a bad way, but just enough to even out the balance everywhere. It also eliminated, what I consider, a not musical transient attack sound, and gave it a crystalline round fundamental attack. I think in the way, that Peter was describing, the guitar like effect, this is important for the lute, as really, the only thing that projects, is the attack of the string. If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and half goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the frets contribute would be silly. This was so amazing that I then did it to my baroque lute, with the same astonishing results. I did get a little sizzle on the second course second fret, but I realize this is probably the most fretted note on the Baroque lute, and the fret wore there more than other places. It makes me think that when the BIG BOYS have tried it, they didn't have time, concerts etc. to let the sizzle fade away perhaps? When I have tried to turn on, some of my stubborn guitar friends, to the Baroque lute, they to my horror, declare that the baroque lute sounds like a banjo. These double frets, transform this, thin high partial banjo like sound, into a full bodied rounded sound, much easier on the ear of the non initiated, and more in line with what guitarists consider a good tone. I have yet to try the single double looped system,,which I will, but If professionals who don't have the time perhaps Sean's method would be something one could try in a matter of an hour or so. I will put double frets on all my lutes from now on. Thanks again, for the dialogue, and expertise, and your patience with my journey -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
JAS wrote: But this means all those elaborate formulas for tying a double fret with a single strand of gut are not applicable. Not really; as Sean (I think) pointed out, the up-neck fret tends to be the one that takes the brunt of the wear. After a week or three of use they seem to settle in with this morphology (slightly higher on the bridge side). The effect is very small, but I think it's not imaginary. I do have a lot of trouble getting double fret knots tight for anything greater than, say, 0.80 mm fretgut though. -Peter - Original Message - From: James A Stimson To: Peter Weiler Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:29:25 -0400 Dear Peter and All: Now this is interesting. I assume you put the slightly smaller fret on the nut side of the main fret. It makes me think of the frets on my Forrester citterns, which are brass and include a tiny wooden ramp on the nut side, which presumably keeps one from bending the note sharp when fretting a course. But this means all those elaborate formulas for tying a double fret with a single strand of gut are not applicable. It also means that if you break a fret in the middle of a performance all is not lost. Cheers, Jim Peter Weiler om cc: Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets 06/21/2005 06:14 PM Ha ha! My diabolical plan to inflate the third-quarter share price of fretgut manufactories is proceeding apace! Dear Martyn, Sean, and Peter, and all, Last night I added another fret to each of the frets on my 6 course lute, in the manner that Sean had suggested, with smaller diameter gut behind it, as I was unsure as to how much the fret wear, would affect me getting the right mix with the existing frets. Well, the result was phenomenal, not only in the playability, but sound as well. I guess these old guys new something after all. Besides the feeling of solidity, and sure footedness, the lute immediately had more sustain, not in a bad way, but just enough to even out the balance everywhere. It also eliminated, what I consider, a not musical transient attack sound, and gave it a crystalline round fundamental attack. I think in the way, that Peter was describing, the guitar like effect, this is important for the lute, as really, the only thing that projects, is the attack of the string. If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and half goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the frets contribute would be silly. This was so amazing that I then did it to my baroque lute, with the same astonishing results. I did get a little sizzle on the second course second fret, but I realize this is probably the most fretted note on the Baroque lute, and the fret wore there more than other places. It makes me think that when the BIG BOYS have tried it, they didn't have time, concerts etc. to let the sizzle fade away perhaps? When I have tried to turn on, some of my stubborn guitar friends, to the Baroque lute, they to my horror, declare that the baroque lute sounds like a banjo. These double frets, transform this, thin high partial banjo like sound, into a full bodied rounded sound, much easier on the ear of the non initiated, and more in line with what guitarists consider a good tone. I have yet to try the single double looped system,,which I will, but If professionals who don't have the time perhaps Sean's method would be something one could try in a matter of an hour or so. I will put double frets on all my lutes from now on. Thanks again, for the dialogue, and expertise, and your patience with my journey -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm --
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
There are a few frets that would take a while to wear down because the are used so seldom (such as the 5th course 1st and 6th frets) that it might be better to take a gentle file to the nutside. Sean I just had the thought, that one could cut the piece of gut long enough for the double loop single fret, and calculate the length of the string that will go on the nut side and somehow pre thickness it down before you tie it on the fretborad. I don't know what the best tool would be to thickness down the gut. Maybe a real sharp scraper or single edge razor blade. Mimo might know. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Sean Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lutelist lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 6:43 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets There are a few frets that would take a while to wear down because the are used so seldom (such as the 5th course 1st and 6th frets) that it might be better to take a gentle file to the nutside. Sean On Jun 21, 2005, at 4:39 PM, Peter Weiler wrote: JAS wrote: But this means all those elaborate formulas for tying a double fret with a single strand of gut are not applicable. Not really; as Sean (I think) pointed out, the up-neck fret tends to be the one that takes the brunt of the wear. After a week or three of use they seem to settle in with this morphology (slightly higher on the bridge side). The effect is very small, but I think it's not imaginary. I do have a lot of trouble getting double fret knots tight for anything greater than, say, 0.80 mm fretgut though. -Peter - Original Message - From: James A Stimson To: Peter Weiler Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:29:25 -0400 Dear Peter and All: Now this is interesting. I assume you put the slightly smaller fret on the nut side of the main fret. It makes me think of the frets on my Forrester citterns, which are brass and include a tiny wooden ramp on the nut side, which presumably keeps one from bending the note sharp when fretting a course. But this means all those elaborate formulas for tying a double fret with a single strand of gut are not applicable. It also means that if you break a fret in the middle of a performance all is not lost. Cheers, Jim Peter Weiler om cc: Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets 06/21/2005 06:14 PM Ha ha! My diabolical plan to inflate the third-quarter share price of fretgut manufactories is proceeding apace! Dear Martyn, Sean, and Peter, and all, Last night I added another fret to each of the frets on my 6 course lute, in the manner that Sean had suggested, with smaller diameter gut behind it, as I was unsure as to how much the fret wear, would affect me getting the right mix with the existing frets. Well, the result was phenomenal, not only in the playability, but sound as well. I guess these old guys new something after all. Besides the feeling of solidity, and sure footedness, the lute immediately had more sustain, not in a bad way, but just enough to even out the balance everywhere. It also eliminated, what I consider, a not musical transient attack sound, and gave it a crystalline round fundamental attack. I think in the way, that Peter was describing, the guitar like effect, this is important for the lute, as really, the only thing that projects, is the attack of the string. If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and half goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the frets contribute would be silly. This was so amazing that I then did it to my baroque lute, with the same astonishing results. I did get a little sizzle on the second course second fret, but I realize this is probably the most fretted note on the Baroque lute, and the fret wore there more than other places. It makes me think that when the BIG BOYS have tried it, they didn't have time, concerts etc. to let the sizzle fade away perhaps? When I have tried to turn on, some of my stubborn guitar friends, to the Baroque lute, they to my horror, declare that the baroque lute sounds like a banjo. These double frets, transform this, thin high partial banjo like sound, into a full bodied rounded sound, much easier on the ear of the non initiated, and more in line with what guitarists consider a good tone. I have yet to try the single double looped system,,which I will, but If professionals who don't have the time perhaps Sean's method would be something one could try in a matter of an hour or so. I will put double frets on all my lutes from now on. Thanks again, for the dialogue, and expertise, and your patience with my journey
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Interesting idea, Chad. I had always thought the energy of the string was transmitted to the body through the bridge but it makes sense that some energy must go to the stopping fret as well. There is the view that the lute should be held as loosely as possible and a lesson with Ronn MacFarlane showed that when the lute is minimally supported by, say, its lower edge, only slightly resting against the chest and the right arm barely touching, it creates a much larger, fuller sound --something that Jacob Heringmann and others strongly advocate, too. For the longest time I didn't understand where the extra volume was coming from (maybe the back vibrating more freely from the volume of air?). It was amazing how the sound opened up when I released my fore-arm grip on it! So maybe as the fret and string have better purchase, the neck will send that energy to the body? I'm tempted to think that one end would cancel out the other but on the other hand, the bridge would vibrate up and down (relative to the bridge) while the neck would forward and back (relative to the bridge). Pure speculation, mind you. And I appreciate the irony of learning about greater volume from a clavichordist ;^) Sean On Jun 21, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Chad McAnally wrote: Michael Thames wrote: If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and half goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the frets contribute would be silly. Now I know this is a lute list, not an early keyboard list, but I have come upon a direct parallel that may be of interest to lutenist and luthiers alike. The same phenomenon mentioned above by Michael was recently has been noted also on clavichords in an article by Martin Skowroneck in Clavichord Intenational ( Vol 9 #1 May 2005) ; Half the energy of the strings goes into the bridge and half into the tangents, equivalent to the frets of a clavichord. It appear the some of the old builders realized this and made their tangents progressively heavier toward the bass end of the instrument, or tried to concentrate more the weight of the key levers closer to the tangent end, both in an effort to make the key reflect more of the energy of the string. Also critical to this was making the tangent more stable in the key than the traditional hammering in of the tangent. Some makers used addition small wooden wedges to tighten the tangent into the key to accomplish this. So, I began to experiment with all this on an instrument I'm working on. The result was not only a slightly louder clavichord but the tone was totally different. Very much like Michael's description of the impact the double fretting has on Baroque lute tone, the sustain is increased, but not so much as to muddy the instrument and the overall tone colour was rounder, much closer to the antiques in good condition I've heard and played. So, I wonder if the stability of the frets via double fretting transfers more energy to the neck resulting in a better tone or like the clavichord tangent, the double frets help reflects the motion of the string better into the air? A new puzzle for builders! Chad -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
I just finished reading some Dalsa in Italian Tab. then tried to read some French tab. Man, my mind stopped working for a moment. So I checked my Email. Chad, Interesting you picked up on this as well. 20 or so years ago, I quit using Honduran Mahogany, for necks in exchange for a lighter wood called Spanish cedar ( cedro). H. Mahogany is the typical wood Hauser used, and the Spanish cedar is typical for Spanish guitars. H. Mahogany is heavier, and gave the guitars more sustain, especially in the bass, but less warmth and volume. S. Cedar gave the guitars more warmth, and openness in the treble, more volume, but less sustain, and less clarity in the bass. I've always told guitarist's that the neck can make or break an instrument. Also, if you make a thin neck you get more warmth, ( up to a point) and the opposite for a thicker neck. I also will inlay a piece of hardwood inside the neck not to reinforce it, but to kill the natural frequency in the neck, so it won't color the tone. Chad as you mentioned adding heaver tangents, for the bass, this makes perfect sense, as the bass needs damping which is mass. This same principle can be seen on lute bridges. On the bass side of the bridge, it is higher, and wider adding mass, but on the treble side it is lower, and more narrow creating lightness, as well as stiffness. Anyway, in the next few days I'm making a neck for a baroque lute, and can't decide on going with linden (light ) or Spanish cedar ( a little heaver) for the core. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Chad McAnally [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:06 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Michael Thames wrote: If one really thinks about it, half the sound goes into the bridge, and half goes into the neck, via the frets. So to not consider the effect the frets contribute would be silly. Now I know this is a lute list, not an early keyboard list, but I have come upon a direct parallel that may be of interest to lutenist and luthiers alike. The same phenomenon mentioned above by Michael was recently has been noted also on clavichords in an article by Martin Skowroneck in Clavichord Intenational ( Vol 9 #1 May 2005) ; Half the energy of the strings goes into the bridge and half into the tangents, equivalent to the frets of a clavichord. It appear the some of the old builders realized this and made their tangents progressively heavier toward the bass end of the instrument, or tried to concentrate more the weight of the key levers closer to the tangent end, both in an effort to make the key reflect more of the energy of the string. Also critical to this was making the tangent more stable in the key than the traditional hammering in of the tangent. Some makers used addition small wooden wedges to tighten the tangent into the key to accomplish this. So, I began to experiment with all this on an instrument I'm working on. The result was not only a slightly louder clavichord but the tone was totally different. Very much like Michael's description of the impact the double fretting has on Baroque lute tone, the sustain is increased, but not so much as to muddy the instrument and the overall tone colour was rounder, much closer to the antiques in good condition I've heard and played. So, I wonder if the stability of the frets via double fretting transfers more energy to the neck resulting in a better tone or like the clavichord tangent, the double frets help reflects the motion of the string better into the air? A new puzzle for builders! Chad -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
OK guys, I'm thoroughly confused. Someone said that the action is the height of the string above the fret, others have other definitions. To me the action is a subjective thing - the pressure needed on the string to make a clean sound. That can vary on the same instrument with different players depending on finger placement - close to the fret or in the middle. And on the distance between the frets. (That may not be so clear on a lute, but on an Appalachian dulcimer which is diatonic - so the low frets are very far apart - it is clear. When one fingers a string one is making a small triangle between the fret and the fret below, a bit of local string stretch involved, and it is easier to fully depress at the midpoint between frets, although not musically advisable). So my point is that action is a complicated interaction of string height, string tension, and fret separation. And that is complicated by the large triangle between the bridge and the nut, the middle of the string is relatively softer than the nut or bridge ends - yet it has the greatest range of vibration when played open, so has to have the greatest spacing above the frets to avoid buzz (these latter have contradictory effects, so the string should be higher above the fret at mid range - except that the frets are closer spaced there, so they have a stiffer action due to the fret spacing effect.) Wow, what a lot of stuff to think of. Maybe we should have a multi-contured neck? I don't think I'll try that. I'm over my head. This is a physics of counter effects, and all must be considered. I think I'll let it stay subjective and experimental. Best, Jon To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Fwd: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:11:37 +0100 (BST) From: Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets To: Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace (he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' 'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a double loop. This matter has been the subject of previous communications and you can read these in the archives. Re. concern about buzzing: - in practice, a double fret beds in very soon and has a real advantage in that the loop nearest to the finger takes most of the heavy wear allowing the other loop to retain a good cut-off profile. rgds Martyn Hodgson Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jon wrote, I see the comment from Michael as to Dowland's suggestion of two gut frets, and that it makes no sense. Again I speak as a beginner, but I can picture a value to a wider fret (two gut frets wouldn't be higher, only wider, unless they were wound together Jon the problem isn't the wildness of the fret, but where the string makes contact. If you have two frets next to each other, and you press the string down HARD, it will only hit the fret nearest to the nut and the second fret will cause it to buzz or sound dull. If you press the string with less pressure it will only ride off the front fret. This variation is a mm or so for each fret, and will cause huge intonation problems on a lute with a string length of 600mm which at that point can't tolerate any inaccuracy. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Jon Murphy To: ; Lute builder Net ; Martyn Hodgson ; Michael Thames Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:21 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? If an amateur may add to the thread (and by now you know I will anyway) I'll toss in my oar. BTW - Martin, Martyn, Durbrow and Thames - sounds like a law firm. The goal is the action. Neglecting any tilt in the neck (which does exist in many) there is a natural effect to the midpoint of the string (the 12th fret in almost every case). The action, or pressure needed, is easier the further from the nut. There is also the matter that the widest displacement of the string in its series of vibratations is at the midpoint, the open tonic. (Ooops, as I write this I realize I haven't followed the thread from inception - so pardon if this is obvious). But it seems to me that the angle of higher at the bridge to lower at the nut, and with all frets the same height is natural to keep the finger action the same through that range (to the octave). It is when you get above the octave that the problem occurs, as the action gets stiffer as you go from midpoint to nearer the bridge (and the range of vibration, and therefore potential buzz gets less). OK, a speculation for your consideration from a beginner in making these boxes. All comments welcome, I am here to learn. I see the comment from Michael as to Dowland's suggestion of two gut frets, and that it makes no sense. Again I speak as a beginner, but I can picture a value to a wider fret (two gut frets wouldn't be higher, only wider, unless they were wound together. Good playing practice suggests fingering close to the fret, but as the fret distances gradually narrow up the fingerboard mightened it be possible to make the distance more uniform with wider frets at the lower end, after all the VL is fixed by the north end of the fret. (This is pure speculation, I thought of it as I typed). And carrying that further the action/pressure is influenced by the distance between frets (try playing a little charango tuned to high tension). Perhaps a wider fret would allow playing nearer the center of the fret spacing for an easier action. Again, all speculation. But with the knowledge that the factors (tilt of the neck, thickness of the frets, angle of the dangle between bridge and nut) all interact. Best, Jon - Original Message - From: Michael Thames To: ; Lute builder Net ; Martyn Hodgson Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:04 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Again, we should always aim to refer to historical information if we are to approach what they expected. rgds Martyn Didn't Dowland, ( I believe?) also recommend the use of 2 gut frets per fret as well? A practice which makes no sense, and no one does thesedays. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Martyn Hodgson To: ; Lute builder Net Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:21 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Martin, Yes. But one of the problems continues to be the reluctance of players
Re: Built-in action?
Michael, No, it resulted in the opposite problem. The strings were about 2 mm above the neck at the join with the body, and there wasn't enough of an angle to the strings for them to clear the frets as I played, no matter how much I dropped the diameters of the frets as I went down the neck. I ended up making a new bridge that was higher and increased the angle of the strings (I also made the bridge higher on the bass side by about 1 mm, since most of the problem was on the 6th and 7th courses). I had angled back the neck on purpose (as you say, I was following Lundberg's advice), but I over-did it. The thought of taking the neck off and re-angling it was more than I wanted to contemplate, so the bridge seemed like the only alternative. In a way, it was an interesting problem and taught me a lot about string set-up and how to deal with problems. I learned that I could remove a bridge that had been glued (firmly) with hide glue and not damage the soundboard. Fortunately, I'm not making a living doing this, so I can screw up without it affecting my income. I would have been very unhappy if this lute had been intended for a client. Tim On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 05:57 PM, Michael Thames wrote: I just got finished fixing a problem with the neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the effect of neck angle will be Timothy, sounds like you were reading Lundberg's bad advice about angling the neck back. It should be angled forward. As you see this doesn't work out so well. Unless you like the strings to float 10mm off the top. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: timothy motz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael, Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the effect of neck angle will be. Tim Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Built-in action? Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600 Vance wrote, This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the belly. Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the neck will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. It has nothing to do with the action. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Vance Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute list lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? - Original Message - From: Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM Subject: Built-in action? Hi Herbert: You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If this is not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put on the Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over time will develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming less than 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck higher. Vance Wood. I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
I would think that the neck angle for violin and cello resulted from the high bridge needed for bowing. With a very high bridge, if you don't angle the neck back (especially with the strings under very high tension) you have an increasingly difficult time fretting as you move down the neck. Tim On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 08:24 PM, Howard Posner wrote: Michael Thames wrote: One more example would be a cello or violin which has an EXTREME neck angle, this doesn't effect the action, now does it. Of course it does. That's why the bridges on those instruments have to be so high: if they weren't the strings would lie on (or slide off the sides of) the fingerboard. If you were to lower the neck angle on a cello a few degrees, the action up the fingerboard would be impossibly high. HP To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Dear Timothy, I'm glad to hear you managed to solve the problem. You could also have replaced the fingerboard with one which was thicker at the nut end. I agree that trying to remove the neck and reglue it is an absolute last resort. Best wishes, Martin Timothy Motz wrote: Michael, No, it resulted in the opposite problem. The strings were about 2 mm above the neck at the join with the body, and there wasn't enough of an angle to the strings for them to clear the frets as I played, no matter how much I dropped the diameters of the frets as I went down the neck. I ended up making a new bridge that was higher and increased the angle of the strings (I also made the bridge higher on the bass side by about 1 mm, since most of the problem was on the 6th and 7th courses). I had angled back the neck on purpose (as you say, I was following Lundberg's advice), but I over-did it. The thought of taking the neck off and re-angling it was more than I wanted to contemplate, so the bridge seemed like the only alternative. In a way, it was an interesting problem and taught me a lot about string set-up and how to deal with problems. I learned that I could remove a bridge that had been glued (firmly) with hide glue and not damage the soundboard. Fortunately, I'm not making a living doing this, so I can screw up without it affecting my income. I would have been very unhappy if this lute had been intended for a client. Tim On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 05:57 PM, Michael Thames wrote: I just got finished fixing a problem with the neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the effect of neck angle will be Timothy, sounds like you were reading Lundberg's bad advice about angling the neck back. It should be angled forward. As you see this doesn't work out so well. Unless you like the strings to float 10mm off the top. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: timothy motz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael, Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the effect of neck angle will be. Tim Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Built-in action? Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600 Vance wrote, This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the belly. Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the neck will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. It has nothing to do with the action. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Vance Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute list lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? - Original Message - From: Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM Subject: Built-in action? Hi Herbert: You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If this is not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put on the Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over time will develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming less than 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck higher. Vance Wood. I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited
Re: Built-in action?
Timothy, I think we've all been there done that, not fun. My sympathies go out to you and yours. But, one thing kind of puzzles me. You say you still angled the neck back. If one has a straight plane from the nut to the bridge lets say, the height of the first course above the fingerboard at the twelfth fret, is say 4mm, and the height at the nut is 1.40, that would put the height of the string at the bridge at 7.80 mm and that's just the first course, the sixth course would ride at 8.80 thus calling for an actual bridge that is in the ballpark of 10.8mm on the bass and 9.8mm on the treble...And that's if the plane is just STRAIGHT from the nut to the bridge!!! Angle the neck BACK as Lundberg suggests, and you end up with something that resembles the bowed family of instruments. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Timothy Motz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 7:42 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael, No, it resulted in the opposite problem. The strings were about 2 mm above the neck at the join with the body, and there wasn't enough of an angle to the strings for them to clear the frets as I played, no matter how much I dropped the diameters of the frets as I went down the neck. I ended up making a new bridge that was higher and increased the angle of the strings (I also made the bridge higher on the bass side by about 1 mm, since most of the problem was on the 6th and 7th courses). I had angled back the neck on purpose (as you say, I was following Lundberg's advice), but I over-did it. The thought of taking the neck off and re-angling it was more than I wanted to contemplate, so the bridge seemed like the only alternative. In a way, it was an interesting problem and taught me a lot about string set-up and how to deal with problems. I learned that I could remove a bridge that had been glued (firmly) with hide glue and not damage the soundboard. Fortunately, I'm not making a living doing this, so I can screw up without it affecting my income. I would have been very unhappy if this lute had been intended for a client. Tim On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 05:57 PM, Michael Thames wrote: I just got finished fixing a problem with the neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the effect of neck angle will be Timothy, sounds like you were reading Lundberg's bad advice about angling the neck back. It should be angled forward. As you see this doesn't work out so well. Unless you like the strings to float 10mm off the top. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: timothy motz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael, Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the effect of neck angle will be. Tim Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Built-in action? Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600 Vance wrote, This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the belly. Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the neck will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. It has nothing to do with the action. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Vance Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute list lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? - Original Message - From: Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM Subject: Built-in action? Hi Herbert: You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge
Re: Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Martyn wrote, The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace (he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' 'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a double loop Martyn, In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to go through the iconography and look specify for this. If this was as popular as you say, one would have expected to see more, and come to think about it I not seen one modern lute with these either. I've seen allot of paintings of historical lutes, and think it probably safe to sat 99% of what I've seen are single frets. The only possible way that double frets could work is if the fret closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the string to make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have big intonation problems. As a guitarmaker, I go through great lengths to crown a metal fret exactly at the correct point, this is very important. The string should only come it contact with the crest of the fret. Any difference to this is a personal choice as to how much tolerance one has for out of tunness Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:15 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:11:37 +0100 (BST) From: Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets To: Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace (he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' 'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a double loop. This matter has been the subject of previous communications and you can read these in the archives. Re. concern about buzzing: - in practice, a double fret beds in very soon and has a real advantage in that the loop nearest to the finger takes most of the heavy wear allowing the other loop to retain a good cut-off profile. rgds Martyn Hodgson Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jon wrote, I see the comment from Michael as to Dowland's suggestion of two gut frets, and that it makes no sense. Again I speak as a beginner, but I can picture a value to a wider fret (two gut frets wouldn't be higher, only wider, unless they were wound together Jon the problem isn't the wildness of the fret, but where the string makes contact. If you have two frets next to each other, and you press the string down HARD, it will only hit the fret nearest to the nut and the second fret will cause it to buzz or sound dull. If you press the string with less pressure it will only ride off the front fret. This variation is a mm or so for each fret, and will cause huge intonation problems on a lute with a string length of 600mm which at that point can't tolerate any inaccuracy. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Jon Murphy To: ; Lute builder Net ; Martyn Hodgson ; Michael Thames Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:21 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? If an amateur may add to the thread (and by now you know I will anyway) I'll toss in my oar. BTW - Martin, Martyn, Durbrow and Thames - sounds like a law firm. The goal is the action. Neglecting any tilt in the neck (which does exist in many) there is a natural effect to the midpoint of the string (the 12th fret in almost every case). The action, or pressure needed, is easier the further from the nut. There is also the matter that the widest displacement of the string in its series of vibratations is at the midpoint, the open tonic. (Ooops, as I write this I realize I haven't followed the thread from inception - so pardon if this is obvious). But it seems to me that the angle of higher at the bridge to lower at the nut, and with all frets the same height is natural to keep the finger action the same through that range (to the octave). It is when you get above the octave that the problem occurs, as the action gets stiffer as you go from midpoint to nearer the bridge (and the range of vibration, and therefore potential buzz gets less). OK, a speculation for your consideration from a beginner in making these boxes. All comments welcome, I am here to learn
Re: Built-in action?
Jon, Another thing to bear in mind is that a string, when pressed against the fret, never makes a perfectly straight plane. I mean that when your finger presses the string down in back of the fret, it produces a slight arch, not a straight line. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Jon Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 12:56 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? OK guys, I'm thoroughly confused. Someone said that the action is the height of the string above the fret, others have other definitions. To me the action is a subjective thing - the pressure needed on the string to make a clean sound. That can vary on the same instrument with different players depending on finger placement - close to the fret or in the middle. And on the distance between the frets. (That may not be so clear on a lute, but on an Appalachian dulcimer which is diatonic - so the low frets are very far apart - it is clear. When one fingers a string one is making a small triangle between the fret and the fret below, a bit of local string stretch involved, and it is easier to fully depress at the midpoint between frets, although not musically advisable). So my point is that action is a complicated interaction of string height, string tension, and fret separation. And that is complicated by the large triangle between the bridge and the nut, the middle of the string is relatively softer than the nut or bridge ends - yet it has the greatest range of vibration when played open, so has to have the greatest spacing above the frets to avoid buzz (these latter have contradictory effects, so the string should be higher above the fret at mid range - except that the frets are closer spaced there, so they have a stiffer action due to the fret spacing effect.) Wow, what a lot of stuff to think of. Maybe we should have a multi-contured neck? I don't think I'll try that. I'm over my head. This is a physics of counter effects, and all must be considered. I think I'll let it stay subjective and experimental. Best, Jon To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
We obviously have a difference of opinion here. I would be interested to see Martyn's historical evidence. I have heard of using double fret loops for so long that I took it as a given that this was always an option of varying popularity, but the question being raised, I can't remember where I first got that information. (It would have been 30 years ago or more and some of the information available at that time was pretty sketchy.) Craig Craig R. Pierpont Another Era Lutherie www.anotherera.com Martyn Hodgson wrote: The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; Michael Thames wrote: In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to go through the iconography and look specify for this. - Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
On Jun 19, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Craig Robert Pierpont wrote: We obviously have a difference of opinion here. I would be interested to see Martyn's historical evidence. The lute in Holbein's The Ambassadors very clearly has doubled frets. As realistically as this painting is done I believe he really saw them. This was pretty well explored a couple of years ago on this lutenet. Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
I would think that the neck angle for violin and cello resulted from the high bridge needed for bowing. With a very high bridge, if you don't angle the neck back (especially with the strings under very high tension) you have an increasingly difficult time fretting as you move down the neck. Dear Tim The big question is, double or single frets for violins and cellos? ;-) Just as a matter of detail, these fingerboards are convex at right angles to the strings, to corrspond more or less to the bridge curve, but the are slightly concave in the other plane. Concave to about a millimetre in the middle, but the curve has to be tested with a straight edge of about 2 inches to avoid any bumps that would cause the string to buzz when it is fretted on the virtual frets, if you see what I mean... Yours, Tony To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
The only possible way that double frets could work is if the fret closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the string to make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have big intonation problems. Michael, The ridge closer to the nut quickly wears down lower than the other allowing only one stopping point. Alternately --and I don't know how historically accurate this is-- one can tie two frets of slightly different diameters at each position. I've been doing this for the last year and it works fine. As a guitarmaker, I go through great lengths to crown a metal fret exactly at the correct point, this is very important. ..and confining. One may no longer experiment with tempered fretting as suggested by the vihuelists and others. But, as you say, you use metal frets as a guitarmaker. The string should only come it contact with the crest of the fret. This means that that same crest will constantly wear at the same point on the gut string and this tends to wear it out quicker. Between the lower action and doubled frets I'm certain one can get more milage from gut strings on a lute than a guitar. (I wonder if the action and frets were thought out differently from modern guitars when only gut strings were used in, say, the 19th century?) Any difference to this is a personal choice as to how much tolerance one has for out of tunness I'll suppose this includes a tolerance for equal temperment too. ;^) Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Michael, The ridge closer to the nut quickly wears down lower than the other allowing only one stopping point. Alternately --and I don't know how historically accurate this is-- one can tie two frets of slightly different diameters at each position. I've been doing this for the last year and it works fine. So I assume that for the time it takes the first fret to wear out, ( weeks or months? ) one must endure intonation problems. ..and confining. One may no longer experiment with tempered fretting as suggested by the vihuelists and others. But, as you say, you use metal frets as a guitarmaker I'm sorry, I'm one who is non sympathetic to the idea of moving frets. I don't find it confining at all, in fact, it frees you up, to not constantly worry if your playing out of tune. because a fret has moved, or in a passing moment of tonal relativity, you think that ultimately, you've just managed to tune your lute. Your idea of a perfectly tuned lute, and mine, might be very different as the many systems of tuning attest too. However, your attitude clearly suggests that your system is superior to that of the guitarist. Good for you, Sean. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Sean Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lutelist lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets The only possible way that double frets could work is if the fret closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the string to make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have big intonation problems. Michael, The ridge closer to the nut quickly wears down lower than the other allowing only one stopping point. Alternately --and I don't know how historically accurate this is-- one can tie two frets of slightly different diameters at each position. I've been doing this for the last year and it works fine. As a guitarmaker, I go through great lengths to crown a metal fret exactly at the correct point, this is very important. ..and confining. One may no longer experiment with tempered fretting as suggested by the vihuelists and others. But, as you say, you use metal frets as a guitarmaker. The string should only come it contact with the crest of the fret. This means that that same crest will constantly wear at the same point on the gut string and this tends to wear it out quicker. Between the lower action and doubled frets I'm certain one can get more milage from gut strings on a lute than a guitar. (I wonder if the action and frets were thought out differently from modern guitars when only gut strings were used in, say, the 19th century?) Any difference to this is a personal choice as to how much tolerance one has for out of tunness I'll suppose this includes a tolerance for equal temperment too. ;^) Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone through this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some time. Nice try... - Original Message - From: Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Lute builder Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Martyn, Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to me to have single frets. Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for diameters, in which case, the first two frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm wide and that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means that the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on these lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of these lutes. On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows double frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance. I'm sure your familiar with this site. http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Martyn Hodgson To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Michael, Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over stuff which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the archives. However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient detail in to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it was as much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils those trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to estimate historic tensions. However, there are a few pictures with sufficient photographic accuracy (eg Holbien) and these show double loops. I'd be grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this sort of requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop. Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is higher up the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the pitch; the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier. In short, there is no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon. If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so - you'll be pleasantly surpised. regards, Martyn Hodgson Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martyn wrote, The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace (he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' 'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a double loop Martyn, In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to go through the iconography and look specify for this. If this was as popular as you say, one would have expected to see more, and come to think about it I not seen one modern lute with these either. I've seen allot of paintings of historical lutes, and think it probably safe to sat 99% of what I've seen are single frets. The only possible way that double frets could work is if the fret closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the string to make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have big intonation problems. As a guitarmaker, I go through great lengths to crown a metal fret exactly at the correct point, this is very important. The string should only come it contact with the crest of the fret. Any difference to this is a personal choice as to how much tolerance one has for out of tunness. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Martyn Hodgson To: Michael Thames Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:11 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace (he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' 'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a double loop. This matter has been the subject of previous communications and you can read
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone through this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some time. Nice try... Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how large of a spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look ! In these photos there is not even a hint of what looks like two frets together. And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double fret looks like. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Tony Chalkley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone through this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some time. Nice try... - Original Message - From: Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Lute builder Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Martyn, Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to me to have single frets. Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for diameters, in which case, the first two frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm wide and that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means that the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on these lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of these lutes. On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows double frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance. I'm sure your familiar with this site. http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Martyn Hodgson To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Michael, Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over stuff which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the archives. However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient detail in to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it was as much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils those trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to estimate historic tensions. However, there are a few pictures with sufficient photographic accuracy (eg Holbien) and these show double loops. I'd be grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this sort of requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop. Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is higher up the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the pitch; the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier. In short, there is no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon. If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so - you'll be pleasantly surpised. regards, Martyn Hodgson Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martyn wrote, The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace (he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' 'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a double loop Martyn, In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to go through the iconography and look specify for this. If this was as popular as you say, one would have expected to see more, and come to think about it I not seen one modern lute with these either. I've seen allot of paintings of historical lutes, and think it probably safe to sat 99% of what I've seen are single frets. The only possible way that double frets could work is if the fret closest to the nut was slightly lower than the other, allowing the string to make contact with the crest of the higher fret. Otherwise you have big intonation problems. As a guitarmaker, I go through great lengths to crown a metal fret exactly at the correct point, this is very important
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Michael, Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the Ambassadors on my hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he could send you one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is no uncertainty there. Gernot? Sean On Jun 19, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thames wrote: I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone through this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some time. Nice try... Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how large of a spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look ! In these photos there is not even a hint of what looks like two frets together. And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double fret looks like. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Tony Chalkley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone through this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some time. Nice try... - Original Message - From: Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Lute builder Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Martyn, Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to me to have single frets. Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for diameters, in which case, the first two frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm wide and that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means that the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on these lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of these lutes. On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows double frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance. I'm sure your familiar with this site. http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Martyn Hodgson To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Michael, Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over stuff which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the archives. However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient detail in to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it was as much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils those trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to estimate historic tensions. However, there are a few pictures with sufficient photographic accuracy (eg Holbien) and these show double loops. I'd be grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this sort of requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop. Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is higher up the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the pitch; the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier. In short, there is no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon. If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so - you'll be pleasantly surpised. regards, Martyn Hodgson Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martyn wrote, The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace (he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' 'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a double loop Martyn, In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to go through the iconography and look specify for this. If this was as popular as you say, one would have expected to see more, and come to think about it I not seen one modern lute with these either. I've seen allot of paintings of historical lutes, and think it probably safe to sat 99% of what I've seen are single frets
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Sean and all, it seems that the pics are still online. www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadors.html Enjoy! g On 20.06.2005, at 00:44, Sean Smith wrote: Michael, Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the Ambassadors on my hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he could send you one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is no uncertainty there. Gernot? Sean On Jun 19, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thames wrote: I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone through this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some time. Nice try... Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how large of a spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look ! In these photos there is not even a hint of what looks like two frets together. And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double fret looks like. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Tony Chalkley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone through this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some time. Nice try... - Original Message - From: Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Lute builder Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Martyn, Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to me to have single frets. Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for diameters, in which case, the first two frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm wide and that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means that the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on these lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of these lutes. On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows double frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance. I'm sure your familiar with this site. http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Martyn Hodgson To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Michael, Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over stuff which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the archives. However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient detail in to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it was as much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils those trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to estimate historic tensions. However, there are a few pictures with sufficient photographic accuracy (eg Holbien) and these show double loops. I'd be grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this sort of requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop. Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is higher up the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the pitch; the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier. In short, there is no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon. If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so - you'll be pleasantly surpised. regards, Martyn Hodgson Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martyn wrote, The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace (he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself lute repairs: 'A Lute Belly often in need to be taken off' 'once in a year or two') who, whilst advocating single loop frets, when it comes down to it describes the tying of a double loop Martyn, In the lute iconography, I don't recall ever seeing double frets, not to say they haven't existed, just to say that I haven't seen any that I can recall. That being said I'm curious to go through the iconography and look specify for this. If this was as popular as you say, one would have expected to see more, and come to think about it I
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Michael, Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the Ambassadors on my hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he could send you one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is no uncertainty there. Gernot? Sean Sean, I would Like to see that, so everyone can see the details involved in clearly showing double frets. As I'm sure that this painting shows DF's it still is not convincing evidence that this was a wide spread custom. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Sean Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lutelist lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 4:44 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Michael, Unfortunately I no longer have the blow-ups from the Ambassadors on my hard drive. Perhaps if Gernot Hilger still has them he could send you one. If not, I could rephoto the picture I have. There is no uncertainty there. Gernot? Sean On Jun 19, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Michael Thames wrote: I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone through this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some time. Nice try... Tony get out your calipers my friend, and take a look at how large of a spread 1.80mm looks, then take another look ! In these photos there is not even a hint of what looks like two frets together. And if these are not single frets, please show me what a double fret looks like. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Tony Chalkley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 3:02 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets I think that's game set and match to Martyn, then - I've never gone through this well known page looking for frets before, but the only one that seems singularly single is Gentileschi, and he's placed the knots in the perfect place for the hand to know where it is on the neck - must try it some time. Nice try... - Original Message - From: Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Lute builder Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:47 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Martyn, Every lute, that has a reasonable close up on this page appears to me to have single frets. Especially, if one uses Dowland's recipe for diameters, in which case, the first two frets on these lutes would be 1.6mm wide and that's not compensating for the .20 or so gap between them. This means that the frets would have to appear twice as wide as the 4th courses on these lutes. This doesn't gel with the string courses that are on most of these lutes. On the other hand please show me a painting that clearly shows double frets. So we then can compare the differences in appearance. I'm sure your familiar with this site. http://www.xs4all.nl/~amarin/Page1.html Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Martyn Hodgson To: Michael Thames ; Lute Net ; Lute builder Net Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Michael, Thank you for this. I really don't want to spend time going over stuff which has been well discussed before and suggest you look at the archives. However, I will say that most paintings do not show sufficient detail in to readily distinguish whether a fret is a double loop or single; it was as much as many could do to mark a fret at all. Much the same bedivils those trying to research string make up and thicknesses from paintings to estimate historic tensions. However, there are a few pictures with sufficient photographic accuracy (eg Holbien) and these show double loops. I'd be grateful if you could let me know which paintings having this sort of requisite photgraphic accuracy clearly show a single loop. Regarding intonation, as explained, it is the higher (that is higher up the fingerboard towards the bridge) of the two loops which sets the pitch; the lower loop very soon beds in as described earlier. In short, there is no persistent 'twin peaks' phenomenon. If you haven't tried a double loop, I seriously urge you to do so - you'll be pleasantly surpised. regards, Martyn Hodgson Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martyn wrote, The historical evidence is that double fret loops were generally used; always excepting the eccentric Thos Mace (he of the Lute Dyphone - a combined theorboe and lute in one instrument and advocat of frequent do-it-yourself
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Intersting to note though that the Berlin Holbein, depicting a quite different lute, also shows clear doubles. - Peter I would Like to see that, so everyone can see the details involved in clearly showing double frets. As I'm sure that this painting shows DF's it still is not convincing evidence that this was a wide spread custom. -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Thanks Gernot! And Peter, I knew there was another Holbein that depicted double frets. I just couldn't remember which. thank you. Concerning the Poulton/Dowland image. Perhaps it was overkill to double the frets on a small lute. So far it hasn't been worth it to double up on my descant. Sean On Jun 19, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Peter Weiler wrote: Intersting to note though that the Berlin Holbein, depicting a quite different lute, also shows clear doubles. - Peter I would Like to see that, so everyone can see the details involved in clearly showing double frets. As I'm sure that this painting shows DF's it still is not convincing evidence that this was a wide spread custom. -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
I think that double frets are considered commonplace among our very near cousins in the HIP viol crowd, so we shouldn't be surprised to find that they were used on lutes of the same period. - Peter - Original Message - From: Sean Smith To: Lutelist Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:25:48 -0700 Thanks Gernot! And Peter, I knew there was another Holbein that depicted double frets. I just couldn't remember which. thank you. Concerning the Poulton/Dowland image. Perhaps it was overkill to double the frets on a small lute. So far it hasn't been worth it to double up on my descant. Sean On Jun 19, 2005, at 4:14 PM, Peter Weiler wrote: Intersting to note though that the Berlin Holbein, depicting a quite different lute, also shows clear doubles. - Peter I would Like to see that, so everyone can see the details involved in clearly showing double frets. As I'm sure that this painting shows DF's it still is not convincing evidence that this was a wide spread custom. -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm --
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
By the way, apart from the historical evidence matter, double frets are very, very nice to use on lutes. I've had some trouble getting a double-strand tied tight enough in the past, but I really like Sean's idea of using independent frets side-by-side. This makes them easy to tie and allows one to change only the worn one when needed, as well as allowing one to choose slightly smaller upstream frets in the pair. MT, I would second the recommendation that you give them a try. -Peter -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
By the way, apart from the historical evidence matter, double frets are very, very nice to use on lutes. I've had some trouble getting a double-strand tied tight enough in the past, but I really like Sean's idea of using independent frets side-by-side. This makes them easy to tie and allows one to change only the worn one when needed, as well as allowing one to choose slightly smaller upstream frets in the pair. MT, I would second the recommendation that you give them a try. -Peter Well I'm not proud ! So I will give them a try. Would it be safe to say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so much? What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use them thesedays. Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette, Wilson, Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them? Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Peter Weiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 5:53 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets By the way, apart from the historical evidence matter, double frets are very, very nice to use on lutes. I've had some trouble getting a double-strand tied tight enough in the past, but I really like Sean's idea of using independent frets side-by-side. This makes them easy to tie and allows one to change only the worn one when needed, as well as allowing one to choose slightly smaller upstream frets in the pair. MT, I would second the recommendation that you give them a try. -Peter -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Would it be safe to say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so much? I wouldn't think so. I just tie them tighter'n a fratboy on St. Paddy's day. Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
I've thought about this for a good hour and I have to say it is a remarkably difficult thing to verbalize. I don't know what commercial pressures the big boys are subject to (and I don't think that's a good measure) but for the rest of us... you're right about a little less tendency to slide on the neck, but there is a certain stability or solidity to the feeling of the note being produced by fretting which is actually a bit more guitar-like. The speed with which a tone is articulated is different. There is a very precise and decisive feel to moderate-gauge double frets. I hope a few others who have better English than I will jump in here! - Peter Well I'm not proud ! So I will give them a try. Would it be safe to say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so much? What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use them thesedays. Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette, Wilson, Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them? Michael Thames -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
I have played a six course lute double-fretted, single strand of fret going around the neck twice, with the fretting carefully selected and tied by the lute's maker Ray Nurse, for many years. The gut frets, with all gut strings on the lute, has lasted so well that I have only had to have the instrument refretted once in 12 years of continuous use of the lute. The very slight and gentle fizz on the sound of the fretted notes is attractive to me and characteristic of the sound of this lute. I think Capirola even refers to this effect in his instructions. The key thing seems to be to have a very low action, a low nut, and very thin diameters for the double frets. They grade minimally from down the neck. Double fretting is frequent in depictions in paintings and prints throughout the sixteenth century and well into the seventeenth century. It even occurs in Laurent de la Hyre's Allegory of Music (Metropolitan Museum of Art) theorbe player. I also enjoy single frets which I have on my other two six course lutes. Kenneth Be -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Stability is good word. Somehow, too, it requires less effort. W/ a single fret you feel the string bend behind the fret and you want to touch bottom. I remember playing an orpharion w/ scalloped frets and it seems to take these ideas to the next level. Bending the string behind the fret would severely sharpen the metal strings as well as wear down the brass frets and that's the reasoning behind that, I suppose. Having the fret area more spread out over the string means less wear on a single point. This is good for both small diameter gut strings as well as the roped bass beasties. Only recently (March) in my fretting experiment did I switch to doubled frets for frets 5-8 and I immediately found it easier to get clean notes up there. Sean On Jun 19, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Peter Weiler wrote: I've thought about this for a good hour and I have to say it is a remarkably difficult thing to verbalize. I don't know what commercial pressures the big boys are subject to (and I don't think that's a good measure) but for the rest of us... you're right about a little less tendency to slide on the neck, but there is a certain stability or solidity to the feeling of the note being produced by fretting which is actually a bit more guitar-like. The speed with which a tone is articulated is different. There is a very precise and decisive feel to moderate-gauge double frets. I hope a few others who have better English than I will jump in here! - Peter Well I'm not proud ! So I will give them a try. Would it be safe to say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so much? What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use them thesedays. Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette, Wilson, Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them? Michael Thames -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
I wouldn't think so. I just tie them tighter'n a fratboy on St. Paddy's day. Sean Sean, No I'm not worried about the tied frets I tie these really tight. What I meant was when you press down a course onto the fret, the course has a tendency to slide around a bit, I was thinking that more actual contact surface would help this a bit? Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Sean Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lutelist lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets Would it be safe to say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so much? I wouldn't think so. I just tie them tighter'n a fratboy on St. Paddy's day. Sean To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action? Double frets
Peter, I have to now admit you, Sean, and Kenneth have got me pretty excited to try this. I hope to try this out tomorrow and will report back. I take back all those horrible things I said about Dowland. However I do think the Painting show more single frets than double. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Peter Weiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 8:34 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Double frets I've thought about this for a good hour and I have to say it is a remarkably difficult thing to verbalize. I don't know what commercial pressures the big boys are subject to (and I don't think that's a good measure) but for the rest of us... you're right about a little less tendency to slide on the neck, but there is a certain stability or solidity to the feeling of the note being produced by fretting which is actually a bit more guitar-like. The speed with which a tone is articulated is different. There is a very precise and decisive feel to moderate-gauge double frets. I hope a few others who have better English than I will jump in here! - Peter Well I'm not proud ! So I will give them a try. Would it be safe to say that the second fret prevents the courses from sliding around so much? What is the advantage to these, and seriously, why don't performers use them thesedays. Has anyone talked to the guys at the top, like Odette, Wilson, Barto, Cardin etc. as to their rational behind not using them? Michael Thames -- ___ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
course for frets 7 to 10. Our best estimate of likely string diameters therefore suggests a maximum of about .80mm, .64mm, .50mm, and .42mm for fret diameters, perhaps even thinner for the first course diameter because D was talking about a double first course. Has anyone tried using a .40mm fret? Even allowing for the fact that he was using double On my theorbo I go from 1.25 (b) to 0.50 (i) at the moment. Not ideal, perhaps, but still quite playable. It was decent, from 1.00 (b) to 0.90 (i), but I have lowered the string tension considerably and put on rather thick Pistoys at 6, 7 and 8 (all on the fingerboard). One thing let to another. But recently I've noticed the risk of buzzing has diminished (change of technique, I can put the strings higher at the bridge after all (I've even had an extra piece of wood there for a while), and I think the instrument is settling). David To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Thank you Michael, I'm not suggesting any definition of the word 'action' but that it would be more rational to concentrate on the displacement to fingerboard rather than to the fret top. regards, Martyn Hodgson Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely the better indicator is the absolute displacement from the bottom of the string to the fingerboard - this is a direct measure of the effort required to displace the string. The fret could be a mile thick by yr definition and still lead to a low 'action' I don't know in my dictionary action is defined by the amount of movement and effort needed to press a string against the fret, in the case of a violin, or cello. you would indeed be correct, however. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Martyn Hodgson To: Michael Thames Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 1:22 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Surely the better indicator is the absolute displacement from the bottom of the string to the fingerboard - this is a direct measure of the effort required to displace the string. The fret could be a mile thick by yr definition and still lead to a low 'action'. Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Timothy, I stand by my first statement. First, lets define action which is the height of the bottom of the strings, form the top of the frets. One could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a constant height of the string over the frets. This idea of the neck angle affecting the action is a popular misconception by many luthiers. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: timothy motz To: ; ; ; Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael, Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the effect of neck angle will be. Tim Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Built-in action? Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600 Vance wrote, This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the belly. Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the neck will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. It has nothing to do with the action. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Vance Wood To: lute list ; Herbert Ward Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? - Original Message - From: Herbert Ward To: Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM Subject: Built-in action? Hi Herbert: You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If this is not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put on the Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over time will develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming less than 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck higher. Vance Wood. I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html - Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail - Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail --
Re: Built-in action?
At 9:06 AM -0600 6/16/05, Michael Thames wrote: The other side to this is, playing Tarrega, Segovia's style, and the romantic repertoire, incorporating sliding up the fingerboard on one string. In this case, high frets can tend to feel like railroad ties, as your going down the track. However, I've not come across this technique in any lute music. At the end of a Piccinini (or is it Kapsbergger, someone else will know) fantasia there is a slide. Of course, it seems not to be an oft notated effect cheers, -- Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
- Original Message - From: Ed Durbrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, June 18, 2005 7:01 am Subject: Re: Built-in action? At the end of a Piccinini (or is it Kapsbergger, someone else will know) fantasia there is a slide. Of course, it seems not to be an oft notated effect Are you maybe thinking of Kapsberger's little joke piece, Colascione? Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
I figured we had to be talking at cross-purposes. I think what you've been trying to say is that whatever the neck angle is, it's possible to design an instrument around that neck angle such that the action is perfect. This is quite different from saying it doesn't matter what the neck angle on a lute is, which is what most of us assumed you meant in the context of the Exactly, I guess this rather stubborn streak in me is a result of dealing with guitarist's and repairmen, who are very quick to jump to the conclusion that the neck angle is the source of all evil. With the guitar there are many things that can be done to fine tune the action beyond simply just the neck angle. It's gotten to the point that most guitarist's tell me that the neck angle affects the playability, and the feel or tension of the strings ( which is deferent than simply the height of the strings). This happened 2 days ago. Customer ordered a guitar and was describing to me the string tension he wanted and heard that the neck angle affects the tension. I then said that's untrue. I said many things affect the tension but the most important factor is the stiffness of the top., and the height of the strings off the top. In the lute it's a different story, there is no room for error. For a lute to be properly set up there is no choice the neck angle is a given. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Howard Posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 10:50 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael Thames wrote: So I still maintain that perfect action is attainable regardless of the neck angle. I figured we had to be talking at cross-purposes. I think what you've been trying to say is that whatever the neck angle is, it's possible to design an instrument around that neck angle such that the action is perfect. This is quite different from saying it doesn't matter what the neck angle on a lute is, which is what most of us assumed you meant in the context of the discussion. HP To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
- Original Message - From: Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM Subject: Built-in action? Hi Herbert: You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If this is not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put on the Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over time will develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming less than 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck higher. Vance Wood. I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Vance wrote, This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the belly. Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the neck will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. It has nothing to do with the action. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Vance Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute list lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? - Original Message - From: Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM Subject: Built-in action? Hi Herbert: You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If this is not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put on the Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over time will develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming less than 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck higher. Vance Wood. I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Michael, Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the effect of neck angle will be. Tim Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Built-in action? Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600 Vance wrote, This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the belly. Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the neck will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. It has nothing to do with the action. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Vance Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute list lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? - Original Message - From: Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM Subject: Built-in action? Hi Herbert: You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If this is not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put on the Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over time will develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming less than 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck higher. Vance Wood. I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Timothy, I stand by my first statement. First, lets define action which is the height of the bottom of the strings, form the top of the frets. One could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a constant height of the string over the frets. This idea of the neck angle affecting the action is a popular misconception by many luthiers. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: timothy motz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael, Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the effect of neck angle will be. Tim Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Built-in action? Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600 Vance wrote, This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the belly. Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the neck will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. It has nothing to do with the action. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Vance Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute list lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? - Original Message - From: Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM Subject: Built-in action? Hi Herbert: You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If this is not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put on the Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over time will develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming less than 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck higher. Vance Wood. I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
This idea of the neck angle affecting the action is a popular misconception by many luthiers. It's not a misconception - on a classical guitar, as you surely know, one method of construction has the neck in line with the body, but then the fingerboard is thinner at the higher frets, producing the same effect as angling the neck upwards - on this point I disagree with Tim. If you angle the neck backwards and your fingerboard is uniform thickness, then you are likely to buzz from the first fret - the pull of the strings may compensate. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: timothy motz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael, Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the effect of neck angle will be. Tim Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Built-in action? Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600 Vance wrote, This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the belly. Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the neck will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. It has nothing to do with the action. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Vance Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute list lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? - Original Message - From: Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM Subject: Built-in action? Hi Herbert: You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If this is not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put on the Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over time will develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming less than 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck higher. Vance Wood. I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
In a message dated 6/17/2005 12:33:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not a misconception - on a classical guitar, as you surely know, one method of construction has the neck in line with the body, but then the fingerboard is thinner at the higher frets, producing the same effect as angling the neck upwards - on this point I disagree with Tim. If you angle the neck backwards and your fingerboard is uniform thickness, then you are likely to buzz from the first fret - the pull of the strings may compensate. I've played many baroque guitars where the neck angle definitely affects the action, same with classical guitars. James -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
I've played many baroque guitars where the neck angle definitely affects the action, same with classical guitars. James I'm saying the most important single aspect, in the set up, is the height of the strings off the top. This has a profound influence on the tone of either a lute, or guitar. This ideal height can only vary by 1 or perhaps 2 mm. The neck angle determines the bridge height. From that point, you then, can fine tune the action. This theory assumes one has some experience in the proper set up of lutes, and guitars. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 1:52 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? In a message dated 6/17/2005 12:33:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not a misconception - on a classical guitar, as you surely know, one method of construction has the neck in line with the body, but then the fingerboard is thinner at the higher frets, producing the same effect as angling the neck upwards - on this point I disagree with Tim. If you angle the neck backwards and your fingerboard is uniform thickness, then you are likely to buzz from the first fret - the pull of the strings may compensate. I've played many baroque guitars where the neck angle definitely affects the action, same with classical guitars. James -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
I just got finished fixing a problem with the neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the effect of neck angle will be Timothy, sounds like you were reading Lundberg's bad advice about angling the neck back. It should be angled forward. As you see this doesn't work out so well. Unless you like the strings to float 10mm off the top. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: timothy motz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael, Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the effect of neck angle will be. Tim Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Built-in action? Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600 Vance wrote, This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the belly. Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the neck will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. It has nothing to do with the action. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Vance Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute list lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? - Original Message - From: Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM Subject: Built-in action? Hi Herbert: You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If this is not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put on the Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over time will develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming less than 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck higher. Vance Wood. I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Michael Thames wrote: One could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a constant height of the string over the frets. This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a different angle from the one everyone else is talking about. They're talking about changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top. Imagine a triangle in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut, and point D is a point on the string directly above above point B. You can't move point C without changing the distance between points B and D. HP To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Another, way to look at it, is Humphrey's Millennium guitar, with an EXTREME neck angle, however the action is pretty good, at least on the ones set up by Jurlick out in LA. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 1:52 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? In a message dated 6/17/2005 12:33:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not a misconception - on a classical guitar, as you surely know, one method of construction has the neck in line with the body, but then the fingerboard is thinner at the higher frets, producing the same effect as angling the neck upwards - on this point I disagree with Tim. If you angle the neck backwards and your fingerboard is uniform thickness, then you are likely to buzz from the first fret - the pull of the strings may compensate. I've played many baroque guitars where the neck angle definitely affects the action, same with classical guitars. James -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a different angle from the one everyone else is talking about. They're talking about changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top. Imagine a triangle in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut, and point D is a point on the string directly above above point B. You can't move point C without changing the distance between points B and D. HP Howard, I'm afraid you are wrong! If your referring to a working functional instrument, extreme neck angles at some point would be dysfunctional. However, in theory or on paper it works doesn't it ? Just look at Humphrey's guitar, and keep imagining more and more of an angle, but instead of moving the neck to change the angle you move the top, which is what he did. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Howard Posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 5:15 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael Thames wrote: One could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a constant height of the string over the frets. This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a different angle from the one everyone else is talking about. They're talking about changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top. Imagine a triangle in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut, and point D is a point on the string directly above above point B. You can't move point C without changing the distance between points B and D. HP To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
One more example would be a cello or violin which has an EXTREME neck angle, this doesn't effect the action, now does it. It only affects how far of the top, the strings ride, like I've been saying. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Howard Posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 5:15 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael Thames wrote: One could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a constant height of the string over the frets. This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a different angle from the one everyone else is talking about. They're talking about changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top. Imagine a triangle in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut, and point D is a point on the string directly above above point B. You can't move point C without changing the distance between points B and D. HP To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Michael Thames wrote: One could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a constant height of the string over the frets. I wrote: This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a different angle from the one everyone else is talking about. They're talking about changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top. Imagine a triangle in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut, and point D is a point on the string directly above above point B. You can't move point C without changing the distance between points B and D. Michael Thames wrote: I'm afraid you are wrong! If I am, so are you, because your next sentence agrees with what I wrote. If your referring to a working functional instrument, extreme neck angles at some point would be dysfunctional. They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF THE NECK MAKES THE ACTION TOO HIGH, right? Which is to say that you can't change the angle of the neck to the plane of the top without changing the action. This happens all the time: the force of the strings over time pulls the neck forward, raising the nut and increasing the depth of the triangle I described, so the action is higher. However, in theory or on paper it works doesn't it ? Just look at Humphrey's guitar, and keep imagining more and more of an angle, but instead of moving the neck to change the angle you move the top, which is what he did. If we're talking about the same instruments, he also builds up the fingerboard to bring it closer to the strings. Indeed, I usually hear about this style of building as the raised fingerboard. HP To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Michael Thames wrote: One more example would be a cello or violin which has an EXTREME neck angle, this doesn't effect the action, now does it. Of course it does. That's why the bridges on those instruments have to be so high: if they weren't the strings would lie on (or slide off the sides of) the fingerboard. If you were to lower the neck angle on a cello a few degrees, the action up the fingerboard would be impossibly high. HP To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Gee Michael, I don't understand. Surely it is possible to angle the neck back to the point that the strings actually touch the neck at the neck/body joint unless you raise the bridge correspondingly. It would also be possible to angle the neck up (foreward) until the strings were unfrettable. No? Craig Craig R. Pierpont Another Era Lutherie www.anotherera.com Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Timothy, I stand by my first statement. First, lets define action which is the height of the bottom of the strings, form the top of the frets. One could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a constant height of the string over the frets. This idea of the neck angle affecting the action is a popular misconception by many luthiers. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: timothy motz To: ; ; ; Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael, Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the effect of neck angle will be. Tim Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Built-in action? Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600 Vance wrote, This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the belly. Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the neck will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. It has nothing to do with the action. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Vance Wood To: lute list ; Herbert Ward Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? - Original Message - From: Herbert Ward To: Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM Subject: Built-in action? Hi Herbert: You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon the action of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and how large the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If this is not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put on the Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over time will develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming less than 180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck higher. Vance Wood. I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --
Re: Built-in action?
Michael Thames wrote: I'm afraid you are wrong! Howard wrote... They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF THE NECK MAKES THE ACTION TOO HIGH, right? Which is to say that you can't change the angle of the neck to the plane of the top without changing the action Howard, the fatal flaw in your theory is, your assuming that the neck joined at the body can't move, only the nut end can move. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Howard Posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 6:17 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael Thames wrote: One could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a constant height of the string over the frets. I wrote: This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a different angle from the one everyone else is talking about. They're talking about changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top. Imagine a triangle in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut, and point D is a point on the string directly above above point B. You can't move point C without changing the distance between points B and D. Michael Thames wrote: I'm afraid you are wrong! If I am, so are you, because your next sentence agrees with what I wrote. If your referring to a working functional instrument, extreme neck angles at some point would be dysfunctional. They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF THE NECK MAKES THE ACTION TOO HIGH, right? Which is to say that you can't change the angle of the neck to the plane of the top without changing the action. This happens all the time: the force of the strings over time pulls the neck forward, raising the nut and increasing the depth of the triangle I described, so the action is higher. However, in theory or on paper it works doesn't it ? Just look at Humphrey's guitar, and keep imagining more and more of an angle, but instead of moving the neck to change the angle you move the top, which is what he did. If we're talking about the same instruments, he also builds up the fingerboard to bring it closer to the strings. Indeed, I usually hear about this style of building as the raised fingerboard. HP To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Lutenists tend stay away from lutes with moving neck joints. I'm afraid you are wrong! Howard wrote... They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF THE NECK MAKES THE ACTION TOO HIGH, right? Which is to say that you can't change the angle of the neck to the plane of the top without changing the action Howard, the fatal flaw in your theory is, your assuming that the neck joined at the body can't move, only the nut end can move. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Howard Posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 6:17 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael Thames wrote: One could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a constant height of the string over the frets. I wrote: This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a different angle from the one everyone else is talking about. They're talking about changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top. Imagine a triangle in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut, and point D is a point on the string directly above above point B. You can't move point C without changing the distance between points B and D. Michael Thames wrote: I'm afraid you are wrong! If I am, so are you, because your next sentence agrees with what I wrote. If your referring to a working functional instrument, extreme neck angles at some point would be dysfunctional. They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF THE NECK MAKES THE ACTION TOO HIGH, right? Which is to say that you can't change the angle of the neck to the plane of the top without changing the action. This happens all the time: the force of the strings over time pulls the neck forward, raising the nut and increasing the depth of the triangle I described, so the action is higher. However, in theory or on paper it works doesn't it ? Just look at Humphrey's guitar, and keep imagining more and more of an angle, but instead of moving the neck to change the angle you move the top, which is what he did. If we're talking about the same instruments, he also builds up the fingerboard to bring it closer to the strings. Indeed, I usually hear about this style of building as the raised fingerboard. HP http://polyhymnion.org ___ $0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more. Signup at www.doteasy.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Lutenists tend stay away from lutes with moving neck joints. The Schelle therobo has a hinge on the neck. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Howard Posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:22 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Lutenists tend stay away from lutes with moving neck joints. I'm afraid you are wrong! Howard wrote... They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF THE NECK MAKES THE ACTION TOO HIGH, right? Which is to say that you can't change the angle of the neck to the plane of the top without changing the action Howard, the fatal flaw in your theory is, your assuming that the neck joined at the body can't move, only the nut end can move. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Howard Posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 6:17 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Michael Thames wrote: One could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up or down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply maintain a constant height of the string over the frets. I wrote: This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a different angle from the one everyone else is talking about. They're talking about changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top. Imagine a triangle in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut, and point D is a point on the string directly above above point B. You can't move point C without changing the distance between points B and D. Michael Thames wrote: I'm afraid you are wrong! If I am, so are you, because your next sentence agrees with what I wrote. If your referring to a working functional instrument, extreme neck angles at some point would be dysfunctional. They would be dysfunctional because the ANGLE OF THE NECK MAKES THE ACTION TOO HIGH, right? Which is to say that you can't change the angle of the neck to the plane of the top without changing the action. This happens all the time: the force of the strings over time pulls the neck forward, raising the nut and increasing the depth of the triangle I described, so the action is higher. However, in theory or on paper it works doesn't it ? Just look at Humphrey's guitar, and keep imagining more and more of an angle, but instead of moving the neck to change the angle you move the top, which is what he did. If we're talking about the same instruments, he also builds up the fingerboard to bring it closer to the strings. Indeed, I usually hear about this style of building as the raised fingerboard. HP http://polyhymnion.org ___ $0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more. Signup at www.doteasy.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
- Original Message - From: Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:20 pm Subject: Re: Built-in action? Well all I can say, is that I've given two different examples of radically different neck angles, Humphrey, and the opposite of that angle, a cello, and both have, or can have what is considered perfect ACTION. So I still maintain that perfect action is attainable regardless of the neck angle. Not regardless. Even if you can maintain a working string height above fingerboard, a point comes that the angle just can't work. You can't make a functional necked chordophone where the neck comes into the table at 90 degrees, e.g. (unless you count washtub bass). I am not fond of the Humphrey paradigm. (This is my personal taste and yours may differ without shame.) Every one I've encountered I would condsider rather brassy toned, a bit harsh. His Millennium system, at least in some small part, is a knock off of the early 19th-c. Legnani-model guitars by Staufer as well as his proteges and emulators. The older paradigm featured the same neck angle, angled into the table. In addition, the neck featured a clock-key adjustable angle. Of course, the bridge fixed, changing the angle thus would substantially change action. Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
I am not fond of the Humphrey paradigm. (This is my personal taste and yours may differ without shame.) Every one I've encountered I would condsider rather brassy toned, a bit harsh. I agree, don't get me going on what I think of those things. I will say this, the brassy tone has everything to do with the fact that the strings ride a good 15mm off the top. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: EUGENE BRAIG IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; Craig Robert Pierpont [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 10:17 PM Subject: Re: Built-in action? - Original Message - From: Michael Thames [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:20 pm Subject: Re: Built-in action? Well all I can say, is that I've given two different examples of radically different neck angles, Humphrey, and the opposite of that angle, a cello, and both have, or can have what is considered perfect ACTION. So I still maintain that perfect action is attainable regardless of the neck angle. Not regardless. Even if you can maintain a working string height above fingerboard, a point comes that the angle just can't work. You can't make a functional necked chordophone where the neck comes into the table at 90 degrees, e.g. (unless you count washtub bass). I am not fond of the Humphrey paradigm. (This is my personal taste and yours may differ without shame.) Every one I've encountered I would condsider rather brassy toned, a bit harsh. His Millennium system, at least in some small part, is a knock off of the early 19th-c. Legnani-model guitars by Staufer as well as his proteges and emulators. The older paradigm featured the same neck angle, angled into the table. In addition, the neck featured a clock-key adjustable angle. Of course, the bridge fixed, changing the angle thus would substantially change action. Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Michael Thames wrote: So I still maintain that perfect action is attainable regardless of the neck angle. I figured we had to be talking at cross-purposes. I think what you've been trying to say is that whatever the neck angle is, it's possible to design an instrument around that neck angle such that the action is perfect. This is quite different from saying it doesn't matter what the neck angle on a lute is, which is what most of us assumed you meant in the context of the discussion. HP To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Dear Martyn and All, The really interesting thing about Varietie is how thin the frets are. Dowland says use a fourth course string for frets 1 and 2, a third course for frets 3 and 4, second course for frets 5 and 6, and first course for frets 7 to 10. Our best estimate of likely string diameters therefore suggests a maximum of about .80mm, .64mm, .50mm, and .42mm for fret diameters, perhaps even thinner for the first course diameter because D was talking about a double first course. Has anyone tried using a .40mm fret? Even allowing for the fact that he was using double frets, this seems incredibly thin. Many modern players (admittedly using single frets) have tended to use very large diameter frets because that say it helps concentrate the pressure on the string rather than the fingerboard (especially if you have fleshy finger ends, which I guess was never the case for impoverished 16thC musicians!). They also claim large frets make playing ornaments easier. Comments, anyone? Best wishes, Martin Martyn Hodgson wrote: Martin, Yes. But one of the problems continues to be the reluctance of players to employ well graduated frets which allows the lute to be 'set fine' (low action in modern parlance). You only need to read 'Varietie' to understand the quite severe graduations required (cf. many current frettings) and the thickness of the first fret. Incidentally, by using graduated frets the 'Old Ones' clearly showed they well understood the importance of displacement to the fingerboard rather than just to the top of the fret.. Again, we should always aim to refer to historical information if we are to approach what they expected. rgds Martyn */Martin Shepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Dear All, Michael Lowe told me recently that he thought luthiers spent the first 30 years of their working lives making lutes, and the second thirty years adjusting actions Best wishes, Martin Ed Durbrow wrote: Herb, There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the top of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually, on some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge. And, as Gernot points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut bass strings being quite fat. That requires the luthier to either cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the treble, or both. I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in which the action was wrong and required remedial work. It was quite a learning experience, and I have much greater app It's always boggled my mind how luthers can get it right. I'd like to know how much leeway they have when considering how heavy to make an instrument in order to accommodate different sets of strings. It seems to me if you make a very light lute, you have to string it up to full tension, and hopefully it would work out that just at the point of being at the proper pitch, and only then, would the strings clear the frets with the lowest possible distance without making a buzz. To consider variable stringing when making an instrument must mean that they would have to make it heavier. Am I way off base here? I'm just speculating, but I would guess they would have to take that into consideration. For example, if the tension is raised even slightly, that could upset the action so a luther must consider if the customer is going to be switching between high and low pitch with the same set of strings. Even if the tension is constant, the differences in thickness between gut and overspun must through a wrench (spanner Brit.) into the works. Just thinking with my fingers here. cheers, To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Yahoo! Messenger http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/messenger/*http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/messenger/*http://uk.beta.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: Built-in action?
I love Dowland's music, and consider him one of my best loved composers of all time. However, at the time he recommended these fret diameters, as well as the double frets, he must have been seeing double, in a drunken melancholy stooper. The idea that Martyn uses Dowland as his source, and narrows down 300 years, of lute history to this remark, really makes me scratch my head. If anyone can barre the second fret cleanly, all the way across and play divisions at the same time on 80mm frets my hats off to you! I'm sure it can be done, with allot of needless effort. That's the equivalent of playing and old worn out guitar, in desperate need of a fret job. Some guitarist's I know ask for high frets if their doing allot of site reading, saying this makes it easier to read through music, eliminating pin point accuracy. Martyn, what's wrong with a little personal adjustment to the playing action. On both my Baroque, and 6 course ren lute, I have 1.20mm fret gut all the way up, and love it. The phenomena of high frets hit the guitar world about 20 years ago. It started in LA, CA. by Pepe Romero, and then all the LA guitarist's like Scott Tenet etc. started using them. The consensus was, you need less pressure to press down the string as your finger immediately feels the connection to the fret. The other side to this is, playing Tarrega, Segovia's style, and the romantic repertoire, incorporating sliding up the fingerboard on one string. In this case, high frets can tend to feel like railroad ties, as your going down the track. However, I've not come across this technique in any lute music. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: Martin Shepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:28 AM Subject: Re: Built-in action? Dear Martyn and All, The really interesting thing about Varietie is how thin the frets are. Dowland says use a fourth course string for frets 1 and 2, a third course for frets 3 and 4, second course for frets 5 and 6, and first course for frets 7 to 10. Our best estimate of likely string diameters therefore suggests a maximum of about .80mm, .64mm, .50mm, and .42mm for fret diameters, perhaps even thinner for the first course diameter because D was talking about a double first course. Has anyone tried using a .40mm fret? Even allowing for the fact that he was using double frets, this seems incredibly thin. Many modern players (admittedly using single frets) have tended to use very large diameter frets because that say it helps concentrate the pressure on the string rather than the fingerboard (especially if you have fleshy finger ends, which I guess was never the case for impoverished 16thC musicians!). They also claim large frets make playing ornaments easier. Comments, anyone? Best wishes, Martin Martyn Hodgson wrote: Martin, Yes. But one of the problems continues to be the reluctance of players to employ well graduated frets which allows the lute to be 'set fine' (low action in modern parlance). You only need to read 'Varietie' to understand the quite severe graduations required (cf. many current frettings) and the thickness of the first fret. Incidentally, by using graduated frets the 'Old Ones' clearly showed they well understood the importance of displacement to the fingerboard rather than just to the top of the fret.. Again, we should always aim to refer to historical information if we are to approach what they expected. rgds Martyn */Martin Shepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Dear All, Michael Lowe told me recently that he thought luthiers spent the first 30 years of their working lives making lutes, and the second thirty years adjusting actions Best wishes, Martin Ed Durbrow wrote: Herb, There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the top of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually, on some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge. And, as Gernot points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut bass strings being quite fat. That requires the luthier to either cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the treble, or both. I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in which the action was wrong and required remedial work. It was quite a learning experience, and I have much greater app It's always boggled my mind how luthers can get it right. I'd like to know how much leeway they have when considering how heavy
Re: Built-in action?
Martin, Yes and it certainly works well if you have a lute set extremely 'fine' and are not trying to play as loud as possible, however one needs greater accuracy in placing the fingers. The feeling is a little like playing a fretless instrument. But also bear in mind that glued-on frets seem to be an early 17thC invention and higher notes (above 8th fret) were stopped on the belly. A very thin top fret smooths the transition. Having said this, I soon reverted to thicker frets to make life easier (if not HIP) - so much for my advocacy of historical evidence .. rgds Martyn Martin Shepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Martyn and All, The really interesting thing about Varietie is how thin the frets are. Dowland says use a fourth course string for frets 1 and 2, a third course for frets 3 and 4, second course for frets 5 and 6, and first course for frets 7 to 10. Our best estimate of likely string diameters therefore suggests a maximum of about .80mm, .64mm, .50mm, and .42mm for fret diameters, perhaps even thinner for the first course diameter because D was talking about a double first course. Has anyone tried using a .40mm fret? Even allowing for the fact that he was using double frets, this seems incredibly thin. Many modern players (admittedly using single frets) have tended to use very large diameter frets because that say it helps concentrate the pressure on the string rather than the fingerboard (especially if you have fleshy finger ends, which I guess was never the case for impoverished 16thC musicians!). They also claim large frets make playing ornaments easier. Comments, anyone? Best wishes, Martin Martyn Hodgson wrote: Martin, Yes. But one of the problems continues to be the reluctance of players to employ well graduated frets which allows the lute to be 'set fine' (low action in modern parlance). You only need to read 'Varietie' to understand the quite severe graduations required (cf. many current frettings) and the thickness of the first fret. Incidentally, by using graduated frets the 'Old Ones' clearly showed they well understood the importance of displacement to the fingerboard rather than just to the top of the fret.. Again, we should always aim to refer to historical information if we are to approach what they expected. rgds Martyn */Martin Shepherd /* wrote: Dear All, Michael Lowe told me recently that he thought luthiers spent the first 30 years of their working lives making lutes, and the second thirty years adjusting actions Best wishes, Martin Ed Durbrow wrote: Herb, There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the top of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually, on some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge. And, as Gernot points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut bass strings being quite fat. That requires the luthier to either cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the treble, or both. I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in which the action was wrong and required remedial work. It was quite a learning experience, and I have much greater app It's always boggled my mind how luthers can get it right. I'd like to know how much leeway they have when considering how heavy to make an instrument in order to accommodate different sets of strings. It seems to me if you make a very light lute, you have to string it up to full tension, and hopefully it would work out that just at the point of being at the proper pitch, and only then, would the strings clear the frets with the lowest possible distance without making a buzz. To consider variable stringing when making an instrument must mean that they would have to make it heavier. Am I way off base here? I'm just speculating, but I would guess they would have to take that into consideration. For example, if the tension is raised even slightly, that could upset the action so a luther must consider if the customer is going to be switching between high and low pitch with the same set of strings. Even if the tension is constant, the differences in thickness between gut and overspun must through a wrench (spanner Brit.) into the works. Just thinking with my fingers here. cheers, To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail - Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail --
RE: Built-in action?
Herb, There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the top of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually, on some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge. And, as Gernot points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut bass strings being quite fat. That requires the luthier to either cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the treble, or both. I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in which the action was wrong and required remedial work. It was quite a learning experience, and I have much greater app It's always boggled my mind how luthers can get it right. I'd like to know how much leeway they have when considering how heavy to make an instrument in order to accommodate different sets of strings. It seems to me if you make a very light lute, you have to string it up to full tension, and hopefully it would work out that just at the point of being at the proper pitch, and only then, would the strings clear the frets with the lowest possible distance without making a buzz. To consider variable stringing when making an instrument must mean that they would have to make it heavier. Am I way off base here? I'm just speculating, but I would guess they would have to take that into consideration. For example, if the tension is raised even slightly, that could upset the action so a luther must consider if the customer is going to be switching between high and low pitch with the same set of strings. Even if the tension is constant, the differences in thickness between gut and overspun must through a wrench (spanner Brit.) into the works. Just thinking with my fingers here. cheers, -- Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Dear All, Michael Lowe told me recently that he thought luthiers spent the first 30 years of their working lives making lutes, and the second thirty years adjusting actions Best wishes, Martin Ed Durbrow wrote: Herb, There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the top of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually, on some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge. And, as Gernot points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut bass strings being quite fat. That requires the luthier to either cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the treble, or both. I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in which the action was wrong and required remedial work. It was quite a learning experience, and I have much greater app It's always boggled my mind how luthers can get it right. I'd like to know how much leeway they have when considering how heavy to make an instrument in order to accommodate different sets of strings. It seems to me if you make a very light lute, you have to string it up to full tension, and hopefully it would work out that just at the point of being at the proper pitch, and only then, would the strings clear the frets with the lowest possible distance without making a buzz. To consider variable stringing when making an instrument must mean that they would have to make it heavier. Am I way off base here? I'm just speculating, but I would guess they would have to take that into consideration. For example, if the tension is raised even slightly, that could upset the action so a luther must consider if the customer is going to be switching between high and low pitch with the same set of strings. Even if the tension is constant, the differences in thickness between gut and overspun must through a wrench (spanner Brit.) into the works. Just thinking with my fingers here. cheers, To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
RE: Built-in action?
Ed, As a newbie builder, I've actually been surprised how stiff a lute becomes once the braced soundboard has been glued on. I have seen some lutes in which the soundboard has bulged upward from the pull of the strings on the bridge, but apparently scooping the bowl so that the soundboard bends just below the rose helps deal with that. The reason why I had to fix the action on a lute I had just finished building was that I had allowed for a bit of flexing, but none occurred. But I've only made a few 6- and 7-course instruments. I don't know whether there is flexing with more courses. Over a period of many years there will be flexing, resulting in the action gradually getting higher (which explains Martin's wonderful joke). Tim Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: RE: Built-in action? Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:41:08 +0900 Herb, There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the top of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually, on some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge. And, as Gernot points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut bass strings being quite fat. That requires the luthier to either cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the treble, or both. I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in which the action was wrong and required remedial work. It was quite a learning experience, and I have much greater app It's always boggled my mind how luthers can get it right. I'd like to know how much leeway they have when considering how heavy to make an instrument in order to accommodate different sets of strings. It seems to me if you make a very light lute, you have to string it up to full tension, and hopefully it would work out that just at the point of being at the proper pitch, and only then, would the strings clear the frets with the lowest possible distance without making a buzz. To consider variable stringing when making an instrument must mean that they would have to make it heavier. Am I way off base here? I'm just speculating, but I would guess they would have to take that into consideration. For example, if the tension is raised even slightly, that could upset the action so a luther must consider if the customer is going to be switching between high and low pitch with the same set of strings. Even if the tension is constant, the differences in thickness between gut and overspun must through a wrench (spanner Brit.) into the works. Just thinking with my fingers here. cheers, -- Ed Durbrow Saitama, Japan http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/ To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
RE: Built-in action?
What is wrong with the following procedure, other than the fact that replacing worn frets would be a day's work? Procedure to improve action without wood-working or gluing Step 1. Borrow a lute with excellent action. Measure the clearances and prepare a table like this: fret 1fret 2 fret 3 ... course 1: 0.019 in 0.024 in 0.033 in... course 2: 0.019 in 0.024 in 0.034 in... course 3: 0.020 in 0.026 in 0.036 in... course 4: 0.022 in 0.027 in 0.036 in... course 5: 0.023 in 0.028 in 0.038 in... course 6: 0.024 in 0.028 in 0.038 in... Step 2. Remove all the frets from the bad lute. Install oversized frets. Step 3. Use a file (one-sided, to avoid damaging the string) to cut the frets down so that the clearances match those in the table above. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
RE: Built-in action?
Hello Ward, Step 1. Borrow a lute with excellent action. Measure the clearances and prepare a table like this: fret 1fret 2 fret 3 ... course 1: 0.019 in 0.024 in 0.033 in... course 2: 0.019 in 0.024 in 0.034 in... course 3: 0.020 in 0.026 in 0.036 in... course 4: 0.022 in 0.027 in 0.036 in... course 5: 0.023 in 0.028 in 0.038 in... course 6: 0.024 in 0.028 in 0.038 in... Step 2. Remove all the frets from the bad lute. Install oversized frets. Step 3. Use a file (one-sided, to avoid damaging the string) to cut the frets down so that the clearances match those in the table above. It is easyer and without any risk for the strings to work with sandpaper between fret and fretboard. The frets will stay round! regards Matthias -- Matthias Wagner Klemmbachstr. 11 a D - 79410 Badenweiler - Schweighof Tel. +49-7632 - 82 86 95, Fax: +49-7632 - 82 898 68 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lutes-strings.de To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Dear Herbert, I think there is a lot more to the set up of the action on a fine instrument than just the distance between the frets and the strings - like the angle of the neck, the height of the nut bridge, string type, string tension and so on. On a good instrument all you should ever need to do is replace worn frets with new ones of the same diameter. IMHO the only material for frets on a lute is gut, and taking a file to it would surely raise the fibres and cause problems, not to mention risking scratching the fingerboard. If the set up of the action on a lute is wrong I would say the best bet is to take it to a good maker to be corrected. Best wishes, Denys - Original Message - From: Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:25 PM Subject: RE: Built-in action? What is wrong with the following procedure, other than the fact that replacing worn frets would be a day's work? Procedure to improve action without wood-working or gluing Step 1. Borrow a lute with excellent action. Measure the clearances and prepare a table like this: fret 1fret 2 fret 3 ... course 1: 0.019 in 0.024 in 0.033 in... course 2: 0.019 in 0.024 in 0.034 in... course 3: 0.020 in 0.026 in 0.036 in... course 4: 0.022 in 0.027 in 0.036 in... course 5: 0.023 in 0.028 in 0.038 in... course 6: 0.024 in 0.028 in 0.038 in... Step 2. Remove all the frets from the bad lute. Install oversized frets. Step 3. Use a file (one-sided, to avoid damaging the string) to cut the frets down so that the clearances match those in the table above. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Just some interesting point to the topic that might as well be known to many of you: I know someone who lowers the action of his ten course lute by eliminating one of the octaves of the base courses and tying a nylon string to the free peg which then goes from the belly side to the knob at the back of the instrument. That is: he gives counter force against the pull of the strings. It is not for great changes in the action I believe. I tried his instrument both ways and there was realy a slightly a lighter touch when pulled from the back, not that much difference though. It seemed to me a pretty 'wild' approach, though it can be a quick makeshift solution at times. I was told it is an oriental technique used by oud players who - I suppose - don't necessarily give up a string but have an extra peg for the purpose. I wonder. Anyway, best regards: Gabor Domjan To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Built-in action?
I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Herbert, this is an astute statement worthy of a physicist which I assume you are (I am one as well). :-) But there is at least a second dimension to take into account. In particular with baroque lutes, you got to deal with a more-or-less - for now I'd call it this a- hyperconical shape for the fretboard because the bridge is more or less straight and the nut is quite irregularly curved, straighter in the bass area and astonishingly curved for the treble. Also, bass strings need considerably more space than the trebles and our poor luthier needs to take care of all this. Choosing different fretgut will only change the action so-to--say linearly neglecting most of the more complex geometrical requirements. Also: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. No, I do disagree, the action is controlled by the luthier's work PLUS the person's who chooses the fret diameters. If the former does pretty much of a botch job, you'll probably go nuts while fretting the axe. Physicist's cheers from cold Germany g To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Nope - the action is composed of the shallow triangle formed by strings, the soundboard and the neck. Unless I've missed something somexwhere... - Original Message - From: Herbert Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 9:35 PM Subject: Built-in action? I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
RE: Built-in action?
Herb, There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the top of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually, on some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge. And, as Gernot points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut bass strings being quite fat. That requires the luthier to either cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the treble, or both. I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in which the action was wrong and required remedial work. It was quite a learning experience, and I have much greater appreciation for a lute in which the action is good. These instruments seem simple at first, but when you start measuring and comparing one to another, you find that there is a great deal of subtle variation that a luthier can put in to alter the sound and playing properties. Building a basic lute wasn't that hard for me, but I'm finding that building a good lute is a challenge. I didn't get there with this lute; perhaps with the next one. Tim Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: RE: Built-in action? Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:35:13 -0500 (CDT) I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
RE: Built-in action?
Herb, There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the top of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually, on some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge. And, as Gernot points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut bass strings being quite fat. That requires the luthier to either cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the treble, or both. I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in which the action was wrong and required remedial work. It was quite a learning experience, and I have much greater appreciation for a lute in which the action is good. These instruments seem simple at first, but when you start measuring and comparing one to another, you find that there is a great deal of subtle variation that a luthier can put in to alter the sound and playing properties. Building a basic lute wasn't that hard for me, but I'm finding that building a good lute is a challenge. I didn't get there with this lute; perhaps with the next one. Tim Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: RE: Built-in action? Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:35:13 -0500 (CDT) I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Built-in action?
Well said everyone, but I'd like to add that the difference between .90mm fret gut, and lets say 1.20mm ( both extremes) is only .30 mm that's not much! So really what can be done with fret gut is very small compared to the actual construction and built in set up of a lute. Some people advocate using higher fret gut for the first fret, and decreasing the diameters as you go up the neck. This makes no sense unless you are trying to compensate for a bad set up from the beginning. The larger diameter fret gut makes barreing much easier than low fret gut. As one barres a chord with low frets ones knuckle presses against the fingerboard, but the soft fleshy part of the finger won't press down the 2nd course. On high frets one can press down without hitting the fingerboard so in my opinion low fret gut should be avoided at all costs, even going up the neck, if one wants relief in the neck the luthier should built it in the neck before fretting it. Michael Thames www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com - Original Message - From: timothy motz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 2:46 PM Subject: RE: Built-in action? Herb, There is more to it than that. Your description assumes that the top of the neck is in a straight line with the soundboard. Actually, on some lutes the neck tilts back a fraction. That brings the line of the strings closer to parallel with the neck to make the action more even from the top of the neck to the bottom without placing the strings too close to the soundboard at the bridge. And, as Gernot points out, the strings can be of quite different diameters, with gut bass strings being quite fat. That requires the luthier to either cant the neck towards the bass side, tilt the bridge towards the treble, or both. I've just finished fussing with a lute I built in which the action was wrong and required remedial work. It was quite a learning experience, and I have much greater appreciation for a lute in which the action is good. These instruments seem simple at first, but when you start measuring and comparing one to another, you find that there is a great deal of subtle variation that a luthier can put in to alter the sound and playing properties. Building a basic lute wasn't that hard for me, but I'm finding that building a good lute is a challenge. I didn't get there with this lute; perhaps with the next one. Tim Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: RE: Built-in action? Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:35:13 -0500 (CDT) I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are credited with the action of a lute. The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ of the frets are. The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret diameters. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html