[LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, loaded or low tension strings?
Martyn That was indeed the sort of argument I was looking for, but was not capapble of putting forward. Let us now agree for the moment that your interpretation of Dowland's words is correct. It seems to me that further question ensue (I appologize in advance I I have got this wrong. It is true that I have never really thought about this topic before): 1) I am wondering whether smaller upper frets could not indicate a different string type from those used today. In particular, loaded strings have a very ample movement. I am unable to give anything other than a metaphorical explanation for this, but consider that the core of such a string would be a rope and the additional density is given by the loading. However, rather than behaving as a spring (wire- wound) which tends to spring back, the loading seems to give the string inertia, and it seems to act more like a pendulum. The weight tends to carry the string on causing it to stretch slightly. Thus to avoid buzzing (according to Mimmo Peruffo), a fairly high string position might be employed (high nut), but perhaps a normal nut height but fairly thin frets could acheive a similar result. Some others have suggested that low tension strings were adopted as the number of basses were increased. Again low tension strings probably have a greater movement from the neutral position than high tesnion strings. However, I think this would be less pronounced than with loaded strings. Perhaps, thin frets and a Left Hand movement back towards the bridge would all be ways of compensating for the introduction of a new string type. If Dowland's thumb-out change corresponded to the introduction of this loaded string type (MP's hypothesized date for the introduction of loaded strings is about 1580), and particularly if his instructions for fretting corresponded to Dowland's change to a 9c lute, this could be a strong possibility, rather than just implying that he was using a low action. Indeed, I notice that Lundberg suggests a very thick first fret for a lute with a low action. 2) There would appear, at first sight, to be another implication in Dowland's fret advice, namely that the longer the string for the same tension and frequency, the smaller the firts fret. Thus if I just change the string length on the Gamut calculator keeping all other values, I would get: F-4 at 174.61Hz for 2.7K at LA 440Hz and 59 cm, gives a diameter of 0,78 cm F-4 at 74.61Hz for 2,7k at La 440Hz and 68 cm, gives a diameter of 0,68 cm But of course the Diapason would be lowered on a 68cm lute, if we don't want the top string to break, say to 415Hz F-4 164.81at 2,7K at La 415Hz and 68cm gives a diameter of 0.72 Thus I think this is probably irrelevant. I am struggling in the semidark, here, not having any practical experience with varieties of lutes, and certainly not being able to put the loaded string hypothesis into practice, but it seems plausible to me at this moment. Regards Anthony Le 14 mai 08 =E0 18:13, Martyn Hodgson a ecrit : Well - yes, but only by stretching a point: - bear in mind that the pitch at which a string breaks is dependent only on the material (in this case gut) and not on diameter (eg a thin string breaks at a lower tension than a thicker but the breaking stress is the same) so if you follow contemporary advice to tune the first course as high as it will go and taking a string dia of 0.70mm (as some modern gut fretting arrangements require the 8th fret), tension wld be radically higher and approaching 10KG! MH --- On Wed, 14/5/08, Ron Andrico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Ron Andrico [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008, 5:00 PM To All: This is an interesting discussion about frets, double or single. I think there is no reason to doubt Dowland's recommendations for fret sizes (fourth string for the first fret). Is is possible to infer that his guidelines indicate much larger string diameters, and probably a lower pitched tuning? Best wishes, Ron Andrico www.mignarda.com Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:54:06 + To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach Thank you for this. When you say 'not to be taken literally', I presume you mean because he was (through neccessity) obliged to link the same size of two frets with just one gut lute string, rather casting doubt on the general (small) size of the frets. If he had wanted to imply thicker frets he could have just as easily started with the 'Tenor' (5th course), but he didn't. MH PS Incidentally the 'Other Necessary Obs...' are by John D not Robert. --- On Wed, 14/5/08, Gernot Hilger [EMAIL
[LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, loaded or low tension strings?
In my view, the introduction of added courses and lower tensions dictated the much lower right hand position which enabled vigourous plucking without excessive string rattle (ie the string vibrational envelope is flattened - not so convex) rather than allowing smaller first frets (if this is what you're suggesting). Lundberg would indeed have to start with a thicker first fret if his lute 'action' was low since he doesn't recommend the high level of graduation in the frets as Dowland whose thinnest fret is some 55% of the thickest. You tell me Lundberg suggested the smallest fret (8th/9th)at around .70mm which would require a first fret of around 1.3mm with Dowland's level of graduation. MH --- On Thu, 15/5/08, Anthony Hind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Anthony Hind [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, loaded or low tension strings? To: Martyn Hodgson [EMAIL PROTECTED], lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Thursday, 15 May, 2008, 10:29 AM Martyn That was indeed the sort of argument I was looking for, but was not capapble of putting forward. Let us now agree for the moment that your interpretation of Dowland's words is correct. It seems to me that further question ensue (I appologize in advance I I have got this wrong. It is true that I have never really thought about this topic before): 1) I am wondering whether smaller upper frets could not indicate a different string type from those used today. In particular, loaded strings have a very ample movement. I am unable to give anything other than a metaphorical explanation for this, but consider that the core of such a string would be a rope and the additional density is given by the loading. However, rather than behaving as a spring (wire- wound) which tends to spring back, the loading seems to give the string inertia, and it seems to act more like a pendulum. The weight tends to carry the string on causing it to stretch slightly. Thus to avoid buzzing (according to Mimmo Peruffo), a fairly high string position might be employed (high nut), but perhaps a normal nut height but fairly thin frets could acheive a similar result. Some others have suggested that low tension strings were adopted as the number of basses were increased. Again low tension strings probably have a greater movement from the neutral position than high tesnion strings. However, I think this would be less pronounced than with loaded strings. Perhaps, thin frets and a Left Hand movement back towards the bridge would all be ways of compensating for the introduction of a new string type. If Dowland's thumb-out change corresponded to the introduction of this loaded string type (MP's hypothesized date for the introduction of loaded strings is about 1580), and particularly if his instructions for fretting corresponded to Dowland's change to a 9c lute, this could be a strong possibility, rather than just implying that he was using a low action. Indeed, I notice that Lundberg suggests a very thick first fret for a lute with a low action. 2) There would appear, at first sight, to be another implication in Dowland's fret advice, namely that the longer the string for the same tension and frequency, the smaller the firts fret. Thus if I just change the string length on the Gamut calculator keeping all other values, I would get: F-4 at 174.61Hz for 2.7K at LA 440Hz and 59 cm, gives a diameter of 0,78 cm F-4 at 74.61Hz for 2,7k at La 440Hz and 68 cm, gives a diameter of 0,68 cm But of course the Diapason would be lowered on a 68cm lute, if we don't want the top string to break, say to 415Hz F-4 164.81at 2,7K at La 415Hz and 68cm gives a diameter of 0.72 Thus I think this is probably irrelevant. I am struggling in the semidark, here, not having any practical experience with varieties of lutes, and certainly not being able to put the loaded string hypothesis into practice, but it seems plausible to me at this moment. Regards Anthony Le 14 mai 08 =E0 18:13, Martyn Hodgson a ecrit : Well - yes, but only by stretching a point: - bear in mind that the pitch at which a string breaks is dependent only on the material (in this case gut) and not on diameter (eg a thin string breaks at a lower tension than a thicker but the breaking stress is the same) so if you follow contemporary advice to tune the first course as high as it will go and taking a string dia of 0.70mm (as some modern gut fretting arrangements require the 8th fret), tension wld be radically higher and approaching 10KG! MH --- On Wed, 14/5/08, Ron Andrico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Ron Andrico [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net lute
[LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach
Thank you for this. When you say 'not to be taken literally', I presume you mean because he was (through neccessity) obliged to link the same size of two frets with just one gut lute string, rather casting doubt on the general (small) size of the frets. If he had wanted to imply thicker frets he could have just as easily started with the 'Tenor' (5th course), but he didn't. MH PS Incidentally the 'Other Necessary Obs...' are by John D not Robert. --- On Wed, 14/5/08, Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Fret diameters, a geometrical approach To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008, 1:39 PM There has been some discussion about fret diameters lately. For those who might be interested, I did some quick and dirty geometry with Excel and have put this online (http://www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ frets). The results come with no warranty, of course because there may be some bugs hidden. Also, the effects of meantone temperament are not yet included. These are anyway much smaller than the effects of different fret diameter strategies. The gist is that there are almost no differences between different strategies except for the Robert Dowland method which is clearly not to be taken literally. Have fun g To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
[LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach
On 14.05.2008, at 14:54, Martyn Hodgson wrote: When you say 'not to be taken literally', I presume you mean because he was (through neccessity) obliged to link the same size of two frets with just one gut lute string, rather casting doubt on the general (small) size of the frets. Exactly. Theoretically, one should either use the same diameter throughout OR make the frets thinner from fret to fret. There is no reason not to use thinner frets, in particular with double frets. Again, the differences are very small and one can always slightly flatten a fret. PS Incidentally the 'Other Necessary Obs...' are by John D not Robert. Had I written John, somebody would now be nitpicking that the book was edited by Robert. g To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach
To All: This is an interesting discussion about frets, double or single. I think there is no reason to doubt Dowland's recommendations for fret sizes (fourth string for the first fret). Is is possible to infer that his guidelines indicate much larger string diameters, and probably a lower pitched tuning? Best wishes, Ron Andrico www.mignarda.com Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:54:06 + To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach Thank you for this. When you say 'not to be taken literally', I presume you mean because he was (through neccessity) obliged to link the same size of two frets with just one gut lute string, rather casting doubt on the general (small) size of the frets. If he had wanted to imply thicker frets he could have just as easily started with the 'Tenor' (5th course), but he didn't. MH PS Incidentally the 'Other Necessary Obs...' are by John D not Robert. --- On Wed, 14/5/08, Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Fret diameters, a geometrical approach To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008, 1:39 PM There has been some discussion about ! fret diameters lately. For those who might be interested, I did some quick and dirty geometry with Excel and have put this online (http://www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ frets). The results come with no warranty, of course because there may be some bugs hidden. Also, the effects of meantone temperament are not yet included. These are anyway much smaller than the effects of different fret diameter strategies. The gist is that there are almost no differences between different strategies except for the Robert Dowland method which is clearly not to be taken literally.Have fun gTo get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html _ With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_mobile_052008 --
[LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach
Well - yes, but only by stretching a point: - bear in mind that the pitch at which a string breaks is dependent only on the material (in this case gut) and not on diameter (eg a thin string breaks at a lower tension than a thicker but the breaking stress is the same) so if you follow contemporary advice to tune the first course as high as it will go and taking a string dia of 0.70mm (as some modern gut fretting arrangements require the 8th fret), tension wld be radically higher and approaching 10KG! MH --- On Wed, 14/5/08, Ron Andrico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Ron Andrico [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu, Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008, 5:00 PM To All: This is an interesting discussion about frets, double or single. I think there is no reason to doubt Dowland's recommendations for fret sizes (fourth string for the first fret). Is is possible to infer that his guidelines indicate much larger string diameters, and probably a lower pitched tuning? Best wishes, Ron Andrico www.mignarda.com Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:54:06 + To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach Thank you for this. When you say 'not to be taken literally', I presume you mean because he was (through neccessity) obliged to link the same size of two frets with just one gut lute string, rather casting doubt on the general (small) size of the frets. If he had wanted to imply thicker frets he could have just as easily started with the 'Tenor' (5th course), but he didn't. MH PS Incidentally the 'Other Necessary Obs...' are by John D not Robert. --- On Wed, 14/5/08, Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Fret diameters, a geometrical approach To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008, 1:39 PM There has been some discussion about fret diameters lately. For those who might be interested, I did some quick and dirty geometry with Excel and have put this online (http://www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ frets). The results come with no warranty, of course because there may be some bugs hidden. Also, the effects of meantone temperament are not yet included. These are anyway much smaller than the effects of different fret diameter strategies.The gist is that there are almost no differences between different strategies except for the Robert Dowland method which is clearly not to be taken literally.Have fun gTo get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html _ With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_mobile_052008 __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach
Le 14 mai 08 à 18:00, Ron Andrico a écrit : To All: This is an interesting discussion about frets, double or single. I think there is no reason to doubt Dowland's recommendations for fret sizes (fourth string for the first fret). Is is possible to infer that his guidelines indicate much larger string diameters, and probably a lower pitched tuning? Best wishes, Ron Andrico www.mignarda.com Ron You are right, it seems to me, in pointing out that there are at least two possible interpretations of the difference between Dowland's advice and what is done today: 1) The Dowland first fret is equivalent in diameter to today's fourth string, which would mean it is thinner than usually today (and the action probably lower); or 2) Dowland's fourth string was equivalent to today's first fret, which would mean that the fourth string was thicker than it is usually today (and so probably at a lower tension). I suppose various in between interpretations would be possible, as we have no precise measure of the typical diameter of Dowland's fourth string. All we know is that there is a relation between the two, but we can only guess at the value of either, through the sort of logic advanced on Mimmo Peruffo's historic string page, by guessing the likely value of the first string, and applying principles of equal tension by touch to the other strings. However, with a possible double first course, this might not be easy to guess at. Combined with what Tony just tells me in his message, I better put away the plane with which I was just about to shave off a few millimeters from my finger-board. Anthony Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:54:06 + To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach Thank you for this. When you say 'not to be taken literally', I presume you mean because he was (through neccessity) obliged to link the same size of two frets with just one gut lute string, rather casting doubt on the general (small) size of the frets. If he had wanted to imply thicker frets he could have just as easily started with the 'Tenor' (5th course), but he didn't. MH PS Incidentally the 'Other Necessary Obs...' are by John D not Robert. --- On Wed, 14/5/08, Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Fret diameters, a geometrical approach To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008, 1:39 PM There has been some discussion about ! fret diameters lately. For those who might be interested, I did some quick and dirty geometry with Excel and have put this online (http://www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ frets). The results come with no warranty, of course because there may be some bugs hidden. Also, the effects of meantone temperament are not yet included. These are anyway much smaller than the effects of different fret diameter strategies.The gist is that there are almost no differences between different strategies except for the Robert Dowland method which is clearly not to be taken literally.Have fun g To get on or off this list see list information at http:// www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ nowyoucan.html _ With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html? ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_mobile_052008 --
[LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach
Tony I did not even look at my lute (although I did begin to eye my antique plane http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hoevl.jpg) I was simply considering the fret gut diameters suggested by Martyn and those on my lute (which are close to those Lundberg's average). As Martyn seemed to be saying, smaller upper frets should allow lowering the strings at the nut. However, perhaps as you imply, it might also call for the lute to be set-up specifically for that. I was, as usual, dreaming of the ideal lute that had such a perfect action that you barely have to twitch your fingers to be able to play, the secret of Dowland's great mastery of the lute, revealed. Regards Anthony Le 14 mai 08 à 19:06, Tony Chalkley a écrit : snip Combined with what Tony just tells me in his message, I better put away the plane with which I was just about to shave off a few millimeters from my finger-board. Have you really got that much fingerboard? Mine are only about 2.5 mm. If I had much more, I would happily get out the plane, having once taken a long straightish edge between the bottom of the nut an the bottom of the bridge to see what the gap was at the joint (obviously without the frets in place). Then again with the strings off, and you know how much pull there is on the neck, igitur how much you have to thin the fb at the nut before flattening it off back up to the joint. Nae bother ;-) Anthony Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:54:06 + To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach Thank you for this. When you say 'not to be taken literally', I presume you mean because he was (through neccessity) obliged to link the same size of two frets with just one gut lute string, rather casting doubt on the general (small) size of the frets. If he had wanted to imply thicker frets he could have just as easily started with the 'Tenor' (5th course), but he didn't. MH PS Incidentally the 'Other Necessary Obs...' are by John D not Robert. --- On Wed, 14/5/08, Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Fret diameters, a geometrical approach To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008, 1:39 PM There has been some discussion about ! fret diameters lately. For those who might be interested, I did some quick and dirty geometry with Excel and have put this online (http://www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ frets). The results come with no warranty, of course because there maybe some bugs hidden. Also, the effects of meantone temperament are not yet included. These are anyway much smaller than the effects of different fret diameter strategies.The gist is that there are almost no differences between differentstrategies except for the Robert Dowland method which is clearly not to be taken literally.Have fun g To get on or off this list see list information at http:// www.cs.dartmouth.edu/ ~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ nowyoucan.html _ With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html? ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_mobile_052008 -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach
Tony I did not even look at my lute (although I did begin to eye my antique plane), I was simply considering the fret gut diameters suggested by Martyn and those on my lute (which are close to those Lundberg's average). As Martyn seemed to be saying, smaller upper frets should allow lowering the strings at the nut. However, perhaps as you imply, it might also call for the lute to be set-up specifically for that. I was, as usual, dreaming of the ideal lute that had such a perfect action that you barely have to twitch your fingers to be able to play, the secret of Dowland's great mastery of the lute, revealed. Regards Anthony Le 14 mai 08 à 19:06, Tony Chalkley a écrit : snip Combined with what Tony just tells me in his message, I better put away the plane with which I was just about to shave off a few millimeters from my finger-board. Have you really got that much fingerboard? Mine are only about 2.5 mm. If I had much more, I would happily get out the plane, having once taken a long straightish edge between the bottom of the nut an the bottom of the bridge to see what the gap was at the joint (obviously without the frets in place). Then again with the strings off, and you know how much pull there is on the neck, igitur how much you have to thin the fb at the nut before flattening it off back up to the joint. Nae bother ;-) Anthony Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:54:06 + To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach Thank you for this. When you say 'not to be taken literally', I presume you mean because he was (through neccessity) obliged to link the same size of two frets with just one gut lute string, rather casting doubt on the general (small) size of the frets. If he had wanted to imply thicker frets he could have just as easily started with the 'Tenor' (5th course), but he didn't. MH PS Incidentally the 'Other Necessary Obs...' are by John D not Robert. --- On Wed, 14/5/08, Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Fret diameters, a geometrical approach To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008, 1:39 PM There has been some discussion about ! fret diameters lately. For those who might be interested, I did some quick and dirty geometry with Excel and have put this online (http://www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ frets). The results come with no warranty, of course because there maybe some bugs hidden. Also, the effects of meantone temperament are not yet included. These are anyway much smaller than the effects of different fret diameter strategies.The gist is that there are almost no differences between differentstrategies except for the Robert Dowland method which is clearly not to be taken literally.Have fun g To get on or off this list see list information at http:// www.cs.dartmouth.edu/ ~wbc/lute-admin/index.html __ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ nowyoucan.html _ With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html? ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_mobile_052008 -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach
Tony I believe that most lute makers fix the neck to the body, and only when it is has taken up its final position once the glue is dried, do they add the fingerboard. I suppose they can then alter the result either by planing part of the neck, or playing with the thickness of the fingerboard (although as you say this is very thin). To be truthfull, I am just imagining that this is what I would expect to happen. I will look at Lunberg later to see if that is indeed what he suggests. Stephen Gottlieb, I believe, is one of the few who fit the fingerboard to the neck before fixing it to the body (this was explained at the Rauwolf conferences). I think that by doing this, he can make a very beautiful neck and fingerboard shape (indeed, several owners of Stephen's lutes have spoken of the very comfortable neck- shape he produces), but then, I imagine, he has less to play around with, once the neck is joined to the body. If the neck moves more than he predicts, I suppose he just may have to remove the whole neck and begin again. Regards Anthony Le 14 mai 08 à 20:34, Tony Chalkley a écrit : If the geometry is still a problem, think of or look at an electric guitar with a screwed on neck. You adjust the action by shimming under the neck, not by touching the frets. On some guitars, there is a grub screw to take the place of shims. On my classical guitar, the fingerboard is wedge shaped, the thicker end at the nut - the tops of the frets are level - if the action were too high, I would lessen the angle of the wedge. Different diameters of gut imitate this wedge shape, but assume that the neck under tension does not get pulled up out of line with the body. What makes the lute action more difficult to adjust is that the fingerboard is thin, and the joint is fairly solid. Tony - Original Message - From: Anthony Hind [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tony Chalkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach Tony I did not even look at my lute (although I did begin to eye my antique plane http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hoevl.jpg) I was simply considering the fret gut diameters suggested by Martyn and those on my lute (which are close to those Lundberg's average). As Martyn seemed to be saying, smaller upper frets should allow lowering the strings at the nut. However, perhaps as you imply, it might also call for the lute to be set-up specifically for that. I was, as usual, dreaming of the ideal lute that had such a perfect action that you barely have to twitch your fingers to be able to play, the secret of Dowland's great mastery of the lute, revealed. Regards Anthony Le 14 mai 08 à 19:06, Tony Chalkley a écrit : snip Combined with what Tony just tells me in his message, I better put away the plane with which I was just about to shave off a few millimeters from my finger-board. Have you really got that much fingerboard? Mine are only about 2.5 mm. If I had much more, I would happily get out the plane, having once taken a long straightish edge between the bottom of the nut an the bottom of the bridge to see what the gap was at the joint (obviously without the frets in place). Then again with the strings off, and you know how much pull there is on the neck, igitur how much you have to thin the fb at the nut before flattening it off back up to the joint. Nae bother ;-) Anthony Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:54:06 + To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach Thank you for this. When you say 'not to be taken literally', I presume you mean because he was (through neccessity) obliged to link the same size of two frets with just one gut lute string, rather casting doubt on the general (small) size of the frets. If he had wanted to imply thicker frets he could have just as easily started with the 'Tenor' (5th course), but he didn't. MH PS Incidentally the 'Other Necessary Obs...' are by John D not Robert. --- On Wed, 14/5/08, Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Fret diameters, a geometrical approach To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008, 1:39 PM There has been some discussion about ! fret diameters lately. For those who might be interested, I did some quick and dirty geometry with Excel and have put this online (http:// www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/frets). The results come with no warranty, of course because there maybe some bugs hidden. Also, the effects of meantone temperament are not yet included. These are anyway much smaller than the effects of different fret diameter strategies. The gist is that there are almost
[LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach
Le 14 mai 08 à 21:01, Anthony Hind a écrit : Tony I believe that most lute makers fix the neck to the body, and only when it is has taken up its final position once the glue is dried, do they add the fingerboard. I suppose they can then alter the result either by planing part of Oups, I meant, thus they can alter the result either by planing etc before adding the fingerboard. AH the neck, or playing with the thickness of the fingerboard (although as you say this is very thin). To be truthfull, I am just imagining that this is what I would expect to happen. I will look at Lunberg later to see if that is indeed what he suggests. Stephen Gottlieb, I believe, is one of the few who fit the fingerboard to the neck before fixing it to the body (this was explained at the Rauwolf conferences). I think that by doing this, he can make a very beautiful neck and fingerboard shape (indeed, several owners of Stephen's lutes have spoken of the very comfortable neck-shape he produces), but then, I imagine, he has less to play around with, once the neck is joined to the body. If the neck moves more than he predicts, I suppose he just may have to remove the whole neck and begin again. Regards Anthony Le 14 mai 08 à 20:34, Tony Chalkley a écrit : If the geometry is still a problem, think of or look at an electric guitar with a screwed on neck. You adjust the action by shimming under the neck, not by touching the frets. On some guitars, there is a grub screw to take the place of shims. On my classical guitar, the fingerboard is wedge shaped, the thicker end at the nut - the tops of the frets are level - if the action were too high, I would lessen the angle of the wedge. Different diameters of gut imitate this wedge shape, but assume that the neck under tension does not get pulled up out of line with the body. What makes the lute action more difficult to adjust is that the fingerboard is thin, and the joint is fairly solid. Tony - Original Message - From: Anthony Hind [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tony Chalkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach Tony I did not even look at my lute (although I did begin to eye my antique plane http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hoevl.jpg) I was simply considering the fret gut diameters suggested by Martyn and those on my lute (which are close to those Lundberg's average). As Martyn seemed to be saying, smaller upper frets should allow lowering the strings at the nut. However, perhaps as you imply, it might also call for the lute to be set-up specifically for that. I was, as usual, dreaming of the ideal lute that had such a perfect action that you barely have to twitch your fingers to be able to play, the secret of Dowland's great mastery of the lute, revealed. Regards Anthony Le 14 mai 08 à 19:06, Tony Chalkley a écrit : snip Combined with what Tony just tells me in his message, I better put away the plane with which I was just about to shave off a few millimeters from my finger-board. Have you really got that much fingerboard? Mine are only about 2.5 mm. If I had much more, I would happily get out the plane, having once taken a long straightish edge between the bottom of the nut an the bottom of the bridge to see what the gap was at the joint (obviously without the frets in place). Then again with the strings off, and you know how much pull there is on the neck, igitur how much you have to thin the fb at the nut before flattening it off back up to the joint. Nae bother ;-) Anthony Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 12:54:06 + To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Fret diameters, a geometrical approach Thank you for this. When you say 'not to be taken literally', I presume you mean because he was (through neccessity) obliged to link the same size of two frets with just one gut lute string, rather casting doubt on the general (small) size of the frets. If he had wanted to imply thicker frets he could have just as easily started with the 'Tenor' (5th course), but he didn't. MH PS Incidentally the 'Other Necessary Obs...' are by John D not Robert. --- On Wed, 14/5/08, Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [LUTE] Fret diameters, a geometrical approach To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008, 1:39 PM There has been some discussion about ! fret diameters lately. For those who might be interested, I did some quick and dirty geometry with Excel and have put this online (http:// www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/frets). The results come with no warranty, of course because there maybe some bugs hidden. Also, the effects of meantone temperament
Re: fret diameters
Wow Gernot, I think I may have seen that Holbein years ago, but didn't associate it then. What lovely detail, almost a primer on the construction of a lute. I confess I'd associated Holbein with some of his other styles, the rakish villagers and such. Don't take this off your webspace immediately, if Sean gives you his consent I'd like to download it to mine. Just for the beauty of it. Best, Jon
Re: fret diameters
- Original Message - From: David Van Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Martin Shepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 October 2003 20:45 Subject: Re: fret diameters Dear Martin, I was a bit startled by your contention that single frets are mainly a modern usage and might even be a Mace invention. I can't remember any such assertion in Musick's Monument and he's usually so proud of what he's done. Where does he say or imply this? Dear David, On p.50, having described how to tie double frets: There is a way which I have lately try'd, and I find it much better, which is, to fret a lute with single strings. My reason is, because it is not only sooner done, and with a shorter string; but chiefly, it does (assuredly) cause a clearer sound from the string stopt; which must needs be granted, if it be considered, that the string lying upon this only round single fret, cannot but speak clear, when as (on the contrary) it lying upon two (as in the double fret it does) it cannot be thought to speak so clear, because, that although it lye hard and close, upon the uppermost of the two, next the finger, yet it cannot lye so very close and hard, upon the undermost; so that it must needs fuzz a little, though not easily discern'd, and thereby, takes off something of its clearness, especially if the fret be a thick-broad-double-fret. Single frets may have been used by others before him, but if so he was clearly unaware of it, and regarded double frets as normal. I will study your pictures with interest! Best wishes, Martin
Re: fret diameters
Just a small point on pictures (paintings) of instruments and players. On the whole the painters of the Renaissance weren't exactly photographers, they painted what they wanted to paint - and not as an instrutional manual. We've all seen the paintings with the instruments in impossible positions, why use that art as a detail of the use of the instrument of the period? Best, Jon
Re: fret diameters
In a message dated 10/18/03 5:26:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: is there any chance that you might send me the pic or make it available on the web? I have just looked at the reproductions of the ambassadors picture within my reach and was pretty convinced that the frets were single. However, closer scutiny reveals that the resolution is possibly not good enough The National Gallery (London) has a full size poster of just the lute detail from Holbein's Ambassadors. Highly recommended! Actually, the lute ends up being slightly larger than actual size compared to the actual painting. Kenneth Be Cleveland, Ohio --
Re: fret diameters
Dear Sean, I used gut double frets on my lutes for years - they do buzz a bit for the first few days but that stops when they are bedded down and after that they wear a lot longer and stay in position better than single strand frets. I find the double strand knot easier to tie and have less trouble with fitting them than I do the single strand variety. It may be worth mentioning that I never used the very thick gut for the lower frets that has been mentioned recently. My guess is that makers don't like to present a new instrument to a customer with that new double strand fret buzz and so fit single strand frets as standard. It's a shame, because it seems to have created the impression among players that single strand frets were the historical norm and that double strand frets are an eccentric anomaly. In truth, in my opinion and as Martin suggests, it's more likely to be the other way around. Best wishes, Denys - Original Message - From: lutesmith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 12:29 AM Subject: Re: fret diameters David, Gernot, I think we have the fine detail of Mr Holbein to thank ultimately. An excellent visual ambassador from the period. I tried doubled frets a few years ago and 'almost' liked the results. I managed to get them tight enough with pliers and I'm sure they had the means then as well. Unfortunately I didn't like the buzzing. I was tempted to sand down the nutward strand but afraid it would weaken the tension and it would eventually slip. I would very much like to try the experiment again. I imagine they'd last quite a while. Nigel North mentioned this summer that he often takes lutes to a certain builder (whose name escapes me) in the UK to have doubled frets done just right. Could anyone offer more tips? Sean theaterofmusic.com At 03:49 PM 10/18/03, you wrote: Dear Sean, Part at least of my thesis is unravelling faster than a gut top string! Gernot has just forwarded me your enlarged picture of the Ambassadors painting and I agree they are as double as can be! I'll take that picture down. I stand by most of my pictures but clearly such illustrations are not reliable unless we can get really good reproductions such as yours. I have put up a note about picture 6 which may also be double. I still think it is possible to read the original photo as showing a translucent single fret but I do agree it is also possible to see it as double. Best wishes, David At 2:06 PM -0700 18/10/03, lutesmith wrote: Very interesting, David, thank you. Perhaps it's a coincidence but there are no tastini in this group either. Is there any iconographic evidence for them?. Number 5 does seem to show a canted first fret that would fit A#'s, D#'s and F#'s. (Of course, like #1 it may only be a drafting error. The 2nd fret looks a little iffy too) It also has only 6 tied frets! I have a blown up copy of the lute from the Ambassador painting and it clearly shows doubled frets. But not graded. Sean Smith At 12:45 PM 10/18/03, you wrote: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/single.htm -- The Smokehouse, 6 Whitwell Road, Norwich, NR1 4HB England. Telephone: + 44 (0)1603 629899 Website: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk
Re: fret diameters
Gernot: Thank you for posting the picture, most definitely double frets. There are a couple of more interesting points about the painting. Has anyone identified the composition open on the table, it seems quite clear and if accurate it would confirm the accuracy of the double frets, in as much as it defines the observational skills of the artist. Another interesting point appears to be a set of calipers. What is the significance of the instrument in a painting about music if not to demonstrate accuracy? Just a thought. However, from the art history classes I had in college it was taught that painters from this period had an almost obsession with, what we would call photographic, accuracy in their work. Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jon Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 12:20 PM Subject: Re: fret diameters Jon, you are right for quite a number of paintings. With regard to the Holbein, you are wrong. Assuming Sean's (who sent me the picture) consent I have uploaded it to my webspace. Have a look at: www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadorfrets.jpg (900k!) or www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadorssmall.jpg (38k) and you'll see what I mean. Best wishes Gernot Am Sonntag, 19.10.03, um 09:55 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Jon Murphy: Just a small point on pictures (paintings) of instruments and players. On the whole the painters of the Renaissance weren't exactly photographers, they painted what they wanted to paint - and not as an instrutional manual. We've all seen the paintings with the instruments in impossible positions, why use that art as a detail of the use of the instrument of the period? Best, Jon
Re: fret diameters
Dear Vance, I am glad too to see this high resolution image of the Holbein lute. As lots of people on the list will know, this is a detail from the much larger painting known as the The Ambassadors which is a double portrait of Georges de Selve (bishop of Lavaur) and Jean de Dinteville (French ambassador to the court of Henry VIII). There is an excellent article about the painting and the lute by Stephen Barber Sandi Harris which I think might be available from the list archives. The painting was cleaned and restored in the 1990's and many details have become much clearer than they were before. So the painting is not about music specifically and the presence of the lute amongst other musical and scientific instruments and books seems to symbolise both the achievements of the age and the kind of learning that was appropriate to a cultured person. It offers the artist, too the opportunity to show off his virtuosity (that word again!) in paint. Truth to life was very much an essential attribute of Renaissance art - to hold the mirror up to nature as Shakespeare has Hamlet put it. Luckily for us it means that we can often regard 16th century paintings as accurate sources of information. This is especially the case when other sources confirm the information - a diagram, for example, in Hans Newsidlers Ein Newgeordent kunstlich Lautenbuch of 1536 clearly shows double strand frets just like Holbein's painting. I wish we knew how to make those tiny fret knots that show so clearly in the painting. I have wondered before if they provide evidence of the supposed greater flexibility of the gut they had in those days, as our present day gut does not tie so tightly. I am convinced that the left thumb was used to stop the 6th course of the lute as a normal part of early lute technique, and those tiny knots present much less of an obstacle to the thumb than our modern lumpy knots do. Best wishes, Denys - Original Message - From: Vance Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lute list [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 10:38 AM Subject: Re: fret diameters Gernot: Thank you for posting the picture, most definitely double frets. There are a couple of more interesting points about the painting. Has anyone identified the composition open on the table, it seems quite clear and if accurate it would confirm the accuracy of the double frets, in as much as it defines the observational skills of the artist. Another interesting point appears to be a set of calipers. What is the significance of the instrument in a painting about music if not to demonstrate accuracy? Just a thought. However, from the art history classes I had in college it was taught that painters from this period had an almost obsession with, what we would call photographic, accuracy in their work. Vance Wood. - Original Message - From: Gernot Hilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jon Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 12:20 PM Subject: Re: fret diameters Jon, you are right for quite a number of paintings. With regard to the Holbein, you are wrong. Assuming Sean's (who sent me the picture) consent I have uploaded it to my webspace. Have a look at: www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadorfrets.jpg (900k!) or www.jsbach.mynetcologne.de/ambassadorssmall.jpg (38k) and you'll see what I mean. Best wishes Gernot Am Sonntag, 19.10.03, um 09:55 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Jon Murphy: Just a small point on pictures (paintings) of instruments and players. On the whole the painters of the Renaissance weren't exactly photographers, they painted what they wanted to paint - and not as an instrutional manual. We've all seen the paintings with the instruments in impossible positions, why use that art as a detail of the use of the instrument of the period? Best, Jon
Re: fret diameters
Very interesting, David, thank you. Perhaps it's a coincidence but there are no tastini in this group either. Is there any iconographic evidence for them?. Number 5 does seem to show a canted first fret that would fit A#'s, D#'s and F#'s. (Of course, like #1 it may only be a drafting error. The 2nd fret looks a little iffy too) It also has only 6 tied frets! I have a blown up copy of the lute from the Ambassador painting and it clearly shows doubled frets. But not graded. Sean Smith At 12:45 PM 10/18/03, you wrote: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/single.htm
Fwd: Re: fret diameters
Oops! Number 5 does seem to show a canted first fret that would fit G# (6th c, 1st fret), C# (5th c, 1st fret) and F# (4th c, 1st fret)
Re: fret diameters
Dear Sean, Part at least of my thesis is unravelling faster than a gut top string! Gernot has just forwarded me your enlarged picture of the Ambassadors painting and I agree they are as double as can be! I'll take that picture down. I stand by most of my pictures but clearly such illustrations are not reliable unless we can get really good reproductions such as yours. I have put up a note about picture 6 which may also be double. I still think it is possible to read the original photo as showing a translucent single fret but I do agree it is also possible to see it as double. Best wishes, David At 2:06 PM -0700 18/10/03, lutesmith wrote: Very interesting, David, thank you. Perhaps it's a coincidence but there are no tastini in this group either. Is there any iconographic evidence for them?. Number 5 does seem to show a canted first fret that would fit A#'s, D#'s and F#'s. (Of course, like #1 it may only be a drafting error. The 2nd fret looks a little iffy too) It also has only 6 tied frets! I have a blown up copy of the lute from the Ambassador painting and it clearly shows doubled frets. But not graded. Sean Smith At 12:45 PM 10/18/03, you wrote: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/single.htm -- The Smokehouse, 6 Whitwell Road, Norwich, NR1 4HB England. Telephone: + 44 (0)1603 629899 Website: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk
Re: fret diameters
David, Gernot, I think we have the fine detail of Mr Holbein to thank ultimately. An excellent visual ambassador from the period. I tried doubled frets a few years ago and 'almost' liked the results. I managed to get them tight enough with pliers and I'm sure they had the means then as well. Unfortunately I didn't like the buzzing. I was tempted to sand down the nutward strand but afraid it would weaken the tension and it would eventually slip. I would very much like to try the experiment again. I imagine they'd last quite a while. Nigel North mentioned this summer that he often takes lutes to a certain builder (whose name escapes me) in the UK to have doubled frets done just right. Could anyone offer more tips? Sean theaterofmusic.com At 03:49 PM 10/18/03, you wrote: Dear Sean, Part at least of my thesis is unravelling faster than a gut top string! Gernot has just forwarded me your enlarged picture of the Ambassadors painting and I agree they are as double as can be! I'll take that picture down. I stand by most of my pictures but clearly such illustrations are not reliable unless we can get really good reproductions such as yours. I have put up a note about picture 6 which may also be double. I still think it is possible to read the original photo as showing a translucent single fret but I do agree it is also possible to see it as double. Best wishes, David At 2:06 PM -0700 18/10/03, lutesmith wrote: Very interesting, David, thank you. Perhaps it's a coincidence but there are no tastini in this group either. Is there any iconographic evidence for them?. Number 5 does seem to show a canted first fret that would fit A#'s, D#'s and F#'s. (Of course, like #1 it may only be a drafting error. The 2nd fret looks a little iffy too) It also has only 6 tied frets! I have a blown up copy of the lute from the Ambassador painting and it clearly shows doubled frets. But not graded. Sean Smith At 12:45 PM 10/18/03, you wrote: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/single.htm -- The Smokehouse, 6 Whitwell Road, Norwich, NR1 4HB England. Telephone: + 44 (0)1603 629899 Website: http://www.vanedwards.co.uk
Re: fret diameters
The diameters need to be what they need to be to give you the right action. The precise numbers vary from one lute to the next. 1.2 is maybe a little on the thick side compared to many instruments, but if it works, it's what you need. If this is a recent problem, your fret sizing should be OK. Rather, you probably have one or more worn or flattened frets, which effectively reduces their diameter. When you use that fret, the string clearance over one or more of the downstream frets ends up smaller than it should be, and it buzzes. If it is the first fret that's buzzing, then either the fret is too large, or your nut is too low. That's not likely the issue if the buzzing is a recent phenomenon, since the height of the nut isn't likely to change. Guy - Original Message - From: Peter Nightingale [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:44 AM Subject: fret diameters Dear All, I'm having a problem with buzzing frets. Before I try fixing it, I'd like to make sure that I know what the diameters should be. I have a 62cm mensur lute (Larry Brown's 8-c Hans Frei model), and my notes tell me that the diameters should be: 1.2mm, 1.1mm,1.0mm,0.95mm, continuing down in steps of 0.05mm. The 1.2mm seems awfully thick ... Thanks, Peter. -- the next auto-quote is: The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. (Bertrand Russell) /\/\ Peter Nightingale Telephone (401) 874-5882 Department of Physics, East Hall Fax (401) 874-2380 University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881
