Hello Stephen,

Many traditional lutenists would call it a guitar. Many traditional guitarists would call it a lute.
I call it beautiful! You were fortunate to find one so old in such good condition.
Many guitar lutes have many flaws.

How are you tuning it?
Why is it not a harp guitar?
Did it come with a hard case or are you having one custom made?

Cheers,
Marion

---

From: Stephen Bright <stephen@cathedralguitar.com>
To: 10string@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 6:49:32 PM
Subject: [10string] Welcome To The Club

 

Hello all:

I have just joined the club that very few people dare to join, the guitar/lute club:

My friend has had this instrument for for several decades, and it has just now come to me. It is a professional instrument of the highest quality by Heinrich Fuchs, Munich, Germany, 1923. Spruce/Brazilian:

<http://www.harpguit ars.net/history/ org_images/ hybrids/fuchs_ g-l-music_ treasures. jpg>

The funny thing about this instrument is:

It is not a harp guitar

It is not a guitar

It is not a lute

It is probably the most frowned-upon genre of multi sting that I know of, which is why I love it so.

Does anybody else here have one, or am I in a club of 1?

Stephen

PS my friend says this instrument is much better than the Hauser guitar lutes that sell for $5k asking price.

____________ _________ _________ ___

Stephen Bright, Classical Harp Guitar/Lute

WEB <http://www.cathedralguitar.com/>

RADIO <http://www.live365. com/stations/ 320558>

EBAY <http://search. ebay.com/ _W0QQsassZcathed ralguitar>

____________ _________ _________ ___

Stephen,

These instruments suffer from one problem, like the pre-Yepes 10s guitar, the bottom strings cannot be fretted. Attractive looking, though! 

 

Hello all:

I have just joined the club that very few people dare to join, the guitar/lute club:

My friend has had this instrument for for several decades, and it has just now come to me. It is a professional instrument of the highest quality by Heinrich Fuchs, Munich, Germany, 1923. Spruce/Brazilian:

<http://www.harpguitars.net/history/org_images/hybrids/fuchs_g-l-music_treasures.jpg>

The funny thing about this instrument is:

It is not a harp guitar

It is not a guitar

It is not a lute

It is probably the most frowned-upon genre of multi sting that I know of, which is why I love it so.

Does anybody else here have one, or am I in a club of 1?

Stephen

PS my friend says this instrument is much better than the Hauser guitar lutes that sell for $5k asking price.

_________________________________

Stephen Bright, Classical Harp Guitar/Lute

WEB <http://www.cathedralguitar.com/>

RADIO <http://www.live365.com/stations/320558>

EBAY <http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZcathedralguitar>

_________________________________

 

Hi James,

 

Let's check one very fiundamental term.  My mental construct of linear string tention is working off of Newton's second law.  I think of tension as  mass times acceleration per area, or Newtons per cm^2, or its equivalent.  I suppose that simplifies to kg per meter per squared second. Is anything wrong with that? Or is what I cam calling tention actually got a better name? Young's modulus or the modulus of elasticity, on the other hand, is something like pressure such as pounds per square inch, or kg per area.  So then Young's modulus times acceleration is how I picture what I call simple longitudinal string tension and relate to the numbers often given in pounds per feet for a guitar string.  Is that right or am I making a baby physics error? 

 

Now let me reply to your kind remarks.  Yes, long live the vibrating guitar string in classical Euclidean and Hillbert Spaces.  It would be biger and better in complex realms and non-euclidean curved space. I am not presently up-to-speed in harmonic mathematical analysis using linear transformation of functions related to fourier analysis at an advanced-level. I once had a rudamentary operational capacity with easy continuous and discrete transforms. But, I am certainly no expert in something like locally compact abelian topological groups as routinely used in elementary harmonic analysis.  Seting up a Eeuclidean model extrapolated to higher dimensions with extra variables was not too difficult.  I wouldn't claim I solved anything.  I might have been a little ahead of the times since I believed vibrating  strings were excessively important long before string theory (you mention this) appeared in mass media.  I strongly held faith that n-space string vibrations had to be a model for something elementary in the multiverse either at a really really big scale or way down below the limits of the constants of Planck.  There are so many marvelous and unexpected relationships and ideas that occur in mathematics that it is mind-blowing. 

 

May I presume that you are a physicist off inventing another new particle between guitar works?

 

Praise to the guitar string...

 

emory

---

From: J R Smith <vector10@gotadsl.co.uk>
To: 10string@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, November 13, 2009 6:20:22 AM
Subject: Re: [10string] scale length and tension

 

Emory,

There are a number of jokes about mathematicians, physicists, and engineers that manage to catch something of their respective outlooks, often in quite amusing ways.

As to the quantities in the tension equation in S.I. units, tension is in newtons, length is in metres, frequency is in herz, i.e., cycles per second. 

You are correct that changes of a centimetre or two have only a small effect on tension on the installed tension to achieve the desired pitch. What does have a big effect is tuning to a different pitch. Thus, raising pitch by a half tone raises tension by 12.2%, by a tone, 26%, and a minor third(three semi-tones), 4!.4%! This explains why there are special strings to tune a 65 scale in G. 

Musical strings are essentially a filament, so, the relevant elastic quantity is the Young's modulus, E, in newtons per metres squared, which measures stress/strain. Strain is non-dimensional as it the ratio of increased length to the original. String manufacturers are very cagey about giving detailed technical information about the physical characteristics of their products beyond nominal installed tension and diameter. My impression from searching a lot of literature, in retrospect, it would have easier to measure these things with some "kitchen technology", is that low tension strings have E around 4.5 x 10^8, medium tension around 5 x 10^8, and high tension around 5.5 x 10^8 N/m^2.  If anyone has good information on the values of Young's modulus, I would be very interested to learn what they know. Using a medium tension string shows that typical reductions in tension due to the elastic effect are in the range, 7 to 10%. 

I was intrigued at having a go at the overtones of a string in n-space. I imagine the space was euclidean, as otherwise it would be very difficult. Can you remember how you solved the equation, an n-dimensional Fourier transform?  It sounds as though the academic had some interest in particle physics and the still popular, but unverifiable, "String Theory".

James.

On 12 Nov 2009, at 15:17, Emory Villines wrote:

 

Thank you so much for adding to this topic...

 

Is the revision, James, that in the case of a guitar string, that elasticity, or possibly the first derivative of elasticity with respect to something, has some consequence ameliorating the too-easy calculation of the square of the ratios of the length?  Would that proposition not more correctly apply over great changes in compared scale lengths, such as comparing 650mm vs 6500mm, but not when comparing close values such as 664mm to 650mm?  Using one significant figure here, if the realized change in tension in not actually a 4% increase, as I proposed using certain reasonable assumptions for constants in extraneous features, such as possible contributions concerning unique peculaiarities in certain materials, then would the change in tension be 2% increase, or maybe 3% increase?  

 

Interesting idea to consulant any university book on accoustics.. .  I haven't done that since I am lazy and prefer to think it out and talk with people like you.  I presume that in less work than typing this, one could google it.   My undergraduate course in acoustics was in 1977 in the physics department at university.  I got an "A," and they later somehow degreed me.  My amature little course project was an analysis of the overtone series in n-dimention space.  Later, my graduate degree was not in mathematical physics or engineering.  I would never call myself a physict.  My knowledge to anything useful is zilch.

So having said all that, with the obvious proviso that I very much appreciate and respect your authority on this topic, I need to ask one thing which I am sure you know right off:  Using fundamental SI units only, what are the units each for string elasticity and string tention concerning a hypothetical string length with two fixed endpoints? Please inform.

 

One day they called together a mathematician, physicist, and engineer to solve a problem to fence in m chicken in n-dimentions using limited materials to create the maximum fence.  First they consulted with the highest priced one, the engineer, who said to build a square with n+k sides, and in the absence of other information make a square fence to start.  He said he'll supply a table of k values later. Then the physicist was called up.  He told to make the fence circular or quazi-elliptical, eliminate the corners, and give the chickens a bigger matrix to run around without corner obstructions.  And finally, the mathematician, who told them: fence me in, nevermind the chickens, and let me define myself as on the outside.  I love this joke.

 

emory

 

 

---

From: J R Smith <vector10@gotadsl. co.uk>
To: 10string@yahoogroup s.com
Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 6:05:04 AM
Subject: Re: [10string] scale length and tension

 

Emory,

With your physics background, you will have no difficulty understanding the formula for string tension derived from the solution of the 1D wave equation satisfied by a laterally flexible string, but otherwise inelastic, attached to two rigid supports at either end, viz., 

T=dx(lxf)^2, where T is tension, d is density per unit length, l is vibrating length, and f is frequency, all quantities in some set of dynamically consistent units. Assuming tension does not change during tensioning to required pitch, ratioing this formula for two states, e.g., different lengths and different frequencies, a first approximation is obtained as to how tension changes in these circumstances. The result is as the manufacturers claimed. 

Of course, there is some longitudinal elasticity, and this can be incorporated into the change of density during the tensioning process, and the resulting quadratic equation solved for the changed tension ratio. The effect of elasticity is to ameliorate the tension rise in the case of, for example, fitting the same string designed for a 65 scale to a 66 one, say., i.e., the tension rise is not as great as predicted by the neglect of longitudinal elasticity. Reversed effects apply when fitting a string designed for a 65 scale tis fitted to a 64 or 63. 

If you are interested, any university text on acoustics will derive the vibrating string equation. 

James.         

On 12 Nov 2009, at 04:46, Emory Villines wrote:

 

1.  I am a big fan of 664mm scale length.  Someone here (we needn't name names) previously told that placing medium tension strings intended for a 650mm on a longer 664mm results in a final effect of those same strings becoming lower tension on the longer 664mm at the same true pitches.  That is exactly backwards. 

 

2.  I have definitive responses now from two top people in the string manufacturing industry telling this:  When the same string is used on a longer scale length (between two nodes) tuned to the same pitch as a shorter scale length, the tension on that string increases on the longer scale length.  So, medium tension strings used on a 664mm feel more like a harder tension version of the same thing used on a 650mm.  For the same string and same tuning, tension varies as the square of the vibrating length. So a longer scale length means increased tension according to (664mm/650mm) ^2 = 1.044 or over 4.4% tension increase.  While the effect is small, it is not negligable.  Similarly a short scale length lowers the tension when compared to longer scale lengths for the same strings at the same pitch.  Alto player might confirm that.

 

3.  A company like Hannabach makes their ten string set in medium tension only partially but not entirely since the standard for Madrid ten string scales has been 660mm to 664mm in my opinion, not 650mm, (primarily due to Jose Ramirez III, his makers, and elsewhere Bernabe in the late 60's and 70's).  I recognize that the majority of readers prefer the 650mm and claim it's easier to play.  I like the longer also for the controversial reason that I imagine it is slightly louder too.  Like many people, there's a long list of strings I dislike.  I have found others that I really like.  I am not an expert on new string materials or technologies. 

 

4.  What any specific manufacturer calls "high (hard) tension" vs. "medium (normal) tension" may mean anything, and meets no industry or national standard.  Medium in one line might be equivalent to high in another.  I ALWAYS consider at the string diameter too, and rely on the feel to reach conclusions on my personal preferences, like everyone else.

 

5.  Of course, it is NOT the case that all the strings in a set work out to the same tension value, nor should they.  You wouldn't like them if they were the same tension value. That's widely known.

 

6.  Conclusion:  Regardless of the strings you prefer, or mix and match to taste, if you put them on a shorter scale length instrument you lower the tension, whereas on a longer scale length instrument you increase the tension, when you compare the two scenarios at the same tuning.

 

 

emory

 

  Hi Emory!  I also am a fan of  such a long scale length ,,, at least for the bass side of the neck. Not so much so for the treble side of the neck. From about 60cm on up seems to be more ideal for the bass range of the musical scale at the nut.  Where shorter than about 60cm seems to make a better treble clef instrument at the nut.

 What I find troubling about long scale lengths is the wide fret spreads you have to deal with at such lengths. That is if you tune in 4ths as is traditionally done. Since you seem to have no complaints about such a long scale length ,,, I think it is probably safe to assume you have big hands. 

 I have no aspirations to become a bass guitarist ,,, but if I did ,,, with my size hands I think I would be mostly a failure if I tuned the traditional way such an instrument is tuned. I've contemplated that the solution would be to tune every other string a 5th apart with a minor 3rd in between.

 For example: A five string bass  tuned    'A', 'C', 'E', 'G', 'B'   Low to high.   James! ,,, You've said you are or were a Bass guitarist ,,, Has anyone to your knowledge ever tried such a tuning on bass? If yes ,,, How did that go for them??   Fred
     
--- In 10string@yahoogroups.com, Emory Villines <emoryvillines@...> wrote:
>
> 1.  I am a big fan of 664mm scale length.  Someone here (we needn't name names) previously told that placing medium tension strings intended for a 650mm on a longer 664mm results in a final effect of those same strings becoming lower tension on the longer 664mm at the same true pitches.  That is exactly backwards. 
>  
> 2.  I have definitive responses now from two top people in the string manufacturing industry telling this:  When the same string is used on a longer scale length (between two nodes) tuned to the same pitch as a shorter scale length, the tension on that string increases on the longer scale length.  So, medium tension strings used on a 664mm feel more like a harder tension version of the same thing used on a 650mm.  For the same string and same tuning, tension varies as the square of the vibrating length. So a longer scale length means increased tension according to (664mm/650mm)^2 = 1.044 or over 4.4% tension increase.  While the effect is small, it is not negligable.  Similarly a short scale length lowers the tension when compared to longer scale lengths for the same strings at the same pitch.  Alto player might confirm that.
>  
> 3.  A company like Hannabach makes their ten string set in medium tension only partially but not entirely since the standard for Madrid ten string scales has been 660mm to 664mm in my opinion, not 650mm, (primarily due to Jose Ramirez III, his makers, and elsewhere Bernabe in the late 60's and 70's).  I recognize that the majority of readers prefer the 650mm and claim it's easier to play.  I like the longer also for the controversial reason that I imagine it is slightly louder too.  Like many people, there's a long list of strings I dislike.  I have found others that I really like.  I am not an expert on new string materials or technologies. 
>  
> 4.  What any specific manufacturer calls "high (hard) tension" vs. "medium (normal) tension" may mean anything, and meets no industry or national standard.  Medium in one line might be equivalent to high in another.  I ALWAYS consider at the string diameter too, and rely on the feel to reach conclusions on my personal preferences, like everyone else.
>  
> 5.  Of course, it is NOT the case that all the strings in a set work out to the same tension value, nor should they.  You wouldn't like them if they were the same tension value. That's widely known.
>  
> 6.  Conclusion:  Regardless of the strings you prefer, or mix and match to taste, if you put them on a shorter scale length instrument you lower the tension, whereas on a longer scale length instrument you increase the tension, when you compare the two scenarios at the same tuning.
>  
>  
> emory
>

 

Actually the "tension" that Glen is talking about is the apparent tension to the guitarist, i.e., the ease of pushing a string from its resting position to the fingerboard.  Emory and James have only been discussing the tension between the nut (actually the peghead) and the bridge (actually the point where the string is tied.)  I'd like to see the math on the relationship between this perpendicular "tension" - the apparent difficulty in fingering the string - and a shorter string length for the same string.  Visualize a 25" string and a 1" string of the same linear tension pushed towards the fingerboard.  The 1" string will be harder to push.

 

Thank you so much for adding to this topic...

 

Is the revision, James, that in the case of a guitar string, that elasticity, or possibly the first derivative of elasticity with respect to something, has some consequence ameliorating the too-easy calculation of the square of the ratios of the length?  Would that proposition not more correctly apply over great changes in compared scale lengths, such as comparing 650mm vs 6500mm, but not when comparing close values such as 664mm to 650mm?  Using one significant figure here, if the realized change in tension in not actually a 4% increase, as I proposed using certain reasonable assumptions for constants in extraneous features, such as possible contributions concerning unique peculaiarities in certain materials, then would the change in tension be 2% increase, or maybe 3% increase?  

 

Interesting idea to consulant any university book on accoustics...  I haven't done that since I am lazy and prefer to think it out and talk with people like you.  I presume that in less work than typing this, one could google it.   My undergraduate course in acoustics was in 1977 in the physics department at university.  I got an "A," and they later somehow degreed me.  My amature little course project was an analysis of the overtone series in n-dimention space.  Later, my graduate degree was not in mathematical physics or engineering.  I would never call myself a physict.  My knowledge to anything useful is zilch.

So having said all that, with the obvious proviso that I very much appreciate and respect your authority on this topic, I need to ask one thing which I am sure you know right off:  Using fundamental SI units only, what are the units each for string elasticity and string tention concerning a hypothetical string length with two fixed endpoints? Please inform.

 

One day they called together a mathematician, physicist, and engineer to solve a problem to fence in m chicken in n-dimentions using limited materials to create the maximum fence.  First they consulted with the highest priced one, the engineer, who said to build a square with n+k sides, and in the absence of other information make a square fence to start.  He said he'll supply a table of k values later. Then the physicist was called up.  He told to make the fence circular or quazi-elliptical, eliminate the corners, and give the chickens a bigger matrix to run around without corner obstructions.  And finally, the mathematician, who told them: fence me in, nevermind the chickens, and let me define myself as on the outside.  I love this joke.

 

emory

 

 

---

From: J R Smith <vector10@gotadsl.co.uk>
To: 10string@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 6:05:04 AM
Subject: Re: [10string] scale length and tension

 

Emory,

With your physics background, you will have no difficulty understanding the formula for string tension derived from the solution of the 1D wave equation satisfied by a laterally flexible string, but otherwise inelastic, attached to two rigid supports at either end, viz., 

T=dx(lxf)^2, where T is tension, d is density per unit length, l is vibrating length, and f is frequency, all quantities in some set of dynamically consistent units. Assuming tension does not change during tensioning to required pitch, ratioing this formula for two states, e.g., different lengths and different frequencies, a first approximation is obtained as to how tension changes in these circumstances. The result is as the manufacturers claimed. 

Of course, there is some longitudinal elasticity, and this can be incorporated into the change of density during the tensioning process, and the resulting quadratic equation solved for the changed tension ratio. The effect of elasticity is to ameliorate the tension rise in the case of, for example, fitting the same string designed for a 65 scale to a 66 one, say., i.e., the tension rise is not as great as predicted by the neglect of longitudinal elasticity. Reversed effects apply when fitting a string designed for a 65 scale tis fitted to a 64 or 63. 

If you are interested, any university text on acoustics will derive the vibrating string equation. 

James.         

On 12 Nov 2009, at 04:46, Emory Villines wrote:

 

1.  I am a big fan of 664mm scale length.  Someone here (we needn't name names) previously told that placing medium tension strings intended for a 650mm on a longer 664mm results in a final effect of those same strings becoming lower tension on the longer 664mm at the same true pitches.  That is exactly backwards. 

 

2.  I have definitive responses now from two top people in the string manufacturing industry telling this:  When the same string is used on a longer scale length (between two nodes) tuned to the same pitch as a shorter scale length, the tension on that string increases on the longer scale length.  So, medium tension strings used on a 664mm feel more like a harder tension version of the same thing used on a 650mm.  For the same string and same tuning, tension varies as the square of the vibrating length. So a longer scale length means increased tension according to (664mm/650mm) ^2 = 1.044 or over 4.4% tension increase.  While the effect is small, it is not negligable.  Similarly a short scale length lowers the tension when compared to longer scale lengths for the same strings at the same pitch.  Alto player might confirm that.

 

3.  A company like Hannabach makes their ten string set in medium tension only partially but not entirely since the standard for Madrid ten string scales has been 660mm to 664mm in my opinion, not 650mm, (primarily due to Jose Ramirez III, his makers, and elsewhere Bernabe in the late 60's and 70's).  I recognize that the majority of readers prefer the 650mm and claim it's easier to play.  I like the longer also for the controversial reason that I imagine it is slightly louder too.  Like many people, there's a long list of strings I dislike.  I have found others that I really like.  I am not an expert on new string materials or technologies. 

 

4.  What any specific manufacturer calls "high (hard) tension" vs. "medium (normal) tension" may mean anything, and meets no industry or national standard.  Medium in one line might be equivalent to high in another.  I ALWAYS consider at the string diameter too, and rely on the feel to reach conclusions on my personal preferences, like everyone else.

 

5.  Of course, it is NOT the case that all the strings in a set work out to the same tension value, nor should they.  You wouldn't like them if they were the same tension value. That's widely known.

 

6.  Conclusion:  Regardless of the strings you prefer, or mix and match to taste, if you put them on a shorter scale length instrument you lower the tension, whereas on a longer scale length instrument you increase the tension, when you compare the two scenarios at the same tuning.

 

 

emory

BTW, I haven't yet tried the one bass string you mailed to me for my low C.

 

1.  I am a big fan of 664mm scale length.  Someone here (we needn't name names) previously told that placing medium tension strings intended for a 650mm on a longer 664mm results in a final effect of those same strings becoming lower tension on the longer 664mm at the same true pitches.  That is exactly backwards. 

 

2.  I have definitive responses now from two top people in the string manufacturing industry telling this:  When the same string is used on a longer scale length (between two nodes) tuned to the same pitch as a shorter scale length, the tension on that string increases on the longer scale length.  So, medium tension strings used on a 664mm feel more like a harder tension version of the same thing used on a 650mm.  For the same string and same tuning, tension varies as the square of the vibrating length. So a longer scale length means increased tension according to (664mm/650mm)^2 = 1.044 or over 4.4% tension increase.  While the effect is small, it is not negligable.  Similarly a short scale length lowers the tension when compared to longer scale lengths for the same strings at the same pitch.  Alto player might confirm that.

 

3.  A company like Hannabach makes their ten string set in medium tension only partially but not entirely since the standard for Madrid ten string scales has been 660mm to 664mm in my opinion, not 650mm, (primarily due to Jose Ramirez III, his makers, and elsewhere Bernabe in the late 60's and 70's).  I recognize that the majority of readers prefer the 650mm and claim it's easier to play.  I like the longer also for the controversial reason that I imagine it is slightly louder too.  Like many people, there's a long list of strings I dislike.  I have found others that I really like.  I am not an expert on new string materials or technologies. 

 

4.  What any specific manufacturer calls "high (hard) tension" vs. "medium (normal) tension" may mean anything, and meets no industry or national standard.  Medium in one line might be equivalent to high in another.  I ALWAYS consider at the string diameter too, and rely on the feel to reach conclusions on my personal preferences, like everyone else.

 

5.  Of course, it is NOT the case that all the strings in a set work out to the same tension value, nor should they.  You wouldn't like them if they were the same tension value. That's widely known.

 

6.  Conclusion:  Regardless of the strings you prefer, or mix and match to taste, if you put them on a shorter scale length instrument you lower the tension, whereas on a longer scale length instrument you increase the tension, when you compare the two scenarios at the same tuning.

 

 

emory