---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Isaac, And that translates to what in the U. S. ?????? Avery At 04:32 PM 1/26/04, you wrote: >C=E0 va te plaire, si tu as une r=E9ponse quand =E0 la corde pour ce=20 >monocorde, moi j'ai essay=E9 mais Minimens est bloqu=E9 en mode d=E9mo= (pas de=20 >C3, 4 ou whatever). > >En tout cas le niveau de documentation du sieur Lester est plus que correct= ! > >Amiti=E9s.. > >Isaac >-----Message d'origine----- >De : pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]De la=20 >part de Lesher, Trent J. >Envoy=E9 : lundi 26 janvier 2004 20:26 >=C0 : pianotech >Objet : RE: Monochord Strings > >This is my first posting to this list, so please let me know if I=20 >unwittingly commit any faux pas. > >I've been playing with some different string types on a chord-harp, so=20 >hopefully this may be of some practical help to the question about the=20 >missing monochord string. (Disclaimer: These comments are based on a lot= =20 >of figuring and extrapolating over the past few months plus a couple=20 >months playing around with the above toy, not on any seasoned background=20 >in the field, so by all means take them with a grain of salt. And=20 >hopefully somebody will be kind enough to let me know if I commit any=20 >factual blunders, so I won't remain deluded too long.) > >Since it has a moveable bridge, I am imagining this to be like the=20 >monochords that were so often used in experiments and demonstrations (and= =20 >arguments) about temperament & just intonation and so on for a couple=20 >thousand years. A string held at constant tension would be meticulously=20 >divided off into various ratios to produce musical intervals, and I'm=20 >assuming it's going to be used for similar purposes of demonstration and=20 >experiment in the classroom. So that means probably one string is going=20 >to be used as an aural reference to the starting point, and so you can=20 >hear the two notes of an interval sounded together, and the bridge is=20 >going to be moved up and down on the other string to show how dividing it= =20 >into different ratios produces familiar (or unfamiliar) intervals. > >And I suppose since it's 39+ inches long, you could even demonstrate a=20 >fifth narrowed by a syntonic comma -- about 1/3 inch -- fairly well, or=20 >even the difference between an ET third and a perfect third (about 1/4=20 >inch), though it seems like it might be hard to get much precision out of= =20 >the less than 1/32 inch difference between an ET and perfect fifth. (I=20 >think I figured all that right.) > >Anyway, since the bridge is going to be slid along the string all the=20 >time, a plain wire string would seem best for that, but at 39.4" for about= =20 >131Hz (C3), it seems to me that you're going to have some issues with what= =20 >somebody on this list delightfully referred to recently as "solicitation=20 >of the wire," which corresponds to percentage of breaking strain. A plain= =20 >modern steel music wire 39.4" C3 string of any gauge will probably be of=20 >similar quality to a plain wire C3 on a medium sized upright, so it might= =20 >not be ideal for showing off the euphony of just intervals,=20 >partial-wise. Maybe it would even have slightly ambiguous pitch=20 >definition which would partially defeat the purpose of the whole thing=20 >too. I wonder how it was determined that the string should be at C3? > >But assuming that C3 is what it's supposed to be, and that the current=20 >.029" plain wire string is also supposed to be C3, that string would seem= =20 >to have about exactly 50 pounds tension on it, so I'll take that as the=20 >upper tension limit for the other string. > >So keeping it at C3, what non-wound (for the sake of ease of=20 >sliding/wearability) options other than regular steel music wire are there? > >Plain bronze wire might sound better, but it would be close to it's usable= =20 >breaking limit. However, I guess phosphor bronze is supposed to have=20 >higher tensile strength than regular bronze. It looks like phosphor=20 >bronze's effective breaking point, taking into account its higher density= =20 >compared to steel wire, is about 40% that of steel wire, so I'm thinking=20 >it's in the zone to possibly work pretty well for a 39.4" C3 (on the=20 >higher-stressed side -- probably more than it has to be -- but I'm=20 >thinking still less than the max percent that's commonly used, so it seems= =20 >like it might work just fine). Here's a site with some data on phosphor=20 >bronze:=20 ><http://www.nbm-houston.com/bronze/bronze524.html>http://www.nbm-houston.co= m/bronze/bronze524.html,=20 >and it's available as music wire at the site mentioned just below. (I'm=20 >assuming the specs for the "hard" variety of phosphor bronze would apply=20 >to music wire.) > >Plain gut and nylon brought to the same pitch come out about the same as=20 >plain steel as far as percentage of breaking strain is concerned, so I'm=20 >assuming their medium wouldn't be solicited any better and they probably=20 >wouldn't sound any better, plus they're stretchy and harder to keep in=20 >precise tune and wouldn't be very loud or sustain very long (or have as=20 >strong harmonics to demonstrate beating with). > >Maybe some of that special wire made for historical (pre 1830) keyboards=20 >that someone posted about recently would be good at that pitch and scale=20 >length. The PureSound wire seems like it's not different enough from=20 >modern steel wire to quite get there for this situation, but Rose or Voss= =20 >wire seems like it should more than do the trick, and it's available in=20 >smaller gauges including .028" (.7mm) and smaller, so it might just be=20 >perfect. I think PureSound wire has about 80% of the tensile strength of= =20 >modern wire, and Rose has a couple of types that are between 45-50% of the= =20 >tensile strength of modern wire (type D is the stronger one), which I'm=20 >thinking theoretically should put a C3 at 39.4" in a pretty good zone of=20 >solicitation, and you still won't be anywhere near to breaking it either.= =20 >I don't have info on Voss. You might have better sources already, but=20 >here's a site anyway for a whole variety of modern and historical plain=20 >wires including these (several types of steel and iron, brass, several=20 >types of bronze, etc.):=20 ><http://www.fortepiano.com/owners.htm>http://www.fortepiano.com/owners.htm. > >Failing all that, my suggestion is to either raise the pitch of both=20 >strings up to about F# and lower the gauge (of both strings) to about=20 >.021" (.53mm) to keep the tension at about 50 lbs per string. > >OR, if you want to keep it at C3, use wound strings for both so the=20 >tension-bearing wire will be solicited to give a purer ringing tone with=20 >less inharmonicity. Probably nickel plated steel wound or stainless steel= =20 >wound is best to stand up to the sliding of the bridge (hopefully the=20 >windings wouldn't wear out the bridge though!). Stainless is brighter,=20 >I'm not sure it if has significantly better or worse inharmonicity=20 >though. A .029" outer diameter wound string with a .018" core wire would= =20 >be just about right for a 39.4" length at C3, though the core could also=20 >be as little as .016" or as much as .020". (I think anything with a core= =20 >dia to total diameter ratio of about 5:9 up to 7:10 or so should have a=20 >good chance of working out all right, then it just depends on what total=20 >gauge tension you want.) With the decrease in density (due to the empty=20 >spaces in and around the windings) you could go up to a .031" gauge=20 >(probably with a .018" core), and still be a couple pounds under the=20 >current load with a plain .029 string. Guitar stores or folk-instrument=20 >suppliers online like Elderly.com have strings like that, but most of them= =20 >aren't long enough for 39.4" speaking length unless you get them custom or= =20 >something. > >However, maybe one of the strings made for "superlong scale" bass guitar=20 >(36" scale) would do -- they usually give you several extra inches, and=20 >they have stainless and nickel-plate. Looking at D'Addario's String=20 >Reference Guide, it seems about the smallest gauge for bass guitar you can= =20 >get is .032" (.8mm). With the decreased density of a steel wound string,= =20 >I'm figuring that should increase the tension by only 2-3 pounds or so, so= =20 >maybe for a wound string solution that would be just about the right=20 >thing. (I'm confused by the numerous varieties of bass strings=20 >advertised, though, and designations like "super soft," etc., all with=20 >seemingly different mass numbers. Some .032's would seem to come out to 56= =20 >lbs or so for your application, not sure why.) Make sure it's a regular=20 >"round-wound" string, though. That refers to the winding, not to whether= =20 >the core is hex or not, and is opposed to flattened windings etc. I'd=20 >call ahead, but you can get these at most stores that carry guitars, or=20 >online at juststrings or musiciansfriend or elderly etc. (I just noticed= =20 >that JustStrings.com seems to offer nickel-steel wound single bass strings= =20 >going down to .024" (price $1.22), but it's not clear how long they come.) > >There's a string tension calculator based on D'Addario strings at=20 ><http://www.pacificsites.net/~dog/StringTensionApplet.html>http://www.pacif= icsites.net/~dog/StringTensionApplet.html=20 >that shows a .032 nickel-steel wound at 53.3lbs and a stainless wound at=20 >52.4lbs for C3 at 39.4". (If you put this applet in "verbose" mode, it's= =20 >easier to see what's going on.) > >I also see that Mandobass has a pretty similar scale length (42"), but it= =20 >seems that at C3 the strings they make for that would put well over 100=20 >pounds tension per string on your monochord. > >If you used a metal-wound nylon string, you could get enough stress on the= =20 >core without having a very high total tension (maybe about 1/4 of a steel= =20 >string for the same gauge). They have bronze wound and silvered=20 >copper-wound, used for lute for example. Harp too I think. Since the=20 >pressure and friction on the bridge would be a lot less, maybe these less= =20 >durable windings would work out all right. > >This site has most of the non-steel strings mentioned so far, for the=20 >gauge and length you specify:=20 ><http://members.aol.com/mwstrings/markwood.htm>http://members.aol.com/mwstr= ings/markwood.htm.=20 >It looks like they cost between $1 and $6 for a single string. Here's=20 >another site:=20 ><http://www.harpmall.com/harp_strings.htm>http://www.harpmall.com/harp_stri= ngs.htm.=20 > > >If it was me, I'd probably play with one of the "historic wires" that=20 >seems best (like Malcolm Rose) rather than using a wound nylon or gut=20 >core, just for the sake (if I'm imagining this device and the situation it= =20 >will be in half-right) of some volume and better sustain as well as=20 >stronger harmonics for classroom demonstration purpose. > >Or else I'd tune the monochord up to between E and A (until it sounds as=20 >pure and singing as you think it needs to be), and then, for the sake of a= =20 >louder fuller tone, put on as large a gauge of plain modern steel music=20 >wire as practical for how it's gonna be used (probably somewhere between=20 >.018" and .025", or .45-.65mm). It seems like it's pretty easy &=20 >inexpensive to get a spool of plain music wire of any gauge. Here's a=20 >couple of=20 >places:=20 ><http://www.parkepianostrings.com.au/about.php#music>http://www.parkepianos= trings.com.au/about.php#music=20 >or <http://www.malinco.com/industrial/>http://www.malinco.com/industrial/= =20 >that include smaller-than-piano-gauge strings. > >If you just have to make a best guess -- for tuning it up with modern=20 >plain music wire -- I'd say G3, in which case .019 will result in a couple= =20 >pounds less tension than the current .029 tuned to C3 and .020 will result= =20 >in a couple pounds more tension (per string). To keep the tension within= =20 >a 2-3 pounds of the current string on there, F# could be .021, and F could= =20 >be .022. > >If you used gut or nylon at these same higher tunings, I guess the results= =20 >should be good, but not very robust or sustaining, and your total tension= =20 >would be only about 1/6 or 1/7 for the same steel wire gauge, though you'd= =20 >probably automatically use a somewhat larger gauge. > >Or you could try plain phosphor bronze wire (or even regular bronze, and=20 >hope it doesn't break) assuming -- I've never tried it, so for me it would= =20 >be an interesting experiment to see how it sounded. I think .027 gauge=20 >bronze wire would be about equivalent tension to .029 in steel wire=20 >because it's about 13% heavier. > >Actually, to tell the truth if it was me I'd probably end up getting both= =20 >steel-wound strings (nickel & stainless), a phosphor bronze string, and a= =20 >couple "historical wire" strings and try them all to see what they sound=20 >like, and see if some are more revealing of small discrepancies in tuning= =20 >different intervals. Plus I'd get some plain modern steel string to try=20 >with a raised pitch. (Not that I have a lot of time on my hands, it's=20 >just I have a lot to learn and it seems like it would be an interesting=20 >experiment.) > >Maybe somebody else on the list knows more about what strings you need and= =20 >where to get them, but for what it's worth this is how I'd approach=20 >it. (If anybody is interested, I can share some of the materials=20 >data/equations/assumptions I'm going on for these speculations.) > >This all has me wondering why they don't use softer iron or steel=20 >"historical" wires in some smaller modern pianos, at least in the problem= =20 >areas. Any comments out there? > >Trent Lesher > >(Amateur pianist & composer, generally curious, and, based on=20 >recommendations from this list, just started taking the Randy Potter= course.) > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Avery Todd [mailto:avery@ev1.net] >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 9:51 PM >To: pianotech >Subject: Monochord > >List, > >I've put this on the caut list also, but by the time I left >today, had not found out anything. > >Does anyone know anything about these? One of our theory >professors found one in storage here and wants to use it >in some of his classes. The problem right now is that one >of the 2 strings is missing. > >Here are some specs: >1 meter (39+") speaking length >pitch should be 1 octave below middle C >current gage is .029 (12 ga. in piano wire) > >There is also a movable bridge, so the tension >can't be "too" great on it. > >Does anyone know the appropriate type of wire for this? >Harpsichord wire seems like it would be too thin. How >about Fortepiano wire? > >The current string does not seem to be piano wire and >I think that would be too heavy for this. > >Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D >At 09:56 AM 1/22/04, you wrote: >>The problem right now is that one >>of the 2 strings is missing. > >Pythagoras had the same problem with his model... hence the=20 >name. :) > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D >To forestall any further comments about the "monochord" >having 2 strings, :-) here's what I found on a Google search. > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >I wondered about the two strings, also. > >But from a Google search I did, I found this at > >http://folklora.lv/muzikas/giga/en.shtml > > The monochord has been created in Sweden in 1829 for accompaniment of= =20 > spiritual singing. >Probably through the Lutheran parochial schools, monochord has got to the= =20 >Latvian peasants, >and they have begun to play on it, to make it and to improve it (the same= =20 >instrument, but with >two strings has been developed). > > Monochord consists of a long, rectangular body, stuck or hammered=20 > together from wooden plates. >In the upper plate the sound holes are cut and a stepped rod (neck) is=20 >attached, on which a string >(or two) is put. > >And from a different site: > >http://4.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MO/MONOCHORD.htm > >In order the better to seize the relation. of various intervals, >a second string tuned to the same note, but out of reach of >the bridge, was sometimes added to give the fundamental. > >Avery > >****** IMPORTANT NOTICE ****** >This e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for use by the=20 >addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or=20 >confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this=20 >e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or=20 >copying of this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is strictly=20 >prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately= =20 >notify me at (312) 207-1000 and permanently delete the original and any=20 >copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/a1/5a/1a/d6/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC