<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; = charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV> This is my first posting to this list, so = please let me know if I unwittingly commit any faux pas.  = I've been playing with = some different string types on a chord-harp, so hopefully this may be of some = practical help to the question about = the missing monochord string.  (Disclaimer:  These = comments are based on a lot of figuring and extrapolating over the past few = months plus a couple months playing around with the above toy, not on any seasoned = background in the field, so by all means take them with a grain of salt.  And hopefully somebody will be kind = enough to let me know if I commit any factual blunders, so I won't remain deluded = too long.) Since it has = a moveable bridge, I am imagining this to be like the monochords that were so often = used in experiments and demonstrations (and arguments) about temperament & = just intonation and so on for a couple thousand years.  A string held at constant tension = would be meticulously divided off into various ratios to produce musical = intervals, and I'm assuming it's going to be used for similar purposes of demonstration = and experiment in the classroom.  = So that means probably one string is going to be used as an aural reference = to the starting point, and so you can hear the two notes of an interval sounded = together, and the bridge is going to be moved up and down on the other = string to show how dividing it into different ratios produces familiar (or = unfamiliar) intervals. And I suppose = since it's 39+ inches long, you could even demonstrate a fifth narrowed by a = syntonic comma -- about 1/3 inch -- fairly well, or even the difference between an ET = third and a perfect third (about 1/4 inch), though it seems like it might be hard = to get much precision out of the less than 1/32 inch difference between an ET = and perfect fifth.  (I think I = figured all that right.) Anyway, since = the bridge is going to be slid along the string all the time, a plain wire string = would seem best for that, but at 39.4" for about 131Hz (C3), it seems to me that = you're going to have some issues with what somebody on this list delightfully = referred to recently as "solicitation of the wire," which corresponds to = percentage of breaking strain.  A plain = modern steel music wire 39.4" C3 string of any gauge will probably be of = similar quality to a plain wire C3 on a medium sized upright, so it might not be = ideal for showing off the euphony of just intervals, partial-wise.  Maybe it would even have slightly = ambiguous pitch definition which would partially defeat the purpose of the whole = thing 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 .029" plain wire string = is also supposed to be C3, that string would seem to have about exactly 50 = pounds tension on it, so I'll take that as the upper tension limit for the = other string. So keeping it = at C3, what non-wound (for the sake of ease of 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 breaking limit.  However, I guess phosphor = bronze is supposed to have higher tensile strength than regular bronze.  It looks like phosphor bronze's = effective breaking point, taking into account its higher density compared to steel = wire, is about 40% that of steel wire, so I'm thinking it's in the zone to = possibly work pretty well for a 39.4" C3 (on the higher-stressed side -- probably = more than it has to be -- but I'm thinking still less than the max percent = that's commonly used, so it seems like it might work just fine).  Here's a site with some data on = phosphor bronze: <A = href="http://www.nbm-houston.com/bronze/bronze524.html">http://www.nbm-houston.com/bronze/bronze524.html</A><FONT= face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>, and it's available = as music wire at the site mentioned just below.  = (I'm assuming the specs for the "hard" variety of phosphor bronze = would apply to music wire.) Plain gut and = nylon brought to the same pitch come out about the same as plain steel as far as = percentage of breaking strain is concerned, so I'm assuming their medium wouldn't be = solicited any better and they probably wouldn't sound any better, plus they're = stretchy and harder to keep in precise tune and wouldn't be very loud or sustain = very long (or have as strong harmonics to demonstrate beating with). = Maybe some of = that special wire made for historical (pre 1830) keyboards that someone posted about = recently would be good at that pitch and scale length.  The PureSound wire seems like it's = not different enough from modern steel wire to quite get there for this = situation, but Rose or Voss wire seems like it should more than do the trick, and = it's available in smaller gauges including .028" (.7mm) and smaller, so it = might just be perfect.  I think = PureSound wire has about 80% of the tensile strength of modern wire, and Rose has a = couple of types that are between 45-50% of the tensile strength of modern wire = (type D is the stronger one), which I'm thinking theoretically should put a C3 at = 39.4" in a pretty good zone of solicitation, and you still won't be anywhere near = to breaking it either. I don't have info on Voss.  You might have better sources already, but here's a site anyway = for a whole variety of modern and historical plain wires including these = (several types of steel and iron, brass, several types of bronze, etc.): = <A href="http://www.fortepiano.com/owners.htm">http://www.fortepiano.com/owners.htm</A>. Failing all = that, my suggestion is to either raise the pitch of both strings up to about F# = and lower the gauge (of both strings) to about .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 tension-bearing wire will be = solicited to give a purer ringing tone with less inharmonicity.  = Probably nickel plated steel wound or stainless steel wound is best to stand up = to the sliding of the bridge (hopefully the windings wouldn't wear out the = bridge though!).  Stainless is = brighter, I'm not sure it if has significantly better or worse inharmonicity = though.  A .029" outer diameter wound = string with a .018" core wire would be just about right for a 39.4" length at C3, = though the core could also be as little as .016" or as much as .020".  (I = think anything with a core dia to total diameter ratio of about 5:9 up = to 7:10 or so should have a good chance of = working out all right, then it just depends on what total = gauge tension you want.)  With = the decrease in density (due to the empty spaces in and around the windings) you = could go up to a .031" gauge (probably with a .018" core), and still be a couple = pounds under the current load with a plain .029 string.  Guitar stores or folk-instrument suppliers online like = Elderly.com have strings like that, but most of them aren't long enough for 39.4" = speaking length unless you get them custom or something. However, = maybe one of the strings made for "superlong scale" bass guitar (36" scale) would do -- = they usually give you several extra inches, and they have stainless and = nickel-plate. Looking at D'Addario's String Reference Guide, it seems about the = smallest gauge for bass guitar you can get is .032" (.8mm).  With the = decreased density of a steel wound string, I'm figuring that should increase the = tension by only 2-3 pounds or so, so maybe for a wound string solution that = would be just about the right thing.  = (I'm confused by the numerous varieties of bass strings advertised, though, = and designations like "super soft," etc., all with seemingly different mass = numbers. Some .032's would seem to come out to 56 lbs or so for your application, = not sure why.)  Make sure it's = a regular "round-wound" string, though.  = That refers to the winding, not to whether the core is hex or not, and is = opposed to flattened windings etc.  = I'd call ahead, but you can get these at most stores that carry guitars, or = online at juststrings or musiciansfriend or elderly etc.  (I just noticed that JustStrings.com = seems to offer nickel-steel wound single bass strings 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 <A href="http://www.pacificsites.net/~dog/StringTensionApplet.html">http://www.pacificsites.net/~dog/StringTensionApplet.html= </A> that shows a .032 = nickel-steel wound at 53.3lbs and a stainless wound at 52.4lbs for C3 at = 39.4".  (If you put this applet in "verbose" = mode, it's easier to see what's going on.) I also see = that Mandobass has a pretty similar scale length (42"), but it seems that at C3 the = strings they make for that would put well over 100 pounds tension per string on = your monochord. If you used a = metal-wound nylon string, you could get enough stress on the core without having a = very high total tension (maybe about 1/4 of a steel string for the same = gauge).  They have bronze wound and silvered copper-wound, used for lute for example.  Harp too I think.  = Since the pressure and friction on the bridge would be a lot less, maybe these = less durable windings would work out all right. This site has = most of the non-steel strings mentioned so far, for the gauge and length you = specify: <A href="http://members.aol.com/mwstrings/markwood.htm">http://members.aol.com/mwstrings/markwood.htm</A>.  It looks like they cost between $1 = and $6 for a single string.  Here's = another site: <A href="http://www.harpmall.com/harp_strings.htm">http://www.harpmall.com/harp_strings.htm</A>. If it was me, = I'd probably play with one of the "historic wires" that seems best (like Malcolm = Rose) rather than using a wound nylon or gut core, just for the sake (if I'm = imagining this device and the situation it will be in half-right) of some volume and = better sustain as well as stronger harmonics for classroom demonstration = purpose. Or else I'd tune the monochord up to between E and A (until it sounds as pure and = singing as you think it needs to be), and then, for the sake of a louder fuller = tone, put on as large a gauge of plain modern steel music wire as practical for = how it's gonna be used (probably = somewhere between .018" and .025", or = .45-.65mm).  It seems like it's pretty easy & inexpensive to get a spool of plain music wire of any gauge.  Here's a couple of places:  <A href="http://www.parkepianostrings.com.au/about.php#music">http://www.parkepianostrings.com.au/about.php#music</A><F= ONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3> or <A href="http://www.malinco.com/industrial/">http://www.malinco.com/industrial/</A> that include smaller-than-piano-gauge strings. If you just = have to make a best guess -- for tuning it up with modern plain music wire -- I'd say = G3, in which case .019 will result in a couple pounds less tension than the = current .029 tuned to C3 and .020 will result in a couple pounds more tension = (per string).  To keep the = tension within a 2-3 pounds of the current string on there, F# could be .021, and F = could be .022. If you used = gut or nylon at these same higher tunings, I guess the results should be good, but not = very robust or sustaining, and your total tension would be only about 1/6 or = 1/7 for the same steel wire gauge, though you'd probably automatically use a = somewhat larger gauge. Or you could = try plain phosphor bronze wire (or even regular bronze, and hope it doesn't break) = assuming -- I've never tried it, so for me it would be an interesting = experiment to see how it sounded.  I = think .027 gauge bronze wire would be about equivalent tension to .029 in steel = wire because it's about 13% heavier. Actually, to = tell the truth if it was me I'd probably end up getting both steel-wound strings = (nickel & stainless), a phosphor bronze string, and a couple "historical wire" = strings and try them all to see what they sound like, and see if some are more = revealing of small discrepancies in tuning different intervals.  Plus I'd get some plain modern steel string to try with a raised = pitch.  (Not that I have a lot of time = on my hands, it's just I have a lot to learn and it seems like it would be an interesting experiment.) Maybe = somebody else on the list knows more about what strings you need and where to get them, but = for what it's worth this is how I'd approach it.  (If anybody is interested, I can share some of the materials data/equations/assumptions I'm going on for these speculations.) = This all has = me wondering why they don't use softer iron or steel "historical" wires in some = smaller modern pianos, at least in the problem areas.  Any comments out there? Trent = Lesher (Amateur = pianist & composer, generally curious, and, based on recommendations from this = list, just started taking the Randy Potter course.)  </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: Avery Todd [mailto:avery@ev1.net] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 9:51 = PM To: pianotech Subject: Monochord </DIV>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. ===================== ========================== ========= At 09:56 AM 1/22/04, you wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">The problem right now = is that one of the 2 strings is missing.</BLOCKQUOTE> Pythagoras had = the same problem with his model... hence the = name.           &n= bsp; = :) ====================== ========================== ======== To forestall any further comments about the "monochord" having 2 = strings, :-) here's what I found on a Google search. = ======================= ========================== ================ I wondered about the two strings, also. But from a Google search = I did, I found this at <A = href="http://folklora.lv/muzikas/giga/en.shtml" = eudora="autourl">http://folklora.lv/muzikas/giga/en.shtml </A></= FONT>    The monochord has = been created in Sweden in 1829 for accompaniment of spiritual singing. Probably = through the Lutheran parochial schools, monochord has got to the Latvian = peasants, and they have begun to play on it, to make it and to improve it = (the same instrument, but with two strings has been developed).    Monochord consists of a long, rectangular body, stuck or hammered together from wooden plates. = In the upper plate the sound holes are cut and a stepped rod (neck) is = attached, on which a string (or two) is put. And from a = different site: <A href="http://4.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MO/MONOCHORD.htm" = eudora="autourl">http://4.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MO/MONOCHORD.htm <B= R></A>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 </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>****** = IMPORTANT NOTICE ****** This e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is = intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain = legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are = not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that = any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any = attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this = e-mail in error, please immediately notify me at (312) 207-1000 and = permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any = printout thereof.</HTML>