<!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 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=123483022-26012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff =
size=2>Cà va
te plaire, si tu as une réponse quand à la corde pour ce =
monocorde,
moi j'ai essayé mais Minimens est bloqué en mode démo (pas de C3, =
4 ou
whatever).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=123483022-26012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff =
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=123483022-26012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff =
size=2>En
tout cas le niveau de documentation du sieur Lester est plus que correct =
!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=123483022-26012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff =
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=123483022-26012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff =
size=2>Amitiés..</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=123483022-26012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff =
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=123483022-26012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff =
size=2>Isaac</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT =
face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Message d'origine-----<BR><B>De :</B>
pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]<B>De la =
part
de</B> Lesher, Trent J.<BR><B>Envoyé :</B> lundi 26 janvier =
2004
20:26<BR><B>À :</B> pianotech<BR><B>Objet :</B> RE: =
Monochord
Strings<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3><SPAN
class=399313618-26012004>This is my first posting to this list, so =
please let
me know if I unwittingly commit any faux pas.
</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=+0><SPAN =
class=399313618-26012004></SPAN></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>I've been playing =
with some
different string types on a chord-harp, so hopefully this may be of =
some
practical help<SPAN class=399313618-26012004> to the question about =
the
missing monochord string</SPAN>. <SPAN =
class=399313618-26012004>
</SPAN>(Disclaimer: <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> =
</SPAN>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<SPAN
class=399313618-26012004>. 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.</SPAN>) </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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. <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>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. <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> =
</SPAN>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. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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. <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> =
</SPAN>(I think
I figured all that right.)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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. <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> =
</SPAN>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. <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>Maybe it =
would even
have slightly ambiguous pitch definition which would partially defeat =
the
purpose of the whole thing too. <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> =
</SPAN>I
wonder how it was determined that the string should be at =
C3?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>Plain =
bronze wire might
sound better, but it would be close to it's usable breaking =
limit.<SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN> However, I guess phosphor =
bronze is
supposed to have higher tensile strength than regular =
bronze. <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>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). <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>Here's a site with some data on =
phosphor
bronze: </FONT><A
href="http://www.nbm-houston.com/bronze/bronze524.html"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"
=
size=3>http://www.nbm-houston.com/bronze/bronze524.html</FONT></A><FONT=
face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>, and it's available =
as music wire
at the site mentioned just below. <SPAN =
class=399313618-26012004>
</SPAN>(I'm assuming the specs for the "hard" variety of phosphor =
bronze would
apply to music wire.) </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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). </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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. <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>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. <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>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. <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> You might have better sources already, but =
h</SPAN>ere's a site <SPAN class=399313618-26012004>anyway =
</SPAN>for a
whole variety of modern and historical plain wires including these =
(several
types of steel and iron, brass, several types of bronze, etc.): =
</FONT><A
href="http://www.fortepiano.com/owners.htm"><FONT face="Times New =
Roman"
size=3>http://www.fortepiano.com/owners.htm</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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<SPAN =
class=399313618-26012004> with
less inharmonicity</SPAN>. <SPAN class=399313618-26012004>
</SPAN>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!).<SPAN class=399313618-26012004> =
</SPAN> Stainless
is brighter, I'm not sure it if has significantly better or worse
inharmonicity though.<SPAN class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN> 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". <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>(<SPAN =
class=399313618-26012004>I think a</SPAN>nything with a core dia to =
total
diameter ratio of about 5:9 up to 7:10 or so should <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004>have a good chance of =
working </SPAN>out all
right, then it just depends on what total gauge tension you =
want.) <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>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.<SPAN class=399313618-26012004>
</SPAN> 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<SPAN class=399313618-26012004> unless you get =
them
custom or something.</SPAN> </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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"<SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> (.8mm)</SPAN>. <SPAN =
class=399313618-26012004>
</SPAN>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. <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>(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.) <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>Make sure it's a regular =
"round-wound"
string, though. <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>That =
refers to the
winding, not to whether the core is hex or not, and is opposed to =
flattened
windings etc. <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>I'd call =
ahead, but
you can get these at most stores that carry guitars, or online at =
juststrings
or musiciansfriend or elderly etc. <SPAN =
class=399313618-26012004>
</SPAN>(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.)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>There's a =
string tension
calculator based on D'Addario strings at </FONT><A
=
href="http://www.pacificsites.net/~dog/StringTensionApplet.html"><FONT =
face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff
=
size=3>http://www.pacificsites.net/~dog/StringTensionApplet.html</FONT>=
</A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3> that shows a .032 =
nickel-steel
wound at 53.3lbs and a stainless wound at 52.4lbs for C3 at =
39.4". <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>(If you put this applet in =
"verbose" mode,
it's easier to see what's going on.)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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). <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>They have bronze =
wound and
silvered copper-wound, used for lute for example. <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>Harp too I think. <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>Since the pressure and friction on =
the bridge
would be a lot less, maybe these less durable windings would work out =
all
right.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>This site =
has most of the
non-steel strings mentioned so far, for the gauge and length you =
specify:
</FONT><A href="http://members.aol.com/mwstrings/markwood.htm"><FONT =
face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff
size=3>http://members.aol.com/mwstrings/markwood.htm</FONT></A><FONT =
face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>. <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>It looks like they cost between $1 =
and $6 for
a single string. <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>Here's =
another
site: </FONT><A =
href="http://www.harpmall.com/harp_strings.htm"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"
size=3>http://www.harpmall.com/harp_strings.htm</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT color=#000000><FONT =
size=3>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 (probab<SPAN class=399313618-26012004>ly</SPAN> =
somewhere
between .018" and .025"<SPAN class=399313618-26012004>, or
.45-.65mm</SPAN>). <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>It =
seems like
it's pretty easy & inexpensive to get a spool of plain music wire =
of any
gauge. <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>Here's a couple =
of
places: <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> =
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><A
href="http://www.parkepianostrings.com.au/about.php#music"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff
=
size=3>http://www.parkepianostrings.com.au/about.php#music</FONT></A><F=
ONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3> or </FONT><A
href="http://www.malinco.com/industrial/"><FONT face="Times New =
Roman"
color=#0000ff =
size=3>http://www.malinco.com/industrial/</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3> that include
smaller-than-piano-gauge strings. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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). <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>To keep =
the tension
within a 2-3 pounds of the current string on there, F# could be .021, =
and F
could be .022. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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. <SPAN =
class=399313618-26012004>
</SPAN>I think .027 gauge bronze wire would be about equivalent =
tension to
.029 in steel wire because it's about 13% heavier. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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. <SPAN class=399313618-26012004> =
</SPAN>Plus <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004>I'd get some </SPAN>plain modern steel =
string to
try with a raised pitch.<SPAN class=399313618-26012004> =
</SPAN> (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.)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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. <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>(If anybody is interested, I can =
share some
of the materials data/equations/assumptions I'm going on for these
speculations.) </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>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. <SPAN
class=399313618-26012004> </SPAN>Any comments out there?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>Trent =
Lesher</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>(Amateur =
pianist &
composer, generally curious, and, based on recommendations from this =
list,
just started taking the Randy Potter course.)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000
size=3></FONT> </P></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT =
face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Avery Todd
[mailto:avery@ev1.net]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, January 22, 2004 =
9:51
PM<BR><B>To:</B> pianotech<BR><B>Subject:</B>
Monochord<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=3>List,<BR><BR>I've put =
this on the
caut list also, but by the time I left<BR>today, had not found out =
anything.
<BR><BR>Does anyone know anything about these? One of our
theory<BR>professors found one in storage here and wants to use =
it<BR>in
some of his classes. The problem right now is that one<BR>of the 2 =
strings
is missing.<BR><BR>Here are some specs:<BR>1 meter (39+") speaking
length<BR>pitch should be 1 octave below middle C<BR>current gage is =
.029
(12 ga. in piano wire)<BR><BR>There is also a movable bridge, so the =
tension<BR>can't be "too" great on it.<BR><BR>Does anyone know the
appropriate type of wire for this?<BR>Harpsichord wire seems like it =
would
be too thin. How<BR>about Fortepiano wire?<BR><BR>The current string =
does
not seem to be piano wire and<BR>I think that would be too heavy for =
this.<BR><BR>Any help would be greatly appreciated.
=
Thanks.<BR><BR>=====================
==========================
=========<BR>At
09:56 AM 1/22/04, you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">The problem right =
now is that
one<BR>of the 2 strings is missing.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Pythagoras had =
the same
problem with his model... hence the
=
name. &n=
bsp;
=
:)<BR><BR>======================
==========================
========<BR>To
forestall any further comments about the "monochord" <BR>having 2 =
strings,
:-) here's what I found on a Google search.
=
<BR><BR>=======================
==========================
================<BR>I
wondered about the two strings, also. <BR><BR>But from a Google =
search I
did, I found this at<BR><BR><A
href="http://folklora.lv/muzikas/giga/en.shtml"
=
eudora="autourl">http://folklora.lv/muzikas/giga/en.shtml<BR><BR></A></=
FONT><FONT
face="Times, Times" size=3> The monochord has =
been created
in Sweden in 1829 for accompaniment of spiritual singing. =
<BR>Probably
through the Lutheran parochial schools, monochord has got to the =
Latvian
peasants, <BR>and they have begun to play on it, to make it and to =
improve
it <B><U>(the same instrument, but with <BR>two strings has been
developed).<BR><BR></U></B> Monochord consists of a =
long,
rectangular body, stuck or hammered together from wooden plates. =
<BR>In the
upper plate the sound holes are cut and a stepped rod (neck) is =
attached, on
which <B>a string <BR><U>(or two)</U> is put.<BR><BR></B>And from a
different site: <BR><BR></FONT><A
href="http://4.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MO/MONOCHORD.htm"
=
eudora="autourl">http://4.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MO/MONOCHORD.htm<BR><B=
R></A>In
order the better to seize the relation. of various intervals, =
<BR><B><U>a
second string tuned to the same note</U></B>, but out of reach of =
<BR>the
bridge, was sometimes added to give the fundamental. <BR><BR>Avery
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><!--[object_id=#sachnoff.com#]-->
<P align=center><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><FONT =
color=#0000ff>****** IMPORTANT
NOTICE ******<BR>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.</FONT></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>