<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; = charset=utf-8"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY hb_focus_attach="true"> <DIV> <DIV>List:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I realized an ealier question directed to the whole list might have = gotten lost at the bottom of the = original, long post (about possible strings for a = demonstration monochord for a music theory class), so here it is again, at the = top this time:  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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.  Could = this improve the tone/inharmonicity?  What would be the drawbacks -- not as = loud?  Not as bright, even though it would be at higher percentage of breaking strain?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(I framed the parts of the original post that are = relevant to this question in brackets/astericks [***...***].)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'd enjoy hearing from anyone with = any thoughts on this (even if it's just to set me straight about whatever misconceptions I may have).  Maybe some people with experience with = pianos have a sense of the answer even if they don't know the technical = reasons.  Does anyone have any books to recommend on this type of thing?  I = don't know whether this is an ignorant question or a difficult question, so = any comments appreciated.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just from following some of the = discussions on this list for the past few months I've learned a lot, as well as = enjoyed the spirit of the community and wit etc. on this list, just want to express = my appreciation.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Trent</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Original post:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This is my first posting to this list, so = please let me know if I unwittingly commit any faux pas.  = </DIV> <DIV> <DIV> 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>, 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.fortepia= no.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><= FONT color=#000000>.  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</FONT= ></A> 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? </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV> </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>