<html> <body> Isaac, And that translates to what in the U. S. ?????? Avery At 04:32 PM 1/26/04, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>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).   En tout cas le niveau= de documentation du sieur Lester est plus que correct !   Amitiés..   Isaac <dl> <dd>-----Message d'origine----- <dd>De : pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [<a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org" eudora="autourl">mailto:pian= otech-bounces@ptg.org</a>]De la part de Lesher, Trent J. <dd>Envoyé : lundi 26 janvier 2004 20:26 <dd>À : pianotech <dd>Objet : RE: Monochord Strings <dd>This is my first posting to this list, so please let me know if I unwittingly commit any faux pas.  <dd>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.) <dd>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. <dd>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.) <dd>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? <dd>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. <dd>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? <dd>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"><font= face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3 color="#0000FF">http://www.nbm-h= ouston.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.) <dd>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). <dd>Maybe some of that specia= l 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>. <dd>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. <dd>OR, if you want to keep i= t 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. <dd>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.) <dd>There's a string tension calculator based on D'Addario strings at <a= href="http://www.pacificsites.net/~dog/StringTensionApplet.html"><font= face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3 color="#0000FF">http://www.pacif= icsites.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.) <dd>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. <dd>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. <dd>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"><font= face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3 color="#0000FF">http://members.a= ol.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_strin= gs.htm</a>. <dd>If it was me, I'd probabl= y 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. <dd>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"><font= face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3 color="#0000FF">http://www.parke= pianostrings.com.au/about.php#music</a> or <a href="http://www.malinco.com/industrial/">http://www.malinco.com/industrial/= </a> that include smaller-than-piano-gauge strings. <dd>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. <dd>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. <dd>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. <dd>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.) <dd>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.) <dd>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? <dd>Trent Lesher <dd>(Amateur pianist &= composer, generally curious, and, based on recommendations from this list,= just started taking the Randy Potter course.) <dd>  <dd>-----Original Message----- <dd>From: Avery Todd [<a href="mailto:avery@ev1.net"= eudora="autourl">mailto:avery@ev1.net</a>] <dd>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 9:51 PM <dd>To: pianotech <dd>Subject: Monochord <dd>List, <dd>I've put this on the caut list also, but by the time I left <dd>today, had not found out anything. <dd>Does anyone know anything about these? One of our theory <dd>professors found one in storage here and wants to use it <dd>in some of his classes. The problem right now is that one <dd>of the 2 strings is missing. <dd>Here are some specs: <dd>1 meter (39+") speaking length <dd>pitch should be 1 octave below middle C <dd>current gage is .029 (12 ga. in piano wire) <dd>There is also a movable bridge, so the tension <dd>can't be "too" great on it. <dd>Does anyone know the appropriate type of wire for this? <dd>Harpsichord wire seems like it would be too thin. How <dd>about Fortepiano wire? <dd>The current string does not seem to be piano wire and <dd>I think that would be too heavy for this. <dd>Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. <dd>========================= ========================== ===== <dd>At 09:56 AM 1/22/04, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite> <dd>The problem right now is that one <dd>of the 2 strings is missing.</blockquote> <dd>Pythagoras had the same problem with his model... hence the= name.           &nbs= p; :) <dd>========================= ========================== ===== <dd>To forestall any further comments about the "monochord" <dd>having 2 strings, :-) here's what I found on a Google search. <dd>========================= ========================== ============== <dd>I wondered about the two strings, also. <dd>But from a Google search I did, I found this at <dd><a href="http://folklora.lv/muzikas/giga/en.shtml"= eudora="autourl">http://folklora.lv/muzikas/giga/en.shtml</a> <dd>    The monochord= has been created in Sweden in 1829 for accompaniment of spiritual singing.= <dd>Probably through the Lutheran parochial schools, monochord has got to= the Latvian peasants, <dd>and they have begun to play on it, to make it and to improve it (the= same instrument, but with <dd>two strings has been developed). <dd>   Monochord consists of a long, rectangular body, stuck or= hammered together from wooden plates. <dd>In the upper plate the sound holes are cut and a stepped rod (neck) is= attached, on which a string <dd>(or two) is put. <dd>And from a different site: <dd><a href="http://4.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MO/MONOCHORD.htm"= eudora="autourl">http://4.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MO/MONOCHORD.htm</a> = <dd>In order the better to seize the relation. of various intervals, <dd>a second string tuned to the same note, but out of reach of <dd>the bridge, was sometimes added to give the fundamental. <dd>Avery </dl><div align="center">****** 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. </div> </blockquote></body> </html>