FAQ Frequently asked questions about lutes made from plans by Art Robb *********************************************** Ky from New Zealand asks: Firstly, must Swiss pine be used for the soundboard (of the lute), or can one also use Cedar or Redwood as used on acoustic guitars, secondly, do ribs get thicker as the number of strings increases, and thirdly, must quarter sawn timber be used for the ribs? Reply: My thinking on lute soundboards is to only use Swiss pine, picea Abies. It works far better than WRC and the cost of a good soundboard seems to disappear during the time it takes to make a lute. To my knpwledge, ribs do not get thicker as # of strings increase but I am no expert on old Baroque lutes so I don't know what happens there. Perhaps nothing as the old early Rennaissance lutes were prized as bodies for renecking and Baroquing. Quartersawn ribs are stronger - I assume you are after the slab cut apearance. Take a piece down to 1.1mm and see if it still has strength and integrity. There are no real rules for ribs - there has always been a huge variety. But they are all very thin. ********************************************************** Ky again: I am going to take your advice and use swiss pine. I have however just this morning found that there is nowhere in New Zealand that I can get reasonable cuts of this wood, so I am once again troubling you for a suggestion as to where I may get some airmailed from, be it England, Europe or America. Reply: The folks I deal with (I do not think they are on the internet yet) in England are Touchstone Tonewoods, 44 Albert Road North, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 9EZ, England Tel 0044-(0)1737-221064 Fax 0044-(0)1737-242748 They have Swiss pine and will send a catalogue if asked. ********************************************************** From Tom in the USA I recently received your seven course lute plan. The plans are very clear; however, I do have one question. On the plan there is a dashed circle located under the bridge. Is the circle a reinforcement to be glued to the underside of the soundboard? Reply: The old lutes of this period had the bars placed on the soundboard in very careful pattern. There were several variations of the pattern and my plan uses the following: The overall length of the body is divided into nine parts, with bars glued onto divisions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The rose is at division 4. The old lutemakers used dividers to mark these positions and old soundboards exist with the division marks scribed on the back of the soundboard. My plan shows these marks as small arcs. In the area of the bridge two divisions are divided into three parts and the scribed circle you mention is drawn with a radius of '1/3 of two divisions' and placed with its center of the '1/3 of two divisions points'. The bridge lies across the centre of the circle and any small bars are often tangent to (aproximately) the circle. All this is described in the article "On the Construction of the Lute Belly" by Friedman Hellwig in the Galpin Society Journal, 1968. ********************************************************** and Ky again: ...but what I would like to ask you, is it safe for me to assume that the construction (of a baroque lute) as such is going to be similar to that of the 7-course lute as in the plans I purchased from you? Other than that, the only problem I have as yet not solved is how to best attach the rider to the peg-box. Lastly, actually regarding the plans I got from you, I would just like to clarify a point regarding the pegs themselves. Am I correct in assuming that the pegs are all made to the specification outlined, and then cut the required length? Reply: There are a lot of differences between a baroque and Renaissance lutes - especially noticable will be body shapes, barring, strings and string lengths. The lute societies sell good baroque lute plans. I have attached the treble rider to the peg box on my baroque lutes with a tenon that fits into the peg box inside, thus not noticable from the outside. Certainly lute pegs are made in bulk and fitted to the lute later. You can make a few shorties if wood is precious. ********************************************************** Hello Art! Well, I finally got started on my lute! Man, how I hated to see all the waste on the rib material. I had someone cut it up for me on a table saw and I think there was more waste because of the 1/8" per saw cut than there was finished material. He said his band saw wasn't good enough for cutting the ribs - even with a fence, the blade would wander and give a squiggly cut which would be a realpain to try to smooth out. I have a question about the front and rear blocks - I think they're supposed to be a hard European Pine - what would be a good substitute? I think the guy at the wood shop said I could use willow, and for some reason I thought I had some of that but it turned out to be yellow birch (hard birch). I don't want to have to buy a half a tree for a couple of small blocks. Alan Reply I use a bandsaw every time and still hate to see the waste! The front block needs to be light and strong. I suggest you compare densities with your birch. The front block can damp the sound if too heavy. As for the inner end clasp, that could be made from excess soundboard material. ******************************************************* Art-- I found your web page, and would like to pose a question. On the harpsichord mailing list a recent thread has returned once again to the question whether equal temperament had a place in the 16th & 17th centuries. One posting asserted that 16th-C luthiers used a simple geometric construction to lay out a set of equal-tempered frets: Erect a perpendicular to line AB at A, pick any point C on the perpendicular, divide AC into 12 equal parts, connect each point to B. Bisect BC at E. Intersections of AE with the other lines define the fret locations for a string of length 2*AE. I have done the math and found that the assertion is dead wrong (the construction in fact divides the octave into twelve intervals with equal *differences* in frequencies (not equal ratios). But I wondered whether this construction has any role that you, as a luthier writing a book, might be aware of. --Don Reply There is a geometrical solution to equal temperament but I don't think you have it exactly right. It also is not very accurate. I think the corect method almost works! The method is: Divide the string length by 17.817. The result is the distance from the nut to the first fret. Subtract the first result fom the string length and divide the remainder by 17.817. The result is the distance from the first fret to the second fret. Subtract the second result from the remaining string length etc. I suspect the old lute players had great skill in adjusting their movable frets, and had many theories. If you want to get serious about this, try Mark Lindley's "Lutes, Viols and Temperaments", Cambridge University Press, 1984. ****************************************************** From Henry BTW: some 30 years ago there was a "private press" book out of Georgia (US), Atlanta or Savannah as I recall, on building a lute. (Has it really been that long ago?) It took some lumps in the review in the Journal of the Galpin Society and if I had a full run I could trace it out. Reply I know the book from Savannah - Lute Construction by Robert Cooper. It does not have too much to recommend it. The plan is for a very heavy German 1920's lute and much of the work described is better done in other ways. I suppose the order of construction is OK. I notice it has a history by Suzanne Bloch. I ran across her charming account of rediscovering lutes early in this century on the American Lute Society's website. ****************************************************** From Henry again . BTW - As "Swiss pine" appears to be the only choice for the sound board, do you know of suppliers? (preferably NA, as here the postage could hurt); or, as I do still have relatives in Switzerland - a shopping visit to wood merchants would be an excuse for a visit... Don't know American suppliers, but see above for UK source. ****************************************************** From Mehmet the drawing at the bottom: is it half of it? No, a side view. The shape is different.