INDIAN MUSIC FORUMS

Register Calendar Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
stringtester

Registered:
Posts: 47
Reply with quote  #16 
What do you think aboute the extra board I described?
Maybe something like that can help her playing?
0
martin spaink

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 330
Reply with quote  #17 
Theoretically the idea is good, but I don't think I'll ever want to put it into practice!
0
stringtester

Registered:
Posts: 47
Reply with quote  #18 
Why not? If it works. Well I can undrerstand the skepsis to put new things to old traditionall
instruments. But theese days there is allready a lot of new things on the instruments.The
important thing is to not destroy the traditionall sound. I think it
0
stringtester

Registered:
Posts: 47
Reply with quote  #19 
I have now built the extra board I wrote aboute before Dr.Kashyaps postreply.
I took a piece of oakwood around 1cm broad and filed it to a angle.Very thin and flated in one end.And gradually thicker to the other end.I placed a thin white plate of bonelike material upon
it.It
0
martin spaink

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 330
Reply with quote  #20 
Hi Martin,
Do I understand correctly that you have a rather high-standing bridge on your sarangi, so that you went through the trouble of making this separate fingerboard? It runs only under the top Sa string? Since you wnet through all the trouble, would you regale us with a picture of it?
greetings, martin (the other)
0
stringtester

Registered:
Posts: 47
Reply with quote  #21 
Yes, I have a rather high standing bridge on my sarangi. The separate board starts at the
Ma playing-position. And goes up to a bit over the high Pa playing-postion. The white plate
wich cover it goes to the Aad.

Anyway I have removed it because after while it suddenly came some noise from it.

Instead I raised up the Aad us Dr.Kashyap described it.
I built an extra wood-packing and fixed it under the Aad with a few spots of glue. The extra
wood-packing is around 6mm. high. And the string came up around 16mm. over the finger-
board. That
0
peeceebee

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #22 
There is a factor that is an issue related obliquely to all those raised here regarding the tone vs action issue that I think is relevant.

Of course the sharper the angle a string makes over the bridge the louder it will be, but also the more the skin will dampen the sustain of the string by absorbing vibrations and the more uneven resonances in the instrument will come out, in opposition to the body carrying more of the string tension relative to the skin that occurs when the angle is producing less downpressure on the skin as is the case with lower action. This later condition results in a relatively quieter tone, but also more even, more sensitive response to the bow on some instruments.

Of course in any real-world case it is a tradeoff between playability, tone, volume, etc., but a lower action or at least string angle over the bridge isn't simply a negative.

I play with my nails, and having small hands set up the action on the high SA string quite low, which on all my sarangis helps enormously with a more even responsiveness on the first string, and especially minimizing uneven resonances which tend to happen at certain frequencies.

This is not to contradict Martin's point and advice about repairing warping of the trueness of alignment on an older instrument due to tension or any other points raised in this thread, but to include the factor that a simplistic "higher action over the bridge is better" point of view has other aspects...
0
martin spaink

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 330
Reply with quote  #23 
Hi PCB,

Well you're absolutely right that we should never look at one aspect only when setting up these fidgety instruments but insist on seeing the larger picture. To make it all so more interesting is that sarangi set-ups can be very different, I' ve seen instruments with big, highstanding bridges and the otherway around. If things were only as simple as with a viola da gamba for instance, where it is an easy thing to experiment with bridge placement and hear what difference it makes when you shift the bridge around...
There are so many parameters that one has to take into account. Since you mention evenness of response, I suppose it matters a lot how much skin the bridge is sitting on right under the top Sa string, in some instruments the bridge can be very close to the rim of the waist, meaning the stringload makes it very stiff there compared to the more free-floating bass-side.
Another thing that I would like to know, which certainly has a lot of influence on the tone is how thick the bridge is at the feet and top. With your instruments, are they much the same in this respect? Can you give me measurements?
0
stringtester

Registered:
Posts: 47
Reply with quote  #24 
Hi Martin1 and PCB,

The bridge on my Sarangi is 3,5mm thick at the top and 5.7mm thick at the feet.
What I found when I was experimenting with different bridges for dilruba and esradj
was that a thicker bridge gives a more dull sound and a thinner one gives a more
bright sound.

Martin2
0
martin spaink

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 330
Reply with quote  #25 
Hi Martin 2, what you say is consistent - within limits - of what is standard knowledge among luthiers when dealing with western string instruments, where the top of a bridge may be made a bit thinner to brighten the sound. The top part, not the feet!
0
Palta101

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martin spaink
In all the sarangi's I've seen and worked on, there is one particular thing that may create problems, and that is the instrument giving in to the stringtension, causing the bottom-left (in playing position) part where the strings are attached to the targahan to rise above the supposedly flat plane of the instruments' top. The strings are supposed to run parallel to the fingerboard so as to allow good fingering up and down the string. This limits the height of the bridge (ghoraj) in a proper set up. Where it all clashes is that if the bottomleft part is raised through deformation/torque, you end up having little or almost no angle of the strings over the bridge to the bottom part. Having almost no down-bearing over the bridge results in a weakening of tone, but you can't raise the bridge because it would make the string run out of parallel with the fingerboard. What I did on several occasions, before puting on a new skin, is to plane/sand down the raised part. If you lay a ruler over the fingerboard and the bottom left part you can easily check how much that part has raised, giving in to torque. Sometimes it is possible to cut a small recess in the lower part to allow the playing strings to lie deeper. As the targahan always is below the rim of the instrument where the skin is glued on and makes a square angle over this rim, if a notch is cut / filed the width of the string, it allows for more downbearing angle of the string, thus producing a better tone of the instrument.



On the sarangi I am trying to restore, the bottom rim above the targahan has a lifted about 1cm out of plane with the fingerboard. It looks like during a previous re-heading the lifted or turned up bottom left had already been shaved down at least a centimeter and a new side rim peice was joined in. Now because of the further lifting over decades the targahan has only about a centimeter clearance below the rim on the bottom (player's left) side. I wondering if notching a .75 cm groove into the botton for the high Sa and Pa is cutting it too close to the targahan. I don't mind too much setting the ghoraj higher so the strings are a bit out of parallel with the finger board. Just wondering if this instrument has been altered as much as it can be? Thanks everyone

Attached Images
jpeg 20180122_174904.jpg (4.76 MB, 4 views)
jpeg pixlr_20180128223913048.jpg (1.40 MB, 4 views)

0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.