steel vs gut

[not telling]

Steven Isserlis (who has a Strad) posted a sarcastic fake ad for Stradivarius on his Facebook today.

Is it true that steel strings "ruin" instruments, great, good and otherwise? What are the issues (if any) that make steel strings problematic and gut good? Is this a scientifically proven idea? Can't future players of some theoretical steel-strung masterpiece put gut strings on instead and get the same result as anyone in the theoretical past? If not, that says something about whether "playing in" a violin is a real thing, doesn't it...

I know this has all probably come up before, but I'm asking anyway so I have an excuse to post the 'ad' he made. I thought it was funny.

https://m.facebook.com/191956057519364/photos/pb.191956057519364.-2207520000.1447877287./932733533441609/?type=3&source=54

[La Folia]

Just so you know, Quartetto Italiano used steel strings.  A violin E string is also steel.  No, steel doesn't ruin violins.

 

You could probably damage a violin with too high tension, but steel strings should have approximately the same tension as any other strings.

[not telling]

Ok thanks. I'm susceptible to taking his sarcasm and superstition too seriously, having no idea what is generally done to maintain the sort of instruments someone like him plays. Do players at that level opt for gut more often? Steel strings just produce a louder and punchier sound right?

Isserlis has four or five amazing cellos, and uses steel on the Montagnana (not the Strads). He wrote, I thought seriously, that some instruments (including his Stradivaris) can't handle steel, which seemed like an interesting idea.

[go_oa]

The technical problem with steel strings is that they tend to have an intrinsic stiffness that 

throws their inherit overtone series off.  All of the natural overtones are sharp. The bowed string

forces the overtones to be in tune, but the string can fight this, giving a poorer sound. To counter

this stiffness, steel strings core strings are (except e strings) made of fine strands.  This defeats most 

of the stiffness problem.  Steel strings are stronger, so higher tensions are possible, but not

required.  Higher tension is related to stronger sound, so there is a temptation to design the

string for higher tension, which the stronger material permits, to get stronger sound, but that is

not required by the material.  The string can be made light, thin, so that high tension is not

required.  Adding metal is very useful as a way to add weight to a string without increasing thickness.

Tungsten wraps add a lot of weight so that Viola C strings can be thin and flexible, where 

a pure gut string would be thick and stiff.  String design is a careful balance of  effects of different materials.

[Bohdan Warchal]

Hi colleagues, please let me say a few sentences. 

 

Steel core strings DO REQUIRE significantly higher tension than gut ones. (Synthetics are somewhere in the middle of this range). We should make a steel string with a typical tension of gut of course, but it would not work at all. Moreover, it applies also vice versa. Gut string with a typical steel string tension would be hardly playable.

 

This phenomenon has been understood and examined by acoustic experts just partly so far I am afrad, but it is absolutely obvious. It is the first lesson of stringmaing, something that you learn in a very few first hours of your stringmaing journey. 

[Don Noon]

If you look at a string tension chart, steel strings tend to be on the high side of what's out there.

[not telling]

Thanks for explaining the tension factor unequivocally. I guess what I'm curious about is this:

High tension strings on an instrument temporarily would not permanently affect future performance tone wise of an instrument would it?

LA Folia says no. Are there other opinions?

[jezzupe]

Again, without getting into other aspects, 432 tuning is much better for instruments due to the lower tension, and in my opinion, for most violins, gut or steel, they sound better. This is the tuning that would have been used when the violin was developed and was the base tuning all the way up until the 20-30's and 440 did no become "standard" until 56. Again, avoiding any of the hippy dippy crap, I am somewhat shocked that "purist's" allowed this to "happen" and that no one apparently challenged the logic of increasing stress across the board on all types of stringed instruments. From bowed to plucked instruments, the increase form 432 to 440 is pretty significant as noted by winging up from 432 to 440, it's a considerable amount more winding and thus a considerable amount of extra stress.

 

I am a strong advocate and hopefully an early proponent in a long line of luthiers, conservationists and musicians that will be making a push to return to 432 for the simple plain logic that less stress {within operating range} is better for instruments period. Try it yourself, I think most will find that dropping from 440 to 432 sounds better because it puts a little "viola deepness" into your violin sound, highs not so shrill and in general sounds more "relaxed".

 

Let alone from an analysis point of view it may be something that makes it so we are missing something. 440  was not the pitch these instruments were tuned to when they were made, like I say I have a real hard time rationalizing increasing pressure and stress for no reason other than Goebbels, of all people  and some others, who were not conservationist luthiers, decided that we should all increase stress on 200-300 year old plates that are 2.5 mil thick and that this was somehow a good idea?

 

If you were stuck on a desert island as a violin maker, and you washed ashore with your Strad, say in 1910, and some guy that landed there with you suggested that you should raise the pitch and put more stress on it, as at that time everyone was tuning 432, would you think that to be a good idea? I really don't understand why this "logic" is not questioned more and why it is not factored in when people study instruments, as I say, it's a considerable amount of an increase in tension going from 432 to 440, you really feel it when you tune a guitar to 432

[jezzupe]

Again, without getting into other aspects, 432 tuning is much better for instruments due to the lower tension, and in my opinion, for most violins, gut or steel, they sound better. This is the tuning that would have been used when the violin was developed and was the base tuning all the way up until the 20-30's and 440 did no become "standard" until 56. Again, avoiding any of the hippy dippy crap, I am somewhat shocked that "purist's" allowed this to "happen" and that no one apparently challenged the logic of increasing stress across the board on all types of stringed instruments. From bowed to plucked instruments, the increase form 432 to 440 is pretty significant as noted by winging up from 432 to 440, it's a considerable amount more winding and thus a considerable amount of extra stress.

 

I am a strong advocate and hopefully an early proponent in a long line of luthiers, conservationists and musicians that will be making a push to return to 432 for the simple plain logic that less stress {within operating range} is better for instruments period. Try it yourself, I think most will find that dropping from 440 to 432 sounds better because it puts a little "viola deepness" into your violin sound, highs not so shrill and in general sounds more "relaxed".

 

Let alone from an analysis point of view it may be something that makes it so we are missing something. 440  was not the pitch these instruments were tuned to when they were made, like I say I have a real hard time rationalizing increasing pressure and stress for no reason other than Goebbels, of all people  and some others, who were not conservationist luthiers, decided that we should all increase stress on 200-300 year old plates that are 2.5 mil thick and that this was somehow a good idea?

 

If you were stuck on a desert island as a violin maker, and you washed ashore with your Strad, say in 1910, and some guy that landed there with you suggested that you should raise the pitch and put more stress on it, as at that time everyone was tuning 432, would you think that to be a good idea? I really don't understand why this "logic" is not questioned more and why it is not factored in when people study instruments, as I say, it's a considerable amount of an increase in tension going from 432 to 440, you really feel it when you tune a guitar to 432

an edit I would make is that 432 "Scientific pitch" may or may not have been the exact pitch that was tuned to, but for the most part, based on much of my reading it was considerably lower than 440, sometimes as low as 383, bottom line a lower standard tuning is better for stringed instruments

[MarkBouquet]

String tension is engineered into the string, and isn't defined by Hz the string is tuned to. After all, my violin G string is tuned to 196 Hz, but that certainly doesn't mean that it's therefore less than half of the tension of my 440 Hz A string. Does it?

[jezzupe]

String tension is engineered into the string, and isn't defined by Hz the string is tuned to. After all, my violin G string is tuned to 196 Hz, but that certainly doesn't mean that it's therefore less than half of the tension of my 440 Hz A string. Does it?

With a Korg digital tuner or similar device calibrate and tune t0 440 A, then calibrate the tuner to 432, and drop the A string pitch down to 432. 432 is still plenty enough tension to tighten the string so it sounds good, but considerably less tension than when tuned to 440, particularly when the other strings are also tuned down to correspond with 432 A . Another way to think of it is the 432 A is about a slightly mid sharp  G sharp in 440, and or another way to think of it is like tuning down a half step across the board.Some strings may respond better or worse I suppose, but like I say I like it better because the low notes are lower as well as the highs, it puts a wee of a viola feel into the sound imo.

[La Folia]

High tension strings on an instrument temporarily would not permanently affect future performance tone wise of an instrument would it?

LA Folia says no.

 

I said what?!  Read again.

 

 

Bohdan Warchal wrote:

"Steel core strings DO REQUIRE significantly higher tension than gut ones. (Synthetics are somewhere in the middle of this range). We should make a steel string with a typical tension of gut of course, but it would not work at all. Moreover, it applies also vice versa. Gut string with a typical steel string tension would be hardly playable."

 

I looked it up.  Since I don't use steel strings myself, I can only think of one brand of multi-strand steel violin string:  D'Addario Helicore.  Helicores are within the tension range of other strings, if perhaps a little above average (I didn't check gut specifically).  According to the Interwebs, light Helicore strings have about the tension of (presumably medium) Warchal or Dominant strings, but some D'Addario strings run toward the high end anyway.  I don't know how they play, but it doesn't seem like the tension is all that different.

 

As for single-strand steel strings, well, those don't belong on violins, so they aren't part of the discussion.  On those you definitely would have to keep the tension high or they would have a very bendable pitch, like on those awful children's violins.

[jezzupe]

 

this an interesting take on the double in 432, I do think the best way to think of it is simply being tuned down about a half step.

[Bohdan Warchal]

Jezzupe, the matter of historical pitch is not so simple. There was many other pitches even in baroque and the pitch has been rising gradually until it has been standardized in 1955. 

 

You are right of course, if we would take one particular string and detune it, its tension would decrease. But although the tension of one particular string relates to its pitch, the tension in general (if we speak about the nowadays used tension) does not relate to a tuning pitch at all. We (stringmakers) can easily adjust the tension, so we can make even heavier string for 432 than the original one. If violinist would one day really switch to 432, stringmakers would follow it and compensate it by tension increase instantly.

 

It is beacuse 95% players are not going to sacrifice nowadays projection level for "viola sound" on violin. If they fall in love with viola sound, they switch to viola (and ask for best projecting strings for viola again mostly). 

 

I am not high tension fan, I do not advocate this trend. In fact I am generally known as low tension supporter. This is why we do make synthetic core strings for cello only. I just explain how it works.

 

Back to the topic. You suggest detuning to 432 since you claim instruments have never been designed to higher pitch, but you does not distinguish between gut and metal. Let me explain once again. Even if we would take any particular string and detuned it to 432, the tension relief we gain is still much smaller that the tension difference between gut and steel string. 

 

In other words, if you detune a standard metal string to 432, the instrument will need to bear still  higher tension than if you would play gut strings tuned to 440. So my question is: Why we mind nowadays tuning pitch, whilst not minding the metal string construction what string instruments have been never designed for?

[Bohdan Warchal]

I looked it up.  Since I don't use steel strings myself, I can only think of one brand of multi-strand steel violin string:  D'Addario Helicore.  Helicores are within the tension range of other strings, if perhaps a little above average (I didn't check gut specifically).  According to the Interwebs, light Helicore strings have about the tension of (presumably medium) Warchal or Dominant strings, but some D'Addario strings run toward the high end anyway.  I don't know how they play, but it doesn't seem like the tension is all that different.

 

As for single-strand steel strings, well, those don't belong on violins, so they aren't part of the discussion.  On those you definitely would have to keep the tension high or they would have a very bendable pitch, like on those awful children's violins.

Firstly, the original question has been not synthetic versus metal but gut versus metal. The tension difference is even more significant with gut of course. Secondly, I am not sure whether single or multi strand formula matters in terms of tension. Moreover single strand formula is been used in may top rated steel strings at least on violin A (except of E of course) and cello D and A, but also on other positions. 

 

Why you compare Light steel strings with Medium synthetic ones if the original question was steel versus gut? I could compare Heavy steel with Light synthetic, it would have the same comparative value. Moreover stringmakrs do not use to inform precisely. They tend to skew precise data to the ones, that are acceptable for the public from the marketing point of view. This is why we rejected to publish any data from the beginning. There has been no unified standard for measuring string tension. For example there is no allowed deviation range. So anyone can claim what he wants. 

 

The very similar issue is winding materials info. Do you know what is a typical cello string made from? "Tungsten" (worfram). Do you know where the tungsten is in fact? Just inside. On the top, there use to be a cheap nickel, that may not be good to be promoted, since it can cause allergy. Do you know how a typical violin G string use to be declared? As "Silver". Do you know what is it made form? Cheap stainless steel or even iron mostly. Silver is just on the top in a very limited amount. 

 

So why stringmakers one time declare just what is inside and another time what is on the top only? Beause of marketing. When I enterend this business, I got quite frustrated. This is why I rejected to publish any data at all. People would be rather confused by comparting them with others than informed. 

 

Later I have decided to withrdaw. Customers requested our data daily, they thought we have something to hide if we do not inform. So we have published the data in the form that was unusual. We have publsihed the complete formulas (all wound materials) as the first and only manufacturer ever. Now I am not sure, maybe some of our partners decided to follow us already I do not check their websites regularly. 

 

Anyway, as for the tension, since there is no any standard nor any checking authority. Comparing values of differernt makers is almost useless. Try to buy 10 sets of the same strings, measure the tensions and compare with declared data. You will understand what I am speaking about. 

 

There are even gross errors in the catalogues of stringmakers. Some of them declare multi strand where single strand is used. But please do not force me to state details. I have faced enough problems with some competitors when one of them was about to steal us our invention recently. 

[uncle duke]

High tension strings on an instrument temporarily would not permanently affect future performance tone wise of an instrument would it?

LA Folia says no. Are there other opinions?

That is a good question.

[La Folia]

That is a good question.

 

Uncle duke, please don't quote an inaccurate paraphrase of what I wrote.

[uncle duke]

Uncle duke, please don't quote an inaccurate paraphrase of what I wrote.

I was thinking along the lines of a new violin strung up with Red Labels at the first string up.  Then let the violin set at full tension for however length of time to let the wood make the movements or adjustsments it will make after restringing.  Sometime down the road a set of Dominants are the replacement set chosen.  How will the wood now react to the less tensioned strings?  

 

I just LA Folia was a good enough reply for me so I just left it there.

[not telling]

La Folia, I apologize for my simplistic (mis)interpretation. You say steel strings do not ruin instruments. If, as Mr. Warchal says, steel strings always mean high tension strings, I then ask the question about whether the effect of choosing the steel strings (i.e., the unavoidably higher tension choice) will have a permanent and negative effect on tonal quality, even if gut replaces the steel later. I thought you said it wouldn't. I admit I don't know much at all about this. Hence the question. I think my question is much simpler than what you thought my question was, maybe, since this doesn't get into the huge variety of premium steel strings that mimic gut, or gut strings wrapped in such a way that the tension can be cranked up, etc. I don't know anything about it. I admire the skill my husband's dealers have...they want the sound to do this or that, and know what strings to switch out with whatever else to make the desired sound happen. Strings are a huge topic and skill set, in other words, and this question was meant to be a more simple one, just on whatever differences arise in an instrument, especially the great ones, from using steel strings as a category...if there are any. Sorry for any confusion, it's a permanent state I live in.

[La Folia]

Firstly, the original question has been not synthetic versus metal but gut versus metal. ...Why you compare Light steel strings with Medium synthetic ones if the original question was steel versus gut?

 

 

That's odd.  I read the question as "Is it true that steel strings "ruin" instruments, great, good and otherwise?".  Since the tensions for at least some steel strings are well within the range of tensions for other strings, I rather doubt that they ruin instruments.

 

And I repeat my assertion that Quartetto Italiano used steel strings, although I can't prove it.

 

 

Bohdan Warchal wrote:

"Moreover stringmakrs do not use to inform precisely. ...They tend to skew precise data to the ones, that are acceptable for the public from the marketing point of view. This is why we rejected to publish any data from the beginning."

 

I don't know what he meant by that, but here is the information that he does publish:

http://www.warchal.com/tension_chart_violin.html

[Conor Russell]

I think that while srting tension is important, it's the nature of the materials themselves that matter most.

 

Steel is very rigid, and resists stretching compared to gut or even nylon. When the instrument flexes and moves with the weather, the gut will tend to go with it, whereas the steel strings will be a more unyielding force around which everything else must move.

[La Folia]

Not telling,

I don't know how much tension will damage a violin.  I don't doubt that there may be some steel strings with quite high tension, but at least some are well within a normal range.  I imagine (but don't know) that it is also possible to produce other kinds of strings with very high tension, so I'm not going to single out steel.  But I most definitely did not say that high tension will not damage an instrument.

[not telling]

^^^^

Makes a lot of good sense, as usual. Thanks

LA Folia, I saw that distinction and sorry for jumping to conclusions, you really did not say that at all. But if it is possible that the material is the problem...and this is self-evident to some...that is my question. Is this just some superstitious nonsense that steel strings are not good for the instrument's "health"?

[La Folia]

That's a plausible argument, Conor Russell, but I don't think so.  If there are wild fluctuations in temperature or humidity, my E string stays sort of in tune over a few days' time, whereas sometimes the others don't.  Likewise for children's violins.  Steel is often used for children's violins because most parents and many of the younger students have no idea how to tune, so once a week has to suffice.

 

I suspect that people automatically think of steel as high-tension because they are inelastic, and don't yield very much under the fingers.

[Bohdan Warchal]

That's odd.  I read the question as "Is it true that steel strings "ruin" instruments, great, good and otherwise?".  Since the tensions for at least some steel strings are well within the range of tensions for other strings, I rather doubt that they ruin instruments.

 

And I repeat my assertion that Quartetto Italiano used steel strings, although I can't prove it.

 

 

Bohdan Warchal wrote:

"Moreover stringmakrs do not use to inform precisely. ...They tend to skew precise data to the ones, that are acceptable for the public from the marketing point of view. This is why we rejected to publish any data from the beginning."

 

I don't know what he meant by that, but here is the information that he does publish:

http://www.warchal.com/tension_chart_violin.html

This chart has been published an our website about five years ago, or so. We did not publish any data before. This is what I meant. 

 

Maybe you strill trust the chats, but whenever I measure any metal violin G string, I get at least 6 kp, whilst a gut G, I found recently forgotten in very old violin case (still decent sound) was 3,5. Quite huge difference. 

 

I think the basic question should be for how long time we need to preserve and protect the instrument. Now I am driving quite powerful car, but the car I possessed before was just 110 hp. The power od diesels can be easily risen by chiptuning, so I did. Many people warned me: you will ruin your engine. I have driven the car until almost 300.000 km (180.000 miles) until the turbine died completely. How long it would last without chiptuning? 400.000 km? It would be superfluous to me, since I have given the car to recycling in generally worn condition. I was not about to driving a car with starting rust anyway, so I did not mind. I have enjoyed the power of 140 hp several years time, so I was satisfied.  

 

The same applies to instruments in mu opinion. If I (in my age) would be a performing soloist possesing Strad, I could put any strings on it. If the instrument would die in say thirty years time, I would not need to care. If I would like to protect it for the others (for the mankind in fact :-), I would mostl likely choose the strings more carefully.