Forum Activity for @jim-hedman

Okay, caught my breath.  I'm happy the warning was unnecessary!

My exercise was based on the premise that the fret placement discrepancies were "errors" relative to equal temperament intonation (call it my hypothesis, if you wish), and the purpose was to determine to what extent these "errors" might be somewhat optimized (as you correctly understood) by moving the nut, and accordingly, the saddle/bridge.

As I said in a previous post, this exercise with its underlying assumption proved very useful with a courting dulcimer as the only significant error after an initial saddle/bridge adjustment was the nut placement.  But in the case of my Maxwell and your Tulip, one look at the initial "error" plot shows that the discrepancies are far and away beyond what one would expect from a respected builder.  I went on with the exercise and plugged in the data for a nut and bridge correction anyway.  While the theoretical correction "averages out" the discrepancies okay (the R-squared value of the regression showing the residual linear trend was now insignificant), the discrepancies remain intolerably large. Put another way, a nut adjustment would adjust the slope of the trend line but essentially do nothing in regard to the error variance about the corresponding trend line.  This came as no surprise, plotting a theoretical correction was purely an academic exercise.  The initial plot alone made it clear that the corrections required to nut and saddle/bridge would be much too large to be practical and would do far too little to resolve the intonation issues.  So the only path to correct equal temperament intonation would be a complete re-fretting job, a path I'm not in the least inclined to take (although I am aware that others have).

At this point, I wondered if I'd have to relegate the Maxwell to being a "wall hanger" aka "DSO" (dulcimer shaped object) or if something else is afoot that could prove my original premise invalid.  Enter "Just Intonation".  When Ken Hulme essentially said in a post early on in this tread that the intonation of the tulip dulcimer might have been set "by ear", I knew he was referring to just intonation.  I had seen other references to it (hard to avoid) but had not read anything that provided enough meat to wrap my head around.  Because I was aware that just intonation poses some limitations on play-ability and the fact I had no just intoned instruments (at least not until I acquired those Maxwells, it seems) it was not something that I was inclined to research.  In hindsight, I guess I should have been more attuned to the role of just intonation in the history of the mountain dulcimer but my initial interest in the instrument, way back when, was focused mainly on integrating it with contemporary music. After a few years that first dulcimer became a mantle piece mostly, taken out only to dust off, perhaps humidify and (just maybe) strum a little.  That changed a couple years ago when I started playing more regularly and then was struck with the dreaded "DAD" (dulcimer acquisition disease).  My Maxwells are party to that affliction and my concerns about their intonation coincidentally coincided with Bridge's reported issues with his tulip dulcimer.  My initial efforts to seek remedy were based on a false premise - its like I was trying to grade apples with a standard applicable only to oranges.

Right on cue Strumelia suggests I should investigate just intonation (already in my mind) and also provides some useful references - alluding to Robin Clark in the process.  Then BAM!  In comes Robin Clark with a mini-thesis on just intonation.  The fog starts to dissipate, especially after viewing Robin's excellent video "Equal Temperamant v Just Intonation v Meantone on McSpadden dulcimers" (

@bridge - What blew me away in "running the numbers" for the tulip dulcimer was how well the data correlated with the data for my Maxwell.  Robin obviously saw it too when he said:

Summing up its become clear we're into the realm of human perception versus physics, thus just intonation is something where art meets science.  So my future path will be to return my Maxwells to their original state, except for new strings set to an appropriate tuning, then explore noter/drone playing style to see if I can develop greater appreciation for it. Should intonation issues become apparent in that context at least it will be clear that any effort at setup must be carried out with a just intonation "reference standard" in mind.

YOU SHOULD BE SKEPTICAL!  DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING YET!

Sorry for the shout, but you're misinterpreting the results.  If you base any nut adjustment on what those results imply, things will only get worse!  I'll explain more fully in another post - but for now I just want to prevent you from wasting time chasing your tail or worse yet modifying your instrument.

Well, I ran the numbers for Bridge's tulip dulcimer and man was I blown away!  I added Bridge's data to my own example of a Maxwell and took special care to scale the charts the same to facilitate comparisons.  I'll let the spreadsheet speak for itself except to say this has become an investigation into a comparison of equal temperament versus just intonation, and forever I will avoid blatantly calling their discrepancies "fret errors".

Fret Placement Discrepancies.zip - 7KB

@bridge

I'm strapped for time at the moment but the 7th fret on the StewMac calculator is we'd call the 6+ fret, thus the calculator's 8th fret is we'd call the 7th fret.  In my spreadsheet the "Reformat" tab shows raw data just imported from the calculator.  In that scratch-pad sheet I'd delete line 12 (containing the irrelevant 6+ fret data), moving line 13 to line 12, then I'd replace the "8*" fret identification with "7".  How many frets input into the calculator is irrelevant - for this exercise you only need data for the first 8 (to account for that "extra" 6+ fret). I'd also delete all lines containing data beyond the first octave and those two blank columns.  Finally, I'd copy the two columns containing the fret and "from nut" data and paste them into my main page.  Either before or after this copy and paste operation pad any output under 100mm with a leading zero (e.g. in your case that 59.5mm should be changed to 059.5mm) such that all measurement data has three characters before the decimal.  On the main page the StewMac text data is extracted into the "Extracted & Measured Data" section with the MIDs function - the zero padding was required to allow one formula to cover all data.  If you are not familiar with Excel, I've probably lost you already, so I'll stop here except to say that I'll be happy to grind this data for you and post the results in another reply.

@strumelia

Thanks for the references and information.  Trust me I appreciate what I have.  Everything I've done can be undone - and it seems clear that's the way I'll be going.

@robin-clark

Wow!  I've read may references to just tuning but nothing to date has come close to explaining it in the way you did.  I really appreciate your effort!

@bridge

Bridge, your reply inspired me to fast track an examination of a near-mint Maxwell I recently acquired (see attached photo).  After replacing the notoriously high Maxwell nut and bridge with a trial walnut nut and bridge providing more reasonable action I tested the intonation at one and two octaves and in both cases the pitch was within a cent or two of the open string pitch (it runs somewhat sharp with the original stratospheric Plexiglas ones).  Overall intonation did not noticeably improve however - the lower frets were quite flat, although there was some improvement as one approached the seventh fret.  Does this have a familiar ring? {pun intended}

Well, it seemed a good exercise to dope out nut and fret placement errors.  The attached Excel file (zipped) shows the results of those efforts.  Hopefully, you are enough of a geek to ferret out that for this particular dulcimer the required nut and bridge adjustment for "correction" is impractical and the residual random fret placement errors (now sharp and flat) would still be troublesome even if attempted.

I'll be dealing with this dulcimer and its five-string brother in a future dedicated thread, so I won't be going into any specifics here.  I'll see if I can find the data derived from my Carstanjen courting dulcimer as an example of where this nerdy exercise pays off.  Hopefully, the results of your exercise will be in the promising vein should you attempt to pursue it (that "zero fret" might be a deal-break though).

Maxwell 73 Fret Errors.zip - 6KB

Bridge, I was in a similar fix with my Carstanjen courting dulcimer.  An invaluable tool for doping out the intonation problems was this fret position calculator:  http://www.liutaiomottola.com/formulae/fret.htm#mozTocId169477.  There are a number of calculators on that web page.  The one you want is titled "Calculating Fret Spacing for All Frets".

The calculator is set up for a chromatic fret board so the fret numbers are actually semi-tones and you'll have to adjust to accommodate the diatonic scaling of your fret board (e.g. the first fret is 2 semi-tones, the second is 4 semi-tones, the third is 5 semi-tones etc.).  The equivalents for the first octave are as follows: 1~2, 2~4, 3~5, 4~7, 5~9, 6~10, and 7~12.

The StewMac web site has a similar fret position calculator ( http://www.stewmac.com/FretCalculator) that additionally provides fret to fret measurements. With this calculator you can specify "dulcimer" as a parameter input and doing so will restrict the output to the diatonic scale of your instrument - well, except it includes the 6+ fret which it labels fret #7 and calls the octave fret #8.  An advantage of this calculator is that it is easy to cut and paste your data output into a spreadsheet or print out.

For the "scale length" (i.e. VSL) measure the distance from the zero-fret to the seventh fret and multiply by two, which will give you the uncompensated VSL for the instrument.  Adjusting the bridge position by finding a true octave at the seventh fret gives you a compensated VSL that factors in the effect of the string tension increase caused by the act of depressing the string to the fret.  A compensated VSL will be slightly larger than an uncompensated VSL and it is the latter that we want to work with - at least for now.

Once you've entered the VSL measure the distance from the nut (or zero-fret) to each of the seven frets and compare them with the calculated values and look for discrepancies (i.e. errors).  The seventh fret VSL will of course be spot on automatically because that measure was the parameter used to determine our scale length input. What we want to look for is a pattern in the errors for frets 1 through 6.  For example, do all errors in frets 1 to 6 come up short?  I suspect they would if frets 1 to 6 play flat as you described.

Where we go from here is dependent upon the error findings and to cover all possible outcomes and remedies would make this reply overly long (if it is not already).  So if I've tweaked your interest, provide feedback on what you find and I'll try to dope out a solution - if there is one.

If you use Excel or another spreadsheet program, that would be a good vehicle for keeping your notes and for doing some later data manipulation, hopefully leading to a solution of the intonation issue(s).

Thanks Bob and Irene.  I don't have a clue what the collector value of this Carstanjen would be.  It was sold at eBay auction and considering the current market, I probably paid too much for it.  But, I'd been looking for a courting dulcimer and this was about the coolest I've seen.  It's obvious issues (and the intonation problems were not obvious of course) scared off other bidders so I got it as the sole bidder at the opening price.  I've done what I could to coax life out of it and to this point all set up efforts have been reversible.  It has really nice voices on both sides.  I tuned one side DAdd, the other GEgg (i.e. baritone) with the thought that the baritone side E could optionally be dropped to a D for a "new ionian" D tuning.  As previously stated, the rattle can be pretty much avoided if picking or plucking is confined to the strum hollow.  So I'm not in a big hurry to get the job done and am quite willing to wait for some sound advice before dealing with my "resonater dulcimer" further - beyond playing it of course.

I've followed some some threads on John Maxwell dulcimers and its ironic how much I can empathize with the push and pull between obvious craftsmanship coupled with an intonation nightmare - especially now that I recently obtained a Maxwell myself.

I finally met a local player/builder/repairman that I will be meeting and I'm sure we'll put this Carstanjen through its paces as a duo.  This guy has built courting dulcimers and says the difference in single versus two players playing is incredible.

Matt Berg, has got me pondering if maybe a fix could be accomplished through the existing sound holes after all.  I've got some ideas but will hold them for now.  I hope he jumps in here again as I'm wondering what he had in mind.

Thanks for the reply Matt.  "Thump testing" was telling me the braces are about three-quarters the way between the fourth and fifth fret on both necks (i.e. symmetrical, as one would expect).  I inserted a curved piece of insulated solid core wire through the large sound holes to feel along the underside of the top and found the braces just 1 3/4" from the center of the heart going toward the middle of the dulcimer body.  I did the same through the central "rosette" and got 3 3/4" for both braces.  This agrees with the "thump testing".

The two large hearts in the bouts are 25mm wide x 15mm "valley to valley" (1" x 9/16').  The small hearts both in the bouts and the central circle are 19mm x 11 mm (3/4" x 7/16").  The central rosette is 16mm in the widest dimension and is 12mm in the shortest (11/16" x 1/2").

Taking a stab at reading your mind, yes I can get an endoscope in there and I am thinking of getting one for this and other projects.  I was somewhat optimistic that the bout holes are such short distance away from potential access points.  But those sound holes would seem too limiting for the work that needs to be done - I think.  If you know better, clue me in - I'd rather leave the sound board intact.

The contemplated option of a circle cut around the central heart pattern would give me a 3 1/4" diameter access hole to work with.  Hell, I could get my hand through that to apply glue and install temporary force-fit struts between glued braces and the bottom.  I'd fashion a jig to temporally affix to the central sound holes that would in turn provide a pivot post for an arm fitted with a razor knife blade to do the cutting - so the cut would be less than 1/16 wide. I'd probably have to widen that cut a bit for the decorative binding circle that would dress up the sound hole disk when it was reinstalled. To spice things up I'm even contemplating installing an ivory colored O-Port in the large hole then press fitting the sound-hole disk into that. This should provide some awesome resonance.  The down-side is that this access hole cutting scheme involves non-reversible modifications that may have a detrimental affect on the instrument's collector value (if any).

I would entertain back removal, but as previously stated, this task appears daunting considering the dulcimer's size, shape and under-scroll shelves.  Here's a more complete set of "as found" photos that better describe what I'm up against. The file also includes some information regarding the builder.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but then again, I'm asking for information that goes well beyond a yes/no answer.

Mikael Carstanjen 1975 (comp).pdf - 2.7MB

A while back I purchased a Mikael Carstanjen Courting Dulcimer.  It's what you'd call a "project dulcimer".  It had some intonation issues that I have successfully addressed.  But there is apparently some loose bracing and I'm somewhat at odds as to how to proceed.  The attached photo file should explain the past, present, and proposed future better than I can here.  I'm hoping for some feedback on what my best options are.   Thanks in advance!

Carstanjen Courting Dulcimer Repair (compress).pdf - 242KB

Brian, did you (or anyone else) download Everthing Dulcimer and if so what was the folder size?  This information would be useful with respect to the capacity of the external device contemplated.

Egad! Thanks for the quick come-back!  Your peg-box detail showed me something about my dulcimer that I did not know until just now. Your peg-box is obviously three-piece:  Although the joining is as good as it gets, the grain is a dead giveaway (not implying that it is obnoxious or anything of the sort).  I looked very closely at mine again and sho'-nuff it's three-piece too, except in my example the grain pattern and colors make it almost indiscernible - I don't know if that was deliberate or luck of the draw.

I'm curious, if you would further indulge me, about the nut end of the peg-box:  Does it open under the nut into the body?

Comparing our examples with Jennifer's, I see that ours have a flat land between the distal end of the peg-box cavity and the scroll-head, while Jennifer's scroll-head drops straightaway into the peg-box cavity.  I don't know if that represents a design change (Jennifer's is the most recent build) or just some experimental variation that Bill indulged in. As for design appeal, I guess it depends on the eye of the beholder.  Regarding a practical purpose for eliminating that land, the only thing that comes to mind would be to shorten the overall length a bit.

On the tuners, from your latest photos it looks like I found a durn good match for you. A little polish on what you have and one would be hard pressed to tell the difference, old from new (if the dimensions match, that is).  If you elect to replace the broken tuner be sure to leave that extension in the small hole opposite the mounting hole. Not that you necessarily need it - do it just to keep things "as was" as possible (I think it's intended to reduce lateral stain on the peg shaft).  As for any adverse affect on collector value, if you keep the broken key, the instrument can be returned to where it was when it became yours. I have this ongoing project dulcimer (a Carstanjen courting dulcimer) that was unplayable as found and after crafting new nuts and replacing the fixed bridges to floating bridges now sounds pretty cool except for a body rattle problem caused, I'm sure, by unbound braces. Anyway, so far, everything I've done can be undone should some future owner want it that way - but from there it would become a wall-hanger only and/or an audio torture device.  I'll be talking about this project soon in a dedicated post cuz I do need some advice on where to go from from where I'm at.

Moving on, as a three-course four-string with melody doublet, you could convert by cutting new string notches in the center of the bridge and the nut, but personally I'd hate to see you do that and rather have you opt to leave it as a four course, with or without the doublet.  Of course, with the set-up you now have you can do a D-A-dd three-course with a somewhat awkward string spacing yet optionally swap to D-A-d-d four-course by simply loosening the inner string of the doublet, moving it over to the high drone slot, then re-tuning - no string removal required.

From your photos I see you may already be afflicted with the dreaded DAD syndrome.  There's something to be said for someone who already owns a three-course trying a four-course.  A four course is somewhat harder to master (and at first can be confusing), but it does have a different voice and to me anyway variety is a fun plus, if not the spice of life.

Well, I see I've droned on much longer than I intended to.  So I'll close now with a thanks for the follow request - I'm flattered.

Linda, now what made you think I was in any way eager?

No problem with the photos, five minutes with a photo editor and they look just fine. I'd sure appreciate detailed oblique shots of the key box and bridge area though.

You may have misunderstood prior commentary about Fleming's cursive signature.  Both Jennifer and I said the first letters were hard to decipher.  Jennifer thought "HB" for her example, while I assumed "Wm" (based upon an assumed abbreviation for William).  I'm pretty sure Jennifer would confirm "HA" is possible (and hopefully she will respond). As for me I already conceded that the first letter has always looked more like an "H" than a distorted "W" and that the second letter is lost the the cursive "F" which starts the last name - so "HA" is far and away more probable than my original long standing speculation.  As the grave stones confirm "William" was Fleming's second middle name and he went by the nickname "Bill" (which was what he used in our introduction) thereby filling in all the missing pieces of the puzzle.  Using a second name as a call name is not especially rare, especially among Scandinavians. My full name is Arthur James Hedman and I've gone by James (or Jim) since birth.  My grandfather "Pete", a Swedish immigrant,  was Edward Peter Hedman.  A little twist with Bill Fleming is that "William" was an "extra" second name and he apparently did not reference it in his signature - which probably explains why all my previous searches for a Bill Fleming were in vain. So much for the confusion about the signature except maybe the underlying date, which in all three cases is of the form "mm-dd-yy" - dashes not slashes, and with the year abbreviated to last two digits.

Another expository indicator provided by the photos is the spacing of the melody strings on all three dulcimers. They're closer together than any other doublet that I've seen on a dulcimer.  A tad closer than even a 12-string guitar... more like what you'd find on a mandolin.

I really like the figuring on the book matched bottom of your dulcimer. The nut looks to be a replacement. I can see that the nut is displaced to the right, probably because it is not glued and the missing "high drone" is causing it to pull that way.  It also looks like the nut profile does not quite match the nut slot, but maybe it's just an artifact of the shadow cast by the nut being displaced.  I don't know that Bill used anything other than hardwood for nut or bridge/saddle.  At least I have no recollection of that being an option on my custom build. I have a nice piece of vintage black walnut with your name on it if you'd like a replica of the one on my dulcimer.  I extend this offer to Jennifer too, if she wants a replica floating bridge/saddle.

About that broken tuning key for the "high drone", you might want to consider moving the inner melody string to the now empty nut and bridge slots, giving you the four-string (no doublet) configuration that Jennifer used in her beautiful rendition of The Ash Grove . In other words change from the original "D-A-d-dd" to "D-A-d-d".  Another alternative would to replace that broken key with one like the following:

======

http://www.stewmac.com/Hardware_and_Parts/Tuning_Machines/Dulcimer_Tuners/Grover_Champion_Dulcimer_Uke_Friction_Pegs.html

======

A little pricey perhaps, but there's a good chance that the your original keys are Grovers and these appear (except for the patina) to be a very close match.  The specs, including a diagram, are on the web page cited. I know you only need one, but I don't know if the vendor would sell you a single key (you could always call and ask). Or maybe there is a kind builder/repairman reading this that could help you out.

As for what you paid for your Fleming, all I can say is wow!   What a find!  If you should decide to sell it, let me know, PLEASE!

Jennifer and Linda, I've done some more research and am convinced beyond doubt we all have Bill Fleming Dulcimers.

First I checked the source Linda referenced and came up with this:

=====

Directory of Contemporary American Musical Instrument Makers
Copyright 1981
Pages 44-45

H.A. Fleming
Rt. 2, Gatlinburg, Tenn. 37738
PT  1967  Active  1 emp.  MTO
Historical Brochure 12/74
•Appalachian  dulcimer Over 50 to
date  †•Steel-string guitar  1-10
date  †•Mandolin  1-10 to date  †

=====

So here's a Fleming based in Gatlinburg, quite possibly active in 1981.  But the guy I met in 1970 called himself "Bill" I thought - or was I suffering bad memory after 48 years?  Since "Bill" was no spring chicken when I met him, on a whim I did a grave site search on Fleming with Gatlingburg as the location.  In pretty short order I had my man.  See the photo below, it explains everything!

You were both right, the signature on all three of our dulcimers is H.A. Fleming.  And I was right after all - he did  go by "Bill".  His full name was Harold Anthony William Fleming.  Like me, his nickname was not based on his first name - whoda thunk he'd base it upon a third given name?

The grave site search link is:  https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/45622428/harold-anthony_william-fleming  You'll see my findings are pretty much "set in stone".

Linda, I'm just dying to see photos of your Fleming.

Jennifer, that rendition of The Ash Grove is breathtaking!  You coaxed a sweet rendition otta that old box. {p.s. on second look that back does appear to be book-match after all.}

Jim

 Fleming Tombstones .jpg - 294KB

Hehe, it looks like I missed the mark in second guessing your melody string gauge. In my assumption of 14 gauge melody I should have pointed out that it was wonder that you didn't snap it while tuning to "d". Nevertheless, there was hopefully some good information in my last post.

Should you decide to try D-A-dd again you might try 10 gauge.  Many do, though making a trade-off, sacrificing some volume and tonal balance for play-ability.  With my five-strings I've been using D'Addario five string banjo sets:  tuned D-A-d-dd, with corresponding gauges of 23bw-16-12-10,10 (bw = phosphor bronze).  Sometimes I swap out that 12 for a 10 but if I retain it I have the option of going to D-A-A-dd with less volume and tonal compromise.

Be careful about that next dulcimer or you may be afflicted with the dreaded DAD (dulcimer acquisition disorder). I had it for about a year before going cold turkey at the eight count.  Since then I've lurked on this site off and on as a source of information for various problems. I've only recently started to post here and for some reason the DAD bug is gnawing at me again big-time. In fact, I took a shot at an e-bay item yesterday, but my sniping skills were rusty and I lost out to another sniper who got it at very good price.  Had my single bid gone through in time its hard to say what the final price would have been (its dependent on the automatic bid limit each bidder sets for his/her self). Well, I don't want to go off on another tangent so I'll close with......

Happy Easter!

notsothoreau, Assuming that the melody strings were not replaced prior to re-tuning this would be expected because you lowered the melody pitch five semi-tones in dropping the melody string(s) from "d" to "A", thus lowering string tension significantly.  A typical string set for a D-A-AA tuning would be 22w-14-14,14 gauge strings ("w" meaning wound string and gauge meaning x/1000").  String tensions would lie approximately within the range of 13.5 to 16.5 pounds.  If the melody strings in this set up were raised from an "A" to a "d" you can appreciate that the tension would rise above the optimum, making it harder to fret (with a perceived "higher" action) and given that the sectional density of  the string is above its optimum it would not "sound right" (part of that would be the tension's affect on intonation relative to the middle string of the same gauge being under a lesser load).

If by "action" you mean the physical properties of string to fret crown gaps, it may be that your dulcimer's action is not at all that bad and the perception of "high action" in D-A-dd is due to the out-of-spec tension increase of the melody pair.  Your re-tuning of the melody strings to "A" for a D-A-AA tuning did not affect the tension of the middle and drone strings, thus the perception of improved action rests solely on the lowered tension of the melody pair.

There's nothing wrong with a D-A-AA tuning.  Many use nothing else.  About the only downside is that D-A-dd has become more popular in general - meaning tabs and sheet music are more readily available (nevertheless there is ample material for the more traditional tuning).

Should you decide at a future date to give D-A-dd another go, consider changing the melody strings to 12 or even 10 gauge.  The melody string tension will be close to what you have with the current 14 gauge strings tuned to "A" so the 10 or 12 gauge "d" strings should ring better than before.  You still have the option of tuning melody strings down from "d" to "A", but this time around the tension will be the lowest you've experienced so far, with the downside being a loss of volume and tonal balance (whether or not that is "significant" is primarily a matter of individual perception).

I hope this has been helpful to you and that I did not lose you in trying to explain some of the physics of the issue.  No problem at all with your chiming in here.  In fact, you brought up another aspect of things affecting action and intonation which pretty much has been the topic of this thread.

Matt, thanks for adding your "two cents" (man, that cracked me up!).  Your comments on nut and bridge material were interesting and your advice may come into play on an intonation nightmare project I've been working on, off and on, for a while. In this case I had to fill in the fixed bridge slot and fashion a floating bridge to remedy a VSL issue and replace the nut with one fabricated with a rounded back-sloping crown to correct for insufficient spacing between the nut and first fret.  In both cases the material used was walnut, which is aesthetically pleasing and made a remarkable intonation improvement.  Eventually, I may follow your suggestion for use of bone to see if the tonal quality can be improved after some other issues are resolved.  I'd love to go into more detail but I don't want to hijack Stewart's thread and this particular instrument really deserves a dedicated post.  As best I can, I've tried to stick to action and various intonation issues, pointing out that more than one issue can simultaneously be in play and that the interplay can be confusing enough to drive you up the wall!

Stewart, I'm glad to see you've made some progress!  Now that  you're getting the VSL matter nailed down you may wish to evaluate fret spacing.  There are at least two ways to do this.

First, you can use your electronic tuner to check for pitch error (in cents) at each fret for as high as you care to go.  Record those errors on paper and look for a pattern.  If the sharp/flat pattern follows a consistent trend you may be able to address it.  If it is random, you may end up having to live with what you've got.  At least you'll know where the "sweet spots" are on the fret board.  Errors of three cents or under are generally considered tolerable.

Second, try this fret position calculator page: http://www.liutaiomottola.com/formulae/fret.htm#mozTocId169477 - in particular, the one entitled "Calculating Fret Spacing for All Frets".  Bear in mind that the fret numbers there refer to a chromatic instrument - like a guitar, so they are really semi-tones.  Thus, the first fret on a "standard" dulcimer is at two semi-tones, the second fret at four semi-tones, the third fret at five semi-tones etc.  Input the VSL you have settled on then compare the resultant calculated nut to fret measurements to what exists on your fret board.  If the discrepancies are random you're more or less "SOL" and will be forced to look for a compromise that considers the "sweet spots" as described above.  In the quest for this compromise you can input trial VSLs and look for a better overall agreement of calculated versus actual values then verify with your tuner - or in other words you may get a feel for the VSL that the builder cut the frets slots for.

So much for random pitch errors. Now lets consider a more consistent pattern.  With both approaches if the first fret is flat according to the tuner (or short-measure according to the calculator) and the error diminishes as you progress to the seventh fret, the nut to fret intervals are too small (though progressively better as you approach seventh fret).  The cause is the nut being too close to the bridge/saddle relative to the fret layout.  I had this problem x2 (a courting dulcimer) which was resolved by fabricating a new nuts with rounded crown and built in back slope favoring the peg box side.  I don't know if the issue was builder error or shrinking of the fret board over time.  As the builder has some notoriety, all my modifications to date have been totally reversible so I can return the instrument to its "as found" state - but that would relegate it to a "wall hanger" due to those serious intonation issues.

For the opposite case, decreasing sharpness, you'd need to move the nut towards the bridge/saddle. You could test this out by fabricating a shim to be placed against the nut on the fret board side (conceptually, sort of a "zero fret").  The required thickness of the shim being determined by trial and error.  If you find an adequate correction you could craft a nut that fit the nut groove, but had a projection that duplicated your shim correction. Or, of course, you could re-route the groove to widen it by taking off material from the fret board and use a standard nut profile - but this would not be a reversible measure, so I would not go there unless I was sure there was no collector value to the instrument.  Well, I guess I've beat that horse enough for now.

=====

Update:  I should have noted that changing the nut to first fret distance also has a corresponding effect on the open string VSL.  Therefore, make about half the nut adjustment you think you need, readjust the bridge position and recheck for pitch errors.  You just may nail it on the first try.  If not rinse and repeat until the sequential pitch errors disappear into the random fret errors (which will most always be present - its just matter of degree).

=====

Randy, I feel your pain, but think of the nickle as an impromptu 0.077" feeler gauge. As you approach that target mark the nickle becomes more stable.  And this is more of an adjustment by feel rather than a visual event. As for the feeler gauge for first fret clearance, what I'm looking at is more of a general purpose flat-blade set of 17 gauges.  Although this set covers standard spark plug gaps it is not truly a spark plug gauge which would typically have at least one end of the handle equipped with bent wire gauges and, in general, fewer blades. I found my candidate on the O'Reilly Auto Parts page ( https://www.oreillyauto.com/shop/b/tools---equipment-16488/tools-17919/mechanics-tools-16816/feeler-gauges-17312/c5e524a4a742) shown as "Performance Tool Mini Thickness Gauge".  I've considered feeler gauges in the past but until my exchange with Ken, I had not taken the time to dope out what the dime as used in the nickle/dime method translated to in terms of actual string to fret crown gap. Knowledge is empowering.

Stewart, now that you've got a "brute force" floating bridge, were you able to adjust it for a true octave at seventh fret? If you have, experiment by playing a harmonic tapping above the seventh fret. If you don't get a true ring, slightly change the point where you tap with your finger until you find it.  Now compare the point of the best harmonic with the position of the seventh fret.  The difference between the two, if present, is primarily due to the effect of the high action.

In setting the bridge according to a fretted seventh fret you are actually adjusting for the midpoint of the open string VSL with compensation for the string stretch caused by fretting pressure.  Aside of playability, the point of improving action is to minimize the amount of compensation required (less stretch = less compensation).

If you followed this, I'll add that some would advise setting the bridge position at the point where the mid-string harmonic and the position of the seventh fret agree. If you do this, a fretted seventh fret will go sharp to a degree correlated with the action.  In effect this method sets the bridge position without compensation for fretting pressure.  Thus, good action minimizes the stretch error.  I have no issue with this method, but in the end both methods should be understood as you may end up with the best compromise between the two as suggested by your own ears.

Ken, the purpose in my previous post was not to belittle you, much less foment an argument.  But since, in so many words, you clearly implied that I don't have a clue I find myself pretty much forced to revisit what I said and see if we can maybe end up on the same page.

Firstly, I am in no way confused about the nickle and dime set-up method - not in the slightest.  I, in fact, understand it well enough to see an issue with using a dime as described; although I acknowledge that in most cases it will work - especially with vintage instruments built in an era when fret profile options were probably more limited.  But there are exceptions to most every rule and I'd hate to see you blamed, after the fact, for giving bad advice.

When setting a dime on the fret board adjacent to the first fret the actual "gauge" in effect is the thickness of the dime minus the peak height (or more properly: the crown height) of the fret.  That's the rub: there is no universal crown height.  Using StewMac as an example reference, their fret wire recommendation for a modern dulcimer would be the following profile: width=0.080", crown=0.040", tang=0.062".  However, who knows what fret convention (if any) was in effect over 30 years ago, and builders of any era are in many cases going to use what is readily available and/or go with their own personal preference - even staples.  Again, using StewMac as a readily available reference, their fret wire crown height options range from 0.036" to 0.074".  While the more extreme heights are recommended for electric guitar and bass, if rules can be broken then certainly recommendations can (and will) be ignored.

Now, bear with me, the thickness of a dime is 0.053". Therefore, using 0.040" as a "standard" dulcimer fret wire crown height, the effective "gauge" of a dime-on-a-fret board is 0.053"-0.040"=0.013".  In the "it won't work" example that I provided in my prior post, the crown height slightly exceeds 0.053" (thickness of a dime), and yes - the fret is properly set.  Clearly, in this particular case the nickle and dime method would be inappropriate for a nut adjustment.  Were I the newbie you portray me as, and blindly followed your advice, I would be screwed!  I will credit you as now being able to understand that.

Lastly, please pardon me for answering your "chest thumping", but I've been into a variety of stringed instruments for over 60 years, know a bit about "set-up" - up to and including complete fret jobs on guitars. In the final 21 years of my career I was a metrologist (that really IS a word meaning, briefly, "one who measures"), a legislative liaison and was responsible for state petroleum law enforcement - so I do know a bit about measuring things and rules and adversarial relationships. My intent here, and in my prior post, was in no way meant to belittle you.  I'm truly sorry you took it that way. However, my concerns about the nickle and dime method stand - they are justified.  I must say that your rebuttal was beneficial inspiration for additional research yielding such things as the thickness of a dime, information about fret wire profiles, and the availability of suitable feeler gauges to use between the string and first fret.  I found that a 17 blade feeler gauge set covering a range of 0.010" to 0.035" is available for $3.99 at an auto parts store within a mile of my home. Your effective target gauge of 0.013" is in that set and overall will be a valuable tool in determining the string-to-fret-gap in dulcimers that have what I perceive as good action as opposed to those that do not.  Until now I've been squeamish about messing with nut adjustments on my more prized dulcimers but your kick-in-the-butt has, though somewhat inadvertently, given me considerably more confidence. For that I thank you!

===============================================

UPDATE: I caught an error in my previous post which the forum daemon will not allow me to edit (I gather because it is too dated), so I will acknowledge it here. The symptom described in the second sentence following the quote is related to improper fret setting - not a low action adjustment at the nut.  An action set too low would be characterized by open string fret buzzing (duh!). No excuse for the misinformation other than a mind that drifted off while trying to meaningfully organize a plethora of intonation symptoms and causes. Note to self:  Don't multitask whilst writing technical material.

===============================================

Jim

Ken, are you sure about suggestion #3 in your post below?  You say:

However, fret profiles vary with regard to the peak height above the fret board.  In some cases, laying a dime on the fret board next to the fret could leave next to no allowance for the string to vibrate and gauging this way could cause the second fret to buzz when fretting the first fret, the third fret to buzz when fretting the second fret, etc.  I have one example where the fret peak is in fact a tad higher than a dime's thickness.

Another consideration is that, due to age or builder error, the setting of frets may vary somewhat from note to note, causing another source of fret peak variance and susceptibility to fret buzz.  This condition would of would be exacerbated with lower action adjustments - especially when performed at the nut. Frankly I opt for using a dime on top of the fret as a starting point and work from there.  Ideally, there must be a better top-of-fret gauge for determining nut depth cuts.

I appreciate you passing on conventional wisdom Ken, but I hope you appreciate my caveats to gauging with a dime as you described.  I'd hate to see someone trade better action for a fret resetting job or worse.

Having said that, Ken correctly points out that conventionally the mechanics of dulcimer action are evaluated at the first and seventh frets. I'll add that floating bridge placement is evaluated as relative intonation at the seventh fret versus its open string.

John, I like what you did in fabricating those wooden pegs.  Personally, I prefer more of paddle shape for grips but if your fine efforts replicate an original pattern I'd opt for the same.

While your peg refit is aesthetically more pleasing than the "as found" set-up, I find those mechanical tuners quite intriguing. I've never seen anything quite like them.  While I wouldn't call myself an expert on mechanical key designs, I have done more than a little research into what's out there.  They definitely have an "old-timely" look.  Maybe your photos don't tell the whole story, but to say the mechanical tuners were "inexpertly mounted" may be a disservice.  After all, they were installed such that re-conversion to violin style pegs was pretty straightforward.  It is possible that they were installed by the maker - notwithstanding the "drilled through" peg box.  A number of builders employ drilled through peg boxes even though the finished product ends up with mechanical friction or geared tuners (e.g. McSpadden, May etc.).  I would definitely keep those unmounted mechanical tuners with the instrument as part of its provenance and availability for re-conversion should the owner not have the patience for violin-style friction pegs.

While I was glad to hear that the action was improved by simply deepening the string slots, I would hope that you did it with a 10 to 12 gauge melody string in mind because the high action could have simply been a matter of a 22+ gauge string in a 12 gauge cut - if you get my drift.

I really had to do a double-take on that string layout.  Namely the wider spacing between the melody string compared to the drones.  With that, and staples for frets, the builder apparently had optimizing noter/drone playing style in mind.  I'd probably go for a DAA string set with this.

Given the age, the crack probably didn't happen yesterday.  If there's no body buzz, it's probably stable (especially if the sidewall/bottom junctions have inner linings) and I'd opt to do as little as possible except perhaps use glue to add stabilization and dress any sharp edges.  I don't pretend to be a repairman so don't take this as the final word.

Intonation issues due to high action due to a high bridge are characterized by increasingly sharpness as you move up to higher registers because, upon fretting, the distance the string is depressed (and is consequently stretched) increases accordingly. If the nut is also high (not the usual case) the pitch changes are moderated to some extent.  Your side view photo does give the appearance of lousy action.

It looks like you may have a floating bridge.  If so, it could be too close to the nut. Your seventh fret (one octave above an open string) should be located at one-half your VSL. If your bridge is too close to the nut, the bridge to nut seventh fret VSL is shorter than the open string VSL, thus too sharp. A quarter interval correction would be rather large however.  Assuming you have a tuner, check again and give us the sharpness error in cents (1/100ths of an interval).  There are many sources detailing how to determine correct bridge placement but if you are stumped let me know and I can go into it here.

Bridge height and placement are the most common problems resulting in intonation issues, and remember, both can be in play at the same time.  Other possibilities are nut placement and height or poorly laid out fret placement.

I'm sure not gonna throw any advice your way about painting a dulcimer... except YUCK!

Update: Corrected VSL statement as shown.

Awhile back I bought this thin sided walnut teardrop. A pretty little piece but basically unplayable due to intonation issues (namely it got progressively sharper as you fretted higher up a string) and the string pressure required to fret was outrageous.  Clearly, the fixed bridge was way too tall.  The fit of the bridge in the fretboard was so exact and tight I elected not to try to remove it, but cut it down where it sat.  To do so I removed all but the middle string, then loosened the middle string such that I could pull it to the side of the bridge, moving it up and down to gauge how much material had to be removed (which was conservatively about a third of its height).  I removed the last string, then fashioned a hardwood shim to the height of where I wanted the bridge to be.  Laying the shim alongside the bridge I used it as a guide to carefully cut down the bridge with a fine hacksaw blade. I followed up with files and sandpaper to dress the new top of the bridge, then using the piece of bridge I cut off as a template, I cut new string slots.

I could hardly believe the result; the intonation is right up there with the best of my current crop of 8 dulcimers.  What baffles me is how the builder could have released a dulcimer, that overall was a really nice piece of work, with that crippling bridge.

One might argue my approach would reduce the collector value of a piece, but I consider it simple "set-up" that transformed a "wall hanger" into a quite playable instrument.

The photos below show the dulcimer "as received".

 Brew - Side.jpg - 26KB

Jennifer, had I not known the maker's name I would have had a hard time deciphering the signature scrawl up to the "L" in Fleming. I just assumed an abbreviation "Wm" for William but looking at it again I can see the first letter could taken as an "H", but bear in mind the grain of the wood might contort the signing to some extent.

Maybe I was not clear about that "open square".  The fingerboard is fashioned from a single piece of wood with a sound hollow routed out from the bottom.  The inverse square cornered "U" profile of the fingerboard continues right into the peg box - thus if you look into the peg box towards the nut there should be an opening under the nut.  He may have omitted that feature on some of his dulcimers but I would think not as I recall him discussing it with some pride.  Of the eight dulcimers I own, only one other has an open ended peg box, which coincidentally (?) is my only other violin-sided 5-string dulcimer.

I agree with your statement about your dulcimer's f-holes being exactly like mine.  Small point maybe, but there's a certain distinctive elegance about his pattern that immediately grabbed me when I saw your first photo, telling me "hey, another Fleming!"  Everything else you have shown or said amplifies that first impression - well, except for the open peg box (but the jury is still out on that).  The signature is the final nail it would seem.

As mentioned in my prior post I have made efforts to garner more information on Bill Fleming, including searches on this site, Everything Dulcimer, checking Dulcimer Players New archives etc. but had not posted a query such as yours. Thus, I am grateful you did post. At least I know Bill was still building in 1972.

As for the buzzing I'd need more information.  I know Bill was into floating bridges and his were made of hardwood and triangular in cross section (see my side view photo).  My action is on the high side and I intend to make a duplicate bridge with a lower profile (rather than mess with the original which I want to keep intact).  I'd guess your bone (or plastic) bridge is a replacement and may have an overly low profile which could, as Ken Hulme suggests set the action too low. Use a nickle as a gauge at seventh fret; it should pass under without putting pressure on the string.  If it buzzes on open strings there are other possibilities, like improperly cut string slots in the bridge (or less likely the nut) or a broken glue bond in a brace or lining inside the body of the dulcimer.  If you get buzzing only when depressing a string or strings a certain frets the problem is a fret that is too high or too low or (less likely) a warped fingerboard.  Most of these issues can be addressed by someone versed in dulcimer "set-up".  Warps and un-bonded bracing  (or lining) requires someone skilled in repair.

As for tuning a four course, five string set up like ours start with D-A-d-dd.  I use D'Addario 5-string banjo stiring sets (23bw-16-12-10,10 gauge, where bw=bronze wound and gauge = x/1,000") you may wish to replace the 12 gauge with another 10 gauge but the slightly heavier gauge does not seem to affect much and makes an alternate D-A-A-dd tuning possible that can be fun to experiment with.  Or the 16 gauge A can be dropped one step to a G (i.e. D-G-d-dd) which yields a "New Ionian" (aka Reverse Ionian) in G. I guess some may use a "1-3-5" tunings which are also reachable with that string set, though perhaps not optimal.  For example D-F#-A-dd which is 1-3-5 in D or D-G-b-dd which I guess you could call a New Ionian 1-3-5 in G. But again, start with D-A-d-dd as this is the closest thing there is to a standard tuning for your 5-string layout, which makes finding chords and tabs a heck of a lot easier.

Got a little long winded here.   Hope it helps.

UPDATE: This post has been revised to correct and or clarify information pertaining to tunings.

Lynn, probably not good form to jump in on an old thread, but from your description of the deep body and the photos of the peg head and strings, it is pretty apparent you have a five-string, four-course, baritone dulcimer.  If the VSL is 28", give or take an inch, a common Mixolydian tuning would be A-E-a-aa (bass to melody-doublet) with corresponding string gauges of 34bw-22bw-14-14,14 (where "bw" = bronze wound and gauge means x/1,000").  With this tuning you can change to a "New Ionian" (aka Reverse Ionian) tuning by lowering that wound middle string from E to D (A-D-a-aa).  In doing so you've gone from Mixolydian in A to New Ionian in D.

If the unwound middle string next to the melody-doublet look a tad thicker than the melody strings my guess would be a "1-3-5" tuning, i.e. A-C-E-aa with maybe 16 to 18 gauge for the E.  Lots of  luck with that unless you've dabbled with 1-3-5 before.  I'd stick with the baritone mixolydian described previously and experiment with the quick change to New Ionian.

If you play with someone who is in DAd tuning you can do simple back and forth rounds in keys of A and D while you are in A Mixolydian mode or duets while in D New Ionian mode.

Jennifer, this appears to have been made by Bill Fleming who had a shop in Gatlinburg, TN.  I visited his shop in 1970 and had one custom built from a list of several options which included body style (hour-glass and "fiddle-backed" for sure - can't remember if he offered tear-drop or not), tuning keys could be set up as friction keys (like yours), violin pegs or "traditional" hand turned pegs - in hickory as I recall.  He had several options to chose from for sound holes, with upper and lower bouts mix or match.  There was quite a variety of woods to choose from too.

I opted for a fiddle-back (aka fiddle-sided) in walnut with the "traditional" hand turned pegs. It has f-holes in the lower bout and dogwood flowers in the upper bout (his favorite was the dogwood but he usually recommended against it because of the delicate carving - I went with it anyway).  The back is book-matched but not the top (it appears your top is book-matched but not the bottom).

A couple things to look for to confirm the maker:  The top and bottom should be "fiddle-edged", i.e. overlapping the sides by about 3/32".  The ends of the side pieces making up the waist of the body should abut the sides rather than the other way around.  The simple, yet elegant, scroll head is one-piece and not carved through the bottom.  Inside the scroll head should be an open square where it attaches to the body - sort of a hidden sound hole. I believe all of Bill's dulcimers had floating bridges (I think they were generally of the hardwood used in the instrument so your bone bridge may be a replacement).  Lastly look through the near lower bout sound hole with a pen light - you should see a signature and a date in pencil.

I've searched for information on Bill Fleming from time to time but until I came across you post I've come up empty.  Bill Fleming was a contemporary of Bill Davis and there may have been some cross influence one way or the other.  Their "fiddle-backs" are similar but with distinctive differences.  For example, Davis scribed his name on the back of his dulcimers, the overlap on his "fiddle-edges" was greater (about 5/32"), the key pegs were of a slightly different style and the scroll head was flat sided with carving.  Also, the waist side pieces cover the ends of the side pieces (opposite of Fleming's set up).

I'll take some pictures so you can compare the two, but there's little doubt in my mind that you have a Bill Fleming Dulcimer.

UPDATE:  The signature on my dulcimer appears to read "Wm Fleming", i.e. he abbreviated his first name William.  Under the signature is the date "11-5-1970". I've attached some snapshots for the sake of comparison with what you have.

Looking forward to hearing from you and anyone who has some information on Bill Fleming.

 1970 Wm Fleming (top).jpg - 101KB