Thank you Ken Dan Robin and Randy for the information, I suspect that investigating these designs will provide me with useful information
A while ago on here I saw a dulcimer that had gap under the tail end of the fingerboard, with the string tension pulling it up from the box. The idea was that by having the tail end of the fingerboard (where the strings were mounted) detached from the box, the string tension would pull hard on the area with the string pins, lifting it so that it hovers a couple millimeters above the soundboard potentially increasing volume. Does anyone know what this feature is called, so I can look into it more?
Having set up many violins & cellos etc over the years....You may want to explore using a sound post. Not really a "dulcimer" thing, but you're an outside the box kinda guy anyway. If you Google "adjustable soundposts" you will find much info good and bad about using them in so- called "real" instruments... Bottom line, is that moving the amount and location of tension to the vibrating surfaces [top and bottom] can and does change the tonal qualities. I suggest an adjustable only because there are no standard rules when it comes to dulcimers and the dimensions. Instead of having to re mount your strings, an adjustable may give you more room to play around, or just source some dowel rod and have at it..[or pencils, chopsticks,...] Changing the tensions to the body and try and find the "sweet" spot[s] if any? Then we'll have to find out if heart holes with pointy bottoms sound as good as rounded ones......
just the meanderings of a wandering mind......
I think if you had half of the string tension pulling up and half the string tension pushing down, the result is not increased tension but rather a neutralized/balance of tension not helping at all...
I am trying to ask about how to utilize the string tension to put the box under extra pressure, and if this can be good for tone or volume.
Here is a drawing that hopefully helps explain
Let's assume the dulcimers have identical dimensions and the same break angle, and the only difference is whether they are mounted to the fingerboard or the box.
In figure A, when the strings are anchored to the fingerboard, the 60-100 pounds of string tension should be trying to pry the fingerboard up off the box. I am wondering if this "pulling" is adding extra stress and tension to the box, and if having the wood under more stresses makes it more rigid and stiff and allows it to transmit vibration better.
In figure B, when the strings are anchored to the side of the box, the 60-100 pounds of string tension is laying across the end of the fingerboard, pushing it down into the top of the box. I am also wondering if this improves overall responsiveness of the instrument, by distributing that 'pulling force" across the tailpiece into the side panels.
I hypothesize that if you could mount half your strings to a tailpiece and the other half to the fingerboard, the forces would be pulling the fingerboard up while also pushing it down, adding a huge amount of stress to it, possibly making it more stiff and responsive.
Hey folks, this question might be poorly asked but here goes.
Does a soundbox that is under more tension have any additional clarity or additional volume? Is this the reason that 'lighter' builds are more responsive?
When I think about a musical saw, the volume seems to directly correspond to the amount of tension out on the saw blade.
Similarly, a washtub bass seems to be quite a bit louder on its high pitched notes, when the string is pulling the hardest on the tub.
I have been thinking a lot about where the strings are anchored on my dulcimers. Anchoring them to the fingerboard should apply an upward 'pulling' force on the area of the fingerboard with the pins. Meanwhile if the pins are anchored on an actual tailpiece of the box, they are stretched across the end of the fingerboard and are 'pushing' it down into the soundboard.
Does one of these produce more resonance than the other?
Here is a picture of a test dulcimer I built where the strings can be mounted to either the box or the fingerboard. (Sorry it's a bit ugly, form follows function) I am thinking of mounting both outer strings to the fingerboard, and the middle string to the box. My speculation is that this will put a huge amount of extra tension on the fingerboard, and the middle string will help prevent the fingerboard from being pulled off the soundboard. sadly I can't test this out until the local music shop opens back up in a few days.
Any information of how much tension matters, and how to properly harness that would be greatly appreciated
Something I've wondered for a while is, if dulcimer is written in the Bible spelled 'dulcimer', are different spellings a stylization of the word done on purpose or just a product of limited literacy in the deep mountains?
That's a fun question. I've always wanted a Homer Ledford dulcibro. The craftsmanship is gorgeous, I love the metal sound, and it's a piece of dulcimer history. Unfortunately, but justifiably, they are quite expensive so that one might be a while for me lol.
Robin, double drone is very underrated in my opinion. I like the richness of the bass tone a lot. Some lute and baroque guitars as well as other older instruments have all strings doubled except the melody strings. This may have been for practical reasons (thinner strings were probably harder to make/more costly) but I do think it allows the melody strings to stand out more clearly from the drone.
Thanks all for the additional context and food for thought. My starting point was assuming that two melody strings are louder, because the fuller more pronounced tone has always made it seem louder. The first time I heard the thing about the two speakers next to each other, it was really un-intuitive to me.
The more I think about it, it makes sense to me that if two strings were tuned exactly the same, the effect of paired melody strings would be less noticeable, and the tone would not be noticeably fuller.
I also think the sympathetic resonance of the two strings off each other must help with sustain, which might feel like more volume, since the note retains its full volume for longer before fading.
Definitely sounds very mellow and guitar like. The shape looks very similar to the folkcraft resonator dulcimers. To my eye, it looks like they took the exact shape for the resonator dulcimer and installed a saddle rather than a cone. I personally like the tone and look of that style, though it's definitely a very modern look.
I'm reminded of how subjective "loudness" is. When I was thinking about slight difference in timing and pitch two things came to mind.The first is a choir: a Google search suggests that a choir of twenty of forty people may only be perceived as twice as loud as one person, but the tonal characteristics are very different.
Another thing that came to mind is that with an extra string, more tension is applied to the instrument, and by doubling the amount of force on the melody end of the bridge, that might increase the amount of force being applied to the soundbox in that spot, making it louder.
Dusty, I am definitely not someone who has an educated guess on the topic, but intuitively I would think if you had two strings of different gauges, overall it would only be as loud as the louder string.
Also, I am not knowledgeable about subjective loudness but Im aware that our ear doesn't perceived the loudness of noise in a linear way, whereas a piece of software might show 1.5x as big of a spike, as best as I understand it, that would not correspond to 1.5x perceived loudness. I personally would not know how to interpret the data in a meaningful way.
That's an interesting question and a good point, Randy. I don't know the answer to that but I would intuitively think that playing two strings slightly out of sync that are the same gauge length and tension would not be any louder than one, but I would imagine that is why the sound is fuller.
Hey folks, I've heard it said that having two speakers of the same power directly next to each other is not perceivably louder than one. They are exciting the same air with the same level of energy, so the second speaker basically does nothing.
I was wondering if a similar thing applies to doubled melody strings. If both strings are at the same tension, channeling vibration into the same place on the bridge, is the second string not actually adding any volume? It can be really hard to tell by listening, since a second string changes the tone. It definitely 'feels' louder, but ears are very easy to trick.
Thanks for any info
Nate
Hey folks I was hoping to get some clarification about how string gauge affects intonation. I have noticed that an unwound middle string needs to be compensated about 1/16th of an inch longer than a wound middle string. If I don't compensate the middle slot differently than the others, it can often be up to 15 cents sharp at the octave, when properly tuned.
I remember hearing in passing a long time ago that wound strings need to be intonated to compensate for their core diameter and not their wound diameter. Can anyone verify this?
And if so, does anyone know what size core corresponds to certain gauges of wound string? For example, what is the core gauge of a .18 and a .24 string that are wound? Maybe I can use the digital calipers at my work and measure some cores.
I have noticed that in order to correctly compensate for my middle strings, the bridge needs to be shaped differently depending on whether the string is wound or not. Is this a common issue? and is there a better solution than just having two separate bridges with the two different compensations?
Thanks for any info, and sorry if the questions aren't asked very clearly,
Nate
Thanks for the input Nate.
The bridge is actually set into the fretboard in the traditional way. It looks like it has feet because it is wider than the fretboard. But it is loose enough to shift if the strings didn't come in square and it was notched. Based on that, I think I will leave it alone and install a new spacer bar using standard bridge material.
I expect I will play it with a single melody string as I do with my current unit, but I was wondering if I could run a double melody through the same hole in the tail. At this point I have no interest in 4 string equidistant.
That is a really nice looking dulcimer Art.
I believe the little feet on the sides of the bridge are to brace it to keep it from slipping to either side from uneven tension of the strings. This feature is useful for dulcimers that can switch between 4 string equidistant and 3 course with paired melody strings. The four string anchors in the tailpiece of the instrument are equidistant.
If you wanted paired melody strings, because the string anchors are set up for 4 string equidistant, the inner melody string would want to pull the entire bridge sideways, and the little legs on the sides of the bridge would brace it to prevent this.
The only issue is you would need pretty deep slots so make sure the strings cant pop out of them.
The benefit of a spacer is that it has very deep slots so that the strings put tension on the sides of the slots and are already the correct distance apart before coming in contact with the bridge.
It might be worth considering to make a nicer looking, more precise spacer rather than not have one, if you are planning to play with a doubled melody string, and not 4 string equidistant. An advantage of having a spacer (and corresponding slots in the nut) is that you can switch between 4 string equidistant and paired melody strings more conveniently.
Also, as Ken suggested, you should check that the action height and bridge placement are correct, especially before reducing the height of your bridge by making slots.
Good luck!
Nate
Looks like a good time. The Bodhran is a really cool instrument. For how deceptively simple they look, they are very complex. The soft but powerful tones fit great into almost any type of music in my opinion
Nate
Thank you Dusty this is very helpful information and visual context. I used to think there was no wrong way to play the dulcimer until the way I was doing it started to hurt. Now I know of at least one wrong way lol.
I am 6'3 with long legs that tend to cause my knees to be higher than my hips on most chairs and couches, which is something I was never cognizant about until Strumelia pointed it out. When I do sit on something that lets my legs dangle, it is very comfortable to use a strap and let the dulcimer rest across my legs at a downward angle.
In being more aware about my wrist position and posture, I'm already noticing an improvement in strain.
Thanks folks
Thanks folks for these useful tips. Clearly I need to hold my arm at a better angle. I think also paying attention to the level my knees are at will also be very helpful. In general, should my wrist be flat with my forearm, or curved slightly downward?
Hey folks, can anyone recommend any good videos, articles, or just general advice on proper form for fretting a dulcimer. The way that I fret can put a lot of strain on my wrist at times, so I need to improve my technique, but I don't actually know the correct way to fret ergonomically. Can anyone offer advice or direct me toward content that will help me to learn how to practice good form that puts less stress on my fretting wrist.
I am hesitant to just trust whatever comes up from a google search since I know so little on the topic, so Id be grateful if anyone could share any good resources or tips.
Thanks,
Nate
Wow Dusty, that sounds rigorous. I'm sure it'll pay off to develop that, though. If I enjoyed doing drills like that, I'd probably have a lot sharper of skills than I get from just plunking around like I do.
One thing I find really cool about that is that speeding up music doesn't change the pitch of the notes so you can speed up or slow down backing tracks or "play alongs" and they will still be in the original key
I guess when talking about tuning precisely it's two kind of separate questions. Not only the question of "how close to dead on do you get it" but also "what do you count as dead on" since as folks mention, the 'sweetest' pitch might not be exactly where the 12 tone equal tempered note is. I was more curious about how meticulously people are about getting the instrument to their desired pitch, but the topic of choosing to tune slightly sharp of flat is also really fascinating
Nate
Dusty, I have always found the cultural aspect of pitch perception to be really fascinating. It's a pretty vast topic and really puts into perspective how nuanced the things that make music 'enjoyable' to people are. Even just the difference in sound between two temperaments is interesting. I tend to think being too attached to a certain set of exact pitches limits enjoyment of music. In a perfect world I could hear exactly how in tune I am, and still not mind if I'm out of tune. It seems like I have to compromise one for the other.
Nate
Thanks for the info. I didn't realize how uncommon it is to use a tuner that measures in cents. I've tried a few types of tuners but eventually landed on my phone. The mic in a cell phone is very good quality. A few years ago I compared a snark, a d'addario, an offbrand one that came with an instrument, a strobe tuner built into an old fender amp, and my cellphone. I used a fancy mic plugged into my computer as the 'baseline' to compare them against.
The snark and strobe tuner both agreed I was 'in tune' once I was 5 cents off but didn't allow me to try to tune any closer. The d'addario and generic brand one actaully showed how many cents off I was, but seemed to have an accuracy issue and were a cent off from the true reading of my real mic. My cellphone seemed to completely agree with my real mic down to the cent, so that's what I use now.
The big thing that I learned from that process is that my ear cannot tell the difference. 5 cents off sounded exactly like 0 cents off every single time. I have gotten kind of fussy with getting it as close as possible, even though it makes no difference to my ear. That's why I was looking for some outside perspective.
Thanks all,
Nate
Hey folks
Id love some input on how close you get your tuning to perfect before calling it "good enough"
I personally try to tune within 3 cents of exactly on note,(3/100ths of a semitone) and I am curious what is 'normal/common'
Thanks for any input
Nate
Jalan Crossland is an absurd talent
Hi, My main instrument is the 5-string banjo. I recent did a book for Hal Leonard called Do-It-Yourself Banjo. Written during Covid, it's sort-of intended as a self teaching guide, complete with audio and video files to demonstrate what's being presented in the book. Been teaching since the mid-1970s, so feel free to hit me up with any questions. Naturally, I recommend the book, but I have been getting good feedback about it.
Nate. You have a cool Uncle. That is a nice looking banjo. Last year bought a Deering Goodtime 2 banjo and later bought the Deering Goodtime Banjo/Ukulele. Love it. Easy to play and sounds a lot like a banjo.Steve B.
If you're reading this, and you're a banjo fanatic,
there's a player you should seek out named Kyle Tuttle.
He and I shared a few motorcycle rides, and lived only a couple blocks apart.
A simple google search of his name will bring up a nice overview of his work.
Some builders do build flat fretboards. When there are as many frets as the dulcimer has, though, the problem of getting the lowest action becomes very much like that of designing auditorium seating.
Imagine an auditorium in which the seating floor is flat: even if everyone is the same height, people will have trouble seeing over the heads of those in the next row. And in the foremost rows (that cost the most to get), you begin to see less and less of the performers!
So the answer is to make the floor a long sweeping curved surface sloping gently down, each row a little lower than the one behind. That works well until about 2/3 down toward the stage: at that point the person in the next row are no longer the issue. Now the problem is that you can't see all of what's happening on-stage. So the floor has to start to rise so each row is a bit higher than the one before. Then each person can see everything on the stage.
So think of the string's "line of sight" as it is fretted at each fret, and design your fretboard so that, at each fret position, the height above the further frets is equal. If you're good at trigonometry you can solve the problem as one of the string forming a constant angle when fretted at each angle such that the sine of the angle is just a bit greater than the top of the next fret's crown. Since the distance between frets is exponential, that fretboard surface will be very interesting mathematically. (I've never done it mathematically. I prefer the heuristic method in instrument building, not analytics —except in the matter of setting frets in equal temperament).
Every dulcimer will have its own fingerboard 'profile,' meaning a concave 'dish', though some makers prefer to build with a flat fingerboard, I hear.
Three dimes seems like a TON of extra height by the nut. I hope that isn't due to warping or bowing.
If you have a nice straight edge on a metal yardstick or something like that, you could set it along the fretboard and observe if the straight edge touches all the frets, or if some of them are lower/higher. It is possible that some frets have risen slightly out of their slots and need to be 'tapped' back into place.
It can be helpful to check each fret with a tuner and note how out of tune each fret is. If the first couple of frets are the most out of tune, the issue is most likely your nut being too high. If the frets get more out of tune as you get closer to the octave, you most likely need to move or reduce the height of your bridge.
Once the frets are all level and the action is correct, you will most likely have to readjust your bridge placement anyway.
Tune the string up to tension and get it exactly to the desired note. Use a tuner to compare the open string to the note at the 7th fret (octave) If the octave is flat, the bridge needs to be moved *closer to the nut* If the octave is sharp, the bridge needs to be moved *away from the nut*
Bob Stephens dulcimers are absurdly cool. I haven't had the privilege of playing one but the engineering is fascinating and the tone is definitely distinctive. They incorporate a lot of design elements that you won't find in any other instruments. They may look 'guitar-like' but they are very optimized dulcimers. Features like the floating neck and internal soundboard are examples of taking things that are distinctive about a dulcimer and pushing them further.
ok so it's the fret pattern, not technically the 'pegbox' or tuning mechanisms that are opposite mirrored for duet playing. I was just assuming the peghead was usually at the 'fret 1' end of the fretboard, but there's nothing saying you can't put the tuning pins at what we consider to be the tail end of the box.
The dulcimer played by John in the video does not seem to be a courting dulcimer, like the one in the patent document. The fingerboards are both facing the same way, and don't seem to be laid out in a way that would be easy for two people to reach both fingerboards at once. The fact that it is only one octave is the main reason I am guessing that John's second fingerboard is for lower pitch notes. It would not need the second octave, since the higher notes are already on the other fretboard.
The dulcimer in the video is very cool and relates to some ideas I've been thinking about lately (such as fingerboards that do not touch any edges of the instrument)
It's hard to imagine what aspect of that dulcimer would be patented. It is notable that the second fret board does not have strings or a bridge. My first guess would be that it is intended to have a lower register of deeper pitch strings. This seems likely, since it only has one octave worth of frets.
Another guess would be that the second fretboard is meant to play in a different key. Bing Futch has a Folkcraft dulcimer with two separate fretboards in different keys.
Either way thanks for sharing
Nate
These are undeniably super cool. I am grateful that you shared these, but I would think the best person to tell you what they are would be your grandfather himself? The first instrument is very cool to me due to its fret layout. It is interesting to think about why the second string would be chromatic and not the first. Maybe it would allow the second string to be tuned to a major 3rd and still play diatonically.
Would love to know if anyone knows more about the bizarre fret layout on the first photo. It reminds me of a citera.
Thanks
Nate
#1 Reason NOT To Get a Chromatic Dulcimer:
You don't have to defend or rationalize it's place as a dulcimer.
I agree that the wood piece is meant to simply space the strings at the correct distance from eachother, and the dark colored 'bar' is the actual bridge. It would explain the extra notch. That would correspond to a "course" of melody strings, it if were strung '3 string equidistant with a melody course.' From the image, the dark colored 'bridge' seems to straddle the fingerboard, with small 'legs' that go down off both sides. I assume that piece of light colored wood was added specifically to modify it to be able to play 3 string equidistant.
Out of curiousity, I'd love to know how much this dulcimer cost at an antique shop.
Look forward to you learning more about it and sharing with us
Nate
If it has more than diatonic frets, or more than 3 courses of strings, technically an instrument is no longer a dulcimer, it is a Fretted Zither. "Tomay-to tomaatoe", but diatonic fret spacing is part of what defines a dulcimer.
