Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic A new kind of stringed instrument...

Hello Mats,

I had a similar idea that I came up with while on a meditation retreat
last summer: The insight that I had was that if you ever wanted a
31tet piano, with the same range as a modern grand piano, you'd need
to have roughly 88*31/12 keys, or about 227 keys. While this is
something a Bosanquet or Fokker layout would handle nicely, you would
then require 227 * a rough average of 2 strings per key, and so you'd
end up with 454 strings, probably more. The thing would likely weigh
several tons, and the approach becomes completely useless if you ever
want to get into 53 or 72 equal or anything like that.

Yikes.

Of course, while a piano has 88 keys, and 88 courses of strings,
you're unlikely to ever play more than 12 or so at a time (unless you
hold the sustain pedal down and bang away).

So it would be extremely productive if you simply had 12 strings and
you could "retune" them on the fly (by shortening them with tangents,
most likely). You would need 12 separate keyboards with 12 tangents to
get all of this going, or you could somehow have it so that each
successive key you push down picks an unused string, and then when the
string is released, you'd put that string back into the "queue" of
strings to pick.

I have a few ideas on how to proceed with the second option... but I
have no idea at all how to prototype the mechanical side of this. Any
ideas?

-Mike

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Mats Öljare<oljare@...> wrote:
>
>
> Most players who have tried a 31-tet or 41-tet fretted instrument seem to
> find them too difficult to play, simply because the distance between the
> frets are too small. So i'm thinking about having some kind of clavinet-like
> fretting mechanism that would make it easier to play, even complex chords
> and polyphonic lines, while allowing full manual access to the rest of the
> strings for a variety of picking techniques.
>
> Alternatively, instead of using frets, the buttons might actually change the
> PITCH of the strings, through some smooth and very accurate bending
> mechanism...
>
> Anyone here know if either of these have been tried? I have no mechanical or
> manufacturing skills at all, but they seem like a good idea for someone here
> to think more about....
>
> /Mats Öljare
> http://www.youtube.com/user/MatsOljare
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Mike wrote:

>I had a similar idea that I came up with while on a meditation retreat
>last summer: The insight that I had was that if you ever wanted a
>31tet piano, with the same range as a modern grand piano, you'd need
>to have roughly 88*31/12 keys, or about 227 keys. While this is
>something a Bosanquet or Fokker layout would handle nicely, you would
>then require 227 * a rough average of 2 strings per key, and so you'd
>end up with 454 strings, probably more. The thing would likely weigh
>several tons, and the approach becomes completely useless if you ever
>want to get into 53 or 72 equal or anything like that.
>
>Yikes.

Two solutions to this:

1. Make it a fortepiano instead. 6 octaves range, one string
per note = 6 * 31 * 1 = 186, which is about the same as usual.

From my point of view, the extra strings aren't even desirable.
They evolved to make the instrument louder, for concert hall use.
Today we have microphones. The size, expense, a loudness of modern
pianos is a hindrance for apartment dwellers, touring musicians,
and anyone who isn't a millionaire. In fact, I'd like a 6-octave
12-ET fortepiano (made with modern materials and built into a
travel case with removeable legs) quite a lot.

2. Make it electrically-actuated. Use a MIDI keyboard to
fire the hammers, placing the strings in cabinets. $$$ but a
neat idea for a performance space where the audience could sit
in a 'cloister' of strings.

>So it would be extremely productive if you simply had 12 strings and
>you could "retune" them on the fly (by shortening them with tangents,
>most likely). You would need 12 separate keyboards with 12 tangents to
>get all of this going, or you could somehow have it so that each
>successive key you push down picks an unused string, and then when the
>string is released, you'd put that string back into the "queue" of
>strings to pick.

This does mean you miss the resonances of the full harp, which are
a big part of what makes an acoustic piano so nice.

>I have a few ideas on how to proceed with the second option... but I
>have no idea at all how to prototype the mechanical side of this. Any
>ideas?

It's difficult. The clavichord approach is to use the tangent to
both fret and sound the string, which runs into problems since you
can't have a node and an antinode at the same place. Hence,
clavichords are almost inaudible. But I gather you intend to have
both hammers and tangents, at different locations, firing together
in careful timing. Well, that bears more thought...

-Carl

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> Two solutions to this:
>
> 1. Make it a fortepiano instead. 6 octaves range, one string
> per note = 6 * 31 * 1 = 186, which is about the same as usual.
>
> From my point of view, the extra strings aren't even desirable.
> They evolved to make the instrument louder, for concert hall use.
> Today we have microphones. The size, expense, a loudness of modern
> pianos is a hindrance for apartment dwellers, touring musicians,
> and anyone who isn't a millionaire. In fact, I'd like a 6-octave
> 12-ET fortepiano (made with modern materials and built into a
> travel case with removeable legs) quite a lot.

I actually have something like that. I bought for $100 in a pawn shop
what they were calling a 'coffin piano'... turned out to be an antique
"square piano" that's basically what you described (and in absolutely
terrible shape). It's extremely heavy, so I don't know how useful it
would be for an actual touring situation. I'm trying to fix it up now.

> 2. Make it electrically-actuated. Use a MIDI keyboard to
> fire the hammers, placing the strings in cabinets. $$$ but a
> neat idea for a performance space where the audience could sit
> in a 'cloister' of strings.

This is a neat idea! Kind of like a string pipe organ. Would also be
need if you could somehow get an Ebow type thing (or some inductors)
to drive the strings, which would be awesome live.

>>So it would be extremely productive if you simply had 12 strings and
>>you could "retune" them on the fly (by shortening them with tangents,
>>most likely). You would need 12 separate keyboards with 12 tangents to
>>get all of this going, or you could somehow have it so that each
>>successive key you push down picks an unused string, and then when the
>>string is released, you'd put that string back into the "queue" of
>>strings to pick.

> This does mean you miss the resonances of the full harp, which are
> a big part of what makes an acoustic piano so nice.

Eh. A small price to pay to have an acoustic microtonal keyboard
instrument, imo. It would make the most difference if the sustain
pedal was down, and a lot of pianists purposefully avoid using the
sustain pedal as much as possible because of that, since it tends to
muddy things up if overused. I always thought it was the soundboard
that contributed most to the sound of a concert grand, though I could
be wrong about that.

> It's difficult. The clavichord approach is to use the tangent to
> both fret and sound the string, which runs into problems since you
> can't have a node and an antinode at the same place. Hence,
> clavichords are almost inaudible. But I gather you intend to have
> both hammers and tangents, at different locations, firing together
> in careful timing. Well, that bears more thought...

Well, the idea I had was to have a microcontroller manage the queue
and somehow electromagnetically control which key gets routed to which
string. Then each string would have one movable tangent that goes up
and down the string and stops at the right position, and the
corresponding hammer for that string would fire at the same time.
Ideally, it would be an acoustic instrument, but with the
microcontroller simply routing mechanical pieces together behind the
scenes.

There are some obvious flaws with this design - like how am I going to
get a tangent to fly all the way down the string and stop on a dime in
anything even close to real time? There are a few rough guesses that I
have so far - perhaps have a few tangents for each string so that no
tangent has to move too far, or perhaps avoid the idea of using
tangents altogether and go with something else - like a
magnetorestrictive material for the strings, or some combination of
the two. I'm not even sure how a movable tangent could work anyways.

Either way, if this engineering hurdle were solved, it would open the
door to all kinds of acoustic possibilities, not just with different
tunings - we'd be able to manipulate harmonics on the strings, and do
all kinds of cool stuff.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Mike wrote:

>> From my point of view, the extra strings aren't even desirable.
>> They evolved to make the instrument louder, for concert hall use.
>> Today we have microphones. The size, expense, a loudness of modern
>> pianos is a hindrance for apartment dwellers, touring musicians,
>> and anyone who isn't a millionaire. In fact, I'd like a 6-octave
>> 12-ET fortepiano (made with modern materials and built into a
>> travel case with removeable legs) quite a lot.
>
>I actually have something like that. I bought for $100 in a pawn shop
>what they were calling a 'coffin piano'... turned out to be an antique
>"square piano" that's basically what you described (and in absolutely
>terrible shape). It's extremely heavy, so I don't know how useful it
>would be for an actual touring situation. I'm trying to fix it up now.

I'm familiar with squares -- they went out of fashion around 1900.
They're the right ballpark, but nothing close in terms of refinement
to what I'm thinking of. The Yamaha CP-70 is probably the closest
real thing to what I'm imagining.

>> 2. Make it electrically-actuated. Use a MIDI keyboard to
>> fire the hammers, placing the strings in cabinets. $$$ but a
>> neat idea for a performance space where the audience could sit
>> in a 'cloister' of strings.
>
>This is a neat idea! Kind of like a string pipe organ. Would also be
>need if you could somehow get an Ebow type thing (or some inductors)
>to drive the strings, which would be awesome live.

Yeah. I thought of all this while jamming once in 1996 (there was
an ebow sitting on my music desk at the time!). It came to me as a
fantasy that I *was* playing the thing while I was jamming.

Huge money though. I'd rather have my carbon fiber fortepiano.

>> This does mean you miss the resonances of the full harp, which are
>> a big part of what makes an acoustic piano so nice.
>
>Eh. A small price to pay to have an acoustic microtonal keyboard
>instrument, imo.

I don't agree. What's the point of having strings? 50% of it
is harp resonance. The other 50% is that a soundboard radiates
differently than loudspeakers. You can actually fake that up
with a piece of wood and some transducers.

>It would make the most difference if the sustain pedal was down,

It makes a difference for all sounding notes, all the time.

>and a lot of pianists purposefully avoid using the sustain pedal
>as much as possible because of that, since it tends to muddy
>things up if overused.

Almost everyone uses the sustain pedal frequently (if gingerly).
Gould is a notable exception. There are also plenty of artists
who just leave it down, to good effect.

>I always thought it was the soundboard that contributed most to
>the sound of a concert grand, though I could be wrong about that.

Depends if you mean the volume of sound or character or...?
For character, the longer strings are the biggest thing, as they
have less inharmonicity. For volume, heavier hammers are the
biggest thing, and they rely on string tension, which relies on
longer strings also.

>> I gather you intend to have both hammers and tangents, at
>> different locations, firing together in careful timing.
>> Well, that bears more thought...
>
>Well, the idea I had was to have a microcontroller manage the queue
>and somehow electromagnetically control which key gets routed to
>which string.

There's no way to do it and maintain mechanical linkage.
You're talking about solenoid-actuated hammers at this point.

>Then each string would have one movable tangent that goes up
>and down the string and stops at the right position, and the
>corresponding hammer for that string would fire at the same time.

Multiple tangents for each string, positioned so that the whole
thing is some high ET that can be used to approximate anything
else. There's no time to move a single tangent into position.

>Ideally, it would be an acoustic instrument, but with the
>microcontroller simply routing mechanical pieces together behind
>the scenes.

Understood.

>There are a few rough guesses that I have so far - perhaps have
>a few tangents for each string so that no tangent has to move
>too far, or perhaps avoid the idea of using tangents altogether

You can't move tangents further than whatever angles you can
choose from when you fire them up, and even that's quite
dodgy. Better off having multiple tangents.

>and go with something else - like a magnetorestrictive material
>for the strings,

Interesting idea. The whole topic of string material came up
on the tuning list. The requirements are pretty tight already
without adding magnetoresistance, but I won't say it's impossible
at this point.

>Either way, if this engineering hurdle were solved, it would open the
>door to all kinds of acoustic possibilities, not just with different
>tunings - we'd be able to manipulate harmonics on the strings, and do
>all kinds of cool stuff.

Just to clarify -- you are thinking of sticking to a halberstadt
for this? If so, why?

-Carl

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> I don't agree. What's the point of having strings? 50% of it
> is harp resonance. The other 50% is that a soundboard radiates
> differently than loudspeakers. You can actually fake that up
> with a piece of wood and some transducers.

The point of having strings is that there is no even remotely acoustic
microtonal keyboard instrument out there yet (unless I'm missing
something). It wouldn't really compete with a concert grand, but
honestly, if I managed to get the variable-pitch string-based
acoustical tone generator figured out, there'd be a million fun things
to do with it. You could make a plucked version that would sound
something like a harpsichord (or a guitar), you could make a struck
version that would sound maybe like a tangent piano, you could and
drive it with an ebow and make it electroacoustic, etc. There's also
probably some clever way to play with string harmonics, which would
work really well electroacoustically. There are really a million ways
to go with it if the basic tone generator is in place.

> Almost everyone uses the sustain pedal frequently (if gingerly).
> Gould is a notable exception. There are also plenty of artists
> who just leave it down, to good effect.

It's a hallmark of pianistic technique that you use the pedal only
when you need it, rather than as a crutch. They pretty much ran me
through the gauntlet with that at UM both on the jazz and classical
side of things; I had to learn all sorts of pieces without using the
pedal at all. The transients when you strike a note resonate if the
pedal is held, which makes everything sound smeared and muddy. Of
course, sometimes you want that reverberant effect, so fire away.

>>Well, the idea I had was to have a microcontroller manage the queue
>>and somehow electromagnetically control which key gets routed to
>>which string.
>
> There's no way to do it and maintain mechanical linkage.
> You're talking about solenoid-actuated hammers at this point.

If that's the only way to go, then I hope it's possible to get that to
feel organic enough.

>>Then each string would have one movable tangent that goes up
>>and down the string and stops at the right position, and the
>>corresponding hammer for that string would fire at the same time.
>
> Multiple tangents for each string, positioned so that the whole
> thing is some high ET that can be used to approximate anything
> else. There's no time to move a single tangent into position.
//
> You can't move tangents further than whatever angles you can
> choose from when you fire them up, and even that's quite
> dodgy. Better off having multiple tangents.

The problem there is that the tangents would have to be
logarithmically closer together as the pitch got higher. The first
octave will take up half the string, the second will take up a
quarter, the third will take up an eighth, and the fourth will take up
a sixteenth. For even 31-tet that's going to become impractical
somewhere around the second or third octave, and intonation would
likely be a constant problem. This might be abetted somewhat by using
solenoid-based electromechanical tangents.

> Interesting idea. The whole topic of string material came up
> on the tuning list. The requirements are pretty tight already
> without adding magnetoresistance, but I won't say it's impossible
> at this point.

It might work well in tandem with something else. Let's say that you
had tangents placed at 12-et positions along the string, and then the
changing tension of the wire gave you +/- 50 cents either way. You
could get the whole spectrum at that point.

> Just to clarify -- you are thinking of sticking to a halberstadt
> for this? If so, why?

No. I'd like to see a bosanquet layout used myself, but anything would
really be able to go if this business with solenoids and tangents were
worked out.

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 19 Aug 2009, at 9:34 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:
> There are some obvious flaws with this design - like how am I going to
> get a tangent to fly all the way down the string and stop on a dime in
> anything even close to real time? There are a few rough guesses that I
> have so far - perhaps have a few tangents for each string so that no
> tangent has to move too far, or perhaps avoid the idea of using
> tangents altogether and go with something else - like a
> magnetorestrictive material for the strings, or some combination of
> the two. I'm not even sure how a movable tangent could work anyways.
>

What about using many tangents located let's say in 1 cm distance (or in some reasonable distance corresponding to some tune? then it would be necessary to locate them proportionally, not linear, and have less of them)? In such case it would be enough to move with whole tangent array +/- 5 mm. You will need solenoids to move with every tangent (plus another for activating hammers) and some kind of step motor, like those used in ink printers for moving the print head. Rather expensive solution...

Or some kind of movable ring envelopping the string, like a jaw brake used in elevators...

If the strings are not wound, maybe we can get even glissandos or changing tuning in real time during sound (by moving tangents). That would be interesting effect. But maybe it would be more easy to create small pipe organ with tunable pipes in real time.

Changing the string tension in real time is practically impossible, I can't imagine reasonably fast winding mechanism, which could keep such tension... Besides sound color would be changed, too.

Daniel Forro

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 19 Aug 2009, at 1:44 PM, Mike Battaglia wrote:
> > Almost everyone uses the sustain pedal frequently (if gingerly).
> > Gould is a notable exception. There are also plenty of artists
> > who just leave it down, to good effect.
>
> It's a hallmark of pianistic technique that you use the pedal only
> when you need it, rather than as a crutch. They pretty much ran me
> through the gauntlet with that at UM both on the jazz and classical
> side of things; I had to learn all sorts of pieces without using the
> pedal at all. The transients when you strike a note resonate if the
> pedal is held, which makes everything sound smeared and muddy. Of
> course, sometimes you want that reverberant effect, so fire away.
>

It's a whole science behind this as far as I know (and use). Depending on the music style, sustain pedal is used for:

- emphasizing volume and color of the sound (by using sympathetic resonance)

- connecting arpeggiated chords together, keep the bass note

- make a impressionistic fog, reverb

- make special effects - quarter pedal, half pedal, resonating sound after silent pressing the chords, pianoverb with some other instrument playing into the piano etc.

Did I forget something?

Many music styles don't need pedal at all or not much (all music before let's say Beethoven, lot of contemporary music, lot of jazz, rock)... In any case it must be used reasonably and carefully.

Daniel Forro

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> What about using many tangents located let's say in 1 cm distance (or
> in some reasonable distance corresponding to some tune? then it would
> be necessary to locate them proportionally, not linear, and have less
> of them)? In such case it would be enough to move with whole tangent
> array +/- 5 mm. You will need solenoids to move with every tangent
> (plus another for activating hammers) and some kind of step motor,
> like those used in ink printers for moving the print head. Rather
> expensive solution...

That's a genius idea! I was thinking that the tangents would have to
be logarithmically spaced, but of course they wouldn't. Then you could
just move the whole array slightly to get where you want. Perhaps if
the tangents themselves were solenoids, the whole thing would be
covered. The key would be making the mechanical -> electrical ->
mechanical conversion from key to hammer movement feel as organic as
possible...

Also, this way, you could have any tuning or keyboard or anything you want.

> If the strings are not wound, maybe we can get even glissandos or
> changing tuning in real time during sound (by moving tangents).

Definitely, although that would cause some problems if we had a huge
array of tangents that only moved by 5mm or so. If you bend a string
up by moving the array a couple of centimeters, you'd have to then
have it travel all the way back in time again for the next time that
string gets its turn in the queue, which might be problematic. I'd
really like to see harmonic effects being done with the string
somehow, although I dunno how to do that with your tangent array idea,
although that's the first idea I've seen that seems practical.

> Changing the string tension in real time is practically impossible, I
> can't imagine reasonably fast winding mechanism, which could keep
> such tension... Besides sound color would be changed, too.

The changing tone color would be a problem. The changing of the
tension could be accomplished by using a magnetostrictive material,
such as nickel, for the string. Placing the string within a magnetic
field would then cause it to constrict, thus changing the tension of
the wire. A professor at my school suggested it to me, and I don't
know how reasonable it really is, but it's an idea. Most likely, if it
worked at all, it would only be for slight pitch bends or vibrato or
something like that.

-Mike

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

News flash: Solenoids cost $20 a piece. Yikes. Back to the drawing
board for that.

-Mike

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Mike Battaglia<battaglia01@...> wrote:
>> What about using many tangents located let's say in 1 cm distance (or
>> in some reasonable distance corresponding to some tune? then it would
>> be necessary to locate them proportionally, not linear, and have less
>> of them)? In such case it would be enough to move with whole tangent
>> array +/- 5 mm. You will need solenoids to move with every tangent
>> (plus another for activating hammers) and some kind of step motor,
>> like those used in ink printers for moving the print head. Rather
>> expensive solution...
>
> That's a genius idea! I was thinking that the tangents would have to
> be logarithmically spaced, but of course they wouldn't. Then you could
> just move the whole array slightly to get where you want. Perhaps if
> the tangents themselves were solenoids, the whole thing would be
> covered. The key would be making the mechanical -> electrical ->
> mechanical conversion from key to hammer movement feel as organic as
> possible...
>
> Also, this way, you could have any tuning or keyboard or anything you want.
>
>> If the strings are not wound, maybe we can get even glissandos or
>> changing tuning in real time during sound (by moving tangents).
>
> Definitely, although that would cause some problems if we had a huge
> array of tangents that only moved by 5mm or so. If you bend a string
> up by moving the array a couple of centimeters, you'd have to then
> have it travel all the way back in time again for the next time that
> string gets its turn in the queue, which might be problematic. I'd
> really like to see harmonic effects being done with the string
> somehow, although I dunno how to do that with your tangent array idea,
> although that's the first idea I've seen that seems practical.
>
>> Changing the string tension in real time is practically impossible, I
>> can't imagine reasonably fast winding mechanism, which could keep
>> such tension... Besides sound color would be changed, too.
>
> The changing tone color would be a problem. The changing of the
> tension could be accomplished by using a magnetostrictive material,
> such as nickel, for the string. Placing the string within a magnetic
> field would then cause it to constrict, thus changing the tension of
> the wire. A professor at my school suggested it to me, and I don't
> know how reasonable it really is, but it's an idea. Most likely, if it
> worked at all, it would only be for slight pitch bends or vibrato or
> something like that.
>
> -Mike
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Mike wrote:
>The point of having strings is that there is no even remotely acoustic
>microtonal keyboard instrument out there yet (unless I'm missing
>something).

But what's the point of having an acoustic instrument in the
first place? You're cutting the mechanical linkage to the keys,
so... I think just harp resonance and soundboard transduction.

By the way, I've played two different extended harpsichords (with
19 and 29 notes/octave) one clavichord (19), and one half finished
fortepiano (33), all with > 2-rank keyboards. So yes, you're
missing something. :P

>> Almost everyone uses the sustain pedal frequently (if gingerly).
>> Gould is a notable exception. There are also plenty of artists
>> who just leave it down, to good effect.
>
>It's a hallmark of pianistic technique that you use the pedal only
>when you need it, rather than as a crutch.

That's a standard line, but I don't think it's very informative.
For counterpoint, you shouldn't use it much at all. Other styles
(not necessarily ones they teach in schools) may "need" it all
the time. Personally, I started out using lots of pedal in the
'90s, went through a phase where I never used sustain but used the
soft pedal 100% of the time (2002-2006), and now I'm coming to a
synthesis of these (or think I am, if I had ever any damn time to
play between the job and two kids).

>> There's no way to do it and maintain mechanical linkage.
>> You're talking about solenoid-actuated hammers at this point.
>
>If that's the only way to go, then I hope it's possible to get that
>to feel organic enough.

That's the trick. With physical modeling and the right kind
of transducer, I could make you believe my box was an acoustic
harpsichord, clavichord, or piano (check out the Roland V-Piano
if ye doubt) IIFF the action was responsive. Unfortunately,
NO digital action has EVER been made that's responsive (except
perhaps a Mark IV Disklavier or Bose CEUS, and that's cheating
because it's still a piano). I never thought I'd hear myself
say this, because I'm a huge fan of acoustic music, and I hate
sampled instruments and knew they'd never produce a truly
realistic result (the '90s were hell, but finally we're getting
some physical modeling that's really kicking butt).

>The problem there is that the tangents would have to be
>logarithmically closer together as the pitch got higher.

But you never have to go too much higher before you can use a
different string. Anyway, I think you could build them 1" apart
reliably, which should be plenty.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗hstraub64 <straub@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 19 Aug 2009, at 8:20 PM, hstraub64 wrote:

>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia > <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> >
> > The point of having strings is that there is no even remotely
> > acoustic microtonal keyboard instrument out there yet (unless I'm
> > missing something).
>
> I think you are missing something - there is the 96EDO piano, e.g.:
>
> http://www.sauter-pianos.de/english/pianos/microtone.html
>
> But it's obviously of limited use...
>
> Anyway. Since Mats, the O. P., mentioned fretted instruments - i.e. > guitar-like, I assume - I am thinking whether maybe an approach > similar to the nyckelharpa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/> Nyckelharpa) or the hurdy-gurdy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurdy-> gurdy) might be promising...
>
> Not haveing mechanical skills myself, too, though...
> --> Hans Straub
>

We shouldn't forget other instruments usable for microtonal music:
- Japanese koto (13 strings with movable bridges, only right side of the string is supposed to be used for play, as tuning of the left side is more or less random, or 17 strings with tuning pegs and movable bridges which allows to use both sides)

- cimbalom, santur, santour, hackbrett, zither, psalterium, dulcimer, yang-qin, autoharp and similar hammered or plucked instruments

- some other ethnic instruments (sitar, sarod, tanpur, erhu, kokyu, shamisen, some flutes, ocarina...)

Daniel Forro

A new kind of stringed instrument...

🔗Mats Öljare <oljare@...>

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...>

🔗Daniel Forro <dan.for@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗hstraub64 <straub@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>