jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
.
For a Turkish oud (?), traditionally neck length (nut to neck joint) should be 1/3 vibrating string length. So for a traditional 'man sized' oud of
58.5 cm string length, the neck length should be 19.5 cm.
Why a 19 cm or 20 cm neck length would be 'better' I don't know. Best stick to tradition rather than trying to 'reinvent the wheel'!
|
|
|
SamirCanada
Moderator
Posts: 3404
Registered: 6-4-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
19.5x3 = 58.5 that is the turkish scale length. The reason the neck must be exactly 19.5 is so that the neck is exactly 1/3 of the total scale length
and thus locates the right note at the right place on the fingerboard. This is especially important for advanced players who play up the neck. It
locates the note in tune exactly at the neck joint, not .5 cm in front of it.
Arabic ouds of 60cm must have a neck of 20cm. 61.5cm scale must have a neck of 20.5 and so on
@samiroud Instagram
samiroudmaker@gmail.com
|
|
|
SamirCanada
Moderator
Posts: 3404
Registered: 6-4-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
19cm neck or 57cm scale length is too short, the strings will be too loose.
19.5 or turkish scale length is the shortest you can go in my opinion. you can tune it with arabic strings and brace it for arabic sound and you can
achieve what many great makers are doing these days.
20cm neck is the perfect scale length as far as I am concerned.
@samiroud Instagram
samiroudmaker@gmail.com
|
|
|
Dr. Oud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1370
Registered: 12-18-2002
Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: better than before
|
|
Samir got it right: the neck length is a ratio of the string length, not a fixed number. If you want a 19cm neck, then the string length must be 57cm.
Fixed or floating bridge doesn't matter, and the bridge position is determined by the body length & bracing, not by the length of the neck. As
for string length too short to make the strings loose, it depends on the string gauge and tuning pitch, not the length. In other words, string tension
is a factor of the diameter of the string and the note it is tuned to, not the length.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Lute. Thanks for clarifying the type of oud you are referring to - your original title and post did not say!
The significance of the fingerboard length being traditionally 1/3 of the vibrating string length is, of course, that the ratio 3:2 is a pure perfect
fifth in the Pythagorean tuning system. So the neck joint is the reference position for sounding a perfect fifth.
By the early 16th C this was also the position of the 7th fret on the European lute - a situation soon to change as lute necks were lengthened to
accommodate more frets (so, in part, avoiding the need to stop strings on the sound board in the higher positions where there were no frets
provided).
So an oud neck could be made proportionally longer than accepted traditionally but this might be confusing to an oudist without an established
reference point on the fingerboard?
BTW, lute, what is the string length of your Arabic oud?
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
Member John Vergara (Bulerias) has been doing 20.2 for a string length of 606mm. I find this an elegant solution and in keeping with the spirit of
older measuring systems that were based on 2/3/4 ratios.
Of course you can adjust strings to match the oud, but most Arabic sets assume a string length of 60-61cm.
|
|
|
jack
Oud Junkie
Posts: 116
Registered: 4-5-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ok well here's an uneducated thought and question. If neck length is always proportional to string length, then it is possible to have different
length necks on the exact same body size: as the neck length decreases, so does the string length, and therefore the bridge slowly approaches the
sound hole. But for the best acoustics and tone, there must be a 'sweet spot' on the soundboard, where the bridge is placed. That means, that a 57 cm
string length will sound different than a 60 cm string length, if placed on the exact same body and soundboard. So in choosing a string length, does
one not also choose body and soundboard size? Or is there so little difference that one can choose whatever neck length one wants, and the luthier can
accommodate this with the placement of braces and soundhole? I see many Arabic ouds being made with 58.5 stringlength, but I don't recall a Turkish
oud with 60 cm strings. I'm glad to hear your thoughts.
|
|
|
SamirCanada
Moderator
Posts: 3404
Registered: 6-4-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
You got it Jack, thats the main consideration for sure.
the bowl size can remain the same but if the bridge has to move up or down, the bracing underneath has to be adjusted so that the bridge rests in
between the bottom 2 braces.
@samiroud Instagram
samiroudmaker@gmail.com
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It is perhaps worth mentioning that for centuries ouds (and lutes) were designed and sized according to universal harmonic proportions that included
the relative proportions of the human body (finger width, foot length, arm length etc.)
The earliest account from the 9th C, the Al-Kindi manuscript fragments - although incomplete - give the depth of bowl as half the sound board maximum
width. The bridge was then located a distance of 3 finger units (asabi) from the widest part of the sound board.
The Ikhwan al-Safa in the 10th C add that the overall length of an oud should be half as much again as its width and that the neck should be 1/4 of
the overall length (no mention of bridge position, however).
The 14th C Persian work, the Kanz al-Tuhaf repeats the earlier proportions given by the Ikhwan al-Safa with the neck being 1/4 of the overall length
of an oud. Also given are the proportions - including the bridge position - in finger units of measure (angusht).
A longer neck was not required on these early ouds because they had tied on frets (like the European lute) with the frets going only to the fourth or
'little finger' position.
Hard to say when the finger board length became generally standard at 1/3 string length on the oud - possibly at the time that frets were being
abandoned - 14th C?
The point is that if a luthier wanted to change, say, the neck length of an oud of a particular established traditional design then the overall
dimensions would also change proportionally.
By way of illustration, the attached sketch gives the relative proportions of a modern Turkish oud with neck length 1/3 of string length according to
a recent article on the proportions of Turkish instruments by Eren Özek. The bridge location is fixed proportionally at half the neck length measured
from the bottom of the bowl.
To accommodate different neck and string lengths these ouds were (are?) made in four standard sizes of string length - Girl size, 54 cm, Woman size,
55.5 cm, Boy size 57 cm and Man size, 58.5 cm with respective neck lengths of 18 cm, 18.5 cm, 19 cm and 19.5 cm. The established proportions and
geometry therefore remain unchanged - it's just the overall sizes that differ.
This also applies to Arabic ouds of the same traditional design - a shorter neck length should mean a proportionally smaller instrument (with shorter
string length) than one made with a longer neck length.
[file]31797[/file]
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"So if we have a neck of 19.5cm the bowl should be 48.75cm length!"
Correct if it is a Turkish oud built to the 'traditional' proportions given by Eren Özek (see previous post).
"if the depth of the bowl is 19cm then it should be 38cm wide!"
Correct -if the proportions follow the ancient traditional dictates of bowl maximum depth being 1/2 maximum bowl width.
"So what would happen to the sound if the bowl is 19cm * 35cm for example?"
Hard to say off hand as there are many more factors other than bowl depth:width ratio alone that might influence the acoustic properties of an oud.
Bowl sections that are deeper than 1/2 bowl width can be found in surviving ouds of the 19th C (and lutes of the late 17th C). No ouds made prior to
the 19th C survive to my knowledge.
Are you referring to the bowl dimensions of a surviving historical example of an oud? If so posting dimensional details and images of the instrument
and the maker/date it was made etc. would be of great interest - perhaps posted as a separate topic on this forum?
You can find more information about old oud and lute geometry posted here:
http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=11186
For current work investigating sound hole acoustics see here:
http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=14874
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
An Oud on Steroids!?
A cautionary tale - this is what might happen if the traditional proportions of an oud are not recognised and maintained.
The attached image is a sketch of an oud described by Ibn al-Tahhan al-Musiqi in the 14th C drawn from the dimensions given in finger units. Dr. G.H.
Farmer, who translated the manuscript Hawi al-funun wa salwat al-mahzun, saw nothing particularly untoward about an oud that stood 180 cm tall
(although he did think the very low bridge position was odd) - describing it as "a real archlute as we sometimes see delineated in Arabic and Persian
manuscripts". Presumably meant to be played in a standing position like a European double bass no doubt!
So what is wrong with this oud?
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
In an article published in the Galpin Society Journal, 1979, Curtis Bouterse proposed that the scribe of the manuscript had simply mixed up his asabi
and asabi madmuma dimensions. Presumably the scribe - like Farmer - not being a luthier saw nothing wrong with the measurements as given.
The attached sketch shows the oud drawn from the corrected dimensions proposed by Curtis Bouterse to which I have added a proposed geometric profile
created from arcs of a circle. Farmer describes the neck as 1 shibr plus an 'aqd' in length. A shibr is equivalent to 12 asabi to which he assigns a
length of 22.5 cm - assuming the value of an isba (finger unit - plural asabi) is 2.25 cm equivalent (from the ancient Egyptian standard 'Black'
cubit). He then gives a value to aqd of 2.25 cm making the total neck length 29.25 cm. However, as I can find no record of 'aqd' being a measure of
length I have made the assumption that 'aqd' refers to the end of the neck - i.e. the neck joint. This being the case the oud takes on the now classic
proportions of neck length being 1/3 string length.
If Farmer's finger unit of 2.25 cm applies, the oud is still quite large with a string length equivalent to 81 cm - but no more so than a European
archlute or tiorbo.
However if a finger unit of 1.875 cm (a standard ancient unit of measure according to Stechini) then the string length becomes 67.5 cm - a length that
may have been common for gut/silk strung ouds of an earlier period.
See here for more information
http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=6913#pid4
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The plural of 'isba' ('asabi') - as noted by ALAMI some time ago - is peculiar as it applies only when it follows the numbers 3 to 9, 103 to 109, 203
to 209 etc. So, for example it is correct to say 27 isba, 54 isba but 6 asabi or 109 asabi.
'Madmoum' means 'together' so 3 asabi madmoum means the width of three fingers of the hand placed together side by side (and so, presumably, the width
of two fingers side by side is 2 isba madmoum?).
So a 'shibr' is equivalent to 12 'isba' not 12 'asabi' as I stated in my previous post!
No wonder the scribe and Farmer were confused!
|
|
|
Oud Freak
Oud Junkie
Posts: 291
Registered: 11-23-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Oud Jerk 
|
|
Dear Samir,
Would just like to comment on this. For instance Luthier Albert Mansour makes his arabic ouds with a 57cm scale. The strings are just perfect. Have
tried many. Great sound and playability.
In addition, Mustafa Said uses many of Albert Mansour's ouds, and all sound very arabic, bassy and equilibrated.
Just for the info, the pyramid orange label work very well as wound strings for 57cm scale ouds, provided that the neck body action is around 2.5 - 3
mm, not less.
Cheers
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Lute. The equivalent dimensions in metric measure will depend upon the value chosen for a 'finger' unit (isba) which might range from the ancient
Roman standard equivalent of 1.85 cm to the Ancient Persian royal standard of 2.28cm. Farmer chose a value of 2.25 cm that I believe is the ancient
Egyptian standard based upon the so called 'Black' cubit (the unit used by the Egyptians for their 'Nile meter' once used to measure water levels of
the Nile at Cairo).
Most likely is that the ancient luthiers (for both oud and lute) used the actual width of their index finger - measured at the base of the fingernail
- as the 'finger' unit of measure to size their instruments (the proportions of the human body being directly related to the divine harmonic
proportions of the universe it was believed). In this case the finger unit might range from between about 1.7 cm for a luthier with small hands to say
about 2.1 cm. So, for example my index finger, so measured, is about 1.9 cm. So if I decided to build an oud of the (corrected) Ibn al-Tahhan
geometry, the perfect string length for my physique would be 68.4 cm with finger board length of 22.8 cm. Not too large if strung in gut.
Of course metric measure was not used historically until Napoleon Bonaparte came on the scene in the late 18th/19th C. Use of metric dimensions can
obscure studies of the underlying basic relative proportions of a lute or oud.
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Oud/lute makers used other geometries than the one described by Ibn al-Tahhan.
http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=11186
I would suggest that it is the luthiers of recent times who are experimenting - most likely because they have no knowledge of the traditional
proportions that once guided the early makers who eventually took their knowledge to the grave when there was no one left to inherit the information.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
