Mike's Oud Forums - Powered by XMB

ALL ABOUT FIXED BRIDGES

Alfaraby - 1-28-2014 at 01:21 PM

All About Fixed Bridges

In Arabic, bridge is called "Farass" (horse) or "Ghazal" (deer), maybe in order to emphasize it's prestige ! Well, this is only a personal unbacked hunch. It's called "Jisr" (bridge) as well, indicating it’s a medium connecting between the strings and the SB.

Bridge is probably the second most important component in the process of producing sound out of an oud. Soundboard (SB) of course is the most important. Luthiers have paid much attention to this feature since the early ages. Ibn Al Tahhan Al Musiqi (14th century) pointed out that: "as for the bridge, it should not be made of ivory, ebony, gold, or any precious thing, because it makes the sound of the oud dull" (Jdowning's quotation in another thread, adding: "minimizing bridge weight was certainly regarded as desirable").

The factors which determine, among others, the efficacy of the bridge are the density, weight, moisture & sonic speed passing through wood species. The optimum bridge is one of low density and small size, so it won't increase the SB weight and don't decrease its response, on the one hand, and at the same time transmits vibrations from the strings as quickly as possible, on the other. While vibrations pass through a surface at a certain speed, they loose some of its energy due to the friction with the wood particles, so the faster it passes through, the less friction is created and as a result, less energy is lost during the move. Therefore, we need the lightest and the smallest bridge, conditioned it has the ability to transfer vibrations at maximum speed of sound.

Does this mean that all oud makers should use one species for the bridge, just like violin makers use maple for their violins? Of course not! This is not accurate and impossible at the same time. Preferred sounds of an oud are not homogeneous and they depend on the players' tastes and different tunings that are being used. The speed of sound and the weight of the bridge are very important in giving the required sound, maybe more than the whole effect of the bowl.

The Iraqi school playing technique is based on a larger number of musical notes played in a given time, overall playing speed, the use of bells and chords, and other characteristic of this school. All you need is a very quick translation from the string to the SB, without paying much attention to sustain. We might even say that this school requires shorter tones in order to prevent mixing between tones that are played together.
In fixed bridges chosen for Iraqi ouds, rosewood should be picked because playing these ouds depends on fast tones so it's possible to add some extra weight, even if it shall slightly affect the basses. Munir Bashir for example depends on a very fast and complicated plucking style and at the same time pays much attention and emphasizes C & F basses in particular, so a lighter wood, let's say paddock might be chosen for his fixed bridge oud. On the other hand, for traditional Egyptian and Syrian style oud, walnut should be chosen, for its lightness and slow transmission of sound, which affects the fast vibrations of the trebles, while it would have negligible effect on the basses.

This of course is not a theory nor precise enough because we are disregarding the shape of the bridge and the total area of the SB and the total weight of the bridge. The overall weight of the bridge is governed also by the shape, the height and the length of the bridge. It should be wide enough to be glued on the SB and for distributing the pressure over a larger area of the attached SB, in order to prevent the bridge from flying off once the oud is strung. Luthiers don't reduce the weight of the bridge to the minimum because the energy transmitted from the string to the SB needs enough area to move in. If they reduce the weight of the bridge more and more, they are also reducing its volume and the surface of the vibrations carrier.
The appropriate bridge weight needed is one which is capable to transmit the best quantity of vibrations from the string, without increasing the SB weight and without affecting its own vibrating.

Guitar & Lute makers have conducted some researches and concluded that in order to keep the proper amount of material for transmitting the best amount of vibrations and at the same time not to affect the SB vibration, the best possible weight for the guitar bridge is 35 grams and for the lute: 37 gram. (1.235-1.35 ounces). Since the SB of a guitar, oud and lute is similar to a large extent, it's reasonable that the best weight for the oud bridge will not be far from 35-37 grams. On other shores of the Mediterranean, oud freaks weighed antique ouds bridges made by senior oud-makers and found out that Mohammad Fadel's bridge weighed 36 grams; Abdo Nahat: 33 grams ; Tawfiq Nahat: 34 grams; Manol: 38 grams. Hence, we might estimate the bridge weight of the great antique ouds to range between 33 up to 38 grams, not far from the guitar, the lute and the modern ouds.

Herewith I attach some photos of some wide spread oud bridges. Some of these shots were actually ripped off from other threads here, some were sent to me by their owners while the rest is my photography of my own and others' ouds ... some are clear enough, some are less.

It seems like the most popular two designs are the famous trapezoid & Abdo Nahhat's special design. This design has been copied by tens of successor oud makers in the Arab countries throughout the passing century.

You shall of course rebuke me and correct any false conclusions or facts I've scribbled. Right ? I had goodwill writing this thread, though I might have made mistakes, so please don't hesitate.

Last but not least, I have to state that without the help of our fellow member's (Alioud16) work (and ouds) originally written in Arabic, none of the above was ever possible.
(We haven't heard from the guy since July 5, 2010 – any news ?)

Please take good snapshots of your oud bridges and post it here, so that we'd have the biggest reservoir of oud bridges photos ever uploaded.

First bundle of photos are of Abdo Nahhat's special design

More to come ....

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

[file]30150[/file][file]30152[/file] [file]30154[/file] [file]30156[/file] [file]30158[/file] [file]30160[/file] [file]30162[/file] [file]30164[/file] [file]30166[/file] [file]30168[/file]

Alfaraby - 1-28-2014 at 01:33 PM

More of Nahhat Family Bridges:

[file]30170[/file] [file]30172[/file] [file]30174[/file] [file]30176[/file] [file]30178[/file] [file]30180[/file] [file]30182[/file] [file]30184[/file] [file]30186[/file] [file]30188[/file]

More to follow ...

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

hamed - 1-28-2014 at 06:30 PM

great thread Alfaraby, I was always curious about the woods and dimensions used for fixed bridges. Are these nahat ouds all using walnut wood for the bridge?

Adel Salameh - 1-29-2014 at 02:30 AM

Excellent article Alfaraby, thanks...

Alfaraby - 1-30-2014 at 11:59 AM

Thanks Hamed & Adel. My pleasure

Hamed: I guess so, but for some reason some of these bridges were dyed in black !

Here are some more of famous luthiers' bridges: Elias Nahat, Emil Khoury (Farid's), Gamil George, Gohary, Hifnawy, George Hayek

Enjoy

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

[file]30236[/file] [file]30238[/file] [file]30240[/file] [file]30242[/file] [file]30244[/file] [file]30246[/file] [file]30248[/file] [file]30250[/file] [file]30252[/file] [file]30254[/file]

MatthewW - 1-30-2014 at 02:26 PM

yes, excellent article Alfaraby. Those Nahat bridges are wonderful. About the glues the Nahats were using, was it similiar to the hide glue luthiers use today or did they have their own 'special mix'?

hamed - 1-30-2014 at 06:06 PM

here is a bridge shot of my father's very old oud, i think this was made by George Hayek supposedly but not 100% sure.

[file]30270[/file]

Alfaraby - 1-31-2014 at 02:37 AM

It is Hayek's as much as I could detect. Compare with photo no 6 of the last bundle I've posted. It's quite the same bridge & pickguard.
Beautiful ! Please add more photos of the oud.

Thank you
Yours indeed
Alfaraby

spyblaster - 1-31-2014 at 04:01 AM

very nice
here in Iran most of the bridges are made of walnut, there are also some made of Foofel (I have no idea what they call it in English but it's close to rosewood)
I attached some photos of the most famous Iranian Luthiers

Alfaraby - 1-31-2014 at 09:54 AM

Quote: Originally posted by MatthewW

Yes, excellent article Alfaraby. Those Nahat bridges are wonderful. About the glues the Nahats were using, was it similiar to the hide glue luthiers use today or did they have their own 'special mix'?

Thanks Mathew.
Yes dear ! Very same old hide glue. Nothing much has developed since then. No other glues have the gap feeling hide glue has.

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

Dr. Oud - 2-1-2014 at 11:05 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Alfaraby

... No other glues have the gap feeling hide glue has.
Yours indeed
Alfaraby

I beg to differ on this point. Hide glue is a poor gap filler because it shrinks as it cures. This attribute is what makes it such a strong adhesive, but it does require a well fitted glue joint. In most cases the joint needs to be primed or pre-glued before actual joining to insure the surfaces don't become dry or "cold" as the glue is absorbed by the wood, especially end grain joints like the neck/body.

Epoxies are much better at filling gaps, although I refrain from using them except for extreme cases of damage and only for permanent bonds, and never on any soundboard component as epoxy always remains flexible, and so absorbs vibration. I don't use epoxy on neck repairs either because it requires cutting the neck off to re-set, resulting in loss of the length of the neck and so requiring a spacer to re-set the neck at the proper length (1/3 string length). Epoxy will not bond to itself once cured, so it must be completely removed to re-glue any joint where it is used. Hide glue is always softened with warm water, so a glue joint can be re-glued without removing the old hide glue.

rojaros - 2-1-2014 at 01:58 PM

This is the bridge on my Stenzel oud (7 course)

[file]30302[/file]

rojaros - 2-1-2014 at 01:59 PM

A detail picture

[file]30304[/file]

jdowning - 2-1-2014 at 04:30 PM

Looks a bit like a 16th C lute bridge?

The wood 'Foofel' was said by forum member Peyman, in an earlier thread, to be boxwood, based on advice from Naser Shirazi. I have two logs of Persian boxwood that I purchased from an importer in the early 70's. This is a very dense close grained wood, pale yellow in colour that I would never have thought was a suitable wood for making bridges. An alternative suggestion made on the forum some time ago was that 'Foofel, was 'Betel nut' wood - which might be equivalent to Walnut - another variety of nut wood? I have never come across Betel nut wood before so cannot comment further.

rojaros - 2-2-2014 at 02:47 PM

Quote: Originally posted by jdowning

Looks a bit like a 16th C lute bridge?

...

That basically seems to be the idea ... these guys also new what they were doing

. Whatever it is, it works really well and it looks very nice.

Matthias - 2-2-2014 at 05:37 PM

Quote: Originally posted by jdowning

Looks a bit like a 16th C lute bridge?

Yes a little bit it reminds me too to a renaissance lute bridge, but as far as it can be seen it that pic it is totally different to a real lute bridge with it's special form to optimize the string fastening.

I am wondering why

Best regards

Matthias

rojaros - 2-3-2014 at 05:05 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Matthias

Maybe because it's an oud and not a renaissance lute? Different requirments for sound?

We can only speculate, best thing would be to ask Sebastian Stenzel directly what his idea was.

It works very well, as well as fastening and as adjusting the action is concerned. Looks good. Sounds great. ...

best

Robert

jdowning - 2-3-2014 at 06:48 AM

So I assume that this particular style of bridge has no historical precedent for the oud?

However, the earliest, reasonably accurate, drawing of an oud dates to the early 14th C found as a unique (?) addition by a scribe to an earlier version of Kitab al-adwar. The design of the bridge does somewhat resemble the design of two surviving late 16th C lutes - that I know about - as described here, bottom of the page:

http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=8488&pa...

and here:

http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=8488&pa...

No reason why a lute style bridge should not work just as well on an oud but none of the surviving ouds appear to have such a bridge design - I wonder why? I assume that the old oud makers knew what they were doing too.

Dr. Oud - 2-3-2014 at 08:27 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Matthias

...lute bridge with it's special form to optimize the string fastening.
Matthias

I'm curious what is the "special form to optimize the string fastening"? Some of the oud bridges pictured show the forward tie block design (a more recent development), as an alternate to the center tie block design of older ouds. I can only speculate that the forward tie block was introduced by Manol around 1900 and is the standard in all Turkish ouds. This feature does allow a bit more string height adjustment then the center tie block. I have not seen the forward tie block bridge used on any Arabic ouds made before 1950 or so.

Alfaraby - 2-3-2014 at 08:52 AM

Have a look: http://www.mauriceoudshop.com/ouds/
Do they remind (a bit) of the design Stenzel had adopted ?

I'm learning a lot from your posts. Thank you.

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

jdowning - 2-3-2014 at 01:10 PM

Most of those bridges seem to me to be of the 'mustachio' style - seen a lot on 'Oud arbi' and Turkish style ouds if I recall correctly?

Here is that style on one of the earliest surviving ouds (Egyptian) discussed here:

http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=12172#pid83...

Note that the bridge on this oud does not have drilled holes for the strings but slots - similar to bridge design of Baroque guitars.

rojaros - 2-3-2014 at 01:55 PM

This might be slightly OT, but I remember talks with Master Stenzel when he tried to explain to me some of his ideas how to benefit from the historical development of arabic and turkish ouds as well as from the wisdom and knowldge of the great renaissance lute makers. For instance he said that though there is an understandable reason for switching to the three holes design of the top the benefit of this can be achieved by other constructional means without sacrificing the precious vibrating surface of the top. That's why he decided to do a one hole design, like some vintage ouds have. There are some other less obvious details of the construction I'm not going to divulge here that are also drawing from the techniques european lute makers used.

The bridge also is a tribute to the european lute making as well as to oud making tradition, thats probabely the reason why it has both aspects, european and oriental.

As the tying of strings goes I haven't seen in any oud anything that worked much differntly from what he did, apart from some turkish ouds that have a straight bridge widhout any kind of 'moustache' and a more rounded top side, which makes tying of strings and especially adjusting the height more difficult then withe a more square profile of this tie block. The inlay work defintely is a tribute to arabic designs; the renaissance lutes I have seen had rather less decorated bridges, if at all.

Best wishes
Robert

rojaros - 2-3-2014 at 01:57 PM

I missed to express my gratitude for all the wonderful pictures of historical and newer instruments showing the amazing variations on the one bif theme: OUD

Matthias - 2-3-2014 at 02:07 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Dr. Oud

I'm curious what is the "special form to optimize the string fastening"?

Hello Richard,

I spoke about a lute bridge. So that is clear what I mean, see the pics below. There are drawings in cross section for baroque and renaissance lute bridges and a third drawing of the bridge rojaros showd us, as far as I could recognize it from the dark picture and which is quite different to a historical lute bridge about whom rojaros said " these guys also new what they were doing". It's a statement which quite correct and all lute makers I know are using that bridge design, as it is totally perfect.
May be you can provide us with a more detailed pic rojaros.

Richard, you are asking why. My other two pictures show that. It is very easy on a lute bridge to change the distance from the soundboard to the string without changing the scale ( please excusre that is not exactly realized here due to the "open" string hole ).

I never saw a lute bridge on a oud made in the period we are speaking about ( around 100 years ). did you? I think the most oud bridges have a front side which is in a rectangle to the soundboard, not going foreward and would say never going backwards.

Matthias

[file]30317[/file] [file]30319[/file] [file]30321[/file] [file]30323[/file] [file]30325[/file]

rojaros - 2-3-2014 at 09:44 PM

The bridge of my oud is just plain rectangle on front and back side. I find it easy to start with the string height lowest possible above the top and than adjust it to my liking up, where it stays stable.

best
Robert

jdowning - 2-4-2014 at 10:39 AM

Here are some more early 17th to 18th C lute and mandolino (descant lute) bridge sections taken from my notes and files - for information.
None quite like those given by Robert Lundberg in 'Historical Lute Construction.

[file]30331[/file] [file]30333[/file] [file]30335[/file] [file]30337[/file] [file]30339[/file] [file]30341[/file]

Dr. Oud - 2-4-2014 at 11:05 AM

I believe that the oud bridge is not an effective feature to adjust the string action. Every stringed instrument needs to adjust the string height as the relentless string tension bends the neck or body. Acoustic guitars have a very stiff body construction, so most of the bending occurs in the neck. The saddle bridge is used to adjust the string height, and a truss rod can be used to straighten the neck. I noticed one saddle bridge in Alfaraby's pics, and I have made a few like this myself. I don't believe there is a noticeable difference in sound between any of the different configurations, other than due to the weight of the bridge.

Now the oud has a short neck relative to the string length, so it does not contribute to the action other than it's angle to the soundboard. It rarely bends unless it is made too thin, or the pegbox joint is too deep, another common fault often overlooked contributing to neck warpage.

The oud has a very weak body structurally, consequently the body will bend over time due to the string tension. Since the bridge has a very limited height adjustment available (usually no more than 2 mm at the body/neck joint), the only solution to correct a high action is to remove and re-set the angle at the end of the neck. This is the most common repair in my experience. I believe this is why the old masters used the dowel/butt joint instead of a dovetail tenon. The butt joint can be loosened with warm water and the neck removed with no loss of neck length. This is not possible with the dovetail tenon as the joint is too strong to be loosened, so the neck must be sawn off, with a loss of length.

spyblaster - 2-4-2014 at 12:11 PM

Quote: Originally posted by jdowning

Looks a bit like a 16th C lute bridge?

The wood 'Foofel' was said by forum member Peyman, in an earlier thread, to be boxwood, based on advice from Naser Shirazi. I have two logs of Persian boxwood that I purchased from an importer in the early 70's. This is a very dense close grained wood, pale yellow in colour that I would never have thought was a suitable wood for making bridges. An alternative suggestion made on the forum some time ago was that 'Foofel, was 'Betel nut' wood - which might be equivalent to Walnut - another variety of nut wood? I have never come across Betel nut wood before so cannot comment further.

I have no idea what you are talking about. this is how a bowl made of foofel looks like

jdowning - 2-4-2014 at 12:21 PM

That still doesn't tell us what species of wood 'foofel' is!

jdowning - 2-4-2014 at 12:32 PM

......... however I have found two sources on the Internet that say 'foofel' is the wood of the Betel nut Palm tree including this one

http://www.luth.org/web_extras/al092/naini_santur.html

.... scroll down the page to 'wood'

spyblaster - 2-4-2014 at 12:48 PM

It makes sense since google translator confirms it and we have a lot of palm trees in Iran's deserts (center and south).
the only strange thing for me is that why it is sooooo hard to find! I have many customers calling my company desperately looking for it. as I know the main source for foofel is old boxes and doors. it also explains why it sounds so awesome.
.......................................
edit: I searched some Persian websites, it definitely has nothing to do with palm trees. I still don't know what they call it in other languages but it grows in India and Pakistan. that's why it's hard to find in Iran.
I guess those English websites has used google to find translation for foofel too

jdowning - 2-5-2014 at 06:43 AM

Always interested in wood species, further investigation provides the following information that will at least allow anyone to easily determine if the wood is palmwood rather than a hardwood such as a rosewood or walnut.

Palm plants are not trees but are a species of grass. The wood is essentially bundles of cell fibres in a softer cell matrix - so have no growth rings, sapwood/heartwood or rays etc. found in hardwoods so the type of palm wood cannot be identified without knowing other information such as the fruit, leaf structure etc. - otherwise all 2,500 species of palm have a similar cell structure visible without need for magnification (see attached images).

The outer layers of the palm trunk are harder and denser than the soft inner core so are used where strength and density is important.
Palm trees are usually grown for their fruit - coconut, date, betel nut etc - their wood being a secondary product that is used for making furniture, boxes, construction timbers, flooring etc. (and musical instruments?). The productive life of a palm is usually around 70 years after which time they are felled and converted to lumber.

The Betel nut palm is grown in India and Pakistan where demand for the betel nut exceeds local supply and has to be imported in quantity from the Far East. The betel nut palm is also grown in the Arabian Peninsula, East Africa and Madagascar - possible sources for the Iranian market (provided there are no import restrictions in force to that country).

I would be surprised if established Iranian luthiers did not know more precisely what species of wood 'foofel' was. However, the attached images should enable - by close examination of a 'foofel' wood sample end grain - whether or not the wood is at least a species of palm even if the type of palm cannot be determined. No expert knowledge required.

[file]30375[/file] [file]30377[/file] [file]30379[/file] [file]30381[/file]

SamirCanada - 2-5-2014 at 07:49 AM

That oud looks more like some type of rosewood than a palm tree lumber.

jdowning - 2-5-2014 at 09:26 AM

I don't know - never having worked with palm lumber - but impossible to tell from the small image? It will be necessary to view the end grain cell structure to be sure - and that may not be possible on a completed instrument only from a separate piece of wood used in the construction.

abc123xyz - 2-5-2014 at 03:57 PM

In his book ‘The Traditional Crafts of Persia’ Hans E. Wulff says:

"fūfel - palisander wood, rosewood (Dalbergia spp.); fūfel is originally the name for the betel nut."

David

jdowning - 2-6-2014 at 05:48 AM

Interesting. However if it is a true rosewood (Dalbergia genus) then the most likely candidate would be Dalbergia sissoo ('shisham' or Indian Rosewood) native not only to India (and Pakistan?) but also to Iran where apparently it is known as 'jag' not 'foofel'- a wood often used for oud making it would seem. The other alternative Indian true rosewood species might be East Indian Rosewood (Dalbergia latifolia) much used by Western guitar makers and exported in quantity to Europe and America- unlike 'sissoo'. Not sure if it is also traditionally used for ouds. It generally has much darker colour (brown/purple/black) than 'sissoo' however and so does not appear to be the wood in the oud image posted as far as I can tell.

So is 'foofel' just a name applied these days to any dark coloured tropical wood (including betel palm) that might look a bit like rosewood to the inexperienced eye?

Note also that exports from India to Iran apparently are not affected by current trade embargoes so supply of wood from Indian sources should not be affected or cause of any local shortages in Iran?

majnuunNavid - 2-6-2014 at 09:02 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Dr. Oud

I believe that the oud bridge is not an effective feature to adjust the string action.

I agree with Dr. Oud that the bridge is not an effective place to adjust action for PLAYABILITY, but it is somewhat effective for adjusting action for SOUND. I was able to adjust the string height from the bridge on my own Oud to reduce fingerboard "buzz" sound.

I used to have a barbat like this one with a similar bridge. Dr. Oud did some work on it for me actually some years ago.

I wonder what everyone thinks about the bridge style of these, especially the way the strings are tied to the bridge. We use loop ends to get the string stuck in the hole in the bridge and bring the string up an over the bridge similar to how a guitar is strung.

It is easily visible from the picture I have attached.

Dr. Oud - 2-6-2014 at 12:00 PM

I think majnuuNavid's string tie configuration is an excellent way to use a saddle without increasing the mass of the bridge with a rear tie block. Atta boy!

MatthewW - 2-6-2014 at 12:59 PM

FOOFEL:

guys, I think we can lay the foofel mystery to rest. I have it from a very good source that this is the incredible true story behind 'foofel'.

Once upon a time, many years ago somewhere in Persia, a luthier was doing some repair and restoration work on a friend's oud.

Now it was getting close to the lunch hour and the owner of the oud wanted to know how the work was coming along, and so he shouted out from across the road "what wood is that your'e using good friend?"

As there was quite a lot of noise in the nearby market, and so the luthier thought that he was asking ' what would you like to eat for lunch?"

The luthier shouted back to his friend " I'll have a falafel".

His friend couldn't quite make out what the luthier said, also due to the noise in the market, and so thought he had shouted out 'FOOFAL'

to this day no one knows what wood the luthier was actually using, but it came to be known as 'foofal'.

We're not sure if the luthier had a falafel or a shish-kebab later that day.

NOTE- in answer to our dear Doc Oud's observation below that these foods were more Arabic, there is a footnote in the original story that travelling food vendors of Arabic origin had recently settled in the luthier's town and had opened up food stalls selling falafel and shish which were very popular with the locals.

Dr. Oud - 2-6-2014 at 03:00 PM

Sorry, but your story falls apart at the end. Persians don't eat falafel or shish-kebab. These are Arabic foods, not Persian.

jdowning - 2-6-2014 at 04:19 PM

Perhaps they were just 'high' on Betel juice?

bulerias1981 - 2-6-2014 at 07:27 PM

I now intentionally drill the holes on the bridge about 2mm lower than what the actual hole height should be.. This is good for two reasons that I can think of..
1) You can adjust the action manually by pulling the string up by the bridge, and 2) When the action rises, you can easily lower it by using the holes as is.

The fixed bridge in nature is not a part that allows adjustment of course, but doesn't mean we can't play tricks in order to make it an adjustable part.

If your next comment is "if you drill the holes 2mm lower, are the strings too close to the soundboard?" And the answer is yes, unless you make the face concave.. which is a standard procedure for me as well these days.

spyblaster - 2-7-2014 at 12:43 AM

Felafel is not a Persian food, but it's eaten a lot here. I don't know for how long ppl are eating that but I have eaten Felafel since my mother stopped breast-feeding me

Shish Kebab has the same story. I've heard it's a Turkish kebab but wherever it comes from, I should tell ya that the word "Shish" is Persian. it means six and refers to 6-months-old lamb (also called Shishak). Man I love oriental kebabs!!!

Anyway, I guess there is a misunderstanding here. Iranian luthiers know what foofel is. They use east Indian rosewood, they use Jag (rarely) and they use foofel. so when they say something is made of foofel wood, it is not east Indian rosewood or Jag. they just don't know what it's called in English (the ones I have talked to)

Now that we are talking Sissoo, u should see Iranian Sissoo. I have an oud under construction, I really love the way it looks. I asked the luthier not to apply any design on the bowl so that the grains can show their beauty.

Dr. Oud - 2-7-2014 at 05:31 AM

My bad, I'm was only Persian by marriage, and have been there only 4 times. I had chelo, sultani, jujeh, bit not shish kabob. I didn't have falafel in the same form as from the Arab falafel, but my family is from Shiraz, maybe they just don't like it. I miss the food of Iran most of all. I have uncles in Karaj and visited them every trip. I remember diving for seats on the Metro to Tehran, great fun.

jdowning - 2-7-2014 at 08:29 AM

Ah well I guess the mystery remains.
BTW David thanks for the tip about the book 'The Traditional Crafts of Persia:Their Development, Technology and Influence on Eastern and Western Civilization' by Hans E. Wulff. I have a lot of interest in early technologies so have ordered a used copy on line for my information. Looking forward to an interesting read!

abc123xyz - 2-7-2014 at 02:48 PM

Quote: Originally posted by jdowning

BTW David thanks for the tip about the book 'The Traditional Crafts of Persia:Their Development, Technology and Influence on Eastern and Western Civilization' by Hans E. Wulff. I have a lot of interest in early technologies so have ordered a used copy on line for my information. Looking forward to an interesting read!

You're welcome, and I do think you'll enjoy it.

Now there's little information about musical instruments in it, only a very basic description of the production of silk strings, and, as far as I can recall, no information at all about gut strings.

Other than that, however, the book is amazing in what all it covers and in the amount of detail, including metalwork, woodwork, ceramics, and textiles.

Especially interesting to me was the description of the manufacture of metal-covered thread for lamé, and the fairly simple machinery used to accomplish it, the method used to make gold and silver leaf, the craft of turning wood on a minimalistic setup that's driven into the ground wherever the carpenter chooses to work and is operated with a bow. It was amazing to me to learn how many such refined, intricate, and exact items could be produced by hand with such basic tools.

Moreover the Persian name for every item mentioned, down to the smallest component on a loom, is given (for those interested in that aspect), including four pages alone listing the names of various species of wood.

I've often thought to myself that the production of nearly every item to be found in a pre-industrial home is covered in this book!

David

jdowning - 2-8-2014 at 06:00 AM

Not a problem - I was not anticipating finding information about musical instrument making - my interests and hands on experience in early technologies and practices extends far beyond one specialty. Many of the ancient technologies and crafts were still being practiced, where I once lived as a youngster, up until the 1950's.

I also have an interest in instrument strings that may have once been 'loaded' with metal wire - spun together with the silk filaments to form an integral part of the string - a possible very early development that might have lead to the familiar modern wound strings?
However that is another story that I will cover in a separate topic on the forum.

majnuunNavid - 2-8-2014 at 10:03 AM

Spyblaster,

That sissoo bowl is amazing..!

Alfaraby - 2-9-2014 at 10:01 AM

As this Persian/Arabian food episode has calmed down, I'd like to get back to Arabian oud bridges.
I have inquired about the Nahhat's bridges and my trustworthy restorer friend in Damascus told me that all Nahhat's were made of APRICOT wood. He has seen hundreds of such ouds so he assured me that all of them were carved from the same hardwood. It was usually dyed in black or brown in order to hide it's original orang/apricot color. The same with Nahat pegs: they were made of apricot wood, for its high density and hardness, then deeply colored to match by and large walnut surrounding.
Apricot wood was preferred in butcher shops, especially the main cutting surface for the same reason. The endless striking and hammering were not able to crack or take it down.
Here's the apricot bridge my friend was making.

Yours indeed
Alfaraby

[file]30449[/file]

jdowning - 2-9-2014 at 10:35 AM

Here is what Charles Holtzapffel had to say about Apricot wood in volume 1 of his treatise about wood turning and mechanical manipulation, 1843.

The wood is native of Armenia and is well suited to turning on a lathe. It is rarely found 'sound' (i.e. without flaws or cracks) so is generally more suitable for small size work.

rojaros - 2-11-2014 at 11:44 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Dr. Oud

I believe that the oud bridge is not an effective feature to adjust the string action...

It may depend on what kind of adjustments you were thinking of. One might be not able to compensate for significant deformation of the top or body, but with the structure of the oud being sound I can ( at least with my oud) adjust the string within a range that starts with an action that is too low (excessive buzz) up to an action that is too high (for my taste). I just start with too low action and raise the strings gradually until I reach this sweet spot that is just right.

Best wishes
Robert

rojaros - 2-12-2014 at 12:01 AM

Quote: Originally posted by majnuunNavid

...

I wonder what everyone thinks about the bridge style of these, especially the way the strings are tied to the bridge. We use loop ends to get the string stuck in the hole in the bridge and bring the string up an over the bridge similar to how a guitar is strung.

It is easily visible from the picture I have attached.

Nice to see that more and more ouds are built with just one hole. For me this seems to be acoustically the most natural choce.

As to the bridge: one would have to compare a recording before and after this modification has been done. I would guess that the sound becomes more guitar like.

The transmission principle of the traditional oud (and lute) is, from what I can see, basically through the torque exerted on the top via the lever of the bridge, with certain additional transmission via the ends of the strings being driven (pull up and pull down happening, because the structure is not rigid). While the torque remains more or less same with a saddle bone, the pull up is interrupted, so that there is some kind of a nonlinearity introduced into the vibration, increasing the amount of nonharmonic overtones. I suspect it makes the oud sound sharper or rougher than before.

But this is just my humble theory, how did you perceive the change?

Optically, to me it certainly is something one has to adapt to, first, a very uncommon sight...

Best wishes
Robert

rojaros - 2-12-2014 at 12:17 AM

Quote: Originally posted by majnuunNavid

It is easily visible from the picture I have attached....

Less visible but striking is also the construction of the nut on your oud.
If I see it properly the strings are led over little brass wheels and than pass a bone ramp.

Could you please post a clos picture of the nut construction and explain it a bit?

How do you like how it functiones?

majnuunNavid - 2-12-2014 at 07:28 PM

Quote: Originally posted by rojaros

Quote: Originally posted by majnuunNavid

It is easily visible from the picture I have attached....

My Barbat was similar. Mine did not have the special nut mechanism which you see. It is a nut mechanism that I have only ever seen used in Persian Barbat and I am not clear on its function. I will ask someone I know about this and get back to you. Spyblaster may know more.

rojaros - 2-15-2014 at 02:58 AM

It would be great to see a close up picture of the nut mechanism, from above, and also from the side, to see how the strings are stopped...
Thanks anyway
Robert

bridge weight

suz_i_dil - 3-18-2014 at 10:48 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Alfaraby

All About Fixed Bridges

Guitar & Lute makers have conducted some researches and concluded that in order to keep the proper amount of material for transmitting the best amount of vibrations and at the same time not to affect the SB vibration, the best possible weight for the guitar bridge is 35 grams and for the lute: 37 gram. (1.235-1.35 ounces). Since the SB of a guitar, oud and lute is similar to a large extent, it's reasonable that the best weight for the oud bridge will not be far from 35-37 grams. On other shores of the Mediterranean, oud freaks weighed antique ouds bridges made by senior oud-makers and found out that Mohammad Fadel's bridge weighed 36 grams; Abdo Nahat: 33 grams ; Tawfiq Nahat: 34 grams; Manol: 38 grams. Hence, we might estimate the bridge weight of the great antique ouds to range between 33 up to 38 grams, not far from the guitar, the lute and the modern ouds.

[/rquote

Great thread you have opened my friend !

I'm just surprised by the weight informations you gave.
Here is pictures of the bridge I prepared (with big help of a friend luthier for the finishing I must say!). It is pear wood, 14 mm height. Center block is 100 mm long and 7 mm width. Bridge basis 110mm long and 20 mm width.

Actually it is only 9 gramms

All the best and stay well

Regards

[file]30890[/file] [file]30892[/file]