Dogal gauges

[Mandosecond]

Alas, I search in vein for Dogal Calace gauges, including a search of this message board. #Alack, I lack a micrometer. #

Would someone here know that data for RW92's (regular-"red") and RW92B's (light-"blue")? #Might as well greedily ask about RW92A's, the heaviest ones, too, though I doubt I'll ever use them.

Thank you!

[Alex Timmerman]

Hi Mandosecond,


Here are the RW92B DOLCE Dogals (and thicknesses) I like best for bowlback mandolins.

Click here and scroll to the bottom of the page. (http://www.embergher.com/index.php?page=plectra)


Greetings,

Alex

[Jim Garber]

This info is not on their site, even on the technical page (http://www.dogalstrings.it/pages/mandolin_tab.htm).

Contact them thru their e-mail: info@dogalstrings.it

If you are in the US check out classic bows: classicbows@nethere.com

Jim

[Jim Garber]

Great, Alex. I didn't know that you use Dogals as well as Lenzners. Which instruments work better with which strings?

Jim

[Mandosecond]

Keeping it on topic:

Thanks, Alex! #Anyone here ever measured the thickness of their RW92's?

And thank you for the info, Jim. #It confirms what I knew
when I posted my plea (btw, Dogal never answered my email when I asked them the same question). #Thought I'd try the mavens here before Classic Bows, since mando strings are not C.B.'s main gig.

[Jim Garber]

Thought I'd try the mavens here before Classic Bows, since mando strings are not C.B.'s main gig.
Greg Gohde of Classic Bows seems to know his stuff about mandolin strings, tho. Not sure if he had the anser or not, but i am glad that Alex did.

Jim

[vkioulaphides]

Ah! No wonder the D's and G's of Lenzner Consort strings feel so slim and pliant under the fingers! Thank you, Alex.

Now all we need is a U.S. dealer... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[Bob A]

I posted measurements in inches for Dogal and Lenzners a while ago, but the thread is gone.

Dogal RW92 (medium) 0.011; 0.014; 0.026; 0.038
RW92b (light) 0.010; 0.014; 0.024; 0.035
Lenzner 3020 med 0.009; 0.014; 0.023; 0.035
Lenzner Consort 0.009; 0.015w; 0.023; 0.035

The only difference between the two Lenzners is the wound A string.

Of course the tactile difference between the two brands is immense. Dogals are very "toothy" especially in the medium gauge, (sorry, I don't have a set of their heavies to measure), while the Lenzners are smooth and presumably polished or ground.

There is a US dealer of sorts for the Lenzners; Jim G persuaded Acoustic Music Works in Pennsylvania to order a bunch. I don't know if they have any left, but as our sets wear out doubtless another order could be promoted.

[vkioulaphides]

And yet, Bob, as per the specs on the Embergher site, the D's and G's of the Consort are somewhat thinner than those of the "medium"... Also —here I stand in utter bilingual confusion—#the wound Dogals are, ah... considerably thicker, ropey-er than the Lenzners. You do the math... all I know, under my fingertips: the wound Dogals feel much thicker than the wound Lenzners and, as per the Embergher site, it seems that they indeed ARE so. Or I am lost again...

[Martin Jonas]

I have used Lenzner consorts as well as Lenzner medium bronce, and I agree with Bob that there seems to be no difference at all other than the A-string. In fact, I had mixed stringing for a while when one of my e-strings broke. That is however not what the Embergher site says.

The smoother appearance of the Lenzners is because they are polished flat after winding, in the same manner as the d'Addario Flat Tops. As a result, their gauges are slightly smaller than for an unpolished roundwound string of the same tension.

Martin

[Bob A]

Of course, mass of the string is an important component of the tension equation. But how to figure which string is massier is messier than I care to contemplate; one set is iron, the other bronze; one set is wound with completelu round windings, the other is ground after winding. Then too the diameter of the winding would presumably influence the overtones that the string was able to generate.

Of course, the equations are solved and the truth comes out in the plucking. The interpretation of results is left to the auditors. It is a matter of extreme frustration to me to find that I like both types of string, leaving me a quivering wreck trying to decide which to use for restringing. My solution has been to continue adding instruments instead of changing strings. Still, the day of reckoning approacheth.

[vkioulaphides]

[QUOTE]"...the truth comes out in the plucking".

Truer words were never spoken!

Another facet of this —and perhaps the most important one, to my ears— is the most miraculous solution of wound A-strings, found by the makers of Lenzner Consort strings. But such was not my initial impression...

When I first tried Lenzner Consort strings, I was baffled: The G's and D's were super-bright, brassy. Oh, no! I thought... Will these remain twangy like GHS? On the other hand, the (wound) A's were curiously dull, straight out of the package, as if they had been used for months. I was in (fortunately temporary) despair. NO balance at all!

Within two weeks or so, a magical transformation took place: The G's and D's warmed up to a smoothness and quality of sound NEVER attained by GHS lights. Now, in the "new context", the A's were perfectly balanced!

Two "bonus points" must not be omitted here:

1) The usual, solid-steel A-strings are the first ones to go out of tune; the wound A's stay in tune virtually forever. I have no words by which to describe the relief of not having to tweak my tuning every nanosecond!

2) To my ear, the most difficult tonal transition (on the standard Neapolitan) is from the sonority of the D-course to that of the A-course. With the wound A's, this problem magically disappears.

Of course, as Bob writes, each one's pudding of choice tastes different...

[Martin Jonas]

Of course, as Bob writes, each one's pudding of choice tastes different...
Indeed. I was using the Consort set for a few months, but have now switched to Lenzner's unwound A. The advantages of the Consorts are as Victor says: the transition from D to A course is very smooth and the strings stay in tune very well (which I find the Lenzners do anyway, even the unwound A). However, much of the sparkle of a good Neapolitan comes from the bright chime of the treble strings, and in the end I found that the wound A was slightly too dull to show off the instrument to its best advantage. The unwound ones may not be as balanced, and may not blend with other instruments as smoothly, but as a solo player they are just a bit more fun. I'll add to that the fact that I found a cheap and abundant source of the standard Lenzner strings that didn't store the Consorts. The only source I've found for the Consort set was Henk van den Broek in Holland, and that involves sending cash around in envelopes.

Martin

[vkioulaphides]

Oh, no disagreement on THAT, Martin! I have Lenzners with plain A's on my de Meglio, that being my "folkie" instrument; I have Consort strings on my Calace, my "classical" instrument—#if a hack like myself may allow himself such pretense of classification. My reasons are entirely as yours.

Sadly, the "cheap and abundant" source you have found is presumably "Over There", as the old song would have it. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[Alex Timmerman]

Hello Victor et all,

It works exactly as you pointed out here Victor. The first reason Henk and I worked together with the Lenzner string firm is to make a set for orchestral use. Because there the ´out of tune´ problem is most painfull.

I have ordered new sets for our Orchestra and will have a thourough measure on them. As it looks to me now the 3rd and 4th strings are Medium Lenzners while the correct thicknesses for the ´Lenzner Consorts´ should be thinner, like I have given these on #the Embergher.com (http://www.embergher.com/) web site.
I´ll let you know what the outcome is.


Greetings,

Alex

[Mandosecond]

Bob A.: #A belated "thank you"
for answering my original question.

The Other Bob A.