I'm having a bit of trouble choosing the right gut string for my violin. I want to play gut strings in a modern setup, and have heard very good things about both brands. I originally wanted to purchase the Dlugolecki's strings, as I have heard that they are "better", but he is on winter vacation right now, and I'm kind of hasty... So basically, my question is: Are Dlugolecki's strings that much better than Tricolores that it is worth the wait of 2 or 3 months? Or should I just by the set of Tricolores?
What I value in strings in order of importance:
Rich Tone>response>stability
Any advice and or comments would be appreciated!
Tweet
I get good results with heavier gagues (.84 A, 1.16 D, .86 G).
I like piercing strings-or rather, piercing gut strings. Gamut fits the bill nicely.
By most accounts, Dlugolecki's gut strings options are also well-regarded.
Stability is ironically better for pure gut than many of Pirastro's non-Passione wound gut offerings. I still like many Pirastro wound gut strings, but it's worth nothing for those who believe gut must be so unstable pitch-wise. Regardless, if your pegs are in perfect working order (and you have no wrist/nerve problems), the very ocassional tuning for either type of gut string won't kill your performance.
Incidentally, I still have problems changing my old gut strings because they are still sounding so good. I should just change them, but my ear says otherwise.
I gotta admit, though, that even the "humble" Gold Label set is probably "better" and easier me to play with than the current "best of the best", new synthetic in the market, whichever you choose.
(The "nasal" pure gut tone referred above by Mr. Dong above is the excellent type of nasal-never the horrible type we are accustomed to think of as "nasal". I do agree with him. But try before you have any misconceptions. It's a very open, strong, and easily projecting tone.)
I remember Frank Mohr, Vladimir Horowitz’s technician from Steinway said Horowitz liked his piano voiced and regulated in such a way with lacquer on the hammers (which would harden them) to give his piano a more ‘nasal’ sound. Some might say Frank Sinatra had a slightly ‘nasal’ voice. Does anyone find fault in the way he sang??
I am also not critizising the inherent nasality of plain gut. I love it and that is part of why I use plain gut in the first place. In fact I'm pretty sure I've talked before in previous threads about how nasality is essential for projection. I just think that we can be open minded even about different types of sheep gut from different makers. Toro is slightly less nasal, that's all, and it is still far more nasal than any wound gut.
I obviously knew from the title of this post, that Cotton and Nate would staunchly recommend Gamut. And this is a very good thing because they make amazing strings! However it is not good cast away other options especially when you have never tried them, or don't even know which type of gut strings they make.
I am actually glad you shared your findings on Toro. Every player has different preferences-I *may* never use Toro because of what you like about them is that less "piercing" character you described. When I first fell in love with the Tricolore pure gut A, it was because it was very bold, open, and "piercing", and I wouldn't want any less of it. But your ears and violin may prefer an slightly smoother sound, and that is fine too.
Ironically, for all my quasi-unfavorable comments throughout the years about Eudoxa's aluminum wound D, I do like it a lot, and it's indeed as far as "piercing" as it can go. My luck is that, combined with "piercing" A&E strings, on my violin Eudoxa sounds warm and relatively clear (and they are OLD.)
They still have that upper mids richness that gut has, but of course veiled a bit by the windings element.
Do not feel attacked, and sorry if I came accross that way. Many of us rather have people at least try gut strings of any kind (even Passione with their synthetic overlay over the gut core) so they realize that-while perhaps their favorite living violinists not using them-they have great reason for them to be around beyond nostalgia. Many players, from beginners to serious amateurs and professionals, have no idea what they are missing, and do not even consider gut core strings (pure or wound) a "practical" option for "today's performer". I think we all agree that they do well with any repertoire (volume, projection, etc.), and have little to envy their more famous synthetic brethren.
Science may say some synthetics are louder, but I honestly believe that there's no practical performance loss by using gut strings. Perhaps I am wrong.
I never assumed that you had not tried other strings apart from Gamut, when did I say that? I only assume you did not try Toro yet because you chose to compare Toro ox to Gamut sheep, a pretty unfair comparison. I have read from archived posts that you have tried many other string brands.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
For a modern set up I would probably not use a venice D, and I suspect some might find Toro's heavy G165 still a bit light. Aquila's heavy G is a bit more robust, and although the windings are "round" (like a guitar string) a modern bow should engage with that easily enough.
The Gamut strings seem to me to be much "harder" under the hand, and sounded a bit brittle on my own baroque violin. But that might work well on modern set-up, strings will sound different with more bow hair contact of a modern bow and different style of tone production. I can't say I noticed much difference between their Ox and Ram E strings - I think I endured a particularly snappy batch at one point. I found the Gamut strings lighter for their notional gauge, so veered towards the heavy or heavy+.
Aquila seem to be a good all round string - The silver G is solid :) Like other baroque wound strings it's not silk damped, so might be too "ringy" for modern style?
In any case, good for you that you want to use gut strings :)
Also, you can buy Toro and Dlugolecki strings from paganino.com