Official Luthiers Forum!

Hi folks,
In 1991 the famous "La Leona" of Antonio de Torres FE04 (1856) reappeared to the public eye. In an almost thriller-like endeavor a German Collector traveled to Barcelona, Spain to buy a vintage guitar with a suitcase full of cash money. The guitar was in an extremely bad condition. Dipl. Ing. Benno Streu from Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany was one of the first to see the newly discovered treasure.
Benno Streu brought the famous guitar back to life.
In June 2005 my wife and I traveled together with classical guitar virtuoso Wulfin Lieske and the owner of Leona, Dr. Hannen, 500 miles south to Freiburg im Breisgau to meet the man I had heard so many stories about. We were not aware that this would be our one and only encounter with him. Unfortunately Benno Streu passed away less than two years later.
It was a wonderful afternoon on a sunny June day in one of the most beautiful towns of the southern Blackforest. Benno Streu smoked one cigarette after the other and his lovely wife served about 3 big mugs of strong coffee.



In the first half of this clip we are encountering a conversation between classical guitar virtuoso Wulfin Lieske (http://www.wulfin-lieske.de) who regularly plays La Leona. Wulfin tries to find out why there is a buzzing issue with the low E-string. Even if the conversation does not lead to the problem solution, we learn about the special way the bridge is constructed on this guitar. This was not part of the official interview, but I liked the topic and thought it might be interesting to share it with you.

Please be patient, it is an extremely intense and fast conversation. I did my best to keep up with the subtitles. You might wanna stop in between and rewind if necessary. If there are thing unclear, I will be happy to explain it in this thread.


I made little schematics to explain the construction. I hope they help.


"The very special bridge on the La Leona of Antonio de Torres could lead to the assumption that this is the legendary "secret bridge" of Torres. The advantage of this bridge in comparison with the standard bridge of today is the extreme low energy loss of this construction, because there are no long "dead" string length and no yielding loops and knots. The disadvantage is the fixed position of the string. It is not possible to change the string action by changing the saddle height. No doubt, the flexibility of the modern bridge with saddle was one of the reasons for its preference, even for Torres." (Benno K. Streu, Freiburg im Breisgau 1995)



I hope you enjoy the clip. It was a hell of a work to get these subtitles done...
Here you are. ENJOY!
http://www.customguitarvideo.com/2009/10/01/benno-streu-01-2/

Thanks for that!
So, there's no saddle on this bridge, only the 4 deg hole angle?
Interesting, I suppose I'm showing my ignorance on Torres.
Thanks once again for your efforts.

_________________
Jim Watts
http://jameswattsguitars.com

In using the original shape of bridge that Torres used on La Leona he was looking back at the style of bridge used on lutes and early guitar type instruments for centuries, it is still the style used on lutes by me and all other lute builders to this day.

Several points can be made, firstly you have to remember that the strings used at the time of La Leona were not the consistent quality nylon strings that we use today, but were made from gut or wound silk and gut, these were not consistent from one end to the other never mind from string to string, establishing a consistent intonation with variable strings was quite simply impossible. Today we know that if we set the intonation with Hannabach Goldins say, then it will be still be right with the next set of Goldins that we put on. This is something the 19th century builder could not guarantee. Today we have this belief that intonation is the reponsibility of the builder and that as a player we should just be able to pick the instrument up and it wil be perfectly in tune all over the board. This is of course not possible even today, but certainly not so in the 19th century when the player accepted that a large part of the responsibility for intonation was with the player himself.

The lute type bridge with the strings looped over and round was an elegant answer to adjusting intonation with inconsistent strings, not a system that ruined it as seems to be implied here, the player using one of these lute type bridges, can use the loop in front of the bridge to adjust intonation by sliding it forward or back to adjust the effective string length ( this would have been the reason Torres set back the bridge front to give greater loop adjustment range). It is far easier to achieve a better approximation to correct intonation with this loop system with gut strings than to use the bead and ball attachment that La Leona now has which allows no adjustment. Personally I would prefer to see La leona with its original stringing method.

I named my La Lena in honour of La Leona, as it was a similar sounding name, though La Leona means 'the Lioness', to mark its volume and richness of sound, and La Lena means 'the firewood'!

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

I think they are suggesting that it is the original method of stringing, hence the comment on the string beads. Whether it was the original method (or not) is another matter. I do find the concept of it a little peculier. It gives no scope for action adjustment and no scope for string length adjustment. Both are possible on a lute style tie bridge. From the diagram it seems to suggest that the string rests on the very bottom of the hole - as it exits that hole, acting almost like a saddle. That's my understanding of it. Of course I haven't seen La Leona so a lot of this is conjecture.
If there is no 'saddle effect' it surely causes real problems. Presumably the string diameters would have to be pretty exact match to the hole otherwise the string will not pass through it or (if the hole is too large) the string stop might be at the back of the bridge, just ahead of the string bead.
Lack of compensation is no real surprise though. According to Elliott Tarrega's guitar did not have any form of compensation either.
Then again if one single fret is off by 2 mm's then no amount of compensation, string change or player input is going to solve that.

On a lute type bridge the loop of string passing under the string determines the scale length and the intonation, this is where it is an elegant system of adjustable scale length, La Leona originally used this sytem of string attachment at the bridge, not the beads. No there is no action adjustment on this style of bridge but with the tension of gut strings, it is very rare for the action to need any resetting even after many decades, especially with a builder in Torres class (lets face it there is only one builder in Torres class!). It is the system that has been used on lutes for centuries and works extremely well. There is enormous danger in the restoration of 19th century and earlier instruments in applying 21st century concepts, something I always try and apply in my own restoration of historic instruments

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

Colin, how do you know it was originally intended to be a loop style bridge? Gerhard Oldiges doesn't think it is, nor does Streu. There must be some detail about that bridge which is why they have ruled it out. Both are/were familiar with Lute style bridges. One certainly can't rule out the use of beads or knot tying as they had been used in earlier Romantic guitars, albeit with bridge pins.

Good one Colin!

I must agree with Michael that without having studied the instrument we are talking just to talk. However Michael, there are some very good reasons to believe that the original method of tying the strings was with the lute knot whereas the reasons Mr. Steu states just don't hold up.

"Benno Streu, age 78, has never built a guitar.
But, to many collectors and players of classical Spanish guitars, he is the keeper of the Holy Grail. Benno Streu began restoring classical guitars in the ..."
http://www.gourmet-guitars.com/experts_streu.asp -

On the one hand there are guitar makers and on the other there are restorers and museum curators. Some believe that the best person to restore an old Torres is the restorer but if I want accurate observation and data interpretation give me an experienced guitar maker any day.

In this video Streu suggests that the original design of the Leona was such that the string should just go straight through. He says that this allows compensation for the strings and that Torres would never have made a guitar with such bad intonation (with the lute knot). I would suggest that, although very necessary, the compensation we use today is very new and the lack thereof is not so noticeable to most. Some of the greatest makers (Antonio Marin Montero and Manuel Reyes) have only "recently" started to use compensation. On the other hand that helps to explain the lousy "out-of-tune" reputation that guitarists sometimes have among other musicians. Streu himself, the historical expert, states that builders at that time didn't really know about compensation so that really proves my point that it wasn't anything that the players demanded or the luthier strived for. At another point he says that Torres put at least one of the frets 2mm off its correct placement. Doesn't that too show that intonation was not so highly valued as it is today?



Another interesting thing Streu raises is the piece of harder wood on the front part of the bridge. It is not just below the string hole but rather above and below so the reinforcement could be intended either for the Streu theory or for the up pull of the lute knot. Those holes do develop upwards grooves over the years in guitars by Pages and Lorca.


If you have studied guitars with lute bridges or better yet built them (and I have) you see how absolutely essential it is to have at least a minimum of adjustment on the strings. Guitars do settle and change with humidity. How many of you can build 10 guitars and use exactly the same saddle height and get exactly the same clearance at the 12 fret? And I do mean exactly. The lute knot allows this adjustment, method Streu does not.

My experience in copying historical instruments (Antonio de Lorca and Torres) and the examination of many other guitars leads me to believe that Torres really was the greatest. The more I copy Torres the more I see how (I think) he achieved certain results and how much thought, technique and genius went into it. I use that same argument to say that he would never design a guitar to have no string height adjustment that Streu uses to say he would never make a guitar with no compensation. Well guess what - he made more than one guitar with no compensation. "In his early guitars he did not extend the scale length to compensate for the added tension to the string when it is fingered and the result was that many of his early guitars had poor intonation..." Jose Luis Romanillos in Antonio de Torres...

Furthermore, from a player's point of view, A buzzing E string even when an expert player (very used to playing on difficult old instruments) is carefully playing means that the action must be raised slightly. No two ways about it. The lute style knot will give you that possibility.


John Ray
Granada
http://www.johnguitar.com

_________________
John Ray
Granada, Spain
blog: http://www.granadaexpert.com/johnray/

I agree. I think the idea that it solves the compensation problem may lead to false conclusions. There's no doubt that makers of the period were less concerned with perfect intonation. SE114 (according to Elliott) does not have any compensation and that was built in 1888 - 20 years or so after La Leona was built.
Having said that I haven't examined La Leona. I find it difficult to draw conclusions either way. I'm certainly familiar with Lute style bridges as approximately 1/3rd of my bridges are made that way. What troubles me is why both Streu and Oldiges dismiss the possibility of a Lute style bridge. Both have seen the instrument close up. Streu restored it. Oldiges copied it.
There is a relevant discussion on this matter over at the GSI forum. Gerhard Oldiges reply is the second one down:

http://www.guitarsalon.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=11118

The "Legendary Secret Bridge"? Give me a break! I would need to chain smoke too to say that with a straight face....
Maybe Dan Brown should weigh in. It was probably suppressed by the Church because they knew that a better sounding guitar would give us The Rolling Stones sooner rather than later.

If this were more than an experiment it would have been copied and passed down along with Torre's other innovations- body size and shape, fan bracing pattern, scale length, etc.

_________________
It's not the miles ahead, it's the stone in your shoe


In Markham,Virginia

It astounds me that this revered Torres instrument needed such a huge correction to the fret positions. IMO, this fact increases the probability that this instrument was actually a failed experiment.

Dave F.

_________________
Cambrian Guitars

"There goes Mister Tic-Tac out the back with some bric-brac from the knick-knack rack"

In that case ALL 19th century instruments are failed experiments. You have to put your 19th century guitar makers hat on, Torres wasn't working to engineering accuracy, neither was it expected. He was also working under severe financial constraints at a time when no money equated to a pretty arduous life. Throwing materials away (and work time) was hardly an option. He made a mistake on one fret. I wouldn't call that a failed experiment. Even on Lacote's instruments (a maker noted for his fine and accurate work) you will find the odd anomaly.. If you really dig you'll probably find a lot.

Sorry Michael, but I just don't buy that. If the fret was as far off as 2mm, and it was an instrument meant for sale, even in the good old days, notes at that fret would have sounded terrible, such that the luthier would have repaired/moved it before putting it up for sale. There's no material waste and not much time involved in removing a fret, cutting a new slot and refitting the fret, then filling the bad fret slot with dust laden wax or glue or even gluing in a slither of matching wood.

A few minutes work vs. your reputation for making instruments that are in-tune? C'mon!

You can't have it both ways. Either the revered old makers like Torres were master craftsmen or they weren't. Which is it?

Regards,
Dave F.

_________________
Cambrian Guitars

"There goes Mister Tic-Tac out the back with some bric-brac from the knick-knack rack"

Maybe that 2mm is an exaggeration.

_________________
Build log

You can have it both ways. He made a mistake. He made 'mistakes all the time. ln comparison to many modern makers he would be considered a little 'sloppy'. But he wasn't working in 2009, he was working in 1880. That's the difference, the world and it's human produced artifacts weren't made with CNC machines or digital calipers. No doubt they had a different idea of ''perfection' - after all they were accustomed to seeing objects that were less than perfect. It's not much different if you look at the work of Strad, certainly not Guaneri or any of the Voboams.
The problem with stating that it was a failed experiment (or likely failed experiment) is that you are making many assumptions. I don't really see how anyone can draw that conclusion from such little evidence. We simply don't know why he left that single fret. Perhaps he didn't realise. it was off, it was all a bit rushed and the chap who bought it never bothered to seek compensation. Who knows? I'm just stating that it's too easy to make assumptions without any real evidence.

The other thing that strikes me about the failed experiment idea is this: why didn't he correct it? If the bridge was a failure and the fret was off by 2 mm, surely it's much easier to replace the bridge and rectify the fret position than to throw out the whole guitar. To do so would be wasteful of both time and money and Torres didn't have a lot of money - that we can be certain of.

I have a question: Did those gut/silk strings in the 19th century have more precise a tolerance than the gut/silk stings we can pruchase today? I've only used a set of Aquilla and the intonation was way off no matter how I tune it.

The fret slots of SE114 were placed by the rule of 18 which has a sort of a built-in compensation, but the process of dividing and tracing is prone to have some deviation, IMHO.

Do you mean that every single Aquila string was false? It's not that unusual to come across the odd string that is false but a whole set is very unusual. How far out were they? Perhaps it's not the strings and you may have to look at adjusting the compensation, that will be different to Nylon strings. Aquila strings are usually very good.

From what I've read, (see Romanillos, I'd have to look it up again to confirm the details) La Leona was never offered for sale, it was a kind of test guitar.

It was only sold after Torres passed on, and was found in a trunk with other guitars. The people who retrieved it didn't even recognize it as La Leona (it already had a reputation) because they couldn't believe that such a "crude" looking guitar would be the treasure that they sought. Much correspondence went on to establish which one was, indeed, La Leona.

Given this, the variances of gut string, and the state of 19th c. lutherie etc. I am not surprised that one fret can be off by 2mm.

_________________
Expectation is the source of all misery; comparison the thief of joy.
http://redrivercanoe.ca/

Ideally thhe compensation for gut should be a but different but that's not what I'm talking about. For the three gut trebles, intervals between fundamental and the first harmonic are off much more than nylon or fluorocarbon that only an open-string note can sound quite funky.