[Bell Historians] Re: Accoustics and tone

[Richard Offen]

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Peter Kirby" 
<peter.c.kirby at b...> wrote:
> RO>One of the good things about Seasalter is that they're, in the 
words 
> of George Pipe, a good 'gutsy' ring, with a bit of meat to them. 
> Not wishing to offend anyone (so I probably will!), I'd far rather 
> listen to the likes of Seasalter than the thin, insipid tones of 
> Rochford, Lightcliffe or Newhey any day!
> 
> - - -
> 
> Seeing as you've offended my tower (Lightcliffe) I might as well 
note
> Pateley Bridge (same weight) have not been mentioned.
> 
> However, many people have compared Lightcliffe (Taylor) with those 
of
> similar weight at nearby Denholme (WBF) (no longer ringable due to
> structural problems) and most have preferred the tone of the bells 
at
> Lightcliffe to that of those at Denholme although I accept Denholme 
were
> much easier to ring but certainly not easy on the ear as anyone who 
rang
> a peal there will testify.
> 
> Peter C Kirby

My apologies for any offence caused (as has already been said, it's 
all a matter of personal taste), but I would have thought that the 
fact Denholme were uneasy on the ear was more about the lack of 
insulation between ringers and bells than quality of bell.

Denholme are in E, Lightcliffe Db - what is the difference in the 
diameters of these two bells, their weights are almost the same? 
Also, and I think more importantly to my argument about thinness of 
sound, what is the difference in weight between the trebles of the 
two rings? Or did Taylors not disclose the weights of the trebles, 
as was their habit in those days?

R