[Bell Historians] Light rings (was 4-cwt eights)

[Richard Offen]

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, DAVIESM at G... wrote:
> Richard Offen wrote......
> >>Is this why, in quite a number of Taylor's larger rings, it is 
hard work 
> to strike the little bells over the large ones (and for the tenors 
to have 
> to pull off in front of the trebles in order to strike over 
them). 
> Compared to Leighton Buzzard, for instance, the trebles at 
Canterbury are 
> a doddle to ring and strike properly (I've rung peals on the treble 
at 
> both)! <<
> 
> Good to hear from you Richard. 
> 
> Just wonderd if this is a problem with the back bells rather than 
the 
> front bells. We have this problem at Ripon (1933 Taylor) and in 
many 
> respects our bells handle like a much heavier ring given the amount 
of 
> space the trebles need to leave the tenors and visa versa. We have 
done 
> some analysis of the swing rates to try to understand what is going 
on, 
> the figures show a good linear slowing of the swing rates over the 
front 6 
> and then a very drastic non linear slowing of the swing rates from 
7 
> through to 10. I'm afraid I don't have the figures to hand but I 
would 
> have thought a linear change across the entire ring is the ideal. 
> 
> Regarding tower accoustics I'm pretty sure the York ringers tried 
to 
> create internal spaces similar in proportion to those at 
Abergavenny when 
> installing the ring at St Wilfrids York. Just wondered if David has 
any 
> more details........ Also as, an observation more than anything 
else, I 
> have a preference for rings in a "black note" key. For me Eb 
sounds 
> better than E, F# better than F etc. Hard to describe why but to my 
ears 
> "back note" rings seem to have a more cheerful quality around the 
front 
> and and an edge around the back which the "white note" rings lack. 
This 
> may be simply because I learnt on a very fine 15cwt F# 8 but just 
wondered 
> if anyone else had noticed anything similar.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Martin
> 

It could well be that the tenors have been 'tucked up' to much in 
order to make them easier to ring - as Mark Regan says, they may be 
easy to ring, but very difficult to strike. It would be interesting 
to do some comparative experiments.

In theory, if rings that have been tuned to equal temperament then 
all keys should sound the same. Having learnt to ring at Lydd, you 
have justification in being partial to F#! Ringing regularly on the 
fantastic twelve at St Chad's Shrewsbury, I'd have to go for C 
myself - coupled with Bow, of course!

Have Taylor's always tuned to equal temperament? As DLC pointed out 
the other day, Whitechapel only started in 1969 - and what about 
Gillett rings?

R