View Full Version : Let's discuss an idea I had regarding string tention and scale length.
We know that string tention at pitch is dependant on the length of the string right? But that doesn't necicarily mean scale length right?
I could have say a guitar with a 25.5" scale length and a tuneomatic style bridge, but instead of mounting the stop tail piece in the usual position, I could place it way back along the guitar, giving me a good 3 inches longer string length. The bridge position would not move
This, if my noodlings are correct, would give a guitar with a 25.5" scale length but a string tention more like a guitar with a 28-29" scale length?
Surely this is nothing but a good thing for a guitarist who, like me, prefers a low tuned guitar but doesn't wish to have a larger scale length guitar.
If I'm right, the implication on custm builds is very cool, one could build a guitar with a normal fretboard but stagger the length of the strings along the body, allowing you to control the tention on the strings per string. Say a 29" length string for your wound strings and a usual 25.5" for the upper stings, letting you have a nice tight rhythm tone and easy bending/playing on the higher strings.
Someone point out the obvious flaw I have missed because surely someone somewhere would have thought of using this on their guitars already?
The_Mop
12-02-2006, 09:37 PM
Wouldn't the frets have to be changed, location-wise?
It's still going to be a different scale length.
moghes69
12-02-2006, 11:07 PM
i think he means have the place where the strings are fastened further back on the body. and the scale length is the length of the string between the nut and bridge saddle so that wouldn't make any difference tension wise, but might have a cool effect on the tone.
Polyamarous
12-03-2006, 07:31 AM
Your intonation would be like a ****ed up dog.
Also, woards the bridge-end of the fret-board there would be a good 3 inches worth of frtes lost, to make for the intonation **** up.
Son of Magni
12-03-2006, 01:05 PM
We know that string tention at pitch is dependant on the length of the string right? But that doesn't necicarily mean scale length right?...
Your assumption is completely wrong... scale length is the determining factor.
side_winder
12-03-2006, 03:07 PM
No, the frets wouldn't have to be changed, scale length, (as mentioned above) is the length between the nut and the bridge, that's the bit that vibrates and makes the noise...
No, intonation will not be like a ****ed up dog, since the intonation is dependant on the scale length, which is determined between the nut - bridge measurement, regardless of the saddle placement.
Son of mangi makes a good point, scale length is a big factor of the sound.
but so is the total string length.
shorter scale length generally require lesser string tension.
longer scales require more tension.
however, scale length may only be a part of the whole tunning facade, I generally agree with the theory that since you are stretching the whole string that you apply the tension equially, thus a longer string length would require slightly different tensions for notes, (most likely more tension)...
however, I think the problem is that there would have to be such a vast distance between the bridge and teh saddle for this to matter...
slight changes in scale length are immediatly appart, but I somewhat doubt minute changes in string tensions at any given pitch will have any lesser or greater effect on the actual note played than simply changing the string guage would have done to start with, (which would allow you to tune with any given tension you liked depending on the guage).
moghes69
12-03-2006, 04:29 PM
i think youre wrong about the string lenth part. the string is fixed at the point where it touches the bridge. altering anything beyond that point such as cutoff angle will affect the way the string vibrates slightly but not its tension.
The_Mop
12-03-2006, 05:01 PM
Ah, crap - i mis-read what AG was saying.
Yeah, that wouldn't change the scale length at all beacuse scale length is between nut and bridge.
In which case - yeah, I think it'd all work.
Son of Magni
12-03-2006, 05:48 PM
Yeah, it'll work great, because the part of the string that doesn't vibrate contributes so much to the sound.
Here's a little trick I learned. Set your bass up like this and you'll get huge sustain and high tension strings because it adds to the string mass...
http://www.thorbass.com/images/stringmass_.jpg
Your assumption is completely wrong... scale length is the determining factor.
If scale length is the determining factor, why does the tention of the low E string increase when you have a reverse angle headstock?
Moon Flavor
12-03-2006, 06:52 PM
Yeah, it'll work great, because the part of the string that doesn't vibrate contributes so much to the sound.
Here's a little trick I learned. Set your bass up like this and you'll get huge sustain and high tension strings because it adds to the string mass...
[IMGhttp://www.thorbass.com/images/stringmass_.jpg[/IMG]
:lol: NICE!
AG: I'm pretty sure reverse headstocks are a gimmick, but I'm not the type of person that would know...
Akira
12-03-2006, 06:55 PM
If scale length is the determining factor, why does the tention of the low E string increase when you have a reverse angle headstock?
I was under the impression it didn't. I know it has come up, because Timmy C uses lefty necks for supposed increased tension. I believe we basically agreed he is just crazy.
I could be totally off though.
Son of Magni
12-03-2006, 06:57 PM
If scale length is the determining factor, why does the tention of the low E string increase when you have a reverse angle headstock?
Because yer on drugs?
Oh come on, there's no point in starting another huge thread arguing this, is there? We can always go back and read the last one and realize no one will ever change their opinion :p
Where's the last one?
I didn't know this was already being discussed, crap.
Anywhoooos. Perhaps I should get some 2x4 and tuneomatic and some strings are see if it makes any difference. If it does I'll come back and go 'ner ner ne ner ner' if not, then meh I was wrong, not the first time, not the last.
Son of Magni
12-03-2006, 07:15 PM
Where's the last one?
I didn't know this was already being discussed, crap.
Anywhoooos. Perhaps I should get some 2x4 and tuneomatic and some strings are see if it makes any difference. If it does I'll come back and go 'ner ner ne ner ner' if not, then meh I was wrong, not the first time, not the last.
lol, the search function doesn't seem to work. But there's been long threads about this on every forum I've been on. No one can ever come up with a rational reason based on fact that would imply increasing the string length, outside the vibrating length, could increase the perceived stiffness. In fact, quite the contrary...
The_Mop
12-03-2006, 09:14 PM
Because yer on drugs?
Oh come on, there's no point in starting another huge thread arguing this, is there? We can always go back and read the last one and realize no one will ever change their opinion :p
lol@opinion
How can it be opinion?
I suggest AG try it and then we see who's right.
I'm with AG, tbh. It makes a lot of sense.
side_winder
12-04-2006, 08:09 AM
Here's a little trick I learned. Set your bass up like this and you'll get huge sustain and high tension strings because it adds to the string mass...
When I first looked at that picture I thought that all those clamps were on the headstock. apparantly, (though I've not tried it), increasing headstock mass can add to the sustain).
adding clamps the strings would be a bit weird... but I'll assume that pictrue was a joke...
completly agree that extra string length would decrease stiffness since there is more string to stretch,
it's make bending a hell of a lot easier, (or at least mean you could bend more), assuming that the bridge was very well lubricated.
altering anything beyond that point such as cutoff angle will affect the way the string vibrates slightly
personally not all that bothered about cutoff angle, the theory regards string length and tone related to tension of using longer strings... although, as you say... will affect the way the string vibrates...
all the sound and tone of the instrument comes from the string vibrations, so affecting the way that the string vibrate will affect the sound...
anyway...
I still say that overall, there will be some effect (simply due to tension related tone).
but if you really wanted to use a different tension to get a different tone, then the easiest way to achieve this is to use a different gauge string.
-just a quick question... why doe the guitar luthier forum link redirect to the bass luthier forum?
Son of Magni
12-04-2006, 08:15 AM
...completly agree that extra string length would decrease stiffness since there is more string to stretch,
it's make bending a hell of a lot easier, (or at least mean you could bend more), assuming that the bridge was very well lubricated...
Exactly :thumb:
Tryxx
12-04-2006, 09:31 AM
http://sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=352771
http://sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=485037
Couple of the previous threads I could find.
moghes69
12-04-2006, 09:27 PM
personally not all that bothered about cutoff angle, the theory regards string length and tone related to tension of using longer strings... although, as you say... will affect the way the string vibrates...
all the sound and tone of the instrument comes from the string vibrations, so affecting the way that the string vibrate will affect the sound...
well, the way i see it, the longer you make the string after the cutoff point, the more mass is added to the excess string. this extra mass decreases the amount of string vibration that dissapates into the string after the cutoff points. this would increase sustain, and possibly alter the rigidity of the string, but the tension would remain the same. i believe it has been discussed before that rigidity adds a percieved tension which is really just a more stiff string.
Son of Magni
12-04-2006, 09:47 PM
well, the way i see it, the longer you make the string after the cutoff point, the more mass is added to the excess string. this extra mass decreases the amount of string vibration that dissapates into the string after the cutoff points. this would increase sustain, and possibly alter the rigidity of the string, but the tension would remain the same. i believe it has been discussed before that rigidity adds a percieved tension which is really just a more stiff string.
So you're saying that what I put in post #9 here is valid? The best way to reduce vibration in the string after the break is to have less string there, not more. That way at least it's resonant frequency is increased beyond the normal instrument range.
Darn it, here I am posting in this thread again :p
side_winder
12-05-2006, 04:45 AM
I think the only way that this is ever going to be prooved,
(or indeed disprooved) is for this to happen...
someone needs to use a spring scale and a wire to exact an amount of tension on a string, play a note,
extend the string length, (but not the scale)
stretch to same tension and play again...
and whilst they are doing it, video it, that way it'll proove in a once and for all fashion...
but the tension would remain the same. i believe it has been discussed before that rigidity adds a percieved tension which is really just a more stiff string.
You are indeed right, when I talked about tension earlier I meant percieved tension, (as said in the linked post, physically, for a certain thickness of string to vibrate at a given frequency within a defined distance it has to me of a certain tension, regardless of the distance to the anchors).
which is why I said if you wanted a different tension (after all you cant tell the actual tension since you're not pulling on it!), that you'd do better to actually use a different tension (hence different string).
I think that the best way to explain why I think this is a good idea is this.
(speaking about guitars rather than bases).
when I play guitar, I play with 9's, this makes the strings extremly easy to bend, but, (IMO) they (the strings) don't really sound as good as heavys (12's). -at least for what I'm playing.
for me, I'd rather make a guitar with a long headstock/distant tailpiece for the percieved lower tension and the easier string bend and play with heavier strings than I would have something that was headless, with the saddle right behind the bridge, and find myself playing with 9's for the comfort of the different tension.
-though as I said before, the tension is only something that any person can feel by the movement of the strings, it's not something that you can say exactly, because it's not like you're pulling on the string yourself.
and I think, though I'm not certain, that affecting the space outside of the strings, may affect the tone, (as I said earlier), but I'm getting a little less sure the more I think about it!
moghes69
12-05-2006, 03:43 PM
now i understand what you were saying... i meant pretty much the same thing, just i couldn't explain it the way i was thinking.
Dave293
12-07-2006, 11:10 AM
There was a good thread on the project guitar forums on this awhile ago.
http://projectguitar.ibforums.com/index.php?showtopic=24315&hl=
Check it out
Peg Dizzler
12-08-2006, 08:14 PM
I remember reading stuff like this on mimf, everyone said it wouldn't make a difference, and that only the distance from the nut to the bridge would affect string tension.
Nipples
12-09-2006, 07:25 PM
I call balogna.
HELLonWHEELS
12-10-2006, 11:51 AM
You could also do what Dingwall does to there basses to give the string uniform tension.
thelowsoundofbass
12-12-2006, 03:38 PM
Fanned frets it your solution.
lowsound
Polyamarous
12-20-2006, 12:05 PM
Lets just pretend that putting the bridge further back doesn't **** everything up
Find a company that does it.
Akira
12-20-2006, 02:39 PM
Lets just pretend that putting the bridge further back doesn't **** everything up
Find a company that does it.
I am not sure if I see the significance of that statement.
Polyamarous
12-21-2006, 09:51 AM
Well, if it is true that you could increase tension by merely moving your bridge further back, surely there must be a company that does this?
And by finding one then I would have more faith in the idea, but right now I just don't see it working.
hartke20g
12-21-2006, 11:04 AM
http://www.axemusic.com/Pictures/esp_ax50ss.jpg
http://www.aepoc.com/c1e/body2.JPG
staggered string slots/ferrules; the thicker gauge strings are anchored further from the bridge, because thicker strings need more tension (you know already, just for anyone else who doesn't).
http://www.stevesmusiccenter.com/SchecterC-1PlusBCBody.jpg
look how far back the string slots/ferrules are from the bridge.
so my guess is, in theory, this whole idea is great. it's just not put to good use.
Son of Magni
12-21-2006, 12:59 PM
staggered string slots/ferrules; the thicker gauge strings are anchored further from the bridge, because thicker strings need more tension (you know already, just for anyone else who doesn't).
look how far back the string slots/ferrules are from the bridge.
so my guess is, in theory, this whole idea is great. it's just not put to good use.
You're looking at ferrule placement designed to equalize break angle. Then making up a random story to explain it. Nothing more...
Polyamarous
12-22-2006, 05:23 AM
Surely the position of the bridge is whats important, not where the string ferrules are?
hartke20g
12-22-2006, 10:08 AM
You're looking at ferrule placement designed to equalize break angle. Then making up a random story to explain it. Nothing more...
but we are talking about how placing the string holder thing further back on a guitar with a gibson style bridge, right? this is basically the same thing, just with the body holding the strings instead of a large metal bar. surely it's the same concept seeing as the strings are anchored further back on the body than the bridge.
Surely the position of the bridge is whats important, not where the string ferrules are?
the bridge position would change all the intonation, possibly making a baritone guitar depending on the placement, no?
Son of Magni
12-22-2006, 10:43 AM
but we are talking about how placing the string holder thing further back on a guitar with a gibson style bridge, right? this is basically the same thing, just with the body holding the strings instead of a large metal bar. surely it's the same concept seeing as the strings are anchored further back on the body than the bridge...
Sure but weren't you implying that the strings were anchored further from the bridge in order to increase their tension. That's just ridiculous. You could anchor it 20 miles (32km) away and you'd still need the same tension on the string to get the same rate of vibration.
Polyamarous
12-22-2006, 12:32 PM
but we are talking about how placing the string holder thing further back on a guitar with a gibson style bridge, right? this is basically the same thing, just with the body holding the strings instead of a large metal bar. surely it's the same concept seeing as the strings are anchored further back on the body than the bridge.
Then surely Timmy C using left handed necks because the E string machine would be further from the nut thus giving greater tension. But that was decided long ago that this is bollocks.
the bridge position would change all the intonation, possibly making a baritone guitar depending on the placement, no?
What? What about basses?
THe position of the bridge and distance between itself the nut is the scale length, and changing the the position would change all the intonation, which is what I said earlier.
Yes it would screw the intonation. The distance between the nut and 12th fret has to be the same as the distance between the 12th fret and saddles for the intonation to work.
Bingo!
Yahtzee!
hartke20g
12-23-2006, 01:07 PM
What? What about basses?
THe position of the bridge and distance between itself the nut is the scale length, and changing the the position would change all the intonation, which is what I said earlier.
not basses, a baritone guitar.
if i had a tension meter, i'd gladly try this concept out, as i have a beater guitar which i've pratically destroyed. does anyone know where to get one? or more importantly, around how much they cost?
Akira
12-23-2006, 01:17 PM
not basses, a baritone guitar.
if i had a tension meter, i'd gladly try this concept out, as i have a beater guitar which i've pratically destroyed. does anyone know where to get one? or more importantly, around how much they cost?
It would not make it a baritone guitar, it would make the guitar impossible to intonate correctly.
Polyamarous
12-23-2006, 02:28 PM
not basses, a baritone guitar.
if i had a tension meter, i'd gladly try this concept out, as i have a beater guitar which i've pratically destroyed. does anyone know where to get one? or more importantly, around how much they cost?
Ok then, Akira' point about the distance between the 12th fret and the nut and the 12th fret and the saddles still stands. IT owuld not be a baritone guitar it would just be a normal guitar with screwed intonation.
A baritone guitar is merely different tunings with different gauge strings
hartke20g
12-23-2006, 03:03 PM
edit: fvck it this is getting confusing. and i'm probably wrong anyways. but is anyone goin to test out the thread's original concept?
I plan on doing so, when I get some free time.
When i'm not drinking lots to celebrate the holiday period.
Polyamarous
12-27-2006, 09:52 AM
You'd be wasting your time. But I guess someone has to prove me right :p
You'd be wasting your time.
123
imo TS's idea is complete bull, no offence, I'm sure som, JP, edge, and many others would back me up.
If you want more tension on your lower strings, but your higher strings to stay the same, get a custom string set.
Heavy gauges on the low, and normal or light gauges on the high.
Problem solved.
http://www.axemusic.com/Pictures/esp_ax50ss.jpg
.
How do you explain that one? Sure the EAD are farther back, but how come the high E is placed just as far back as the low E?
Surely if your theory was correct, the high E would be the closest to the bridge. But it's not. Know why?
Placement is purely for cosmetic purposes.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.