|
Post by Michael Messer on Oct 17, 2005 10:30:40 GMT
Hi guys,
Even the experts get it wrong sometimes! I am not a technical person and that is why I have kept out of this discussion. But.....I always thought that string lengths affected the tension too. Dave & I had a chat on the phone about a few minutes ago and he is fascinated by your comments and the results of his tests. String tensions, string materials and string construction.........in fact "STRINGS" period.....is an area that very few players have a clear understanding of.
Shine On, Michael.
|
|
|
Post by LouisianaGrey on Oct 17, 2005 13:07:43 GMT
Don't feel too bad about it, Michael. As a matter of fact I emailed D'Addario's technical guys a few months ago to ask them about this whole question, and they said they didn't know the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Oct 17, 2005 15:41:01 GMT
Hi Pete,
That's what I mean about there being a general lack of understanding/knowledge on the subject of guitar strings, even amongst us lot!!!!
Shine On, Michael.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2005 17:47:46 GMT
Dave, you shouldn't feel bad about this, because I felt I was being bit a brutal and challenging about saying straight out that your assumption was wrong. I think it's great that you tested this and came up with a result you didn't expect (or want) to see....BRAVO!
|
|
|
Post by snakehips on Oct 17, 2005 19:29:32 GMT
Hi there ! I think it was cool of Dave King to test his ideas and statement and immediately get back to us and admit he was wrong ! However, I'm confused again !! If I am getting this right so far, the whole string length is ALL at the same tension, whether in front or behind the nut, in front/behind the bridge (anchored by pin bridge OR tailpiece). Each bit (each end of dead string AND the actual main playing section) must all be at the same tension otherwise the string MUST be binding somewhere (eg. the nut) So are you saying that for a given scale length (bridge to nut) that for any given note (the exact pitch) with the same string type (assume all 100% identical), the tension should be the same, whether the dead string lengths either side are short or long ? I think you are !! Despite some people measuring the string length as from the tuner post to the tailpiece/bridgepin, it actually should be measured from the nut to bridge, and NOT including the dead string lengths. (of course this assumes that the deadstring parts are able to glide over the nut and bridge to "equalise" tension on either side of the nut and/or bridge. If binding at the nut (for example) you would get problems !! Measuring the distance from the nut to the bridge rather than the string itself gets over the problem that the string (itself) length shortens over the nut-bridge as you tune up (increase the tension) !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Getting pee'd off now Ha Ha !!
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Oct 17, 2005 22:42:34 GMT
I think I'm following this "A couple of extra turns around the tuning head makes a surprising difference....." Dave, can you help by putting that into a more definitive form of words ? As regards the break angle over the saddle what is the optimum - would I be right in thinking that if the angle is too steep it will have a side effect of trying to push the the saddle towards the nut and thus possibly deforming the cone?
|
|
|
Post by Dave King on Oct 18, 2005 9:17:49 GMT
Hello Richard
Firstly, the correct angle seems to vary from resonator to resonator. It depends on the cone and the guitar and the sound you require,,, incidental Ive had a few resonator guitars in that have worked well with a small an angle as one and a half degrees,, which is also the optimum break angle for the strings on a piano which works in a similar manner to a resonator guitar. My quote about a couple of extra turns making a difference is entirely wrong, the tension remains the same on the string whatever the length is, its the scale length that changes the tension needed to tune to a given pitch.
And Richard yep it makes no difference how much string you have past the bridge or the nut. The scale length should be measured from the inside edge of the nut to the centre of the 12th fret then doubled. An interesting story here is,,,,, people never realized this originally which is why Gibson scale lengths gradually got longer. people where measuring the string length then working out the fret spacing. So Gibson scale lengths now go from 626 to about 632,,,,,,, The same reason Gibson F5 headstock's gradually got bigger, people at the factory kept drawing around the previous template and every time added on the thickness of a pencil line,,,,
|
|
|
Post by LouisianaGrey on Oct 18, 2005 11:32:24 GMT
I think as a rule of thumb (and a broad generalisation at the same time ) a shallow angle works well for biscuit bridge but a steeper angle is better for spider bridge. Certainly on square necked dobros these days the custom builders tend to try to get the bridge pieces as tall as possible without fouling the coverplate handrest.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Oct 18, 2005 18:01:55 GMT
Thanks, Dave and Pete that's much as I had concluded from reading this thread. And, you comments on the break angle are interesting as that has always seemed to be a bit of a black art
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Oct 18, 2005 18:52:48 GMT
Richard,
This is nothing to do with string lengths or break angles...although I have learnt something this week about strings!
I was just looking at your Avatar photo. Is that your drumkit ....and if so, what is it?
Shine On, Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Oct 19, 2005 12:13:10 GMT
Sad to say that one is not, as it's is a pretty rare late 30s Gretsch Gladstone, the sort of thing Chick Webb would have played I used to play a similar thing (as one might hear on a certain limited edition cd... ) and before we got thrown off the mainland I had a small collection of about 30+ vintage snare drums.... So now, I am down to just the one kit a late 60s Gretsch which I've had for 25 years or so. Guitars do take up less space
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Oct 19, 2005 12:59:27 GMT
I thought it was from that period, it's beautiful looking kit.
When we recorded Second Mind & Play The Blues in 2002, we borrowed various vintage drums & cymbals from the 30s & 40s....wow they sound great, just like vintage guitars.
My brother Alan has a 60s Gretsch kit which interestingly was the Shadows studio kit - I guess it was Brian Bennet's kit as Tony Meehan left in 61.
I was a keen drummer when I was young and one of my first gigs was playing drums in a band called 'Plug & Friends' in 1972. I know it was that year because the set comprised mostly of songs from David Bowie 'The Rise & Fall of Ziggy Stardust & the Spiders from Mars'. If I remember correctly the drummer wore glittery eye make-up that night!
In 1965 my Grandfather bought me a Mother-of-Toilet-Seat Premier snare drum. It was beautiful, I wish I still had it. I also had a bunch of maraccas, the type you don't see anymore....like Mick Jagger used to use in the early days. What a great tone they had. Maraccas these days just don't have that tone.
C'est la vie!
Shine On, Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Alan on Jun 6, 2006 14:32:20 GMT
If anyone is interested there is a longish article in this months edition of Acoustic on strings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2006 13:36:56 GMT
Found this on the net. I think it clears up any con fusion! Spontaneous Generation of String Tension and Quark Potential H. Kleinert Institut für Theorie der Elementarteilchen, Freie Universität Berlin, 1000 Berlin 33, West Germany Received 9 December 1986; revised 18 February 1987 The quark potential of a string with extrinsic curvature is calculated in the limit d→∞, via a saddlepoint approximation. The saddle point has an anisotropic gap matrix λij (≠λgij in contrast to an unjustified assumption in all previous discussions). The anisotropy enters the nonleading -(d-2)πc/24R part of the potential. c is calculated, the entire potential is plotted, and simple analytic expressions are found which approximate all quantities involved very closely. Bernie
|
|
|
Post by LouisianaGrey on Jun 7, 2006 16:02:22 GMT
Yeah, that's what I always thought ...
|
|