String Length Theory Thing

feylya

Sounds like the same kinda thing as the length of the string behind the nut affects the string between the nut and the bridge and that woods make no difference in a guitar - that is, some people believe it, some don't and that's the way it'll be.

Karl Hungus

Johnny Storm wrote:

I agree but surely it's an opinion, Karl?

Not really. The way the human muscles work is a fact.

I mean, if you pick up an electric after having played an acoustic, of course it feels easier, you've been playing a guitar with a heavier guage of strings! Common sense will tell you that. But to believe that it gives you any long term benifit is wrong. It's no different than if you were playing on an electric strung with 11's and you changed the string guage to 10's.

feylya

TBH, I can understand the benefits that people say exist. Your fingers will be stronger, you'll be much cleaner playing (less strings ringing out) but you probably won't know about muting.

The strength thing makes sense though. It's an interesting one.

Karl Hungus

feylya wrote:

Sounds like the same kinda thing as the length of the string behind the nut affects the string between the nut and the bridge and that woods make no difference in a guitar - that is, some people believe it, some don't and that's the way it'll be.

The length of string behind the nut does have an effect though, it's just not what a lot of people think it is. A lot of people think it effects tension, but it's got more to do with having more slack on the other side of the nut when bending. Of course, that won't matter if you've got a locking nut.

feylya

And you have scientific proof of this?

Karl Hungus

feylya wrote:

Your fingers will be stronger

Your fingers will be stronger because you've already been playing for a while before you've played the electric. If you've been playing an electric with the same guage for the same length, you'll have built up the same level of strength.

feylya

So, you're telling me that if you lift 25K for a month, you'll be the same strength as if you were lifting 50K?

Karl Hungus

feylya wrote:

So, you're telling me that if you lift 25K for a month, you'll be the same strength as if you were lifting 50K?

Erm... no?

Where the hell did you pick that one up?

Doctor J

Karl Hungus wrote:

it's got more to do with having more slack on the other side of the nut when bending

Nope, when a guitar is tuned to pitch, the tension on the string is the same before and after the nut, same as the bridge, unless of course the string is catching on either of those areas. There could be some stretching of the string but that would be minimal/negligible. You can test it yourself on any of your locking nut guitars. Tune it and lock it, bend it, then release the locking nut and bend again. You won't notice a difference.

feylya

If you've been playing an electric with the same guage for the same length, you'll have built up the same level of strength.

An acoustic is harder to play for the simple reason that it takes more force to move the string further than on an electric and hold it there.

Doctor J

TBH, I think finger strength is overrated. I think it's more important to develop dexterity and a deft touch than brute strenth, they're definitely more important areas to work on.

Karl Hungus

feylya wrote:

An acoustic is harder to play for the simple reason that it takes more force to move the string further than on an electric and hold it there.

Only for the reasons of string guage and action.

Karl Hungus

Doctor J wrote:

TBH, I think finger strength is overrated. I think it's more important to develop dexterity and a deft touch than brute strenth, they're definitely more important areas to work on.

Dexterity is a factor of muscle health though. Your finger muscles do more than apply preasure to the string, how fast your fingers can move is how fast your muscles can contract and stretch.

Doctor J

Yes, I know this

-=al=-

my hands arent as strong as they sued to be, when i changed from acoustic to electric it was sooo much better to play, u can really go for the notes when its way easier to play

Karl Hungus

Doctor J wrote:

You can test it yourself on any of your locking nut guitars. Tune it and lock it, bend it, then release the locking nut and bend again. You won't notice a difference.

Did just that, and you can notice a tiny bit of a difference. Like you said, could be due to stretching.

Doctor J

If you're only noticing it today after however many years of playing it'll tell you how much of a difference it is

Karl Hungus

Doctor J wrote:

If you're only noticing it today after however many years of playing it'll tell you how much of a difference it is

Well I've never been taking the locking nuts of my guitars while playing before.

Edit:

Christ, I'm dragging this way off topic with my ranting! I'll shut up now.

Doctor J

If you have to do controlled experiments or look at graphs and diagrams to see a difference on a guitar, then it doesn't matter in the real world. Just play the ****er

Voodu Child

Technically, Karl is right here. The actual tension on a string doesnt change because of anything going on behind the nut, but a longer string will have a little more stretch in it than a shorter one.

Like the Doc says, its small enough that you probably won't notice or care.

Parsley

voodoo_child wrote:

Technically, Karl is right here. The actual tension on a string doesnt change because of anything going on behind the nut, but a longer string will have a little more stretch in it than a shorter one.

By longer string do you mean longer scale length, or more distance for nut to tuner? And what do you mean by "a little more stretch"?

Karl Hungus

Parsley wrote:

By longer string do you mean longer scale length, or more distance for nut to tuner? And what do you mean by "a little more stretch"?

More distance from nut to tuner.

Parsley

Karl Hungus wrote:

More distance from nut to tuner.

Strict physics would dictate that that would have no bearing on the string (the portion from bridge to nut anyway) with regards tension, all other things being equal. Maybe there is a difference, or maybe it's just perceived and not real.

Karl Hungus

Parsley wrote:

Strict physics would dictate that that would have no bearing on the string (the portion from bridge to nut anyway) with regards tension

But its not the tension we're on about. Once tuned to pitch, the tension is constant from bridge to nut, reguardless of what's behind the nut. But bend the string, and depending on the amount of string that's behind the nut, you could be pulling it further along the nut.

Think of it like this... hit a note, and then press your finger on the bit of string that's between the nut and tuner, and you can pull the note sharp. So technically, that goes the other way too.

Parsley

Karl Hungus wrote:

But its not the tension we're on about. Once tuned to pitch, the tension is constant from bridge to nut, reguardless of what's behind the nut. But bend the string, and depending on the amount of string that's behind the nut, you could be pulling it further along the nut.

Think of it like this... hit a note, and then press your finger on the bit of string that's between the nut and tuner, and you can pull the note sharp. So technically, that goes the other way too.

Yeah, i can understand that... but i don't get what the argument is! you're just saying that by bending a note behind the nut, you'll raise the pitch?

Voodu Child

Parsley wrote:

Strict physics would dictate that that would have no bearing on the string (the portion from bridge to nut anyway) with regards tension, all other things being equal. Maybe there is a difference, or maybe it's just perceived and not real.

If you read my previous post fully, you can see I stated that the literal 'tension' of the untouched string is not affected by anything going on behind the headstock (reverse headstocks and the like).

However, a longer string has more stretch to it, meaning it feels 'looser' when doing bends or vibrato. When i say it has more 'stretch' to it, i mean literally that, the longer a string is, the easier it's going to be to stretch it by a particular amount. It's 100% physics and not 'percieved'.

As stated, it's subtle enough that most people wouldn't notice or care. But technically it's correct.

Karl Hungus

Parsley wrote:

but i don't get what the argument is!

Ok, the whole argument is the myth about reversed headstocks having an effect on the tension. My point is that while the tension is constant, reguardless of space between the nut and tuner, that it does have an effect when you bend the string and that people assume this effect is the tension. That is, if they notice it at all.

Parsley

voodoo_child wrote:

If you read my previous post fully, you can see I stated that the literal 'tension' of the untouched string is not affected by anything going on behind the headstock (reverse headstocks and the like).

However, a longer string has more stretch to it, meaning it feels 'looser' when doing bends or vibrato. When i say it has more 'stretch' to it, i mean literally that, the longer a string is, the easier it's going to be to stretch it by a particular amount. It's 100% physics and not 'percieved'.

As stated, it's subtle enough that most people wouldn't notice or care. But technically it's correct.

Ah, that makes sense alright. I thought ye were on about something different

Voodu Child

Parsley wrote:

I thought ye were on about something different

Aye, there was a thread about beginners guitars, and the silly myth that an acoustic is the best to start with came up, and then the discussion moved towards other myths, including the 'reverse headstock alters the tension' one.

So, someone split the thread and that's all we were yackin' about* ...there's a whole rake of other common guitar myths that would probably stir up a bit of debate, but im too lazy to think of any right now..:(

Johnny Storm

This guy obviously shares a lot of our concerns and he, equally obviously, has way too much time on his hands. Link.

Don1

The only thing that will effect string tension is the total length from tuner to bridge. The nut is effectively a fret and has no effect on tension.

Take a barritone guitar for example. If you were to try and tune it up to EADGBE the strings would be so tight they would more than likely break.

As far as headstocks go, if the headstock were reversed the tensions would change slightly, noticeable only just perhaps on the extreme highest and lowest strings. Explanation: as high E say is now shorter (by around 80mm?) less tension is now required to tune it to pitch. As a result it would be easier to bend but in all honesty I doubt you'd notice.

Voodu Child

Don1 wrote:

The only thing that will effect string tension is the total length from tuner to bridge. The nut is effectively a fret and has no effect on tension.

As far as headstocks go, if the headstock were reversed the tensions would change slightly, noticeable only just perhaps on the extreme highest and lowest strings. Explanation: as high E say is now shorter (by around 80mm?) less tension is now required to tune it to pitch. As a result it would be easier to bend but in all honesty I doubt you'd notice.

It's the vibrating length and not total length that effects string tension/pitch.

So your bit about reverse headstock is incorrect also.

Nothing else needs to be said about this one tbh, it's been clarified already. Hows about some other ones.... turning cables around effects tone? Or different brands of batteries sound different? Or anything for a bit of debate around here..:D

Don1

That is incorrect. With a locking nut yes, it's just the vibrating length because that's where the string is clamped, but as I said the nut doesn't hold the string so the tension is constant along it's total length.
The pitch varies as the nut acts as a fret.

Voodu Child

Don1 wrote:

That is incorrect.

You can say the sky is green as many times as you want, but it doesnt make it so

voodoo_child wrote:

It's the vibrating length and not total length that effects string tension/pitch.

Truth ^

Don't worry about it wasn't really the focus of the thread anyway:)

Don1

I'm not going to argue this all day but if needs be I will.
The vibrating length affects pitch, the clamped length affects tension. If you fret a note up at say the 20th fret you increase the pitch but the tension in the string remains pretty much the same. The only change in tension is due to the deflection of the string from it's rest positon into the fretboard (neglegable due to the distance relative to the string length) Have you ever heard of a string breaking from this..........
If the reverse headstock in question is combined with a locking nut the only higher tension is between the nut and the tuning peg. If on the other hand it's a standard nut where the string is free to move across it it will make a difference. It's basic physics at the end of the day and for what it's worth I can't see the difference being that significant enough to affect playability with the distances involved.

Voodu Child

Tension of a vibrating string depends on :
1) Vibrating length (not total length)
2) Pitch
3) Mass/unit length

Point 1 is what you're arguing about. The tuner could be 6" from the nut, or it could be a in China, and it won't make a difference to the tension.

Doctor J

Don1 wrote:

The vibrating length affects pitch, the clamped length affects tension.

You can prove this wrong quite easily.

Step 1. Tune the string to chosen pitch. There will be a uniform amount of tension applied across the length of the string.

Step 2. Clamp the string with the locking nut.

Step 3. Release the locking nut.

Result: The tension either side of the locking nut is the same as the string without the locking nut applied, as you have applied no extra force to the string. You haven't tightened a tuner, you haven't changed pitch, or applied any extra or less force across the length of the string. All you've done is locked the string at a certain point. Were you to loosen one of the tuners with the locking nut engaged and then release the locking nut, you would notice the string detune - ie, less tension. Unless you actually loosen or tighten the tuner, the string will remain at the same tension, same pitch, when you open and close the locking nut.

Examine this guitar.



Here is a reverse headstock, standard nut and string locking mechanism, so it's an ideal test subject here . When any string is tuned to pitch, it has the same amount of tension across the length of the string as any other 25.5" scale guitar with the same gauge string. The tension is merely the force needed to make that specific gauge of string vibrate at a specific frequency across a length of 25.5", it doesn't matter that it has a reverse headstock, all that matters is the tension of the string betwwen the nut and the bridge. If I lock or unlock the locking mechanism, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the tension of the string, as it doesn't apply any force along the length of the string, it just clamps the string at a specific point. The tension of the string remains constant before and after the lock.

Voodu Child

Docs (great) pic is a good way of illustrating the other point - the 'feel' of the string.

Just looking at the string behind the nut, and assuming the nut is locked, you can imagine by looking at it that the top string would be easy to grab and stretch a bit, but the bottom would hardly have any 'stretch' to it.

So you can take this to the real-life case, of a guitar with a reverse headstock (but not a locking nut). The longer than normal E string will have the same tension, but will 'feel' a tiny bit....'easier' or something. Just because it's a bit longer and has an extra bit of stretch to it

Comprende?;)