Guitar scale and brightness of sound

[Mr. Maj6th]

I spoke with Kirk Sand this morning, he has made guitars for
many of the top guitarists in the world. Chet Atkins, and Lenny
Breau, just to mention two of many.

His reply was, " I don't think the scale length has much effect on the
darkness or brightness of a guitar. It is much more about the choice
of woods used."

Maj6th

[TD]

Funny, I spoke to Roger Borys yesterday. He told me that the scale absolutely has to do with darkness and brightness. Although, things **can be done to compensate.** Jimmy D'Aquisto also believed the same thing. I don't have to mention some of whom he has built guitars for. Tal Farlow and Barry Galbraith also believed the same. I believe it is about the tension factor and the physical distance. I thought I'd accommodate your special special thread addition. All in all, I was giving solid advice to "Jazzer." That's all it was meant to be. I didn't make this up.

[Jonathan Byrd]

Haven't heard from Arthur Quinn in a while, I miss the insightful engineering perspective that he offered to this group. Maybe if we repeat his name three times...

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-09 17:44:38 +0000, TD said:

>> I spoke with Kirk Sand this morning, he has made guitars for>> many of
>> the top guitarists in the world. Chet Atkins, and Lenny Breau, just to
>> mention two of many.
>>
>> His reply was, " I don't think the scale length has much effect on the
>> darkness or brightness of a guitar. It is much more about the choice of
>> woods used."
>

> Funny, I spoke to Roger Borys yesterday. He told me that the scale
> absolutely has to do with darkness and brightness. Although, things
> **can be done to compensate.** Jimmy D'Aquisto also believed the same
> thing. I don't have to mention some of whom he has built guitars for.
> Tal Farlow and Barry Galbraith also believed the same. I believe it is
> about the tension factor and the physical distance.

I'd like to know more about the rationale(s) relating to the physics.

If you have a string, long or short, heavy or light tension I don't
know how it takes on a coloration like "dark" or "bright" until/unless
it engages a resonant chamber.

Stretched between the back of two chairs, I can't imagine there would
be more or less dark or bright. But within a chamber it begins to make
logical sense to me.

If the chamber is made of linoleum it seems it would bounce more high
frequencies, and this be "brighter". If it was made of something
absorbant, it seems it would bounce less high frequencies and thus
sound darker.

This projection doesn't leverage any authority whatever. It's just a
projection and not meant to insult anybody.
--
Music is the best means we have of digesting time. -- W. H. Auden

[TD]

Shorter scale, less tension, looser the strings, warmer the sound; inherently so. Rockers are well aware of this within their scene. Vice versa on the long scale. This is why some prefer the tone of Les Pauls ( 24 3/4) and some Strats (25 1/2). The Fender Jaguar has a short scale and is a lot mellower than the long scale Jazzmaster. I have experienced it myself between Long and short scale necks. I am surprised actually that some guitar builders say the contrary. I had to personally make a tough decision upon having my new axe made. So, i settled for an in between scale, 25.1

Other than that, "'Tis too starved an argument for my sword."

[Mr. Maj6th]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 10:44:38 -0700 (PDT), TD <tonyde...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 9, 2013 1:31:09 PM UTC-4, Mr. Maj6th wrote:
>> I spoke with Kirk Sand this morning, he has made guitars for
>>
>> many of the top guitarists in the world. Chet Atkins, and Lenny
>>
>> Breau, just to mention two of many.
>>
>>
>>
>> His reply was, " I don't think the scale length has much effect on the
>>
>> darkness or brightness of a guitar. It is much more about the choice
>>
>> of woods used."
>>
>>
>>
>> Maj6th
>

Pointing out that "someone" believes something, doesn't validate the
belief, and swing opinion to fact. I was just passing along an
opinion (for what it is worth) of a well known luthier. If I remember
correctly, for thousands of years the Chinese thought an eclipse was
caused by a dragon eating the sun; didn't make it true.

Maj6th

[TD]

Oh, wonderful analogy. Lunch has to be on you next time.

[Joey Goldstein]

My own experience involves using bolt-on necks with different
scale-lengths on the same body, usually a telecaster body but sometime a
Strat body.
They call them conversion necks.
My conclusions are that 24.75" scale necks impart less top and bottom
end than 25.5" scale necks when used on the same body.
The effect is that the bodies with 24.75" necks have a more
midrange-oriented tone that does not get boomy when you roll back the
tone control on the neck pickup for a jazz tone.
The bodies with 25.5" scale necks have more top end and more bottom end
and can tend to get boomy if you roll off the tone control on the neck
pickup much more readily than the shorter scale guitars.

I also have a 25" scale conversion neck and it's right in the middle
between the other 2.

--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/JoeyGoldstein>

[Joey Goldstein]

With the same tuning and string gauges on the same body:
A longer scale neck has a more prominent fundamental and more audible
overtones than a shorter scale neck.

[Joey Goldstein]

There's also something that's hard to describe accurately but longer
scale guitars seem to sound "bigger" and "fuller" somehow compared to
shorter scale guitars.
Kind of like the loudness control on some stereos.

[Mr. Maj6th]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:16:00 -0700, Mr. Maj6th <maj...@roadrunner.com>
wrote:

Scientific American had an article about ten years ago attempting to
quantify the sound of a musical instrument and the rational behind the
difference from one instrument to another; they used violins. They
used iron shavings and magnets to visualize the vibration pattern when
bowed, and then made assumptions from the patterns. They found strong
evidence that the wood molecules seemed to rearrange themselves as the
wood dried with age (and possibly with use as well,) thus giving a
slightly different shavings pattern from others in different states of
ageing. Their conclusions were quick to point out that it remained an
enigma that couldn't be quantified completely, but, their experiments
did show that ageing woods behave differently. If this is indeed
true, a brighter instrument could become a darker instrument simply
sitting in a closet; at least if it be a violin.

My opinion is that the scale does not make a "large" difference in
sound. I base this on my empirical (including aural) observations of
nearly 60 years playing guitar, and owning so many that I am
embarrassed to give the number..

I am sure we all have had the experience of going into a music store
and trying two guitars, same everything, and they both sound
different.

And, as usual, this is simply my opinion and I would love to hear any
other discourse on the subject.

Maj6th

.

[Mr. Maj6th]

I agree with all your statements. There is definitly a difference, to
my ear, but it isn't in brightness or darkness.

Maj6th

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-09 19:08:28 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:

>> Stretched between the back of two chairs, I can't imagine there would be
>> more or less dark or bright. But within a chamber it begins to make
>> logical sense to me.
>>
>> If the chamber is made of linoleum it seems it would bounce more high
>> frequencies, and this be "brighter". If it was made of something
>> absorbant, it seems it would bounce less high frequencies and thus sound
>> darker.
>>
>> This projection doesn't leverage any authority whatever. It's just a
>> projection and not meant to insult anybody.
>
> With the same tuning and string gauges on the same body:
> A longer scale neck has a more prominent fundamental and more audible
> overtones than a shorter scale neck.

That begins to make some physics-related sense, as I know the lower a
string is (in pitch) the more pronounced the harmonics, thus richer,
thus possibly associatd with "brightness". But a quarter to half an
inch makes an obvious aural distinction?

A comparison of Jaguar to Jazzmaster upstream; for me to get a feel for
all this, I'd have to compare two guitars identical in all respects
except for 1/4-3/4's inch in distance. I'm working with the longest
scale neck I've ever used, but never noticed it as conspicuously
brighter or darker.

Whatever: For me it's purely an abstraction as I'm not writing guitar
specs or anything.

[TD]

It **doesn't** make a large difference. It just makes a difference. So, I am not interested in changing the subject matter. It just also doesn't matter to some. It matters to others. There are additional differences ( Joey is correct, concerning overtones, for example; chords also sound noticeably clearer/more crisp), but that was not the subject matter and there are other factors that make something mellow and another thing bright, as you delivered. That is also another subject. My 175, for example is dark and masculine sounding like a mofo. It is mostly due to the short scale. Even shorter than 24 3/4.

[TD]

Yes, but *I* have noticed a conspicuous difference concerning guitars that interest me (archtops). And other guitarists have, as well. This observation, which involves tone (Joey is also correct about concerning volume), tension, clarity, and neck territory that has to meet my personal requirements. So, aside from a guy writing about specs, which I am not. I am another guy with different motives.

[Mr. Maj6th]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:37:12 -0700 (PDT), TD <tonyde...@gmail.com>

Why do you think Byrdlands are so bright? Anything makes"a"
difference, I thought we were speaking to a spcific and noticeable
difference; let me re-read the thread.

Maj6th

[TD]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 3:36:50 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:

It certainly can. It just may not to some.

[thomas]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 2:16:00 PM UTC-4, Maj6th wrote:
<

> If I remember
> correctly, for thousands of years the Chinese thought an eclipse was
> caused by a dragon eating the sun; didn't make it true.

What explains the sunlight coming back after the dragon has eaten it?

[Mr. Maj6th]

Everyone ran out and started banging on their pots and pans to chase
the dragon away; it always seemed to work.

Maj6th

[TD]

Dragons don't dig avant-guarde.

[Steve Freides]

Joey Goldstein wrote:

> With the same tuning and string gauges on the same body:
> A longer scale neck has a more prominent fundamental and more audible
> overtones than a shorter scale neck.

This has been researched and written about extensively as it concerns
pianos, which like guitars, come in a variety of sizes.

What you've said above is not, to my understanding, quite the way it
works. A longer string length will mean less inharmonicity, which means
the overtones will be closer to being exact multiples of the fundamental
than with a shorter, thicker string. This is why longer scale lengths
are preferred for pianos, and why they play concerts on a 9-foot grand
rather than something smaller.

I cannot say that I've ever heard the same thinking applied to guitars
but the rules of physics don't change, and the longer a string is, up to
a certain point, the closer to theoretically perfect its overtones can
be. This is obviously more of an issue with lower notes since, all
other things being equal, lower notes want longer string lengths.

-S-

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-09-13 3:29 PM, Mr. Maj6th wrote:
>
> I am sure we all have had the experience of going into a music store
> and trying two guitars, same everything, and they both sound
> different.

Just because that's true, your ideas about scale length not affecting
the tone do not necessarily follow.
If you tried the *same* guitar with various necks of different scales
I'm sure you'd hear the difference.

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-09-13 3:36 PM, Mr. Maj6th wrote:
>
> I agree with all your statements. There is definitly a difference, to
> my ear, but it isn't in brightness or darkness.

The difference is in the amplitudes of the various overtones of the
vibrating strings.
Shorter scale necks have less audible harmonics and a less prominent
fundamental which results in, all other parameters being equal, a more
mid-rangey tone from a shorter scale neck.
The subjective experience of hearing those differences is that, overall,
a shorter scale neck will not be as potentially bright *or* as
potentially dark as a longer scale neck.

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-09 20:36:38 +0000, Steve Freides said:

> I cannot say that I've ever heard the same thinking applied to guitars
> but the rules of physics don't change, and the longer a string is, up
> to a certain point, the closer to theoretically perfect its overtones
> can be. This is obviously more of an issue with lower notes since, all
> other things being equal, lower notes want longer string lengths.

Interesting. Though in the case of the piano, all the strings are
"open" strings and with the guitar the conclusions would only be
applicable to open strings when they are used, right? Certainly a low
percentage of total notes.

[Joey Goldstein]

I'm just describing what I hear for myself when I use necks of varying
scale-lengths on the same body with the same strings, pickups, pots,
caps, etc.

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-09 22:20:29 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:

> Shorter scale necks have less audible harmonics and a less prominent
> fundamental which results in, all other parameters being equal, a more
> mid-rangey tone from a shorter scale neck.

Why would that be, I wonder? We tend to fret most anywhwere in the
first third of the neck? If the *concept* of short v. long relates only
from nut to bridge, but we actually play in a broad range of areas
between *fret* and bridge? How can there be a discernible difference?

[ott...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, 9 May 2013 10:31:09 UTC-7, Mr. Maj6th wrote:
> I spoke with Kirk Sand this morning, he has made guitars for
>
> many of the top guitarists in the world. Chet Atkins, and Lenny
>
> Breau, just to mention two of many.
>
>
>
> His reply was, " I don't think the scale length has much effect on the
>
> darkness or brightness of a guitar. It is much more about the choice
>
> of woods used."
>
>
>
> Maj6th

Yeah, Lenny's last short scale 7 string guitar was pretty bright.
Bg

[Joey Goldstein]

On 05-09-13 6:43 PM, Gerry wrote:
> On 2013-05-09 22:20:29 +0000, Joey Goldstein said:
>
>> Shorter scale necks have less audible harmonics and a less prominent
>> fundamental which results in, all other parameters being equal, a more
>> mid-rangey tone from a shorter scale neck.
>
> Why would that be, I wonder? We tend to fret most anywhwere in the first
> third of the neck? If the *concept* of short v. long relates only from
> nut to bridge, but we actually play in a broad range of areas between
> *fret* and bridge? How can there be a discernible difference?
>

Not really sure why.
Longer strings have to be more taught than shorter strings of the same
gauge in order to produce the same pitch.
That extra tension must exert some sort of a damping effect on the
string's wave cycles that causes differences in the relative amplitudes
of the various audible overtones.

[TD]

Wasn't that a solid body? Common sense tells me, but I would have to consult a luthier to be certain, but I would say that his axe would sound even brighter with a long scale neck. Solid bodies with short scale necks and even semi-solids will be inherently brighter than wider body archtops. In addition, the extraneous mediating factors (pick ups, etc) that guys here keep bringing into the mix, would make a short scale neck sound as bright as possible, if so desired. Nothing implies that "dark" is dark as all hell just because it is a shorter scale; just darker than long scale. I am hoping that the tone difference is merely slight for my 25.1, next to 24 3/4.

[Mr. Maj6th]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:17:27 -0400, Joey Goldstein
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:

>On 05-09-13 3:29 PM, Mr. Maj6th wrote:
>>
>> I am sure we all have had the experience of going into a music store
>> and trying two guitars, same everything, and they both sound
>> different.
>
>Just because that's true, your ideas about scale length not affecting
>the tone do not necessarily follow.
>If you tried the *same* guitar with various necks of different scales
>I'm sure you'd hear the difference.

The point was that one might sound brighter or darker than its
twin with the same scale.

Maj6th

[Tony Done]

Why not try the experimental approach I suggested in the other thread?
- Tune down a semitone and put a capo on the 1st fret. That would be a
strong test, because it is more drastic than the 1/2 fret difference
in the scale lengths under discussion.

[Joey Goldstein]

The point I'm trying to make is that your experiment doesn't really hold
up because "same everything" doesn't exist between 2 different guitars.
The only experiment that answers the questions you're asking is using
different necks on the *same* guitar and keeping *all* other variables
the same as well.
I've done that.
Many times.
I'm just telling you what I heard.

[Joey Goldstein]

That test ignores the position, proportionate to the string's overall
length of where the pickup's pole pieces are situated.
So the amplified audio from the instrument would be affected by things
other than simply the length of the vibrating string.
You might be able to make some observations about the acoustical tone of
a guitar with a completely solid body, but that would be hard to hear.
Even on an acoustic guitar, the sound hole or f-holes position along the
string length could skew the test one way or another.

Some of you folks seem to be confusing the overall tone of an
instrument, which is affected by all sorts of other variables besides
scale length, with the affect that scale length actually has on the
instrument.
Again, the only test that I can think of that can isolate the effects of
various scale lengths on a guitar is to use the exact same guitar with
different necks of different scales.
But even then, the necks would have to be made as closely as possible of
the exact same materials with relatively the same dimensions like neck
thickness, nut width, fretboard material, fret wire, etc., etc., etc.

[Mr. Maj6th]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:50:09 -0400, Joey Goldstein

<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:

>On 05-09-13 7:23 PM, Mr. Maj6th wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:17:27 -0400, Joey Goldstein
>> <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05-09-13 3:29 PM, Mr. Maj6th wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am sure we all have had the experience of going into a music store
>>>> and trying two guitars, same everything, and they both sound
>>>> different.
>>>
>>> Just because that's true, your ideas about scale length not affecting
>>> the tone do not necessarily follow.
>>> If you tried the *same* guitar with various necks of different scales
>>> I'm sure you'd hear the difference.
>>
>> The point was that one might sound brighter or darker than its
>> twin with the same scale.
>
>The point I'm trying to make is that your experiment doesn't really hold
>up because "same everything" doesn't exist between 2 different guitars.
>The only experiment that answers the questions you're asking is using
>different necks on the *same* guitar and keeping *all* other variables
>the same as well.
>I've done that.
>Many times.
>I'm just telling you what I heard.

I will try one more time, if I walk into a music store and there are
two Gibson Johnny Smith guitars, same year, same model, same woods,
there will be a variance in sound between the two.

Maj6th

[Joey Goldstein]

FWIW
With my Fender-style conversion necks, the double-octave node (where the
24th fret would be if they were 24-fret necks) has always stayed exactly
above my neck pickup's pole pieces just like where it is with a reg
Fender scale neck.
So with a conversion neck, the pickup's placement along the length of
the string stays very close to the same proportions as are found on a
regular Fender neck.
The tone coming out of any other pickups (e.g. a bridge or middle
pickup) gets affected a bit more than the tones from neck pickup.

[Joey Goldstein]

Right.
Because they're *NOT* the same.

[Tony Done]

> <http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/JoeyGoldstein>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was thinking in terms of an acoustic, where the effect would be more
obvious, and less ambiguous due to pickup location effects. There is
no escape from amgibuities, because, as you say, bridge (assuming the
body fret location stays the same) and soundhole location will be
different, but my suggestion reduces it to the simplest option -
Reduce the scale length without changing *anything* else.

[TD]

This article, as many articles do, is from rock type guitars and guitarist's perspective, nonetheless it is out of GuitarPlayer Magazine:
http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/5-things-about-scale-length/4119

[Mr. Maj6th]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 20:05:21 -0400, Joey Goldstein

Exactly, then why wouldn't they both have the same darkness or
brightness?

Maj6th

[TD]

Here is one from three years earlier:

http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/sonic-essentials--all-about-scale-length/8450

[TD]

Here is yet another opinion from Sweetwater: http://www.sweetwater.com/insync/scale-length/

[TD]

More:

http://www.stewmac.com/freeinfo/Fretting/a-scalelength.html

http://chainsawguitartuition.net/blog/scale-length-guitar/


http://www.12fret.com/content/2011/07/11/scale-lengths/

[Gerry]

Any others?

[rpjazzguitar]

So, just to pose a physics problem ...

If you had (theoretical) strings that had no stiffness whatsoever, would scale length matter?

Is it possible to buy low stiffness strings?

Just for fun:

<http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/Stiffness-Inharmonicity/Stiffness-B.html>

[Mr. Maj6th]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 20:30:43 -0700 (PDT), TD <tonyde...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You can find web results for any premise you choose. For instance I
Googled (if that is a verb,) "The moon is made out of green cheese,"
there were 2,480,000.00 web page results. A little more down to
earth, most of the web sites simply copy second hand knowledge, for
instance, most history books still contend that the transcontinental
railroads met in 1869 at Promontory Point in Utah. Look at a map,
Promontory Point is a peninsula in the Great Salt Lake. They met in
Promontory, Utah.

My point is, pointing out web-sites isn't particulary impressive as
proof for a premise, as the old lady said, "Show me the beef!."


Maj6th

[David J. Littleboy]

"rpjazzguitar" wrote:
>
>So, just to pose a physics problem ...
>
>If you had (theoretical) strings that had no stiffness whatsoever, would
>scale length matter?

Physics is the study of frictionless elephants whose masses may be ignored.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[rpjazzguitar]

I don't know either, but I'm wondering if string stiffness is relevant.

If you vary scale length but hold tension constant, you have to vary gauge.

Why wouldn't a thicker string be stiffer?

And, if you want as many overtones as possible, the string needs to be as limp as possible, or so I think. Otherwise it can't vibrate in as many multiples.

I seem to recall reading that stretch tuning on piano is necessary because of string stiffness, although piano strings are longer.

[ott...@hotmail.com]

> > Yeah, Lenny's last short scale 7 string guitar was pretty bright.
>
> >
>
> > Bg
>
>
>
> Wasn't that a solid body? Common sense tells me, but I would have to consult a luthier to be certain, but I would say that his axe would sound even brighter with a long scale neck. Solid bodies with short scale necks and even semi-solids will be inherently brighter than wider body archtops. In addition, the extraneous mediating factors (pick ups, etc) that guys here keep bringing into the mix, would make a short scale neck sound as bright as possible, if so desired. Nothing implies that "dark" is dark as all hell just because it is a shorter scale; just darker than long scale. I am hoping that the tone difference is merely slight for my 25.1, next to 24 3/4.

Yup, It was a Solid body, strings would make a difference as well as round or flatwound.
Bg

[TD]

Yes, loyal, just like an old lady, you can't take defeat.

[TD]

No, I presented the sufficient amount. The next step for you is sewing class.

[Joey Goldstein]

Wow. We really seem to be talking past each other.
Sorry. You simply don't seem to understand what I'm saying.
No sense in me saying it again.

[Joey Goldstein]

Lenny always played with a bright sound, compared to most jazz players.
When he had that 7-string solid-body designed (with the high A string)
he probably specified that he wanted it to sound bright.
He probably specified a short scale so that he could use the highest
gauge 1st string that he could tune up to A w/o it always breaking when
played upon.
But if he had ever put a longer scale neck on that same body it would
have sounded brighter *and* deeper.

[TD]

Yea, the low strings would have been more defined rather than muddy, which can happen with short scale. For me ( to me) , your "deeper" means "bolder"...more pronounced, more depth and clearer...ballsier. I am tired of loose tension, even with medium gauge. It becomes a personal thing.

[TD]

Not that his axe sounded muddy. It didn't. But, it happens on archtops concerning short scale.

[Gerry]

He should take a sewing class, right Tony?

[Gerry]

This is beginning to sound like a wine tasting.

[John A.]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 7:13:55 AM UTC-4, TD wrote:
> On Friday, May 10, 2013 1:01:07 AM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
>

>
> No, I presented the sufficient amount. The next step for you is sewing class.

Not that I'm against learning a few new stitches, but not a single one of the articles you linked to proved anything except that a lot of people believe shorter scale length=warmer tone and longer scale length = brighter tone. A lot of people believing or saying something doesn't mean it's objectively true. It's a plausible hypothesis, but lot's of plausible hypotheses don't hold up under careful experiment (it took most of human history to figure out that heavier objects don't fall faster than lighter ones, for example, because under un-controlled conditions they often do). The only way to determine if it's true is to perform a controlled experiment that measures the harmonic content of notes played on other-wise identical guitars that have different scale lengths, played in otherwise identical conditions. This seems to do that:

http://novaxguitars.com/info/technical.html

One of the things (I think) it is saying is that longer scale lengths produce more upper partials for a given string/pitch and have distinct "voices. However, some of the differences between scale-lengths aren't linear, the "voice" of a given scale-length varies according to string thickness and tension, and the overall effect is difficult to isolate from other attributes of a complete guitar. In the posts here, Joey's conversion-neck experiments demonstrate the difference between two particular scale-lengths(with the caveat that it's to his ears only under non-double-blind conditions), but don't comprehensively test the theory that longer=brighter.

Coming at this another way, long=brighter is real under some conditions, but I doubt that anyone could reliably guess the scale-lengths of instruments someone else is playing under blind conditions, especially not an electric instrument. That's a hypothesis that can be tested by experiment, but not by quoting a bunch of people who agree with me.

John

[TD]

You can get on that band wagon, if you wish. But like your partners here, you miss the mark. I gathered the information to merely show it exists as opposed to not existing. I do not need to ask the layman. Besides realizing it as fact, I was educated to the fact by James L D'Aquisto years ago, in addition to other fine guitar builders. What do you say to that? I suggest that you stay on your bandwagon. I care less. The gathering of info from magazines was merely to show that the fact exists. I t has been tested by experiment. I do not agree with you, by the way. It's not important to me. I only gave some one advice and the turkey brigade has to march in for the usual strafing. And we wonder why it's a ghost town here?

[TD]

Him, no. You, yes.

[Mr. Maj6th]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:59:19 -0700 (PDT), "John A." <ja...@nyc.rr.com>

You may be casting pearls amoung the swine on this one.

Maj6th

[Mr. Maj6th]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 08:08:50 -0700 (PDT), TD <tonyde...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Friday, May 10, 2013 10:27:08 AM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
>> On 2013-05-10 11:12:30 +0000, TD said:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Friday, May 10, 2013 2:22:56 AM UTC-4, Maj6th wrote:
>>
>> >> On Thu, 9 May 2013 20:30:43 -0700 (PDT), TD <tonyde...@gmail.com>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> You can find web results for any premise you choose. For instance I
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Googled (if that is a verb,) "The moon is made out of green cheese,"
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> there were 2,480,000.00 web page results. A little more down to
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> earth, most of the web sites simply copy second hand knowledge, for
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> instance, most history books still contend that the transcontinental
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> railroads met in 1869 at Promontory Point in Utah. Look at a map,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Promontory Point is a peninsula in the Great Salt Lake. They met in
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Promontory, Utah.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> My point is, pointing out web-sites isn't particulary impressive as
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> proof for a premise, as the old lady said, "Show me the beef!."
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Maj6th
>>
>> >
>>

>> > Yes, loyal, just like an old lady, you can't take defeat.arn,

>>
>>
>>
>> He should take a sewing class, right Tony?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Music is the best means we have of digesting time. -- W. H. Auden
>
>Him, no. You, yes.

Ah, darn, I want to go sew with Gerry!

Maj6th

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-10 15:19:14 +0000, Mr. Maj6th said:

>>>> Yes, loyal, just like an old lady, you can't take defeat.arn,
>>>
>>> He should take a sewing class, right Tony?
>>

>> Him, no. You, yes.
>
> Ah, darn, I want to go sew with Gerry!

Sorry, Tony has other plans for you to be his old lady. Right Tony?

I think the important part is just to end all sentences with the phrase
"Right, Tony?".

[TD]

He is actually your old lady ( we can all see that by the mutual pumping), but you seem to be just plain jealous. You know Gerry, I always considered you to be a intelligent guy. This is why I am always baffled by your high-school talk. I can no longer entertain your obsessive-compulsive infliction. You make it a drag. Later....

[John A.]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 11:07:46 AM UTC-4, TD wrote:
> On Friday, May 10, 2013 10:59:19 AM UTC-4, John A. wrote:
>
> > On Friday, May 10, 2013 7:13:55 AM UTC-4, TD wrote:
>

> > > No, I presented the sufficient amount. The next step for you is sewing class.
>
>
> > Not that I'm against learning a few new stitches, but not a single one of the articles you linked to proved anything except that a lot of people believe shorter scale length=warmer tone and longer scale length = brighter tone. A lot of people believing or saying something doesn't mean it's objectively true. It's a plausible hypothesis, but lot's of plausible hypotheses don't hold up under careful experiment (it took most of human history to figure out that heavier objects don't fall faster than lighter ones, for example, because under un-controlled conditions they often do). The only way to determine if it's true is to perform a controlled experiment that measures the harmonic content of notes played on other-wise identical guitars that have different scale lengths, played in otherwise identical conditions. This seems to do that:
>

[snip]

>
> You can get on that band wagon, if you wish. But like your partners here, you miss the mark.

I'm not on any bandwagon. I didn't say that scale length has no effect. In fact I cited a controlled scientific experiment (performed by a luthier) that shows it does have an effect.

>I gathered the information to merely show it exists as opposed to not existing.

What you gathered was putative statements of fact expressed by people who agree with you. It's informative, but it's also haphazard, subject to confirmation bias, and (at least in the links you cited), expressed entirely as assertion without any indication of testing. That doesn't make it wrong, but it also doesn't make it very convincing to someone who approaches a question from a position of skepticism. Please note that skepticism is not hostility. There's nothing hostile about someone looking at a claim expressed by a bunch of other people and asking whether there's a way to test whether that claim is true independently, nor is there anything hostile about saying "lots of people believing something is not in and of itself evidence." You may take it is such, but that is a mistake.

>I do not need to ask the layman. Besides realizing it as fact, I was educated to the fact by James L D'Aquisto years ago, in addition to other fine guitar builders. What do you say to that?

I say you good for you. I bet all of those fine guitar makers taught you a lot of great stuff. And I bet it was a wonderful experience knowing someone like D'Aquisto.

> I suggest that you stay on your bandwagon. I care less.

I'm not on any bandwagon with respect to this subject. You care less about what? Or did you mean "I couldn't care less" about this discussion (which is obviously not the case).

>The gathering of info from magazines was merely to show that the fact exists.

It showed that a lot of people think something. I don't dispute that, nor did I ever say that there was no basis for their thinking this.

>I t has been tested by experiment.

Great. Can you cite one of these experiments? I did, and it SUPPORTS what you say, but I'd be very interested in seeing others.

>I do not agree with you, by the way.

I don't think you understood what I wrote, because I don't disagree with you on balance. This may be a fault of my expression. To simplify, yes, there is a reason to believe that, all else equal, longer=brighter, but "all else equal" is a very difficult set of conditions to establish.

>It's not important to me.

Doesn't seem that way.

>I only gave some one advice and the turkey brigade has to march in for the usual strafing.

I didn't "strafe." I commented politely, disagreeing with how you define evidence, and finding what I think constitutes a better example of evidence to support your view.

>And we wonder why it's a ghost town here?

Seems to have perked up a bit.

John

[TD]

OK, so you opt the bandwagon for chasing your own tail. Why do I write this? I already wrote why I cited what I cited. You taught me, indirectly, that I should have written a prerequisite to such information. I accept that. I can donate the reply again: To simply show that the fact exists. it was not intended as LAW. If you do not like the word "fact", OK, let's use rumor, should that please you. You are welcome to post published articles that say the contrary. Yet, you self-experimented and "support" my initial statement, OK...that is interesting. By "experiment", I meant, like you, self experiment. Now, if you will all excuse me, I am out of this thread for good.

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-10 15:07:46 +0000, TD said:

> On Friday, May 10, 2013 10:59:19 AM UTC-4, John A. wrote:
>> On Friday, May 10, 2013 7:13:55 AM UTC-4, TD wrote:
>>
>> Not that I'm against learning a few new stitches, but not a single one
>> of the articles you linked to proved anything except that a lot of
>> people believe shorter scale length=warmer tone and longer scale length
>> = brighter tone. A lot of people believing or saying something doesn't
>> mean it's objectively true.

But it does make it "truthy". Around here repeating that "it's a fact"
seems to provide some personal comfort.

>> It's a plausible hypothesis, but lot's of plausible hypotheses don't
>> hold up under careful experiment (it took most of human history to
>> figure out that heavier objects don't fall faster than lighter ones,
>> for example, because under un-controlled conditions they often do).
>> The only way to determine if it's true is to perform a controlled
>> experiment that measures the harmonic content of notes played on
>> other-wise identical guitars that have different scale lengths, played
>> in otherwise identical conditions. This seems to do that:
>>
>> http://novaxguitars.com/info/technical.html

Very interesting indeed. Thanks for the relay.

>> One of the things (I think) it is saying is that longer scale lengths
>> produce more upper partials for a given string/pitch and have distinct
>> "voices. However, some of the differences between scale-lengths aren't
>> linear, the "voice" of a given scale-length varies according to string
>> thickness and tension, and the overall effect is difficult to isolate
>> from other attributes of a complete guitar. In the posts here, Joey's
>> conversion-neck experiments demonstrate the difference between two
>> particular scale-lengths(with the caveat that it's to his ears only
>> under non-double-blind conditions), but don't comprehensively test the
>> theory that longer=brighter.
>>
>> Coming at this another way, long=brighter is real under some
>> conditions, but I doubt that anyone could reliably guess the
>> scale-lengths of instruments someone else is playing under blind
>> conditions, especially not an electric instrument. That's a hypothesis
>> that can be tested by experiment, but not by quoting a bunch of people
>> who agree with me.
>

> You can get on that band wagon, if you wish. But like your partners
> here, you miss the mark. I gathered the information to merely show it
> exists as opposed to not existing. I do not need to ask the layman.
> Besides realizing it as fact, I was educated to the fact by James L
> D'Aquisto years ago, in addition to other fine guitar builders.

You are at a disadvantage in the discussion. You keep repeating "it's a
fact", like that provides additional validity. You relay a third
party's personal opinion as if these were then additional facts. You
seem to make every disagreement on any topic a personal assault on your
dignity. It's not a convincing approach.

Most of us were trying to discuss darkness/brightness relative to
length of scale. Almost none of the opinons here are completely in
agreement: So where the hell is a "bandwagon"? You'd think we had
conspired to "gang up on Tony" by not quickly agreeing with your
opinion and then getting the hell out of here.

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-10 15:38:45 +0000, TD said:

> You know Gerry, I always considered you to be a intelligent guy.

Thanks, the feeling is mutual.

[John A.]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 6:23:10 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
> On 2013-05-09 20:36:38 +0000, Steve Freides said:
>
>
>
> > I cannot say that I've ever heard the same thinking applied to guitars
>
> > but the rules of physics don't change, and the longer a string is, up
>
> > to a certain point, the closer to theoretically perfect its overtones
>
> > can be. This is obviously more of an issue with lower notes since, all
>
> > other things being equal, lower notes want longer string lengths.
>
>
>
> Interesting. Though in the case of the piano, all the strings are
>
> "open" strings and with the guitar the conclusions would only be
>
> applicable to open strings when they are used, right? Certainly a low
>
> percentage of total notes.
>

I don't think that's relevant to the question. The lengths of the vibrating portion of a fretted string on a 24.75" and 25.75" are different; the tensions are different as well; therefore, the harmonic content is different. If I'm understanding correctly, the audible effect of scale length diminishes at higher frets, but at least as far as the physics of it are concerned there are effects at any fret.

John

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-10 16:43:43 +0000, John A. said:

> On Thursday, May 9, 2013 6:23:10 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
>> On 2013-05-09 20:36:38 +0000, Steve Freides said:
>>
>>> I cannot say that I've ever heard the same thinking applied to guitars
>>> but the rules of physics don't change, and the longer a string is, up
>>> to a certain point, the closer to theoretically perfect its overtones
>>> can be. This is obviously more of an issue with lower notes since, all
>>> other things being equal, lower notes want longer string lengths.
>>
>> Interesting. Though in the case of the piano, all the strings are
>> "open" strings and with the guitar the conclusions would only be
>> applicable to open strings when they are used, right? Certainly a low
>> percentage of total notes
>

> I don't think that's relevant to the question. The lengths of the
> vibrating portion of a fretted string on a 24.75" and 25.75" are
> different; the tensions are different as well; therefore, the harmonic
> content is different. If I'm understanding correctly, the audible
> effect of scale length diminishes at higher frets, but at least as far
> as the physics of it are concerned there are effects at any fret.

Thinking of the difference between piano and guitar is probably not
helpful in emphasizing the difference in guitar scale length, because
the piano generally has more notes sounding, and lower notes sounding
and thus vastly more opportunity for *audible* upper partials, and
sympathetic vibration, even withouth the legato pedal.

A 24.75 v. 25.75 distinction, fretted at mid-neck becomes considerably
smaller. To think that a sixteenth or 32nd of an inch, applied to
multiple notes over a period of time would effect the tone producing
"darker" in one case and "brighter" in another is just hard for me to
fathom.

I just got through playing for 20-30 minutes, on a solid body through
an amp with many gates for "artificially" supplying "dark" and "bright"
components via tone and eq knobs on the amp and guitar. I think, just
for me, this has eventually boiled down to the difference between $30 a
pound coffee vs. $100 a pound coffee: I'm not sure my taste buds are
capable of discerning. Or in this case, my ears.

[John A.]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 1:03:06 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
[snip]

>
>
> A 24.75 v. 25.75 distinction, fretted at mid-neck becomes considerably
>
> smaller. To think that a sixteenth or 32nd of an inch, applied to
>
> multiple notes over a period of time would effect the tone producing
>
> "darker" in one case and "brighter" in another is just hard for me to
>
> fathom.

I don't know how far up the neck one has to go for the difference to become imperceptible under controlled conditions. I've never encountered controlled conditions, and have only played different scale lengths on completely different guitars. But overall, I think it's subtle effect. I have a 25.5" scale electric guitar. I have a 24.75" scale electric guitar. They're different in lots of ways other than scale length.

>
> I just got through playing for 20-30 minutes, on a solid body through
>
> an amp with many gates for "artificially" supplying "dark" and "bright"
>
> components via tone and eq knobs on the amp and guitar. I think, just
>
> for me, this has eventually boiled down to the difference between $30 a
>
> pound coffee vs. $100 a pound coffee: I'm not sure my taste buds are
>
> capable of discerning. Or in this case, my ears.
>

I try not to spend more than $10 for a pound of coffee, so my views on the subject may not be relevant, but I think the discussion we're having is more like trying to judge how much of the difference in taste between two different cups of coffee brewed from different roasts, different grinds, and in different kinds of pots comes from one of them having 1% milk and the other having 2%.

John

[Bill Godwin]

Hey i played a wine tasting last nite : )

I'm just wondering if sewing class has something remote to do with threads but I really dont care. : )

Bill G

[van]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 9:12:20 AM UTC-4, Joey Goldstein wrote:

The most dramatic example of the difference between dark and bright sounds was the album Lenny and Tal did together. Lenny's sound is bright and clear as a bell, and Tal's is dark and almost muffled.
There are so many variables involved, that I have no idea if the scale of the neck mattered, but I preferred LB's sound to TF's.
Does anyone know what guitar and amp Lenny used on that recording?
I wonder how much LB's technique contributed to that clarity of sound.
In other words, I want that sound!

[Mr. Maj6th]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:33:38 -0700 (PDT), van <sg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Yep, just shows you what two different neck scales sound like; amazing
isn't it?


Maj6th

[John A.]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, van wrote:
> On Friday, May 10, 2013 9:12:20 AM UTC-4, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> > On 05-10-13 4:11 AM, ott...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > >>> Yeah, Lenny's last short scale 7 string guitar was pretty bright.


>

> The most dramatic example of the difference between dark and bright sounds was the album Lenny and Tal did together. Lenny's sound is bright and clear as a bell, and Tal's is dark and almost muffled.
>
> There are so many variables involved, that I have no idea if the scale of the neck mattered, but I preferred LB's sound to TF's.
>
> Does anyone know what guitar and amp Lenny used on that recording?
>
> I wonder how much LB's technique contributed to that clarity of sound.
>
> In other words, I want that sound!

This is video of the two together. I can't tell whether it's solid or hollow from this, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNVf0OZhtqY

John

[Joey Goldstein]

Trouble is that it's not just brighter.
It's darker too.
I.e. With the longer scale you get more of the extremes on both ends.
That can result in an instrument that sounds brighter with some amp
settings but it might also end up sounding darker.
The shorter scale necks seem to have more prominent mids.

[thomas]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 4:12:06 PM UTC-4, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> Trouble is that it's not just brighter.
> It's darker too.

Whoa, dude! This just happened: http://tinyurl.com/9hfmxwq

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-10 17:25:35 +0000, John A. said:

>> A 24.75 v. 25.75 distinction, fretted at mid-neck becomes considerably
>> smaller. To think that a sixteenth or 32nd of an inch, applied to
>> multiple notes over a period of time would effect the tone producing
>> "darker" in one case and "brighter" in another is just hard for me to
>> fathom.
>
> I don't know how far up the neck one has to go for the difference to
> become imperceptible under controlled conditions. I've never
> encountered controlled conditions, and have only played different scale
> lengths on completely different guitars. But overall, I think it's
> subtle effect.

Honestly, I don't think I have the perception for that level of effect.
I think Joey, for instance, *does* because he's been playing primarily
the same guitar with modifications over an extended period of time. If
you handed me two telecasters with neck differences, I'm guessing I
couldn't tell an "aural" difference. But if you handed me my OWN guitar
and one slightly modified--well I don't know even then if I could tell.

> I have a 25.5" scale electric guitar. I have a 24.75" scale electric
> guitar. They're different in lots of ways other than scale length.

I have been playing a Brian Moore i8 for 6-8 years now, it's my primary
guitar and *appears* to have a 25 and 7/8th's neck. Maybe It's closer
to 24.75, I don't know. I do know that it's the longest neck I've
every played, I'm endlessly playing over the lower part of the
fretboard, which is irritating, and it extends further from the body
than any guitar I ever used before. It feels very different in some
other inexplicable ways too. But tough to compare with my archtops, as
they are so dramatically different in every way, scale length
notwithstanding.

>> I just got through playing for 20-30 minutes, on a solid body through
>> an amp with many gates for "artificially" supplying "dark" and "bright"
>> components via tone and eq knobs on the amp and guitar. I think, just
>> for me, this has eventually boiled down to the difference between $30 a
>> pound coffee vs. $100 a pound coffee: I'm not sure my taste buds are
>> capable of discerning. Or in this case, my ears.
>
> I try not to spend more than $10 for a pound of coffee, so my views on
> the subject may not be relevant, but I think the discussion we're
> having is more like trying to judge how much of the difference in taste
> between two different cups of coffee brewed from different roasts,
> different grinds, and in different kinds of pots comes from one of them
> having 1% milk and the other having 2%.

Whatever it is, at some point the marker for good/bad falls away and
it's ALL really good (that's why my prices are so high in the example).
Assuming the other components are generally similar it gets hard to
tell any number of qualities as substantially different when all we
have to go on become small enough measuring systems for the task at
hand.

[Mr. Maj6th]

Best post I think I've seen here.....................

Maj6th

[John A.]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 4:41:22 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:

> > I don't know how far up the neck one has to go for the difference to
>
> > become imperceptible under controlled conditions. I've never
>
> > encountered controlled conditions, and have only played different scale
>
> > lengths on completely different guitars. But overall, I think it's
>
> > subtle effect.
>
>
>
> Honestly, I don't think I have the perception for that level of effect.
>
> I think Joey, for instance, *does* because he's been playing primarily
>
> the same guitar with modifications over an extended period of time. If
>
> you handed me two telecasters with neck differences, I'm guessing I
>
> couldn't tell an "aural" difference.

>

> > I have a 25.5" scale electric guitar. I have a 24.75" scale electric
>
> > guitar. They're different in lots of ways other than scale length.
>
>
>
> I have been playing a Brian Moore i8 for 6-8 years now, it's my primary
>
> guitar and *appears* to have a 25 and 7/8th's neck. Maybe It's closer
>
> to 24.75, I don't know.

One of these?

http://iguitarworkshop.com/iGuitar81.13.USBCinnamon.aspx

If so, specs say 25.5" Knowing now that it's 25.5", is it brighter than it was when you thought it was 24.75"?

I do know that it's the longest neck I've
>
> every played, I'm endlessly playing over the lower part of the
>
> fretboard, which is irritating, and it extends further from the body
>
> than any guitar I ever used before.

Maybe you need longer arms, though that might mess up your playing on your shorter-necked guitars. Maybe some sort of adjuster...

John

[van]

The audio quality is pretty poor on that video, but you can hear the difference in their sound. It's a nice blend, dark and bright.
Both played great on MFV, showing that Tal had days when he had the old magic that he had in the 50s.
One guy from Chicago claimed that he saw Tal at a club in the 80s play a zillion times better than he even played in the 50s. He said it was like seeing Art Tatum play live.
I've said before on this NG that Tal lost it after the 50s; I guess I should know better than to make any absolute statements like that anymore.

[Mr. Maj6th]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 14:32:08 -0700 (PDT), "John A." <ja...@nyc.rr.com>
wrote:

All is not lost when there is fine wit present.

Maj6th

[Gerry]

On 2013-05-10 21:32:08 +0000, John A. said:

> On Friday, May 10, 2013 4:41:22 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
>>
>> Honestly, I don't think I have the perception for that level of effect.
>> I think Joey, for instance, *does* because he's been playing primarily
>> the same guitar with modifications over an extended period of time. If
>> you handed me two telecasters with neck differences, I'm guessing I
>> couldn't tell an "aural" difference.
>>
>>> I have a 25.5" scale electric guitar. I have a 24.75" scale electric
>>> guitar. They're different in lots of ways other than scale length.
>>
>> I have been playing a Brian Moore i8 for 6-8 years now, it's my primary
>> guitar and *appears* to have a 25 and 7/8th's neck. Maybe It's closer
>> to 24.75, I don't know.
>
> One of these?
>
> http://iguitarworkshop.com/iGuitar81.13.USBCinnamon.aspx

Mine is actually an 8.13 not an 81.13, so I can't be sure what they've
changed, but it looks identical.

> If so, specs say 25.5" Knowing now that it's 25.5", is it brighter
> than it was when you thought it was 24.75"?

I thought it was 25 7/8 or 25.75 (mistyped the second figure above).
Yours is a a tough question. I just spent about 15 minutes playing,
and I must admit it sounds a little bit brighter!

>> I do know that it's the longest neck I've every played, I'm endlessly
>> playing over the lower part of the fretboard, which is irritating, and
>> it extends further from the body than any guitar I ever used before.
>
> Maybe you need longer arms, though that might mess up your playing on
> your shorter-necked guitars. Maybe some sort of adjuster...

Interesting thought. I'll talk to my chiropracter...

[klam...@comcast.net]

I believe that the timbre that we perceive as the instrument's sound is the relationship between the ATTACK and SUSTAIN qualities of a note.
I think that, if you analyzed a 24.75" scale string versus a 25.5" scale on a spectroscope, the inherent envelope of the note would show a more pronounced attack with the longer scale, and the waveforms one second later would look more similar.

[Jazzer]

On May 9, 9:10 pm, Mr. Maj6th <maj...@roadrunner.com> wrote:

> >> I will try one more time, if I walk into a music store and there are
> >> two Gibson Johnny Smith guitars, same year, same model, same woods,
> >> there will be a variance in sound between the two.
>
> >Right.
> >Because they're *NOT* the same.
>
> Exactly, then why wouldn't they both have the same darkness  or
> brightness?

Maj6th allow me to clarify what is being discussed.

As Joey stated, trying out two Johnny Smith guitars (same everything)
in a store does not guarantee they will sound the same.
Everyone knows that.

Despite the guitars being the 'same' on paper, we know there will be
differences in wood (grain, dryness, thickness, strength etc.)
pickups, strings, karma etc. etc.

Why you are trying to introduce the subject of two 'identical' guitars
not sounding the same, into this discussion, is not clear at all. It
is a completely different topic.

This topic is about scale length.

Joey was simply saying the only way to isolate the scale length from
all other possible factors that influence tone differences on guitars,
is to take the exact same guitar body, and use two different necks on
it. By doing so, you are reducing the number of extraneous tonal
influences.
But as Joey pointed out, even by doing the neck swap, there still
could be differences in the neck wood etc. that could influence the
tone, on top of the scale length difference.

[Mr. Maj6th]

There was a general statement put out here that smaller scale guitars
were darker, longer scale guitars were brighter; we were invited to
ask a luthier if we disagreed. I introduce a quote from a well known
luthier that said there were many factors were at play on the tonal
characteristics of a guitar and in his opinion the scale of the guitar
played a very small part; he said that the woods played the largest
part. I was simply trying to question the premise of scale being a
major factor of lightness and darkness by asking the question why two
identical guitars, wood, manufacture, pickup, strings, and scale, will
be different in darkness or brightness. I didn't think I had to
explain it out like this. The original (I felt) was a blanket
statement that would make "all" short scale guitars dark, and "all"
longer scale guitars bright. I thought that most understood what I
was saying, I may have been wrong.

Maj6th

>
>
>
>

[Tony Done]

> There was a general statement put out here that smaller scale guitars
> were darker, longer scale guitars were brighter; we were invited to
> ask a luthier if we disagreed. I introduce a quote from a well known
> luthier that said there were many factors were at play on the tonal
> characteristics of a guitar and in his opinion the scale of the guitar
> played a very small part; he said that the woods played the largest
> part. I was simply trying to question the premise of scale being a
> major factor of lightness and darkness by asking the question why two
> identical guitars, wood, manufacture, pickup, strings, and scale, will
> be different in darkness or brightness. I didn't think I had to
> explain it out like this. The original (I felt) was a blanket
> statement that would make "all" short scale guitars dark, and "all"
> longer scale guitars bright. I thought that most understood what I
> was saying, I may have been wrong.

The problem I see is that relatively inexperienced players/buyer can
place too much importance on any one thing. It can get misinterpreted as
"only long scales are good for what I want", "only tight grain is good
for tops", "rosewood is better than mahogany" and so on. In the end, you
have to trust your ears or your luthier's advice.

<g> My favourite fingerpicking guitar has a plywood top (true), that is
the first place you should look (not true).


--
Tony Done

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456

http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/

[Jazzer]

On May 10, 2:58 pm, "John A." <ja...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

> This is video of the two together.  I can't tell whether it's solid or hollow from this, though.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNVf0OZhtqY
>
> John

It's a solid body.

[Jazzer]

On May 10, 2:33 pm, van <sg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Does anyone know what guitar and amp Lenny used on that recording?
> I wonder how much LB's technique contributed to that clarity of sound.
> In other words, I want that sound!

I don't have that album, but if Lenny was using the same guitar he was
using on the Youtube video of him and Tal, then it is a custom made 7-
string solid body.
Fishing line for the 7th string.

After Lenny died, a teacher at Humber College in Toronto somehow
managed to get Lenny's guitar (the one in the video).

There were many 'secrets' to Lenny's sound.
One thing that should be noted is that he used extremely light gauge
strings and the strings were almost touching the frets! The action was
incredibly low!

I played on one of his nylon acoustics at a workshop.

[van]

thanks!

[Greger Hoel]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 05:54:19 +0200, Jazzer <google...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't have that album, but if Lenny was using the same guitar he was
> using on the Youtube video of him and Tal, then it is a custom made 7-
> string solid body.
> Fishing line for the 7th string.

Fishing line on a magnetic pickup solidbody? No way!

--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Jazzer]

On May 12, 7:01 am, "Greger Hoel" <nob...@home.fu> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 May 2013 05:54:19 +0200, Jazzer <googlejaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I don't have that album, but if Lenny was using the same guitar he was
> > using on the Youtube video of him and Tal, then it is a custom made 7-
> > string solid body.
> > Fishing line for the 7th string.
>
> Fishing line on a magnetic pickup solidbody? No way!

You're right it doesn't seem to make sense for his solid body 7
string.
I know he used them for his nylon acoustic.
Anyone know about his high 'e' on his 7 string electric?

[Paul]

The scale length was short enough to permit a .009 or .010 on top.
That's what I use on mine.

[Tony Done]

I don't know what he uses, but you can buy 7-string sets eg Ernie Ball
nickel plated iron. I use 10-56, the upper 6 (10-46) for electrics, and
the lower 6 (13-56) for reso. You can get a heavier set, 11-something,
and I would guess that there is also a 9-something

[Greger Hoel]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:49:29 +0200, Tony Done <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> I don't know what he uses, but you can buy 7-string sets eg Ernie Ball
> nickel plated iron. I use 10-56, the upper 6 (10-46) for electrics, and
> the lower 6 (13-56) for reso. You can get a heavier set, 11-something,
> and I would guess that there is also a 9-something

That's for low B to high E tuning, not low E to high A, so it's irrelevant.

I've never seen thicker than .008 strings for the octave G in 12 string
sets. I suppose Lenny might get away with tuning .008s to high A because
of his feathery light touch. I've also heard Billy Gibbons and Frank Zappa
uses and used--respectively--.007 string sets. The James Bond gauge of
guitar strings.

[Joey Goldstein]

Back in the day I think I heard he was trying to use an .007" but they
kept breaking on him as I recall.
I don't think he played that guitar for very long.
But I could be wrong about all of the above.

[Tony Done]

13-56 will tune to E (as I use on most acoustics) so 10-56 or the 9 set
will tune to A. Pretty tight, but OK if you are used to heavy acoustic sets.

[Greger Hoel]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:40:23 +0200, Tony Done <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> 13-56 will tune to E (as I use on most acoustics) so 10-56 or the 9 set
> will tune to A.

No. The top string will break.

[Tony Done]

On 14/05/2013 6:42 AM, Greger Hoel wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:40:23 +0200, Tony Done <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> 13-56 will tune to E (as I use on most acoustics) so 10-56 or the 9
>> set will tune to A.
>
> No. The top string will break.
>

Just tried it with a 10, it didn't, 25"scale.

Hmmm, tried bending it, then it broke.

[Paul]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:42:17 +0200, "Greger Hoel" <nob...@home.fu>
wrote:

>On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:40:23 +0200, Tony Done <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> 13-56 will tune to E (as I use on most acoustics) so 10-56 or the 9 set
>> will tune to A.
>
>No. The top string will break.

Not so -- the scale length Kirk Sand devised for Lenny's electric is
essentially Gibson scale minus the first fret, so it is more or less
like tuning the first string to G# on a 24.5" 6-string. I have two
custom guitars (an electric by Ted Megas and an steel string acoustic
by Alan Beardsell) built to this scale. I use a .056-.014 or
.052-.013 set on the bottom (regular) six strings and a .010 for the
high A. It intonates perfectly, the sound is well balanced and the
top string does not break. In fact I haven't broken a string in the
more than ten years that I have been playing short-scale high-strung
7-strings finger-style and with a pick.

Kirk built me a custom short-scale nylon 7-string for high-A tuning.
The scale length is longer than the steel string guitars but shorter
than classical. I use high tension strings on the bottom (regular)
six strings and a D'Addario nylon 020 on the top. Intonates perfectly
and the top string does not break.

There were no superlight nylon strings like the D'Addario 020 when
Lenny started playing his high-strung nylon so he used fishing line
for the top string. Kirk told me that he did not build Lenny's
nylon-strung guitar from scratch, but adapted a 7-string classical
that his company was importing at the time.

Paul

[Greger Hoel]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:00:23 +0200, Paul <pcj...@bell.net> wrote:

>> No. The top string will break.
>
> Not so -- the scale length Kirk Sand devised for Lenny's electric is
> essentially Gibson scale minus the first fret, so it is more or less
> like tuning the first string to G# on a 24.5" 6-string.

I see, thanks for telling. (Better late than never I suppose :P) I was
under the impression Lenny's solidbody was regular 25 1/2", for some
reason. If the scale length was that short, there's no mystery to it at
all.

I have two
> custom guitars (an electric by Ted Megas and an steel string acoustic
> by Alan Beardsell) built to this scale. I use a .056-.014 or
> .052-.013 set on the bottom (regular) six strings and a .010 for the
> high A. It intonates perfectly, the sound is well balanced and the
> top string does not break. In fact I haven't broken a string in the
> more than ten years that I have been playing short-scale high-strung
> 7-strings finger-style and with a pick.

With that scale lenght, I'd be more interested in the bass response on the
low E.