Question for luthiers - 630mm scale
edspyhill01
of the sound of a guitar. I'm thinking of getting a 630mm classical
guitar. How much of a difference will there be compared to my 650 mm
scale CG?
Ed S.
John Nguyen
Ed,
If you put the capo on the first fret, your guitar now is very close
to a 630mm scale, Try it first to see if you are comfortable with the
shorter scale.
Cheers,
John
edspyhill01
John, Thanks. I knew about that trick. I'm thinking of buying a
shorter scale guitar, the full commitment.
John Nguyen
Yeah, if you fell comfortable with the capo, then it's time to go for
the real shoarter scale. It's just a way to test it out.
Cheers,
John
John Nguyen
Somehow I misread your first sentence all together :-) For the volume
and character of the shorter scale, I haven't a clue! But I know
she'll say it's too short, hehe!
Cheers,
John
Charlie
I believe a shorter scale has the frets closer together. Putting a capo on
the first fret of a 650 scale not move the frets closer together. I don' t
think that your method is the same as a 630 guitar. :-)
Charlie
"John Nguyen" <johnngu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d41003a8-9963-4353...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Richard F Sayage Savage Classical Guitar
It's close enough, actually, where the first fret is acting as the
'temp' nut, giving a fret spacing in proportion to what you would find
in a shorter scale. A difference may be the string spacing at the
saddle, depending on setup.
--
Kind Regards,
Richard F. Sayage
Savage Classical Guitar
Bay Shore, NY 11706
631-335-5447
Home to Long Island New York Classical Guitar
www.savageclassical.com
www.savageclassicalguitar.com
Robert Crim
Of course, you'll have to drop the tuning on all 6 strings one step.
Otherwise it will feel like a 630mm tuned in F instead of E.
BTW, Hippner is making a 613mm short scale Torres for not a lot of
$$ that will blow you away in looks and sound.
Robert
Steverino
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:19:12 -0400, Richard F Sayage Savage Classical
>
>
>
> Guitar <rsaya...@ZEROSPAMsavageclassical.com> wrote:
> >Charlie wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> I believe a shorter scale has the frets closer together. Putting a capo on
> >> the first fret of a 650 scale not move the frets closer together. I don' t
> >> think that your method is the same as a 630 guitar. :-)
>
> >> Charlie
>
> >>news:d41003a8-9963-4353...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Oct 2, 10:59 pm, edspyhill01 <edspyhil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> How much does the scale length contribute to the volume and character
> >>> of the sound of a guitar. I'm thinking of getting a 630mm classical
> >>> guitar. How much of a difference will there be compared to my 650 mm
> >>> scale CG?
>
> >>> Ed S.
>
> >> Ed,
>
> >> If you put the capo on the first fret, your guitar now is very close
> >> to a 630mm scale, Try it first to see if you are comfortable with the
> >> shorter scale.
> >> Cheers,
>
> >> John
>
> >It's close enough, actually, where the first fret is acting as the
> >'temp' nut, giving a fret spacing in proportion to what you would find
> >in a shorter scale. A difference may be the string spacing at the
> >saddle, depending on setup.
>
> Of course, you'll have to drop the tuning on all 6 strings one step.
> Otherwise it will feel like a 630mm tuned in F instead of E.
>
> BTW, Hippner is making a 613mm short scale Torres for not a lot of
> $$ that will blow you away in looks and sound.
>
> Robert
613 scale is _Exactly_ like capoing at the first fret ... as far as
the scalelengt is concerned.
Other adjustments in the guitar need to be made in order to have a
good feel at that length and tuning to normal pitch.
BTW, Blown away ? really? How about just positively impressed?
dsi1
You might want to switch to higher tension strings to compensate for the
reduced tension of the short scale length. Or just tune it the guitar a
half step up.
Kevin Hall
in fret spacing you'd need to get used to the feel of lower tension.
Additional scale length usually increase volume and punch, on the other
hand a shorter scale instrument can ( and should be) built somewhat lighter
than one with long strings in order to take advantage of that decreased
string tension on the top. That will pay dividends in ease of response and
often in mellowness of tone.
The late Bill Lewis always claimed that scale length is the first thing to
consider when designing a new instrument, to make sure that the guitar
suits the purpose for which it is intended.
The 'scale vs. tension' debate has waged hot and heavy for decades and you
may well find contrary advice from several well respected sources. The fact
remains, however that in order to get a longer string up to pitch requires
greater tension than that required to get a shorter one to pitch.
The last time this argument went round, a clever chap well-versed in
physics provided an excellent mathematical proof of that, contrary to the
commonly used mathematical smoke and mirrors which seems to indicate the
contrary.
KH
"edspyhill01" <edspy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:877069ca-a301-4f21...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
edspyhill01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Earlier today I tried the capo thing and tuned down so the guitar was
tuned to concert pitch while capoed. The sound of the D G B strings
was muddy. The guitar sounded crappy. Although I'm sure a 640mm or
630mm guitar will be made for each scale length. I think this idea is
busted and I should stay with my 650mm guitar. I'll make a trip to
the Classical Guitar Store next Saturday and try out the 640mm scale
guitars there. They might even have a 630mm scale guitar.
Benoit Meulle-Stef
> John,
>
> I believe a shorter scale has the frets closer together. Putting a capo on
> the first fret of a 650 scale not move the frets closer together. I don' t
> think that your method is the same as a 630 guitar. :-)
>
Actually yes it does, it's basic maths... Your scond fret been the
"new" first and so on, your frets ARE closer now...
Benoit
alca...@aol.com
650mm long strings. A capo on the first fret makes that a 615mm scale;
much shorter than the 630 you're contemplating. In fact, the jump from
650 to 630 is not all that traumatic.
As Kevin says, you can use a lighter top to help make up for the
decreased tension of the shorter strings. A light bridge really helps,
too: I'd tend to use walnut instead of a rosewood, to keep the weight
down. This helps with the 'high frequency admittance': it makes it
easier to get the higher frequencies out of the string and into the
top.
The biggest issue is usually the G string, which is enough of a
problem of longer scales. One useful way to look at this is to think
about how tight the string is relative to it's ultimate breaking
tension, the so-called '%T'. Basically, the higher the %T of the
string, the more harmonic the overtone series it will produce, and the
less it will tend to 'bend' or go sharp when it's fretted. Real
strings on instruments can't be tuned to 100%T: they'd break at any
bend, such as the bridge or nut or saddle, and nylon strings start to
'creep', continually stretch, at much above 65%T. Normally the hgh E
string on a guitar is at about 63%T, but the G string, which could be
tuned just as high without breaking (don't try this at home!) is only
at about 22%T. The harp makers that devised the computer program I use
to calculate this stuff try to avoid going below 30% T, and the B
string is fine at almost 36%T. Dropping the scale length to 630 leaves
the B at 33%T, still in the land of the angels, but the G drops to
21%, which is downright floppy.
The solution for this has been known for along time: increase the
effective density of the string so that it has to be tightened up some
more to sound at pitch, without increasing the strength. The normal
way is to use windings on the string, and it's very effective. The
problem is that wound strings 'zip', and this is why most classical
players don't like them. For various reasons the winding on a G string
also needs to be pretty light, and fine wire, or thin plastic,
windings do wear fast. Savarez makes sets with a plastic wound G, and
I always liked the sound of them. More recently, from the perspective
of this old dog at least, high density materials have been used to
make the G string, and it's possible one of those would make enough
difference to be useful.
I will say that I, and my students, have made a number of classical
gutiars with scale lengths in the 630 range, and they were less
problematic than all of this discussion makes them sound. It's likely
that the rules of thumb that the harp makers use don't apply with
equal force to guitars.
Finally, I'll mention Alicia Kopfstein-Penk's little book 'The Healty
Guitar'. She's a classical player who had a lot of trouble making the
stretches, and was told that practice would enable her to do it.
Finally she realized that, at five feet two, she was never going to
reach the top shelf without a stool, no matter how much she practiced,
and figured out a way to find the 'right' scale length for her hand. I
find her recommendations to be a bit conservative: you end up with a
shorter scale than you really 'need', but it sure is a god place to
start. Her e-mail is:
c.kop...@verizon.net
Alan Carruth / Luthier
dsi1
I've used the Savarez wound plastic G and it's a great sounding string.
The reason I don't use it however, is that it'll take a lot of work on
my part to adjust for the additional string noise produced which to my
ears, is considerable.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just switch to a higher tension string set?
alca...@aol.com
worse.
The equations that they use to predict the pitches of strings assume
that the string is perfectly flexible, so that when you push it aside
the only force pulling it back toward straight is tension. For a
string like that, if you divide it into two vibrating lengths (by
touchinfg it at the 12th fret, say) the two halves are just like the
whole string but an octave higher, and any simple division (1/3, 1/4/
1/5, and so on) gives the same sort of result. Like all models, this
one breaks down eventually when you look at real strings.
As you know from tying them off at the bridge, real strings are not
perfectly flexible. That stiffness adds to the force that is pulling
the string back to being straight when it gets bent, and the sharper
the bend, the greater the added force. This shifts all of the upper
partials a bit sharp compared with a true harmonic series. The stiffer
the string, the greater the shift. The actual stiffness of a
monofilament string varies as the fourth power of the diameter. That
is, if you make the string twice as thick, the stiffness is 16 times
as great.
Doubling the diameter of the string also makes it four times as
massive: the mass goes as the square of the diameter. This means that
it takes four times as much tension to tune it to the same pitch. So
if you call the relationship between the tension and stiffness 1:1
with the first string, it's 4:16, or 1:4 when you've doubled the
diameter. The fatter string will most likely have _less_ harmoinc
partials.
This makes some sense if you think of the limits of this sort of
thing. Suppose you made that string ten times the diameter. Now it's a
rod, rather than a string, and the tension on it, although high, is
going to be very great compared with the stiffness. The ratio has gone
to 10^2:10^4, 100:10,000, or 1:100.
For various reasons, the added diameter also cuts down on the power of
the upper partials, but, since they're not helping the sound much,
maybe that's a good thing.
The way to get a better harmonic series is to go to a thinner string,
but that cuts down on the power, and has other problems as well.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
dsi1
We're talking on different wavelengths. I only address the issue of
correcting for flabby strings. However, my guts say is that high tension
strings would feel and sound better on a short scale guitar. Installing
a set of low tension strings on such a guitar seems to be the wrong way
to go. You could go with a carbon set or with a nylgut set to reduce the
gauge of the set. I love the nylgut although most guitarists won't dig
the thin gauge.
>
> Alan Carruth / Luthier
>
>
>
tsc
I am not a guitar maker but I have 640 mm scale length guitar. It is in no
way inferior in sound projection and quality to the 650 and 650+ mm guitars
I have owned and played. I can reach comfortably chords on the shorter
length guitar that tax me on bigger guitars. However, I would caution
against going lower than 640 mm. Even with a small hand, my guess is that
the fingers will be very bunched up close together when forming chords
involving fretting the first fret at 630 mm. Others who play 630 mm guitars
may know better.
Steve
Richard F Sayage Savage Classical Guitar
may have a scale of 630, 620 or something in that range. How do your
fingers fit in this horizontal spacing?
The difference being that your steel may have a 1 7/8" nut spacing vs.
the typical 2" (52mm) on a classical. Thus vertical spacing may not be
an issue.
A capo on a standard classical may be your best bet for full comfort and
yet familiarity with the overall RH and LH string spacing with which you
are accustomed.
Tuning down a half step is not a bad idea either, to get away from that
mandolin-ish sound that comes from using a capo.
edspyhill01
Thank you to all for your suggestions and advice. I responded
directly to some posts but wanted to post this to all. I plan to
visit the Philadelphia Classical Guitar Store sometime this week to
try out the 640mm and 630mm guitars they have in stock. I might also
take a train to NYC and try the 640mm guitars at Luthier Music and
visit Sam Ash. The discussions about string tension reminded me to
remove the high tension basses and install normal tension strings. I
don't want to get to far out with string gauges.
I'm not sure the shorter scale will have a positive effect on my left
elbow tendinitis. I'm still holding on to the radiused fingerboard
idea for now. I have not found an option to try a radiused
fingerboard locally. I'm trying to locate a music store that has a
Godin multiac hybrid in stock. I doubt I'll be able to locate a
standard CG with a radiused fingerboard. The Muiltiacs have radiused
fingerboards with a 1-3/4" nut width. I think Sam Ash in NYC had a
nylon string Multiac in stock when I was in NYC a few Saturdays ago,
but I didn't have time to browse for hours. (Wives and non-guitarists
get bored real quick in music instrument stores.)
I bought a Traveler Ultra 2 months ago because I was going crazy not
playing guitar. It is a steel string guitar with a Gibson string
scale and spacing. The scale is 24.75. I measured the string spacing
and the nut is about 41mm and the string spacing at the saddle is
about 51mm. The wild thing is I have been transferring CG RH
technique to the steel string. I was surprised that I could shrink
down the RH muscle movements for that narrow string spacing. It is
not an ideal solution.
I have become very attached to CG. I was able to play my Pavan
Saturday, playing through a couple Brouwer pieces and sight read a few
of Zenamon's Epigrams. It felt so freakin' good to hear my own tone.
I spent the first 18 months, at least, concentrating on RH Tone.
So, soon I'll be trying out a few shorter scale CG's and maybe even a
radiused nylon string fingerboard.
Thanks to all and I'll post my experiences.
Ed S.
dsi1
>
> I bought a Traveler Ultra 2 months ago because I was going crazy not
> playing guitar. It is a steel string guitar with a Gibson string
> scale and spacing. The scale is 24.75. I measured the string spacing
> and the nut is about 41mm and the string spacing at the saddle is
> about 51mm. The wild thing is I have been transferring CG RH
> technique to the steel string. I was surprised that I could shrink
> down the RH muscle movements for that narrow string spacing. It is
> not an ideal solution.
Standard Gibson 24.75" scale = 629mm
Fender Strat 25.5" = 648mm
Oddly enough, the Fender to me, feels like it has the shorter scale length.
edspyhill01
I'm now thinking the main difference I unconsciously feel is
betweenwhether the fingerboard is flat or radiused. BTW, just today I
read a couple of posts by people who prefer the 25.5" archtops to the
24.75" archtops. The consensus is the longer scale has a "better"
sound with tighter bass.
dsi1
All things being equal, the longer scale will tend to favor the bass. It
would be great to have the bass strings on a guitar as long as possible
but that ain't practical.
I sure wish I could get a nice dark jazzy sound on my Ibanez Artcore
archtop but that's impossible it seems. This guy knows how to do it - on
a solid-body, skinny string Gibson Nighthawk no less!
edspyhill01
>
> - Show quoted text -
From reading a lot of posts on the jazz list it seems it's the pickups
on the Artcores. I was really thinking of getting an archtop so I did
a bunch of research on the options, but thought it through before I
acted on the GAS attack. I still have a jones for the Ibanez AJD91,
but I'm controlling it.
dsi1
>
> From reading a lot of posts on the jazz list it seems it's the pickups
> on the Artcores. I was really thinking of getting an archtop so I did
> a bunch of research on the options, but thought it through before I
> acted on the GAS attack. I still have a jones for the Ibanez AJD91,
> but I'm controlling it.
I replaced the Ibanez pickups with a Lace Alumitone set. The pickups are
an electrical oddity as far as magnetic pickups go - a low
impedance/high output pickup that uses solid aluminum instead of coils
of skinny wires that are induced to produce current flow. Like most
revolutionary products designed for electric guitars, this one has been
largely ignored. :-)
The Ibanez AJD91 looks like a nice one. I'd like to get a Gibson
Nighthawk. I'm guessing the older ones will appreciate.
Kevin Hall
designs which use a 645.2" scale. Many others use 650 scale. Gibson used
to use very short scales years ago but abandonned that for the most part in
the 80s.
KH
"Richard F Sayage Savage Classical Guitar"
news:4ac9d6a1$0$4976$607e...@cv.net...
Andrew Schulman
> ...which use a 645.2" scale...
>
>
Huh?
Andrew
Kevin Hall
which is why my moldy old Imperialist brain thinks in inches rather than
those little French impostors foisted upon us by a previous socialist Prime
Minister.
KH
"Andrew Schulman" <and...@abacaproductions.com> wrote in message
news:dd4e5781-cd6d-48eb...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Kevin Hall
of all things, a Tele.news:a8d79a1d-1667-4c2a...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
edspyhill01
> Some of the best jazz guitar sounds around were produced by Ed Bickert on,
> of all things, a Tele.
>
I just bought my first Ed Bickert CDs after someone posted a youtube
clip. I don't know how I missed discovering Ed Bickert. He has a
Gibson humbucker pickup in the neck position.
Alain Reiher
Alain
"edspyhill01" <edspy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fb5022c-34f0-4617...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Kevin Hall
worked with just about everyone who was anyone in the jazz scene but his
quiet, modest nature kept him out of the limelight. A few years ago he had
a bad fall on the ice and broke both wrists. He couldn't play at all for a
very long time and it virtually ended his career.
I believe he lost his wife a couple of years ago and he doesn't seem to have
recovered from that second blow.
When he was working the clubs around Toronto he was willing to chat with any
musicians who approached him, sharing tips and advice without reservation.
I remember him telling us he had had a number of expensive archtops over the
years but switched to the Tele because there was almost no chance of it
being damaged on the road, and if it was he could always go to the nearest
shop and pick up another one in a hurry.
I think the pickup switch on that guitar was welded onto the humbucker
position.
Ed is a wonderful musician and one of natures' true gentlemen.
KH
"Alain Reiher" <rei...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Aiyym.46769$Db2.46331@edtnps83...
Kevin Hall
worked with just about everyone who was anyone in the jazz scene but his
quiet, modest nature kept him out of the limelight. A few years ago he had
a bad fall on the ice and broke both wrists. He couldn't play at all for a
very long time and it virtually ended his career.
I believe he lost his wife a couple of years ago and he doesn't seem to have
recovered from that second blow.
When he was working the clubs around Toronto he was willing to chat with any
musicians who approached him, sharing tips and advice without reservation.
I remember him telling us he had had a number of expensive archtops over the
years but switched to the Tele because there was almost no chance of it
being damaged on the road, and if it was he could always go to the nearest
shop and pick up another one in a hurry.
I think the pickup switch on that guitar was welded onto the humbucker
position.
Ed is a wonderful musician and one of natures' true gentlemen.
KH
"Alain Reiher" <rei...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Aiyym.46769$Db2.46331@edtnps83...
Alain Reiher
and modest nature", absolutly! That 3 minutes talk I had with him backstage
has left me with the lasting impression of having met with a great man.
Alain
"Kevin Hall" <timbe...@webhart.net> wrote in message
news:J4ednTGXSLRZy1bX...@posted.vianet...