Just wondering why, beyond a certain gauge, we use wound strings on stringed instruments. Would a plain string of large diameter be too brittle or sound "thuddy"?

I've never seen a plain guitar string thicker than .022 or so. Don't pianos use thicker plain strings? How come those guys get away with it?

-Curious in L.A.

[This message was edited by Greg Vincent on 17 June 2003 at 08:46 AM.]

I guess what I'm asking is this:

Why aren't heavier gauge plain strings available? Why does it have to stop around .022?

If you'd like to experiment with heavy plain strings, they can be purchased at any piano supply store, but you'll have to figure out how to get by without a ball-end.

[This message was edited by Tony LaCroix on 17 June 2003 at 09:42 AM.]

I've tried very heavy unwound strings (the .026 was a g string on my Stratocaster), and there's certainly a limit. Wound strings are much more flexible for a given weight-per-inch, and that's the real advantage.

If you had, say, a .052 plain for your Guitar E string, it would have very little sustain, and only the open string would only play in tune. It would be too short to be usefully flexible at that thickness. Imagine using a plain .022 that was only two inches long. Not much sustain, eh? Like hitting a steel bar.

The limits are a little different for gut and nylon and brass and so on, but there's always a definite limit, especially if you're going to stop the string with your fingers. (You might be able to go a little heavier than .026p on steel guitar, but the harmonics aren't true either on the real thick ones, and you get this weird zingy sound).

If you want to push the limits, you can get rolls of guaged wire for strings from harpsichord supply houses, with a little gadget for putting loop ends on them. Try a google search on harpsichord strings.

If you want a smoother sound with less difference in tone between bass and treble, round-wound guitar strings might be a better option.

Wound strings are usually said to have been invented around 1700, though there were probably experiments earlier. It made a huge difference in stringed instruments, since low-pitched strings could now be shorter.

The theorbo (a lute with an extra pegbox like a harp-guitar) was almost immediately replaced as a solo instrument by lutes with all the bass strings on the same neck, something that really wasn't possible before.

Wound strings also made the cello a much more practical and better-sounding instrument, the g string on a fiddle more useable, and even made the 6-string guitar in modern tuning possible. Before that, guitars had five pairs of strings with 5 and sometimes 4 an octave higher, like a ukulele.

Not that you asked...

[This message was edited by John Kavanagh on 19 June 2003 at 12:34 PM.]

Let me see if I have this right:

1. A heavy gauge plain string would be too rigid to sustain properly.

2. A wound string of a given gauge has more mass than a plain string of the same gauge, and therefore can be shorter for a given pitch.

(That surprises me. I would've thought an .050 wound string would have less density that a solid, plain strand of .050 wire.)

I'm not actually thinking about using thick plain strings, I was just wondering why we don't use them. I want to be able to explain the purpose of wound strings in case I'm ever asked.

Thanks,

-GV

[This message was edited by Greg Vincent on 17 June 2003 at 10:55 AM.]

quote:

---

A heavy gauge wound string would be too rigid to sustain properly.

---

Playing with the variables within the limits affects the tone - that's why a long-scale guitar sounds different from a short-scale guitar with the same strings - they're tauter at the same pitch.