|
Author
|
Topic: Scale Lengths
|
Jesse Pearson
Member From: San Diego , CA
|
posted 27 November 2002 06:09 PM
profile send email edit
Can anybody tell me the pro's and con's of the different scale lengths? I mean, there's 22." to 26." Thanks[This message was edited by Jesse Pearson on 01 December 2002 at 08:32 AM.] |
oj hicks
Member From: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
|
posted 27 November 2002 06:41 PM
profile send email edit
Hi, Jesse.String spacing being equal, the short scale is better for slants on non-pedal. This is one of the reasons Jerry Byrd prefers the short scale guitar. oj hicks
|
mikey
Member From: Hawaii, Big Island
|
posted 27 November 2002 07:07 PM
profile send email edit
SLANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!In the lower registers in particular.
Mike |
Andy Volk
Member From: Boston, MA
|
posted 27 November 2002 07:07 PM
profile send email edit
22.5" scle with 3/8" string spacing is optimal for playing in tune slants. The trade off is higher string tension as well as tone. With a 24" scale, it starts to get hairier to get accurate slants below the 5th fret but the richness of tone increases and the action - depending on string gauges - can get a bit looser. 26" scales can offer fabulous tone but slants are close to immpossible on the lower frets. Harmonics tend to ring out better on a longer scale. Jerry Byrd, of course, disproves this general rule in his specific mastery of short scale instruments.[This message was edited by Andy Volk on 27 November 2002 at 07:09 PM.] |
Jesse Pearson
Member From: San Diego , CA
|
posted 27 November 2002 08:14 PM
profile send email edit
How about the 22.1/4" that J.B. plays sometimes, is it better than 22.5"? I looked at the Excell home page and they say their short scale is 22." is this a mistake? Thanks again! |
Jesse Pearson
Member From: San Diego , CA
|
posted 28 November 2002 03:27 PM
profile send email edit
Hey Andy, is this right?
quote:
_______________________________ 22.5" scle with 3/8" string spacing
is optimal for playing in tune slants.
The trade off is higher string
tension...
___________________________________
Check out John Tipka's site, "How to build a steel guitar". He says the string tension is less with the short scale. http://www.iwaynet.net/~steelgtr/build.html Has anybody played a 22." scale? I think Don Helms Gibson Console Grande had a 24 5/8 scale, and he never used slants. I want to buy or build a triple table steel in the near future so the scale issue is important. |
Erv Niehaus
Member From: Litchfield, MN, USA
|
posted 28 November 2002 05:52 PM
profile send email edit
I always felt that the longer scales had more sustain.
Erv |
Andy Volk
Member From: Boston, MA
|
posted 28 November 2002 06:09 PM
profile send email edit
Well, string gauges are a big factor in action too. I wouldn't want to contradict John T. - he's very knowledgeable guy - so I guess the real answer is "it depends". |
Jody Carver
Member From: The Knight Of Fender Tweed. Dodger Blue Forever
|
posted 29 November 2002 04:51 PM
profile edit
This question has been addressed by myself to
Don Randall and Leo Fender. I have always felt that the 22/1/2 length has less tension
and my feelings are that the 22/1/2 has as much sustain as the longer scale StringmasterThe 26" inch scale to my ear was not as mellow as the shorter scale necks,and the issue was string breakage on the 26" necks. See Guitar Player Feb 1988 for comments made to Leo Fender by myself regarding this,Richard
Smith wrote the article in the "Rare Bird Column. I do like both however,,but the shorter scale
is my preference. |
Ricky Davis
Moderator From: Austin, Texas
|
posted 30 November 2002 02:07 AM
profile send email edit
It's true that the tension is less on a shorter scale....but that is if you use the guages that you would normally use on a longer scale.
But the shorter scale steel should have bigger guaged strings on it as bar pressure intonation is a big factor if you don't. So with bigger string guages on a short scale will have some pretty good tension if not the same as a long scale with normal string guages.
Now....I truely believe....that a 3/8" string spacing from bridge to nut and a perfect 24" scale is the Perfect match for tone/sustain/bar slants.
I have no problem on the lower fret bar slants with this scale length; as long as it's 3/8" spacing all the way.
I do like the shorter scale Fenders as I believe with bigger string guages...just create a great sound and intonation up and down the neck and with bar slants.....but I don't like overly thick strings than what I'm used to.....so that's why I built the perfect steel seen below....>the SS HAWAIIAN.
------------------
Ricky Davis 
My Homepage
Rebel™ and Ricky's Audio Clips
www.mightyfinemusic.com
Email Ricky: sshawaiian@aol.com |
Jesse Pearson
Member From: San Diego , CA
|
posted 30 November 2002 10:08 AM
profile send email edit
Hey guys, this is great stuff! It's got me wondering if certain tunings, scale lengths, string gauges and celebrity styles are all connected into identifiable combinations, so as to nail that style and sound. What would be the holy grail of combinations, that would afford the greatest musical flexibility of styles, tone and sustain? I'm getting alot out of simple C6 and E6 w/ six strings on a 22.5 scale with slightly heavier gauges. Ricky seems to have found his primo combination. Ricky, could you please share with us your preferred tuning and the string gauges you use on your SS Hawaiian? Plus alittle insight on why. Thanks![This message was edited by Jesse Pearson on 30 November 2002 at 12:16 PM.] [This message was edited by Jesse Pearson on 30 November 2002 at 12:27 PM.] |
Mark Durante
Member From: Illinois
|
posted 30 November 2002 10:50 AM
profile send email edit
While slants on a 26 inch scale are more difficult in the low positions, slants (and playing in general) in the higher registers is easier, additionally there is more playable area than with shorter scales. The high G# does like to break sometimes but it's a real big sound.[This message was edited by Mark Durante on 30 November 2002 at 12:06 PM.] |
Ricky Davis
Moderator From: Austin, Texas
|
posted 30 November 2002 02:10 PM
profile send email edit
Jesse; I have all my different tunings and guages on my home computer and reasons why.....but I'm outta town right now...so I'll plop them up when I get home.
I do use a few different tunings...depending on what I got going on musically.
Ricky |
Jeff Strouse
Member From: Jacksonville, Florida, USA
|
posted 30 November 2002 02:44 PM
profile send email edit
Great information, Ricky! I've always enjoyed your website and the beautiful S.S. Hawaiian. I'd like to see your tuning list too. Thanks for all that you share!  |
Ricky Davis
Moderator From: Austin, Texas
|
posted 01 December 2002 11:40 AM
profile send email edit
Ok here is one of the tunings I use for C6th and a turn here and a turn there; and I transpose it to D 6/9.
(C6th) (D6/9) (Guage)
1) G down 1/2> F# .012p
2) E down whole> D .014p
3) C down 1/2> B .017p
4) A stay same> A .020p
5) G down 1/2> F# .026w
6) E stay same E .030w
7) C up whole> D .036w
8) Bb up whole> C .038w
9) A stay same> A .042w
10 F up 1/2> F# .054w
Here is the other tunings and guages I use.....and all these tunings are used on a 24" scale 10-string SS HAWAIIAN.
(E13+9)F# .013 plain
G# .012 "
E .014 "
C# .018 "
B .020 "
G# .024 wound
F# .028 "
E .032 "
D .036 "
C# .040 " (C6) G .012 plain
E .014 "
C .017 "
A .020 "
G .026 wound
E .030 "
C .036 "
A .042 "
G .048 "
F .054 "
Have fun. ------------------
Ricky Davis
My Homepage
Rebel™ and Ricky's Audio Clips
www.mightyfinemusic.com
Email Ricky: sshawaiian@aol.com |
Jesse Pearson
Member From: San Diego , CA
|
posted 01 December 2002 05:31 PM
profile send email edit
Thanks Ricky, appreciate it. This is really insightful!  |
Jesse Pearson
Member From: San Diego , CA
|
posted 04 December 2002 10:01 AM
profile send email edit
Here is a string gauge chart from John Ely's great non pedal steel site,
http://www.hawaiiansteel.com/learning/gauges.html John talks about different string gauges for different scale lengths and what kind of string tension they produce. This coincides with what Andy Volk and Ricky Davis had to say. |
David Doggett
Member From: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
|
posted 04 December 2002 07:26 PM
profile send email edit
Here's some perspective from a different instrument, but with a lot longer history. The better pianos have longer but thinner strings. The concert grands have something like 8 or 9 feet for their low strings. What you get with the longer thinner strings is richer overtones (fatter sound) and longer sustain.To hear this effect on your guitar, bar a string at the second or third fret, then go to progressively lower strings and find the same note at a higher fret. You are then comparing a long thin string with a short fat one, at the same note or frequency. The tension should not be an issue. If you keep the same string guages and tune to the same notes, you will have less tension on a longer neck (or maybe it's the other way around). But you can get any tension you want on any length neck by changing string guages. Ideally, once you find the tension you like, you should adjust your string guages so that they all have the same tension. There are rules and tables for how to do that, and I have seen them somewhere on the Forum. It is easier to play in tune, especially on the high frets, with a longer neck, because you have more latitude to make fine adjustments. Also, you get way better sustain on the high frets with a longer neck. As someone said above, on a long neck the lower slants will be hard, and some may be impossible, but the higher ones will be easier. So this gets down to personal preference and style, and has to do with what keys you mostly play in, and where you do most of your slants, and which slants you do. Hope this helps. It almost sounds like I know what I'm talking about.[This message was edited by David Doggett on 04 December 2002 at 07:30 PM.] |
Jesse Pearson
Member From: San Diego , CA
|
posted 05 December 2002 08:52 AM
profile send email edit
Here is a sound rule on string tension v/ pitch: 1) A plain (unwound) string can be raised or lowerd 2 frets in pitch only.
2) A (wound) string can be raised or lowered 3 frets in pitch.Long scale necks have great sustain, but break strings more often and make slanting down by the nut harder or impossible. Long scale necks have more usable range past the 15th fret without the tone becoming tight and brittle sounding. Long scale breaks less strings with the lighter gauge side of a strings intended picth. Short scale necks are much easier to play down by the nut, for slanting that is and don't break strings like the long scale. Short scale necks start to become tight and brittel with tone at the 17th fret and higher. This requires more bar pressure to compensate and restore more sustain. Short scale has Mo-Tone(better) with the heavier gauge side of a strings intended pitch.  |
Jim Smith
Member From: Plano, TX, USA
|
posted 05 December 2002 08:56 AM
profile send email edit
quote:
A plain (unwound) string can be raised or lowerd 2 frets in pitch only.
Don't tell Paul Franklin that!  He does or has lowered his 6th string from G# to E (4 frets).  |
Jesse Pearson
Member From: San Diego , CA
|
posted 05 December 2002 12:02 PM
profile send email edit
Howdy Jim, I'm glad you brought that point up. I don't know anyone who uses a plain unwound 6th string, that might be alittle Kolohe, don't ya think? Now, if a player needed to switch between tunings on the same neck, he might compromise between the high and low potentials of a pitch to reach the desired flexibility between two different pitches, a kamai! But tone wise, there would be a compromise between what works best for the individual pitch v/ achievable flexibility between two separate pitches. Thanks and have a olu'olu day.
P.S. I'm originally from the great state of Texas! |
Jeff Au Hoy
Member From: Honolulu, Hawai'i
|
posted 05 December 2002 12:03 PM
profile send email edit
Granted the difference in tone between a long and short scale guitar is most apparent in the upper registers--can one pick out whether a guitar is long or short scale simply by listening? Can one listen to an album and remark "Yep, he/she's playing a short scale"? |
Jim Smith
Member From: Plano, TX, USA
|
posted 05 December 2002 12:08 PM
profile send email edit
quote:
I don't know anyone who uses a plain unwound 6th string
Buddy Emmons, Paul Franklin, Tommy White, me, etc., etc. I believe those that use a plain 6th far outnumber those that use a wound 6th. |
Jesse Pearson
Member From: San Diego , CA
|
posted 05 December 2002 01:51 PM
profile send email edit
Thanks Jim, now I see what you mean. Could you please share with us what tuning and or tunings you are speaking about and what gauge strings and scale lengths. Tuning charts don't really talk about this, but I have seen this come to think of it. Hi Jeff, I can't tell, if I could I wouldn't have to ask these questions. I do know Dick McIntire used a long scale fry pan with extra big magnets. His single line solos have a thickness to them. Did the long scale help dictate the evolution of his style, that is, he didn't use alot of harmony voicings in his lead lines. Combinations of elements and what's easy and hard to produce with those combinations, will affect where it's all going. It seems the greats historically have tried different combinations thoughout their lifetimes. All we can do is get hip to what those combinations are and utilize the ones we like best. |
Jim Smith
Member From: Plano, TX, USA
|
posted 05 December 2002 02:10 PM
profile send email edit
Jesse, maybe we're talking apples and oranges. I was talking about the 6th string G# on an E9 pedal steel tuning. I really don't know much about non-pedal tunings.  |
Jesse Pearson
Member From: San Diego , CA
|
posted 05 December 2002 03:16 PM
profile send email edit
Jim, I have seen this done on a double neck national non pedal steel, but didn't understand it. I don't know, maybe the guy knew something deep, or was out of a certain gauge of strings and was just trying to finish the gig? Has anybody out there seen this intentionally done before, a higher octave plain string replacing a deeper wound string on a non pedal steel? Oh, the deep Kung-Fu of steel guitar! Don't ya just love it! |
Roy Ayres
Member From: Starke, Florida, USA
|
posted 06 December 2002 06:09 AM
profile send email edit
There appears to be some doubt expressed in some of the above posts regarding the relationship between the length of a string and the tension in the string for a given pitch. The frequency f of a vibrating string can be computed by the equation
f=(1/2l)Ö(Ta/r)where l is the length of the string, T is the tension in the string, a is the stiffness of the string, r is the linear density of the string, and the symbol Ö is used in lieu of the radical due to limitations of available symbols in the current font. Thus, for a given frequency, stiffness and linear density (i.e., for a given string) the tension in the string is proportional to the square of the length of the string. This means, in lay terms, that increasing the length of the string by a given amount increases the tension by a greater amount. As a simple example, increasing the scale length from 22 inches to 24 inches is an increase of approximately 9 percent – but this brings about an increase in the tension of approximately 19 percent.
|
Jeff Au Hoy
Member From: Honolulu, Hawai'i
|
posted 07 December 2002 04:43 PM
profile send email edit
So I've been thinking about this long scale vs. short scale stuff...Bar accuracy might suffer, given the fact that our hand sizes cannot be altered -- but tone-wise, what would keep us from achieving 26" scale tone on a 22.5" scale instrument if we just used lighter gauge strings on the latter (tuning and other setup factors identical)? [This message was edited by Jeff Au Hoy on 08 December 2002 at 01:31 AM.] |
Jesse Pearson
Member From: San Diego , CA
|
posted 07 December 2002 07:30 PM
profile send email edit
Aloha Jeff, if I understand you right, do you mean lighter gauge strings on a 26" neck(which I think your kinda forced to use anyway for some tunings) and the heavier gauge side of a short scale neck which would give you a thicker tone, the two scales kinda being equal in the end tone wise? Yea, I guess that's what the general consensus of opinion is...[This message was edited by Jesse Pearson on 07 December 2002 at 08:26 PM.] |
Rick Aiello
Member From: Berryville, VA USA
|
posted 07 December 2002 08:38 PM
profile send email edit
I'll try to keep this "short and sweet" ... sometimes my posts come off like a "Day in Physics class ... Yawn ....  We are discussing STANDING WAVES ... A different "way of thinking" is needed ... since most of the "everyday" understanding of waves comes from Traveling Waves ... We have standing waves... fixed at both ends ... Lets go straight to an example: Two guitars ... a 26" scale and a 22" scale ... Lets play an open A, frequency = 220 Hz The wavelength of the long scale steel's A220 would be 52" (For the first harmonic (fundamental) ... wavelength is 2x string length ... 2L) The wavelength of the short scale steel's A220 would be 44". The velocity of the wave is equal to its frequency x its wavelength .... The velocity of waves on a string can also be seen as a function of the tension (T) and mass per unit length (m). ... as in this equation: v = SQRT(T/m) (SQRT is the square root) Therefore, in standing waves: v = SQRT(T/m) = Frequency x wavelength or Frequency = SQRT(T/m) / wavelength So, ... the short scale steel will produce the same A220 note as long as its ratio of tension to mass per unit length compensates for its shorter wavelength. The problem arises when you start monkeyin' around with the T/m ratio. Mathematically, you can adjust the T and m an infinite number of ways to produce the same velocity ... That applies to an "Ideal String" ... But in "Real Life " applications ... there seems to be a narrow range for T/m .... associated with the gauge of the string ... As the thickness of a string increases, our formulas associated with musical pitch become more inaccurate ..... elasticity issues, etc... We are usin' "Real Strings" not "Ideal Strings" .... Now everyone ... Wake up ... and wipe the drool off your face ....
------------------
"The SHOES make the outfit"[This message was edited by Rick Aiello on 07 December 2002 at 09:29 PM.]
|
mikey
Member From: Hawaii, Big Island
|
posted 07 December 2002 10:00 PM
profile send email edit
I agree...It's slants mainly, because tension can be made up for by increasing gauge...and I play short scale w/ monsterously HEAVY strings...and NEVER have a problem w/ breakage or tuning or the guitar itself...A Fender Stringmaster can handle just about anything...( Just don't do it on a Weissenborn or Bakelite Rick!!!!)
Mike[This message was edited by mikey on 07 December 2002 at 10:01 PM.] |
Jeff Au Hoy
Member From: Honolulu, Hawai'i
|
posted 08 December 2002 01:39 AM
profile send email edit
Hold on a second... the slow student isn't keeping up.I thought that we should use lighter gauge strings on the short scale to get the same tone as the long scale. Don't we have to keep the T/m ratio the same? For example, if we use a 0.014 E string on a 26"...that same 0.014 E string on the 22" has less tension---therefore shouldn't we use an even lighter guage string (which has less mass) to keep the T/m ratio in proportion? (of course, I guess this probably affects the tension once more) |
Rick Aiello
Member From: Berryville, VA USA
|
posted 08 December 2002 04:32 AM
profile send email edit
quote:
I thought that we should use lighter gauge strings on the short scale to get the same tone as the long scale. Don't we have to keep the T/m ratio the same?
It's the frequency that we are tryin' to keep constant .... A220 ... the T/m ratio must be adjusted in the short scale to compensate for the "smaller" value of the wavelength (the denominator of our equation): Frequency = SQRT(T/m) / wavelength quote:
For example, if we use a 0.014 E string on a 26"...that same 0.014 E string on the 22" has less tension---therefore shouldn't we use an even lighter guage string (which has less mass) to keep the T/m ratio in proportion? (of course, I guess this probably affects the tension once more)
It is helpful to think of the T/m ratio as "one entity" ... when lookin' at the big picture ...
For the short scale ... the T/m ratio must become "less positive" (relative to the long scale's ratio) to compensate for the shorter wavelength ..... since our goal is to keep the frequency constant .... This might help clear it up for you: The cross-sectional area of the string and the mass per unit length (m) are directly proportional to each other .... Therefore, for two different strings of equal length, one thick and another thin, the frequency is the same if the tension per unit of cross-sectional area is the same. That is why you can use an .014 or a .016 for your E string ... on any ONE guitar ...
and still get an E note .... The cross sectional areas will be different ... but the variations in tension will compensate ... As I stated in the above post ... in "Real Strings" ... your choice is not infinite though ... since the larger cross sectional area associated with large gauge strings begin to show "inharmonicity" due to a number of factors ... elasticity, inertia issues ... etc... In our problem ... the lengths of the strings are different (different scales) .... Therefore our tension per unit of cross sectional area (T/m ratio) must be different .... to keep the frequency the same.
[This message was edited by Rick Aiello on 08 December 2002 at 12:08 PM.] |
The Steel Guitar Forum
