Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
Forum Ringside => Guitars, Amps and Effects => Topic started by: MDV on January 28, 2009, 02:03:28 PM
-
Bob 'Legra' Johnson and I are hammering out a new build, and I'm toying with the idea of baritone. I say toying. Very seriously considering.
I currently (mainly) play in C# and drop B (mostly drop B) on 25.5 inch with 12 - 62.
My question is, how much difference does it really make, to both tone and playbility? What do you think the most important factors in tightness are? (woods, pickups, amp, scale, player - ? Anything else? What do you think the weighting of these things is?)
I'm gonna see if I can try some out, obviously, (or worst case scenario buy a cheap one or, more likely, get a replacement neck for one of my stratalikes (great idea bob!)) but please give your experiences with them! The more and the more varied the better.
-
Hi MDV,
Good to hear you're thinking of a move to the dark side!
In my opinion the factors to dwell on are:
Scale length: what is the longest you can still play on? Can you tune down low enough (with appropriate string gauges) to retain sufficient tension and therefore clarity?
Fanned Frets: In order to achieve a playable string tension at your selected scale length on the bass side, you may struggle with strings for the treble side - very high tension/breaking/uncomfortable to play. Shortening the scale length for the treble strings is a great way to combat this, while still allowing you that beautiful piano-like clean and great articulation for the bass strings.
As you know, the way Wez built my fanned fret guitar was with the perpendicular point at the 7th fret. This means that for the vast majority of what you're playing, the fingers really don't notice the fanning of the frets. I can't stress enough how playable the guitar is. I literally forgot that the strings were fanned when I picked it up for the first time, because I was so struck with the quality and feel of the natural wood finish, and it wasn't until Wez pointed out that it didn't take me long to adjust that I twigged "Hang on a minute... oh yeah!".
Naturally, I was worried about it before, having not played a fanned fret guitar previously, but there was absolutely no basis for that worry, and I'd urge everyone to get their mitts on a multiscale guitar! The benefits for me are absolutely clear:
Previously, on my 25.5" Ibby in A-E-A-D-F#-B with 13-65 strings:
Flappy bass strings (in comparison), tension was not too bad, but could have been better.
Tuning issues: Not with the guitar (which held tune very well), but with the strings. Hit a string hard, and you'd get a considerably higher pitched note which would come down to the correct pitch over the course of 0.5-1 second or so. Bad!
Now, on my Voiferator with 14-70 (I think it's 70, might be 68...) in same tuning:
Proper tension on all strings, gives really nice feel to the instrument, and means that *all* strings hold the true note at all times, provides very clear, bell/piano-like cleans, and great articulation for the fast (especially low) stuff.
As for the most important factors in tightness:
Amp (flabby amp will never be tight!)
Player (gotta have the fingers!)
Scale length (assuming appropriate choice of string gauge)
Pickups (I'm assuming BKP here ;))
Woods
That's the order I would put them in. The choice of wood should really be governed by the tone you want to achieve, rather than the articulation. I went for Maple/Bubinga/Wenge neck-through with Bubinga wings and ebony fretboard to give a good amount of mid-range bite, plenty of attack, and a blistering bottom-end response. It definitely worked! And that's with a Black Dog in the bridge, which isn't the world's tightest pickup, but does allow the sound to be very open (again, dependent on amp channel, Channel 1/crunch of the 5150-II is quite open, the gain channel is really compressed).
Hope this helps,
Roo
-
i like the clarity a baritone can give, but that can make the high strings a little unbearable which is why i ended up going multiscale on roo's
for you i would aim for a 27 1/4" scale length if going for straight frets. 26" treble to 27 1/2" bass if going for a multiscale
Roo's sounds tight because of the 26.5"-28" scale lengths and the combo of bubinga, maple, wenge and ebony in the build.... no room for flab in that
-
Thanks for the replies fellas
I dont really get the faults you describe on my guitars, roo. I dont really have a 'fault' per se to correct here. I'm wondering if it would be better.
Your checklist of tightness:
Amp: Powerball. Check.
Player: Me. Obviously. I'm a fairly tight player. Check.
Scale length: ?
Pickups: Will be Painkillers. Check.
Woods: Will be meranti or mahogany, whichevers tighter, maple walnut 5pc through with ebony board, swamp ash wings. Check.
Balance across the strings is a bit of a concern, wez, but cant I just compensate with guage?
I'm interested in what you based the choice of 27.25 on: is there a calculation behind that?
-
Balance across the strings is a bit of a concern, wez, but cant I just compensate with guage?
I'm interested in what you based the choice of 27.25 on: is there a calculation behind that?
you can compensate with gauge to a certain degree but generally it means a compromise, i.e fatter strings than you want or tighter tension than is comfy. compensating with a change in scale lengths works better IMHO see if you can convince bob to try a multiscale ;)
the figure of 27.25 is from limited experience rather than calculations... my first baritone was 27.25 and it used the tuning and strings you describe and felt reasonably comfy. i find 28"+ barry's that are not multiscale to be really uncomfy on the high srings
obviously when considering pickups for Roo's i spoke to tim a lot through emails and on the phone. i asked him which would work best out of warpig, C-pig and painkiller and he said he wouldnt put any of them in a baritone as the effect would be kinda similar to putting a bass through a cheap distortion pedal. Baritone strings simply do not need a poweful pickup to generate a large output
-
Tried to play one once and couldn't get on with the longer scale length. I didn't find it very comfy at all.
Saying that though, I strung up my firebird and found the 25.5 inch scale length quite uncomfy, guess I'm just used to smaller ones now.
-
A compound scale is a bit outlandish for me (more power to you roo, but its not my thing)
So far I'm thinking that so much is involved more than just scale that Its no magic tightness bullet and I can still get surgical precision out of 25.5 (in my not-too-low tunings). Do you think this is a fair assesment? Is the difference a big one or are there more important things?
Does that logic on the pickups apply to heavy strings on any scale? Or is it the scale that makes a difference, as opposed to the mass of the string and the pitch?
Cheers for the input TM (I think we differ, though - I find 25.5 perfectly comfortable and 24.75 small *shrug* still doesnt rule out the possibilty that I'd not get on with a baritone: I have to try one to really know that though. Still, all reports of playabilty welcome!)
-
Does that logic on the pickups apply to heavy strings on any scale? Or is it the scale that makes a difference, as opposed to the mass of the string and the pitch?
i think its mostly a mass thing - the sheer amount of metal vibrating over the pickups generating more of a signal - but scale and pitch are all part of it because they affect how that mass of metal vibrates
-
So far I'm thinking that so much is involved more than just scale that Its no magic tightness bullet and I can still get surgical precision out of 25.5 (in my not-too-low tunings).
On this note - since I'm confident you'll know the song - The Burning Pits of the Duat is was recorded on 24.75 scale instuments. It's not exactly flabby and obviously it's in drop A.
I'd be interested to hear more ideas regarding big strings and high output pickups, given that I'm in C standard all the time on guitars with Ceramic warpigs and Nailbombs.
-
To echo what Wez said; 28"+ is horrible on the treble side- the frets are just too far apart (from when you've been playing 25.5 for years), and the tension is nasty, even with a set of 9s on there. On my 1st fanned fret, I did 25.35" to 27" (7 string), and in standard B tuning, it's just right with 9s and a 56 on the bottom, you may want to go up to a 58 and 10s, but i'd say no higher really, otherwise playing in C# (the king of tunings) won't feel that nice.
Viva la fanned frets!!!!
-
Cheers Wez, I may want to try a less powerfull pickup, see what happens
nfe, good point. I've been thinking of nile, I know they use 24.75 scale (Karl and dallas both actually like their dean MLs and Vs more than anything else they have, even KXKs). A host of other bands, too - I can barely think of any that use baritones, actuall. Machine head, but their best sounds were on gibsons and jacksons...meshuggah, but I'm not going completely insane with a 30"...anyone else? There have to be more, surely?
Who uses them? I can listen and look up the rest of the gear!
And thanks Oli. I was never really thinking of anything over 27 anyhow. 26.5 was the number in my head, actually, because its only another inch and I daresay I could get used to it really easily.
-
Cheers Wez, I may want to try a less powerfull pickup, see what happens
nfe, good point. I've been thinking of nile, I know they use 24.75 scale (Karl and dallas both actually like their dean MLs and Vs more than anything else they have, even KXKs). A host of other bands, too - I can barely think of any that use baritones, actuall. Machine head, but their best sounds were on gibsons and jacksons...meshuggah, but I'm not going completely insane with a 30"...anyone else? There have to be more, surely?
Who uses them? I can listen and look up the rest of the gear!
And thanks Oli. I was never really thinking of anything over 27 anyhow. 26.5 was the number in my head, actually, because its only another inch and I daresay I could get used to it really easily.
Karl uses a baritone for sure, it's kind of golden V-shaped and has a single Invader pickup. I think it's 27" scale. Also, Rob Flynn from Machine Head used an ESP V with 27" scale a lot, although it needed some repair on the last UK tour. They use baritones for recording a lot though, apparently.
I used to play my Ibanez RG in B standard but hated it, it felt very wrong somehow. The baritone I have (see the picture below) plays much nicer. It takes you a couple days to get to the feel, but I would say it really has improved my playing and technique.
On a sound comparison it has more punch than the RG ever had. Even a E or A chord rings out much more, which is natural considering the longer scale and that the string can vibrate over a greater length.
This baritone has two things I really like:
- the lower frets are really easily accessible (it's ESP's set-thru design which feels like neck-thru)
- It neither looks nor feels like an overly long guitar/giraffe neck; due to it only having 22 frets, the "cutaway" at the back guitar strap button and the long horn for the front guitar strap button it balances very nicely and is exactly the same length as my Ibanez RG was.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/theonlywarlock/IMAG0222.jpg)
-
Cheers Wez, I may want to try a less powerfull pickup, see what happens
nfe, good point. I've been thinking of nile, I know they use 24.75 scale (Karl and dallas both actually like their dean MLs and Vs more than anything else they have, even KXKs). A host of other bands, too - I can barely think of any that use baritones, actuall. Machine head, but their best sounds were on gibsons and jacksons...meshuggah, but I'm not going completely insane with a 30"...anyone else? There have to be more, surely?
Who uses them? I can listen and look up the rest of the gear!
And thanks Oli. I was never really thinking of anything over 27 anyhow. 26.5 was the number in my head, actually, because its only another inch and I daresay I could get used to it really easily.
Karl uses a baritone for sure, it's kind of golden V-shaped and has a single Invader pickup. I think it's 27" scale. Also, Rob Flynn from Machine Head used an ESP V with 27" scale a lot, although it needed some repair on the last UK tour. They use baritones for recording a lot though, apparently.
I used to play my Ibanez RG in B standard but hated it, it felt very wrong somehow. The baritone I have (see the picture below) plays much nicer. It takes you a couple days to get to the feel, but I would say it really has improved my playing and technique.
On a sound comparison it has more punch than the RG ever had. Even a E or A chord rings out much more, which is natural considering the longer scale and that the string can vibrate over a greater length.
This baritone has two things I really like:
- the lower frets are really easily accessible (it's ESP's set-thru design which feels like neck-thru)
- It neither looks nor feels like an overly long guitar/giraffe neck; due to it only having 22 frets, the "cutaway" at the back guitar strap button and the long horn for the front guitar strap button it balances very nicely and is exactly the same length as my Ibanez RG was.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/theonlywarlock/IMAG0222.jpg)
Yeah, those are karls KXKs. Two that I know of - a V and a double necked V with a fretless 11 string (single low a, the rest doubled as a 12). He says they sound the best for rhythms, but didnt go into great detail.
Thanks for your input (but I'm not getting your baritone ;), mine will be 24 fret and a heel-less through, RG shaped).
I assume thats 27"?
-
Cheers Wez, I may want to try a less powerfull pickup, see what happens
nfe, good point. I've been thinking of nile, I know they use 24.75 scale (Karl and dallas both actually like their dean MLs and Vs more than anything else they have, even KXKs). A host of other bands, too - I can barely think of any that use baritones, actuall. Machine head, but their best sounds were on gibsons and jacksons...meshuggah, but I'm not going completely insane with a 30"...anyone else? There have to be more, surely?
Who uses them? I can listen and look up the rest of the gear!
And thanks Oli. I was never really thinking of anything over 27 anyhow. 26.5 was the number in my head, actually, because its only another inch and I daresay I could get used to it really easily.
Karl uses a baritone for sure, it's kind of golden V-shaped and has a single Invader pickup. I think it's 27" scale.
Only on Ithyphalic and playing live anywhere outwith the US he still plays Deans (or at least when I saw them last he was and I've read him say in articles he doesn't take the KxKs overseas. Dallas is still Deans all the way I think.
-
Yeah, those are karls KXKs. Two that I know of - a V and a double necked V with a fretless 11 string (single low a, the rest doubled as a 12). He says they sound the best for rhythms, but didnt go into great detail.
Thanks for your input (but I'm not getting your baritone ;), mine will be 24 fret and a heel-less through, RG shaped).
I assume thats 27"?
Yes, it's 27". I've not tried any other baritone scale, but this one still feels somewhat normal.
What's a heel-less guitar?
-
Cheers Wez, I may want to try a less powerfull pickup, see what happens
nfe, good point. I've been thinking of nile, I know they use 24.75 scale (Karl and dallas both actually like their dean MLs and Vs more than anything else they have, even KXKs). A host of other bands, too - I can barely think of any that use baritones, actuall. Machine head, but their best sounds were on gibsons and jacksons...meshuggah, but I'm not going completely insane with a 30"...anyone else? There have to be more, surely?
Who uses them? I can listen and look up the rest of the gear!
And thanks Oli. I was never really thinking of anything over 27 anyhow. 26.5 was the number in my head, actually, because its only another inch and I daresay I could get used to it really easily.
If you've got big paws like me, then you'll have no trouble at all with 27" or 26.5" scale length. I'd go with 26.5" for tension reasons as mentioned above!
Just wanted to say that while multiscales look pretty scary, and in many ways quite wrong, they're definitely not to be considered as exotic! It's very normal when you actually play them!
Might be worth considering asking Tim about a lower output style of painkiller for the phatter strings - not sure which of the lower output pickups would be suitable off the shelf, but especially if you're after the clinical articulation of the PK, it might have to be a custom job on that one. Also, if the strings aren't *too* big, then ceramic is probably okay, but for mine we were warned off a ceramic pickup (apparently they didn't sound good on baritones when Tim did a lot of work on these with Iced Earth). Just something to consider!
Roo
-
I dont think my paws are particularly big - out of curiosity I just meaured my handspan - 23.5cm from thumbtip to pinkytip. I dont have much trouble playing most stuff on my basses though (34" scale). I can play the non-sweep riffs to holy tyranny (that fast track that I recorded - you commented in it so I know you've heard it!) on bass. No reach picking and only no sweeps cos the bass doesnt have the strings for them (I need a Mike Flores!). I'm also completely insensitive, playability wise, to 24.75 vs 25.5. I just dont know if theres a cutoff I'm gonna run into with a longer scale.
I already play big strings and now I'm worried I'm not getting the best out of them. That said, I just fitted PKs to a guitar for a mate and they were about as tight in E as my legra is in drop B, but thin and weedy by comparison. I put that down to the (I think - I should know, I fitted the strings ages ago 9-46 gauge he has on it). But still, that doesnt mean my current guitars (12-62, chosen 99% for tension in chosen tuning) might not be better with a less powerfull pickup.
Alex: by heel-less I mean if you imagine a line drawn between the horns of a superstrat that follows the curvature of the horns and meets in the middle of the guitar, then the neck doesnt reach full thickness till it hits that line. So, it doesnt have a 'heel', as in a chunky bit of the neck where theres a join. Seems to me to be the obvious way to do throughnecks. I'm always mystified when they have heels that are basically as chunky as set-necks.
-
Cheers Wez, I may want to try a less powerfull pickup, see what happens
nfe, good point. I've been thinking of nile, I know they use 24.75 scale (Karl and dallas both actually like their dean MLs and Vs more than anything else they have, even KXKs). A host of other bands, too - I can barely think of any that use baritones, actuall. Machine head, but their best sounds were on gibsons and jacksons...meshuggah, but I'm not going completely insane with a 30"...anyone else? There have to be more, surely?
Who uses them? I can listen and look up the rest of the gear!
And thanks Oli. I was never really thinking of anything over 27 anyhow. 26.5 was the number in my head, actually, because its only another inch and I daresay I could get used to it really easily.
Karl uses a baritone for sure, it's kind of golden V-shaped and has a single Invader pickup. I think it's 27" scale.
Only on Ithyphalic and playing live anywhere outwith the US he still plays Deans (or at least when I saw them last he was and I've read him say in articles he doesn't take the KxKs overseas. Dallas is still Deans all the way I think.
All true afaik. he said the KXK baritones sounded best for ithyphalic rhythms though. That said I dont like the sound of them, but thats not a flabbyness thing, its the nasal EQ-ing.
Anywho, if we really want to know then there are at least 2 nile forum (where karl posts quite regularly, to much hero adoration and dick-sucking) regulars that may comment with more accurate information (or may not, after the dick sucking comment. I mean, hes a great guitarist, I love Nile, but have some self-respect!)
I feel I may have digressed a little
Anyway
Baritones! Yay! (Or not, I dont know. I hope to find out).
-
I played the 27" 8 string production version of the meshuggah guitar the other day, scale length wasn't a problem for me, the width of the fingerboard had much more of an affect in playability
-
I dont think my paws are particularly big - out of curiosity I just meaured my handspan - 23.5cm from thumbtip to pinkytip. I dont have much trouble playing most stuff on my basses though (34" scale). I can play the non-sweep riffs to holy tyranny (that fast track that I recorded - you commented in it so I know you've heard it!) on bass. No reach picking and only no sweeps cos the bass doesnt have the strings for them (I need a Mike Flores!). I'm also completely insensitive, playability wise, to 24.75 vs 25.5. I just dont know if theres a cutoff I'm gonna run into with a longer scale.
I already play big strings and now I'm worried I'm not getting the best out of them. That said, I just fitted PKs to a guitar for a mate and they were about as tight in E as my legra is in drop B, but thin and weedy by comparison. I put that down to the (I think - I should know, I fitted the strings ages ago 9-46 gauge he has on it). But still, that doesnt mean my current guitars (12-62, chosen 99% for tension in chosen tuning) might not be better with a less powerfull pickup.
Alex: by heel-less I mean if you imagine a line drawn between the horns of a superstrat that follows the curvature of the horns and meets in the middle of the guitar, then the neck doesnt reach full thickness till it hits that line. So, it doesnt have a 'heel', as in a chunky bit of the neck where theres a join. Seems to me to be the obvious way to do throughnecks. I'm always mystified when they have heels that are basically as chunky as set-necks.
Yay for the same-sized hands! You'll be just fine ;)
Good luck finding a few to try out! (PS go for a multiscale! :D)
I figure if I say it subliminally enough, you might multiscale get the idea to go for it! :)
Roo
-
Huummmm, what's the differences between the FF with the fret getting perpendicular at 7th fret and from 12th????
-
At the 12th, you'll have a shallower angle at the bridge, but a steeper angle at the nut. The lower frets will have more of a difference between bottom string frets and top string frets than if you have the perpendicular point at the 7th fret, which can make it more difficult to play stretch-tastic riffs. Conversely, there is less of a difference at the higher frets, which could be argued to make it easier to play solo work. I don't think this would make much difference, tbh. I think the 7th fret is ideal for me because almost all of my work is done down there, and lead work isn't actually any more difficult with the fanned frets than parallel frets (if you ask me, it's easier, because the direction of the fanned frets is quite ergonomic at the high frets (and perversely also on the low frets, I haven't worked out why this is, yet, but it's cool!).
Hope that's in some way clear, Fernando... it's clear in my head but my fingers might have mis-translated it!
Roo
-
Huumm don't like the idea of bigger on the first frets, I got small fingers :(
Planning one in my head, but can take real long to see the light
-
At the 12th, you'll have a shallower angle at the bridge, but a steeper angle at the nut. The lower frets will have more of a difference between bottom string frets and top string frets than if you have the perpendicular point at the 7th fret, which can make it more difficult to play stretch-tastic riffs. Conversely, there is less of a difference at the higher frets, which could be argued to make it easier to play solo work. I don't think this would make much difference, tbh. I think the 7th fret is ideal for me because almost all of my work is done down there, and lead work isn't actually any more difficult with the fanned frets than parallel frets (if you ask me, it's easier, because the direction of the fanned frets is quite ergonomic at the high frets (and perversely also on the low frets, I haven't worked out why this is, yet, but it's cool!).
Hope that's in some way clear, Fernando... it's clear in my head but my fingers might have mis-translated it!
Roo
Actually, at the 12th fret, the bridge and the nut are at the same angle :) Rickenbacker did a guitar once that had slanted (but parallel) frets, but it didn't really take off.
-
At the 12th, you'll have a shallower angle at the bridge, but a steeper angle at the nut. The lower frets will have more of a difference between bottom string frets and top string frets than if you have the perpendicular point at the 7th fret, which can make it more difficult to play stretch-tastic riffs. Conversely, there is less of a difference at the higher frets, which could be argued to make it easier to play solo work. I don't think this would make much difference, tbh. I think the 7th fret is ideal for me because almost all of my work is done down there, and lead work isn't actually any more difficult with the fanned frets than parallel frets (if you ask me, it's easier, because the direction of the fanned frets is quite ergonomic at the high frets (and perversely also on the low frets, I haven't worked out why this is, yet, but it's cool!).
Hope that's in some way clear, Fernando... it's clear in my head but my fingers might have mis-translated it!
Roo
Actually, at the 12th fret, the bridge and the nut are at the same angle :) Rickenbacker did a guitar once that had slanted (but parallel) frets, but it didn't really take off.
You're right about the angles, I didn't describe it quite right on paper! Of course, one is +x degrees from the perpendicular fret while the other is -x degrees!
The idea of parallel frets just seems a bit alien to me now. I can go back to playing my ibanez, but I don't think I'll ever go back to playing a parallel-fretted guitar as my main guitar! As for that Rickenbacker guitar, that just sounds plain wrong - 'worst' of both worlds, so to speak!
Roo
PS Fernando, ideally, you'll get a chance to try a fanned fret guitar to see how you get on with it. Even with teeny tiny hands, you could just make the overall scales shorter, so no big deal there... Give me a buzz if you're over in the UK any time soon ;)
-
PS Fernando, ideally, you'll get a chance to try a fanned fret guitar to see how you get on with it. Even with teeny tiny hands, you could just make the overall scales shorter, so no big deal there... Give me a buzz if you're over in the UK any time soon ;)
Not this years, perhaps not the next one... :?
-
Does that logic on the pickups apply to heavy strings on any scale? Or is it the scale that makes a difference, as opposed to the mass of the string and the pitch?
i think its mostly a mass thing - the sheer amount of metal vibrating over the pickups generating more of a signal - but scale and pitch are all part of it because they affect how that mass of metal vibrates
The factor that has the greatest impact on output in this situation is string excursion. A longer string, when picked, will depart further from it's mean that a shorter string. This causes greater excitation in the magnetic field around the pole piece and therefore a greater output signal often resulting in coil saturation with all it's attendant noise. String excursion also has an impact on playability particularly if you want a low action. The vibration envelope for a plucked string, depending on your technique, is generally elliptical so the greater the size of the envelope the more likely the string is to buzz.
Mass has some impact on signal but not as much as string excursion. Just observe the greater output from your bass string, without any increase in mass, when you drop tune it.
I don't really need to be convinced of the efficacy of multi-scale guitars Wez but I think think they're more suited to seven and eight string applications on genuine extended range guitars where it's virtually impossible to accommodate accurate tuning and playability on a single scale length.
-
I don't really need to be convinced of the efficacy of multi-scale guitars Wez but I think think they're more suited to seven and eight string applications on genuine extended range guitars where it's virtually impossible to accommodate accurate tuning and playability on a single scale length.
I am personally not so sure, i have another one planned which will make 3 6 string multiscales with relatively conservative fans under my belt. I believe the same benefits you see over 8 strings are still very apparent over 6. The difference is that i would be very hesitant to build an 8 without doing it.. wheras i am quite happy to make 6's the tradititional way still and dont consider them flawed for not doing it.
as for barry's... i guess i will always consider doing it that way as i do see them as extended range guitars even if they only have 6 strings
-
But baritones have the same range, just over different pitches. They're shifted-range guitars, not extended range.
Thanks for the post Bob: the string excursion model makes sense to me, as does the mass one. However, stop to think about it for a second and you have mass varying across the strings by a factor of (in my case) (62^2)/(12^2) = 26.7 (assuming equal density, which they may not be, but I dont see them varying much in density from plain to wound). My low C# certainly isnt that much louder than my high C#! There has to be more to it, and from what dim recolection of induction I have, magnitude of deflection would explain it. Wider deflecitons have much more energy, and so will induce stronger currents.
I hadnt thought of the effect on string excursion and action. I like action pretty low...hmmmm, the plot thickens.
I'm starting to feel like a dont need to try a baritone - I need to spend a couple of weeks mucking about with one! Changing pickups, strings and setups to properly understand the differences in behaviour.
-
But baritones have the same range, just over different pitches. They're shifted-range guitars, not extended range.
Thanks for the post Bob: the string excursion model makes sense to me, as does the mass one. However, stop to think about it for a second and you have mass varying across the strings by a factor of (in my case) (62^2)/(12^2) = 26.7 (assuming equal density, which they may not be, but I dont see them varying much in density from plain to wound). My low C# certainly isnt that much louder than my high C#! There has to be more to it, and from what dim recolection of induction I have, magnitude of deflection would explain it. Wider deflecitons have much more energy, and so will induce stronger currents.
I hadnt thought of the effect on string excursion and action. I like action pretty low...hmmmm, the plot thickens.
I'm starting to feel like a dont need to try a baritone - I need to spend a couple of weeks mucking about with one! Changing pickups, strings and setups to properly understand the differences in behaviour.
The overall mass of a wound string can be deceiving due to the windings which have a fair amount of unused space in them (flatwounds have less of this null space), so the appearance of the string isn't quite proportional to the mass :) Also in play, are Fletcher-Munson curves, so the lower pitch of the low C# requires more energy to have the same perceived volume as the one an octave higher.... it's also why bass amps have to be so powerful, as the guitar frequencies are perceived louder by our ears :)
-
But baritones have the same range, just over different pitches. They're shifted-range guitars, not extended range.
Thanks for the post Bob: the string excursion model makes sense to me, as does the mass one. However, stop to think about it for a second and you have mass varying across the strings by a factor of (in my case) (62^2)/(12^2) = 26.7 (assuming equal density, which they may not be, but I dont see them varying much in density from plain to wound). My low C# certainly isnt that much louder than my high C#! There has to be more to it, and from what dim recolection of induction I have, magnitude of deflection would explain it. Wider deflecitons have much more energy, and so will induce stronger currents.
I hadnt thought of the effect on string excursion and action. I like action pretty low...hmmmm, the plot thickens.
I'm starting to feel like a dont need to try a baritone - I need to spend a couple of weeks mucking about with one! Changing pickups, strings and setups to properly understand the differences in behaviour.
The overall mass of a wound string can be deceiving due to the windings which have a fair amount of unused space in them (flatwounds have less of this null space), so the appearance of the string isn't quite proportional to the mass :) Also in play, are Fletcher-Munson curves, so the lower pitch of the low C# requires more energy to have the same perceived volume as the one an octave higher.... it's also why bass amps have to be so powerful, as the guitar frequencies are perceived louder by our ears :)
Yes, thats what I was talking about when I said they dont all have the same desnsity. Still, the space lost to the circular winding Vs block square filled to the same width is only piR^2/(2R)^2 = 3.1416/4 = 0.79. And the windings are much thinner than the core (which may be hex or round, but that will have even less effect). Unravel a string to see this. But assume that the whole thing has 80% of the density of a plain string (false - it'll be more like 95%, at a guess), its still 21.4 times more massive, and nowhere near 21.4 times louder.
That is true about the percieved volume of frequencies, but remember strings have a dominant frequency but carry many, many harmonics - the spectral distribution of your strings still have similar amounts of midranges (which we hear as very loud) in them.
-
hmm, i think we are all largely in agreement here but starting to get cross purposes
So on the pickup thing, i talked about increased mass (string gauge), bob added talk about increased excursion, we both mentioned scale length and tuning as big issues. I guess we are largely in agreement there except i was thinking about factors i can control directly. I.e. a change in gauge, scale or tuning will affect the excursion. Practically, the out come ends up being the same - more output from baritone strings so hot pickups do not work as well
a wound string may not be 21.4 times louder than a plain string because mass is not the only issue, but i bet most of us have our pickups set higher on the treble than the bass because there is an unbalanced output across the strings (again, lots of other factors to take into account but mass is one of them, as is this perceived frequency stuff, and our old friends scale length and tuning)
i dont think any of this should disuade you from the baritone idea.. the different responses here show how different people can take to them. finding a scale length thats suits you will be the issue, i dont think 28" is for you since you are still happy with the tightness on 25.5 but i do think its worth pushing it a bit longer - unfortunatly a 26.5" baritone may be hard to find in order to try out, 27" probably more available.
i sent Roo away with a couple of packs of different strings to try as finding the right set-up for each individual can take a bit longer - but then how long did it take you to settle on the set-up you use for a regular guitar?
Is a baritone an extended range or shifted range? well its all just semantics and there are many examples in the guitar world of confusing or cross over definitions. To me, the point of a baritone is to extend the guitars range in one direction, even if it means cutting off the range at the other end of the spectrum. I can see how shifted works as a definition for that but i dont think what we call it affects the issues at hand, i.e getting the appropriate scale length for a barry that sounds clear and has a comfortable tension on each string
-
This has been a great thread so far; really informative. I think it's great when we get right into the mechanics of guitars and away from the "my mates got one and it's great" type of thread :lol:
-
Thanks for that post Wez. Yes, many things invloved, and they're much the same thing I've been messing with for years to get right on conventional scales - string tension as functions of guage and tuning, action and pickups are my main concerns at the moment.
I've kind of convinced myself that I'll be ok with a baritone scale playability wise: thanks Roo! Yay indeed for same sized hands, and that you find 28" fine is reassuring. That coupled with having no problem with transition between 24.75 and 25.5 (though the former does seem oddly short, it doesnt screw me up), being able to play basses with 34" scale (I play them as though they're 6 strings, too; I'm a hopeleses bassist really) - I'm thinking now I'll be fine with it. And if I'm not, for any reach picking things (seems the only thing thats gonna bother me) I have plenty of 25.5s (and one 24.75 if the worst comes to the worst!)
Right, my mathsy sense tells me that if I play 12 to 62 on 25.5 now and I want the same tension (and therefore excursion? or will vibration be wider for the same tension? Seems to me it will, but until I understand how that works I'm going to assume its constant) on 27 then I need 25.5/27 = 0.94 the cross sectional area of the strings ~ 60 to 11.6! That doesnt seem much of a change to me. Have I missed something?
Excursion is a linear value, so it should scale linearly with scale length, so you should get about 6% more breadth of vibration for a given tension (27/25.5)....?
On paper, unless I'm horribly wrong, its not making a hell of a lot of difference! I know Hookes law and a linear approximation are simplistic aproximations, but they seem appropriate enough - I may as well go 25.5 (if the above is all true).
-
tbh, i dont worry about the maths. I have leanrt what i think works best through practical examples.. but here is a program you might like for working out string tensions
http://www.mcdonaldstrings.com/stringxxiii.html
its limited but maybe worth a look
-
here is another that does do larger strings
http://www.kennaquhair.com/ustc.htm
-
Some really good points raised here. I've not the time at the minute, but I'd like to check out the maths of signal induction properly to get a better understanding of how the string tension, string mass, excursion distance (attenuation of which, by the way, must be directly linked to sustain, which my Baritone has in spades!) and so on affect the output from a pickup.
Roo
-
Just thinking (off the top of my head) and I could be well wrong here, but would a different thickness/tension string vibrate at a different speed (or more exactly, physically vibrate over a larger amplitude). That would mean that the string travels through more of the lines of magnetic flux and therefore would crate a stronger signal in the pup.
It's been a long time since I studied magnatism, so I need to get my head back around it.
-
Just thinking (off the top of my head) and I could be well wrong here, but would a different thickness/tension string vibrate at a different speed (or more exactly, physically vibrate over a larger amplitude). That would mean that the string travels through more of the lines of magnetic flux and therefore would crate a stronger signal in the pup.
It's been a long time since I studied magnatism, so I need to get my head back around it.
The slacker the string, the larger the amplitude (what we've been calling excursion), so yup you're right. Clearly it gets a bit more tricky when you consider the pitch, as the pitch increases when tension increases for a constant string gauge, and it's still all dependent on string length (scale).
Probably the simplest example of output vs. excursion is when you consider what BKPs do so well naturally: When you pick a note gently, the string doesn't vibrate with a large amplitude (but the string gauge is the same, and the string tension is the same, and the scale length is the same), and the sound is quiet. Pick a bit harder, you get more output.
Ultimately, while this is all very interesting, my agenda for getting everyone on earth to play a fanned fret instrument, baritone or not, isn't furthered by detailed consideration of harmonic oscillations and inductive effects!
Roo
-
Just thinking (off the top of my head) and I could be well wrong here, but would a different thickness/tension string vibrate at a different speed (or more exactly, physically vibrate over a larger amplitude). That would mean that the string travels through more of the lines of magnetic flux and therefore would crate a stronger signal in the pup.
It's been a long time since I studied magnatism, so I need to get my head back around it.
The slacker the string, the larger the amplitude (what we've been calling excursion), so yup you're right. Clearly it gets a bit more tricky when you consider the pitch, as the pitch increases when tension increases for a constant string gauge, and it's still all dependent on string length (scale).
Probably the simplest example of output vs. excursion is when you consider what BKPs do so well naturally: When you pick a note gently, the string doesn't vibrate with a large amplitude (but the string gauge is the same, and the string tension is the same, and the scale length is the same), and the sound is quiet. Pick a bit harder, you get more output.
Ultimately, while this is all very interesting, my agenda for getting everyone on earth to play a fanned fret instrument, baritone or not, isn't furthered by detailed consideration of harmonic oscillations and inductive effects!
Roo
A very good example of string excursion affecting output; I'm kicking my arse 'cos I didn't think of saying it.
Do we all think then that fanned frets on long scale guitars are the future? Or is this a case of fanned fret evangelism? :)
Wez; thanks for all the input / effort you've put into this. Perhaps I could give you a bell sometime and talk it over; just need your number.
-
anytime Bob - infact you should come to the meet in manchester at the end of feb... i intend on taking my fanned fret proto along (my personal guitar) and would obviously like to see your stuff - possibly a bit far though!
i am not going to say fanned frets are the future because i have far too much fondness for the traditional way of doing things, but its deifnately proving to be a usefull technique and there are certain instruments that i would recommend doing that way. Baritones , ERB's, things like that.. i havnt started experimenting with the really crazy possibilities yet.
but i dont think they just have to be for metal or downtuned guitars, my personal guitar certainly isnt and my next FF/MS/CS (can you tell the terminology is an issue? ;) ) wont be either - infact its getting a Piezo bridge possibly partnered with a Mule/MQ combo... and just 6 strings again
I am just happy i have people like Roo (and others actually) who were happy to go completely out on a limb when i suggested how i wanted to do his baritone ... even though he had never played one before
-
In the essay I wrote on the subject (as part of my degree), I came to the following conclusion:
There are many purists who would disagree with the concept of Fanned-Fret instruments, however, the evidence of the improvement in comfort, string tension (and subsequently, tone) cannot be ignored. From the samples provided, there is a marked difference in the two instruments, and the Fanned-Fret certainly stands out more. The touch-style community appears to be embracing the system the most, although perhaps there is a 'chicken and egg' situation; has the community got stronger thanks to fanned frets, or has fanned frets become more commonplace thanks to the community? It is my opinion that the concept will not gain mass popularity in other genres, certainly not least until a commercial model is available at a reasonable price.
There will always be players who use the system, and slowly, more are trying it and becoming converted- from my experience this is true, and after building a Fanned-Fret 7 string guitar (featured in the appendix), I have found my standard scale 7 collecting dust. With more luthiers becoming ambassadors for the system, and producing Fanned-Fret instruments, hopefully this will encourage others to take a chance on something that they had previously not considered. From my experience in building a multi-scale instrument, I have noticed that from briefly documenting progress in the build helps others to understand more about the system, and to be interested at attempting such a project themselves.
Obviously this is just my opinion, but i'm confident on my research and theories on the subject :)
Wez: my fanned 6 that's in progress should have piezo output too- but not Mule/MQ, i'm undecided yet on the pickups, but the neck HB has to split well :) I don't think I can make it to the north meetup though, which is a shame, as I think I could get the guitar finished by then.
-
ah, come on Oli!! I think Gwem's doing the trip