Baritone opinions?

[MDV]

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.

[WezV]

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

[Bob Johnson]

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:

[MDV]

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).

[WezV]

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

[WezV]

here is another that does do larger strings
http://www.kennaquhair.com/ustc.htm

[Roobubba]

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

[ToneMonkey]

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.

[Roobubba]

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

[Bob Johnson]

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.

[WezV]

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

[Oli]

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.

[WezV]

ah, come on Oli!!  I think Gwem's doing the trip