Baritone opinions?

[Roobubba]

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

[MDV]

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.

[MDV]

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).

[JDC]

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

[Roobubba]

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

[FernandoDuarte]

Huummmm, what's the differences between the FF with the fret getting perpendicular at 7th fret and from 12th????

[Roobubba]

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

[FernandoDuarte]

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

[Oli]

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.

[Roobubba]

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 ;)
 

[FernandoDuarte]

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... :?

[Bob Johnson]

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.

[WezV]

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

[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.

[Oli]

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 :)