string length behind nut effects on tone

[JDC]

Had a random thought, I remember a while ago that someone wrote something on how extra string behind the bridge on an archtop gives the strings less tension (if my memory is working right.)

Now I know a longer scale neck helps note definition in a lower tuning, which got me thinking, does inverting a headstock have any effect on tone of lower strings or not if it affects the tension?

Or am I talking utter rubbish?

Cheers

[Philly Q]

I thought the theory was the more length behind the nut (or bridge, presumably), the more tension - I guess because there's a greater length of string overall to be stretched.

Hence the Hendrix-style upside-down Strat is supposed to have tighter bass strings and bendier treble strings, which sounds quite a good idea to me.

I've also heard it said that the 4+2 headstock on Ernie Ball/Music Man guitars makes the top two strings easier to bend, although I have to say I didn't notice a great deal of difference when I owned one.

[WezV]

the tension between nut and bridge is exactly the same - otherwise the tuning would be different.  thats the first thing to remember.   String tensions does not change unless you change  pitch, mass of string or scale length

i think the feel is different though.  

think about bending a string, when you bend on a guitar with locking bridge (assuming non trem to remove the bridge moving as you bend) and nut you are only affecting the string between bridge and nut and it can feel tight.   its the elasticity of the string that is affected - not the tension

the angle over the nut/bridge also affects how much of this you will notice - but some prominent figures are saying its a non-issue as the difference is not something we can perceive :? still not sure about this
http://www.liutaiomottola.com/myth/perception.htm


longer scales is a different issue as it does actually change tension between nut and bridge.

Having said all that i still would not make a 5 string 34" sclae bass without through body stringing as i findthe low B too floppy if its top mounted. I also find a reverse headstock on anything less than 25.5" scale really horrible to play.  cant explain either scientifically - but after playing stuff done this way i know what i prefer... so thats my advice, you need to play similar things to see if it will work for you

[WezV]

to contradict myself, firebirds seem to work well with a reverse headtsock and shorter scale - i suspect thats the headstock angle at play

[Philly Q]

Yeah, good points about the angle of the headstock and of the strings behind the bridge, all these things have an effect.

And some guitars feel stiffer/looser than others for no apparent reason.  I'm sure a full scientific analysis could reveal why (if anyone could be bothered to do such a thing), but I prefer to think sh!t just happens.

[FELINEGUITARS]

You dont want to have long lengths of string behind the nut
They end up becoming a nuisance as playing notes will excite resonance in them and this can be heard as unwanted notes and harmonics
The same rules of physics apply to these bits of string that apply to the string that between the nut and bridge and long lengths end up being tuned - almost like a harp and these notes suddenly ringing out are most unwelcome

[gwEm]

I notice clear differences. My Steinbergers are a piece of piss to bend strings on - headless design, so only a few mm behind the 'nut'. My WezV 23 fret strat has no string trees, which may increase the length behind the nut (?) and its tough to bend strings on - its the only guitar I run as low as 10s on. 25.5" scale alround

[MDV]

The total length of the string is the length that determines the tension the string has to be brought to to attain a given pitch.

The bit behind the nut matters, as does the bit below the bridge if relevent on the guitar in quesion.

f=(1/2L).sqrt(T/d)

where f is frequency, L is the length of the string, T is its tension and d is the mass per unit length of the string, f is therefore inversely proportional to L (but we all knew that already, right?) and L has to be the total length. That means that if you increase the length behind the nut for the same pitch, tension as a funtion of length here is

T = 4df^2L^2

But we're keeping f constant d is also constant, and so was '4', last I checked, so may as well write

T~ L^2

= increase length, increase tension needed to attain the same pitch, so philly was right.

Sorry for the maths, but its a physics question, it gets a real physics answer :p.

[gordiji]

i know you work at windscale mdv, but gives us a break, don't forget the angle of the dangle is proportional to
the heat of the meat!

[Alex]

Guitars with string-thru-body seem to have higher tension often, so there must be something true about it, but like Gordij said, the angle comes in there as well.
Since you can always use lighter or heavier strings it doesn't matter a lot though.

[MisterMuncher]

I'm not about to try and divine the physics behind it. All I know is that my Hendrix strat has seemingly tighter low strings and looser trebles than a regulation one. How much this difference exists only in my head, though, I couldn't begin to tell.

[JDC]

Cheers guys, I shouldn't read science when half asleep, so if I had 2 guitars of same spec, same size string, but reverse headstock, do you think the tone on the low E would change, or just a change in tension?

[MDV]

The tension will be higher for the same guage and tuning. The tone will be accordingly different, yes.

[Roobubba]

Sorry Mark, but it really is 'gauge' :) Call it something of a specialist spelling correction, though :)

[MDV]

Roo, if you really want a job as my online spellchecker, youre going to have your work cut out for you for very little reward or recognition ;)