Ermz
¯\(°_o)/¯
It could be something about the PRS. I recall the Custom 24 being an amazingly comfortable guitar to play and bends would pretty much just do themselves.
What string guages are bands such as un flames and nevermore using?
- Thread starter kev
- Start date
::XeS::
Member
I ordered a custom set of d'addario by my guitar tech, for C tuning
11-14-18-36-46-60
Now I'm using the Zakk Wylde 10-60 but for C the higher strings are very floppy...I wanna try my custom set!
11-14-18-36-46-60
Now I'm using the Zakk Wylde 10-60 but for C the higher strings are very floppy...I wanna try my custom set!
Matt Crooks
www.fools-game.com
Brett - K A L I S I A said:
That's my problem, I really like to play .011s but the bass strings have no "bite" to them, so playing fast becomes mud. So I compromise and use .010s. Maybe I'll just order a set of heavier plain strings a lighter wound strings.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
I buy my strings in bulk from http://www.juststrings.com, and it ends up being something like 42 bucks for 12 sets, which for 7 strings, is a great deal. They're all D'Adarrio's, too, just without the colored balls.
As far as Loomis' vibrato, I have no trouble doing that tuned to E with the 10's on my Hellraiser... Eb would be cake, IMO. It'd be similar to playing 10's on a standard scale guitar. It's all about building finger strength; I find that now, 10's in E on standard scaled guitars feel more like 9's used to.
The PRS's have a 25" scale (shorter than standard Fender), and 10's on that feel like butter to me. Awesome bendability!
As far as Loomis' vibrato, I have no trouble doing that tuned to E with the 10's on my Hellraiser... Eb would be cake, IMO. It'd be similar to playing 10's on a standard scale guitar. It's all about building finger strength; I find that now, 10's in E on standard scaled guitars feel more like 9's used to.
The PRS's have a 25" scale (shorter than standard Fender), and 10's on that feel like butter to me. Awesome bendability!
Sinister Mephisto
1337
- Sep 20, 2005
- 2,900
- 1
- 38
If your strings sound to muddy don't blame it on them being to heavy right away, try picking harder. Worked for me, I use an .80 for Bb.
Hi guys!!!
Given that the sloppiness in down-tuning usually reduces in lack of tension on the b tuned string (anyway the lowest), I figured that it doesn't matter if you have a standard 25,5" neck scale or a semi baritone 26". Since the tension doesn't spring from the nut but from the tuning peg to the bridge I came up with this practical trick: I don't use the 'proper' tuning peg but I keep the low B string (a .065 bass string in my case, mounted on a Ibanez RG321, fixed bridge) on a far tuning peg so that the string being longer it fronts more tension.
I had problems with sloppiness in the lowest string since I bought a 7-strings but now it feels great playing the low register with a firm hand and not giving a s..t if I'm picking too hard that the string goes out of tune or worse buzz too much.
I post a photo to explain this.
You can do it on any type of headstock, only remember that for the few days after you will inevitably pick the wrong peg when tuning the guitar. But I got accustomed very early in the process.
Given that the sloppiness in down-tuning usually reduces in lack of tension on the b tuned string (anyway the lowest), I figured that it doesn't matter if you have a standard 25,5" neck scale or a semi baritone 26". Since the tension doesn't spring from the nut but from the tuning peg to the bridge I came up with this practical trick: I don't use the 'proper' tuning peg but I keep the low B string (a .065 bass string in my case, mounted on a Ibanez RG321, fixed bridge) on a far tuning peg so that the string being longer it fronts more tension.
I had problems with sloppiness in the lowest string since I bought a 7-strings but now it feels great playing the low register with a firm hand and not giving a s..t if I'm picking too hard that the string goes out of tune or worse buzz too much.
I post a photo to explain this.
You can do it on any type of headstock, only remember that for the few days after you will inevitably pick the wrong peg when tuning the guitar. But I got accustomed very early in the process.
cobhc
Amiga Enthusiast
i suppose you could do that with all the strings, ie the low b is on the high e's tuner and the low e and high b strings swapped over, and so on, so each string is longer than usual, thus having more tension on all the strings.
iekobrid
Authorized XSr Dealer
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Hammer Bart
Member
Hammer Bart said:
No offence taken.
But my low B now it's tight and playable, before this it was very sloppy. With the very same gauge.
how so?
Who cares? Now I'm satisfied.
Tym_ex
Tymon
I read those Sikth guys play 0.52 strings tuned down to G. Seems weird to me.
About the reverse headstock, does that really work? I used to play a guitar with reversed headstock in B and it always worked very well, never thought about the reverse thing having effect on that.
About the reverse headstock, does that really work? I used to play a guitar with reversed headstock in B and it always worked very well, never thought about the reverse thing having effect on that.
Hammer Bart
Member
The flaw is in the assumption that the length of the string increases by using a different tuning peg. It does not. At least, not the part that matters, which is the vibrating part. The length of the string is from the bridge to the nut. Not from bridge to tuning peg. Given a certain string gauge and length (from bridge to nut) you cannot increase the tension without raising the pitch. Newton wouldn't allow it 
If you like it as it is, great. Whatever works for you is good.
If you like it as it is, great. Whatever works for you is good.
iekobrid
Authorized XSr Dealer
Hammer Bart said:Given a certain string gauge and length (from bridge to nut) you cannot increase the tension without raising the pitch. Newton wouldn't allow it
I'm not convinced one way or the other [my reverse headstock suggestion wasn't meant to imply that it would really affect string tension between the nut and saddle, I just think it would look cooler and less messy than crossing strings behind the nut like in that picture], but for my own peace of mind -- when a string is raised to concert pitch, what we're doing is altering its guage/mass within the scale length, right?
I mean, 25.5 inches is always 25.5 inches, obviously, but as a string is tightened from slack to C or D or E or what have you, the decrease of its thickness/diameter within those 25.5 inches is what results in what we hear as a change in pitch. So maybe with a reversed headstock, the overall (non-scale) string length represents more overall string mass that needs to be reduced to reach the desired pitch within those 25.5 inches, since any changes we make are diluted (so to speak) over the total tuner-to-ball end length*, not just the active scale length.
* [26.5 - 28 inches or so for a standard headstock low E string vs 29.5 - 31 inches or so for a reversed headstock low E string]
Or maybe it simply means we'd have to make more turns of the tuner knob to reach the same pitch, beats the hell out of me.
The notes produced from a vibrating string work via this equation:
F = (1/2L) sqrt(T/u)
Where F is the frequency, L the is length of the vibrating part of the string, T the is tension, and u (pronounced 'mew' if you're interested) is the linear mass of the string (mass per unit length).
From this, you get the following observations:
Shorter string = higher note
Higher tension = higher note
Heavier string = lower note
When you play a note, the length of the vibrating part of the string is from the fret to the saddles. If you play an open note (say E), the vibrating part is from the nut to the saddles. Assuming the string is 'perfect', then the tension is the same along it's entire length, regardless of where you're fretting.
The length of an open note always remains the same on any particular guitar. If you're tuning to the same note, then obviously the final frequency stays the same too. If you use the same gauge string, linear mass stays the same too. So in order for the equation to work, the tension has to stay the same.
String thickness doesn't come into it - theoretically you can tune any thickness of string to any note (even if practically tensile strength doesn't allow it). Don't remember it having anything to do with Newton though - weren't he pretty much a motion guy? Momentum in closed systems and all that. I can't even remember, physics was really fucking dull.
Steve
F = (1/2L) sqrt(T/u)
Where F is the frequency, L the is length of the vibrating part of the string, T the is tension, and u (pronounced 'mew' if you're interested) is the linear mass of the string (mass per unit length).
From this, you get the following observations:
Shorter string = higher note
Higher tension = higher note
Heavier string = lower note
When you play a note, the length of the vibrating part of the string is from the fret to the saddles. If you play an open note (say E), the vibrating part is from the nut to the saddles. Assuming the string is 'perfect', then the tension is the same along it's entire length, regardless of where you're fretting.
The length of an open note always remains the same on any particular guitar. If you're tuning to the same note, then obviously the final frequency stays the same too. If you use the same gauge string, linear mass stays the same too. So in order for the equation to work, the tension has to stay the same.
String thickness doesn't come into it - theoretically you can tune any thickness of string to any note (even if practically tensile strength doesn't allow it). Don't remember it having anything to do with Newton though - weren't he pretty much a motion guy? Momentum in closed systems and all that. I can't even remember, physics was really fucking dull.
Steve
Sinister Mephisto
1337
- Sep 20, 2005
- 2,900
- 1
- 38
EtherForBreakfast
Hamster Style
- Jun 19, 2005
- 1,012
- 0
- 36
iekobrid
Authorized XSr Dealer
Suicide_As_Alibi said:
I hear what you're saying, but the way you phrased it doesn't appear to be totally accurate. For frequency to be the same for two strings of equal length and tension, their linear mass have to be the same, but not necessarily their guage / thickness / diameter.
A .010" diameter string made of nylon will have a different 'mew', and thus require a different amount of tension to vibrate at the same frequency, than would the same diameter string made out of twine, or brass, or aluminum, or nickel with a round core, or nickel with a hex core.
Suicide_As_Alibi said:
Right, and as you increase tension to reach your note of choice, the string's thickness, though not (necessarily) its linear mass, decreases. That's an aspect of elastic deformation. As you stretch one dimension of an elastic material its other dimensions are decreased to compensate and maintain the overall volume [or mass or whatever; math and I haven't been on speaking terms in quite a while
] of its original state at rest, but when you release the tension the elastic material should return to that original state. (Provided you didn't stretch it so far that it became plastic in nature, or just plain broke it.) Picture a rubber band's width decreasing as you stretch it, then returning to normal when tension is relieved. And again, I'm not trying to imply that tension-induced changes in string diameter have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not string length behind the nut has any bearing whatsoever on tension within the active scale length or "feel" or any of that. I just brought the thickness change up to make sure I was right in thinking that that's what happens when we tune up a guitar. I can't start struggling to wrap my brain around the behind-the-nut issue until I'm sure I have a better grasp of the fundamental mechanics than my usual "pitch go up now. fire hot." level of comprehension. :Spin:
Suicide_As_Alibi said:
Generally speaking, my primary area of newtonian expertise involves figgy cookies rather than complex maths, but I do know that frequency equations deal with things like a string's resistance to acceleration and 'desire' to return to a state of rest, which all sound right up Sir Isaac's alley to me.
Here's an interesting article that touches upon how increased behind-the-nut length might actually affect apparent string tension when we play:
http://www.noyceguitars.com/Technotes/Articles/T3.html
' If you look at the length of a string on a Strat between high E machine and the nut, and that between the saddle and the back of the body, it represents 30% of the effective string length (i.e. from nut to bridge saddle). The same observation on a Les Paul represents 15% of scale length. This is a very significant factor in the string-bending feel of each guitar. To simplify this, let's look at a more exaggerated example.
Fig 3a and 3b show two strings identical in everything except overall length, but mounted such that the length between the nut and the bridge is the same for each. Since for tuning purposes this is the critical length, both strings can be seen as identical as far as what is needed to tune them to the same pitch is concerned - and will thus require equal tension. However, the string in Fig 3a will be much easier to deflect (bend) than the one in Fig 3b, as the increase in tension that happens when you deflect the string is to some extent distributed over the entire length of the string. '
That would only apply to guitars with non-locking nuts, though, I imagine.
Hammer Bart
Member
Suicide_As_Alibi said:
I agree fully with what you said, I just didn't bother to go into detail. But as far as Newton not having to do with this, 'Momentum in a closed system' you say... A string vibrating on a guitar fits that description perfectly; it has mass and experiences changes in velocity over time due to forces acting on it. Generally, when you're not considereng movement of very small things (quantummechanics) or very large things (relativity), you are working with Newton's laws (classical or 'Newtonian' mechanics). People tend to think that for instance complex aerodynamics doesn't have to do with Newton. In fact, it is an application of his laws.
Gotta get back to studying. I've got an exam coming up on analytical mechanics and stability of dynamical systems.
On a second thought the better tension in the low B is given by the twist the string 'suffer' on the nut. When straight it was looser now being bend like this give it a much high tension.
Like on a Stratocaster, where on the high strings there is one or two little metal thingies screwed on the headstock that press the strings giving them more tension.
I have a Squier strat and ages ago I removed the metal thingies to give the high strings more bending action. they were looser than before.
I just did the reverse thing on the Ibanez and it worked?
And please don't mention Placebo. they're too gay...
Like on a Stratocaster, where on the high strings there is one or two little metal thingies screwed on the headstock that press the strings giving them more tension.
I have a Squier strat and ages ago I removed the metal thingies to give the high strings more bending action. they were looser than before.
I just did the reverse thing on the Ibanez and it worked?
And please don't mention Placebo. they're too gay...
