The reason I am playing around with things like string break angles and string after-length vs compliance/dynamic tension is that I want to be able to maximize sound and tone in my arch-tops while keeping a balance with string tension. Every time I try heavier gauge strings on my instruments I hear a reduction in tone quality, perceived loudness and I feel like they play worse. But when I put heavy strings on (higher mass, presumably) and tuned down a whole tone (lower tension by around 20%) I got a great result. I am trying to duplicate that result but at concert pitch. Has anyone done any work on the effect of higher mass strings and the loudness they create? I can get strings with higher mass and lower tension by looking for wound strings with a thinner core and a thicker winding, being that the core is what creates the tension. My deluded brain has this idea that if I do that for the bass strings and get the treble strings to be more compliant with the longer overall length idea, I may fool myself into being happy with the result...
Brian
String mass vs tension = volume
-
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:26 am
- Location: Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia
-
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:11 pm
Re: String mass vs tension = volume
String pitch is a product of mass and tension, but that's the whole mass of the string, not just the core. For purposes of discussion the tension on two wound strings of the same total diameter will be the same at a given pitch. The one with the lighter core will be closer to breaking, and also more flexible, which makes a difference in the sound, but that's about it.
The energy in a vibrating string is proportional to the tension and the square of the amplitude. Going to thicker strings requires higher tension to get to the same pitch, so that's where the extra energy comes from. If you want to limit the tension then you'll have to go for higher action to get more energy into the string.
Heavier strings will have higher 'characteristic impedance': roughly, a measure of how hard it is to get them moving, and how hard they will push on the bridge at a given amplitude. Impedance is denoted by the letter 'Z' ('I' was already taken) with Z proportional to the square root of tension times mass. Increasing the diameter a little bit ups the impedance a fair amount since you're increasing both terms.
There's just no free lunch.
The energy in a vibrating string is proportional to the tension and the square of the amplitude. Going to thicker strings requires higher tension to get to the same pitch, so that's where the extra energy comes from. If you want to limit the tension then you'll have to go for higher action to get more energy into the string.
Heavier strings will have higher 'characteristic impedance': roughly, a measure of how hard it is to get them moving, and how hard they will push on the bridge at a given amplitude. Impedance is denoted by the letter 'Z' ('I' was already taken) with Z proportional to the square root of tension times mass. Increasing the diameter a little bit ups the impedance a fair amount since you're increasing both terms.
There's just no free lunch.
-
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:26 am
- Location: Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia
Re: String mass vs tension = volume
Alan, part of my issue with stiff bass strings is inharmonicity, which I feel makes the bass strings played well up up the neck sound bad. Inharmonicity decreases with less stiff strings, so this is another reason I search out low tension bass strings with thinner cores. Chasing a holy grail, or tilting at windmills? I think both...
- Eric Knapp
- Posts: 620
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 2:01 pm
- Location: Wisconsin, USA
- Contact:
Re: String mass vs tension = volume
I play a Chapman Stick. The bass strings are custom made to be very flexible to facilitate tapping. Emmett Chapman and D'Addario did a lot of iterations and they really work well that that instrument. It might be an interesting option.Brian Evans wrote:Alan, part of my issue with stiff bass strings is inharmonicity, which I feel makes the bass strings played well up up the neck sound bad. Inharmonicity decreases with less stiff strings, so this is another reason I search out low tension bass strings with thinner cores. Chasing a holy grail, or tilting at windmills? I think both...
http://stick.com
-Eric
-
- Posts: 2690
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:01 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
- Contact:
Re: String mass vs tension = volume
D'Addario make a tungsten wound cello string that has extra mass at a price. I always wanted to try them out on a short scale bass guitar but the price was daunting.
-
- Posts: 821
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:08 pm
Re: String mass vs tension = volume
One of my models has a 24" scale length and I recommend running mediums on it, because I, too, like the tone of heavier strings at lower tension. Turns out that mediums(13-56) on a 24" scale are nearly identical in tension to lights(12-53) on a 25.5" scale. I get the benefits of lowered tension
as well as the benefits of increased mass...
as well as the benefits of increased mass...
-
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:26 am
- Location: Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia
Re: String mass vs tension = volume
I have often thought that the steel string typical 25 - 25.5" scale guitar shouldn't be tuned to E-E, it should be tuned lower. It seems like that tuning is a hold-over from tradition, gut or nylon strings, lightly built instruments. I think the idea of a 24" scale tuned to E-E is great, and my instruments respond really well to being tuned down to D-D with heavier than normal strings.