0.6"??
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Scale suggestions http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=6268 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Rossy [ Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hey guys, Got another dumb one for you guys. Sorry about that. Anyway I'm making or am trying to make a 14 series size Taylor and I was wondering about the scale. First question is what scale size should I use. I think I read in a thread somewhere that Taylor actually switched scales, but I guess a better question would be what's the major differences between the 24.9 and 25.5. (Opinions on what scale is also welcomed) And secondly how is this scale derived or what makes it a 24.9 or a 25.5? Again thanks for the help. I really appreciate it. Ross |
|
| Author: | Dave White [ Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
0.6"??
|
|
| Author: | Mattia Valente [ Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Taylor uses 25.5" on all their 14's these days, methinks. I like it, but I like quite a high tension on my strings. |
|
| Author: | Dave-SKG [ Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well truth be told... the difference really is 0.6"(as Dave said) So the next question is... How big are your hands? What type music do you plan on playing on the instrument? and finaly...why do you want to copy a Taylor? Just go buy one if a copy is what your after...they have plenty and they are all the same... 
|
|
| Author: | Howard Emerson [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi Ross, I can only give you an opinion from a player's standpoint, so take it for what it's worth. Although I've owned several long scaled instruments over the years, my favorite past guitars and the one I've most recently had built for me all involved 24.9" scale length. My first CD, 'Crossing Crystal Lake', was recorded, in large part, using a 1954 00-18 Martin as a matter of fact. By the way: I refer to this as standard scale, and my reasoning is simple: Until Martin came out with their OM models in 1928 (and the Dread they made for Ditson I think)their most common scale was 24.9, right? So therefore that was the 'standard' for the most part. Plus, most Gibsons had scales of 24.75", so that just reinforces my feelings about this. A true short scale guitar would be a Gibson Byrdland which was 23.5" !!! Anyway.............. I like the standard scale even though I play in open tunings that involve much lower string tensions, such as open G w/low C. Add to that the fact that I use tall, fat frets and a fairly high action, but I still don't have any problems with intonation. Also, I use light gauge wound strings, and medium plains. I like the more supple feel and supple tone of the standard scale length. Yes, it's true you generally get less volume the shorter you make the scale, but so what? Volume is something that is, in reality, a non-issue in the studio or in front of an audience that's paying attention. Of course I'm referring to acoustically in front of a mic, and not plugged in. If it's parking-lot-picking at a Bluegrass festival that someone is concerned about, they need to hang out with players who know how to listen better when the quieter instrument is soloing. Good luck with your build! Best regards, Howard http://www.howardemerson.com/ |
|
| Author: | Wade Sylvester [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ross, I would not call that a dumb question. Thought provoking maybe. Howard, thanks for chiming in. It's always helpful to hear a players piont of view. I'm not so sure about longer scale guitars being louder though. There are so many other variables to building tecknieque, string gages and set up etc. that would effect volume that I dought .6" would make much of a difference. or at least I would not let that stop me from building at 24.9" if it was more comfy to play. Wade |
|
| Author: | Andy Zimmerman [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Taylor uses 25.5 on all of their Grand Aud guitars. They use 24 7/8 on their L9 series dreadnaughts and the 30th anniv Grand Concerts. They said that some more in the future will be the shorter scale. Personally I love the 24.9 scale length. I have small hands and it helps with the stretch. The tone is a bit different since to achieve the same note, their is less string tension. People that play my 24.9's notice how easy they are to play. This is clearly a factor. As far as building goes, you just need to make sure your bracing is in the correct position. If you are using 25.5 plans and are going to make a 24.9, you will have to shift the X braces up and their for the bridge plate and tone bars. As far as what makes the scale length, this is strictly the distance between frets in a logorithmic fashion. Since you tune to the same pitch....longer scale...higher string tension....shorter scale...lower string tension. |
|
| Author: | Dave White [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ross, Sorry for the first reply - I just couldn't resist! I think Wade is right in the sense that there are lots of variables in play. The same gauge strings on a smaller scale lenth for the same tuning have lower tension, but the "feel" of the strings isn't just governed by tension. Your best option is to find a good guitar store and play as many 24.9" and 25.5" (and other) scale length guitars as you can and compare the differences. Personally, apart from parlour and travel guitars, I prefer longer scale lengths as I like the extra tension for altered dropped tunings. I prefer 25.75" (655mm) on a "normal" guitar, but also play a baritone with 29" scale length! Howard also does dropped tunings and likes 24.9", so as you can see everyone is different and it's horses for courses. As I understand it, the "shorter" scale Taylors came as a result of the suggestion of Doyle Dykes as his hands were "strained" from many years of hard playing longer scales. Shorter was less strain on the hands and more comfort. Good technique is going to give you all of the volume you really need with most guitars. |
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
For standard tuning I always use 24.9" even on my OMs which traditionally have the longer 25.4" scale, but for my altered tuning guitars I use the longer 25.4" scale with balanced string sets for the dropped strings, so that the string tensions remain normal. I generally use very light strings as well. I have yet to be convinced that the longer scale makes any perceivable difference to volume, there are just so many other variables as has been said. Colin |
|
| Author: | charliewood [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have small hands and like most small handed guys I like a short scale - guys with octopus fingers generally like longer scales. Thats a simple generalization that rings true for the most part. how big are your 
hands??? Better yet go and play some different guitars at your music store and see which model is most comfy for you - then research what the scale is. cheers Charliewood |
|
| Author: | RonWeaver [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ross, the thing that determines the scale length is the measurement from the nut to the middle of the saddle. Ron |
|
| Author: | Howard Klepper [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I share Howard Emerson's annoyance at 24.9" being called short scale. What does that make the standard 24.75 or 24.625 Gibson scale? I think part of the trend to longer scales is just the "more must be better" fallacy. Hey, it has a higher number, you must be getting more. I also find it misleading when people say the shorter scale has lower string tension without qualifying it by adding: for the same gauge string. Dave White of course was specific about this. Since you can adjust tension any time you like by changing gauges, this should not be the reason to choose a scale. Confession of bias: I have small hands and built myself a 23.25" scale thin body jazz guitar, to which I have become totally addicted. I string ti with mediums and the tension is about the same as lights on a "normal" scale. Sounds sweet. Everything else feels weird now. In a few weeks I'll have another done (for myself) with a 24.5" scale. That will be my long scale instrument. |
|
| Author: | Don Williams [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Interesting...I also have relatively small hands (but big feet...who knew?) but it doesn't make much difference to me. That said....I fell in love with a Martin Size 5 Sting guitar prototype at the ASIA symposium. It was fun to play. (Gotta make me one if I ever come out of retirement. Tax Blackwood & redwood me thinks.) So Howard... I think you're on to something there. |
|
| Author: | Wade Sylvester [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks Howard K, I was going to mention the “change gages to change tension” thing but couldn’t make it sound as eloquent as you did. My hands are relatively large but have always felt comfortable with 24.9” and also played Gibson scale alot. Actually, I just finished my 3rd Mandolele at 20.16” scale and find these instruments very comfy and addictive to play. Don, You know what they say about big feet but small hands? Wade |
|
| Author: | Don Williams [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Umm.....no? |
|
| Author: | Mark Swanson [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I also come into this in agreement with both of the Howards and the rest in favor of short-scale guitars. I build one that is 24.25 scale, and I use mediums on it. I like it, and it helps my hands out as well. |
|
| Author: | Serge Poirier [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
you don't want to know Don!
|
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Rossy] Hey guys, And secondly how is this scale derived or what makes it a 24.9 or a 25.5? Ross[/QUOTE] Let me take a shot at this one. There is nothing sacred or even musical about 24.9" or 25.5" scales. They are just a lenght that meets a lot of players needs. The truth is you can stretch a string across any lenght, bring it up to tension and have an intrument. Now if you want to play different tones on your intrument you might want to install a fingerboard and frets. Fret spacing are based on semitones and after all the math is done it comes out that you just need to divide the lenght of your scale, 20" 24.9" or 20', it dosen't matter, by 17.817152. That is the constant for an equally tempored scale. That calculation gives you the first fret location. Subtract that from the scale and divide by the constant again and you have the second fret location. So forth and so on.... Two things to remember is that the scale lenght is the distance from the leading edge of the nut to the break point of the saddle, and the twelve fret is the half way point. One other important factor is compensation. Since the strings are above the frets they have to be pushed down to play more notes. That action alone tightens the string raising the pitch. That means you have to compenstae your scale to bring it back close to tune. (precise tune will never happen as long as the strings have to be pushed into the frets). Most builders compensate for this factor by moving the saddle away from the nut about 1/10". Hope this is useful..... 
If it's not Serge made me say it....
|
|
| Author: | Serge Poirier [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Joe! 
|
|
| Author: | Wade Sylvester [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Don wrote, [Umm.....no?] You'll always appear taller than you are. All your guitars have a tendency to be bottom heavy. Just to name a few.. Wade |
|
| Author: | Roy O [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Great thread and lots of insightful opinions here. Thanks! |
|
| Author: | CarltonM [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There's more to scale length than just relative comfort. Generally, with string gauges remaining the same, a longer scale will give you more of the fundamental of a pitch when the string is plucked. This results in an immediate, "punchier" sound on the lower strings, and a bell-like "bong" (please, no paraphernalia jokes) on the high strings, but not a lot of "color" to the tones. A shorter scale will give you less fundamental on pitches, but you'll hear more of the overtone series, which, if the guitar is good, offers a more complex, "colorful" sound, which can turn muddy when strumming with a pick, but works especially well for fingerpicking. Also, Joe Beaver touched on this, but I'd like to add to the confusion. The scale length is the scale length--it has nothing to do with the saddle in the real world. It's an arbitrary distance (you pick it) from the break point of the nut (the part that butts up against the fingerboard) to a place on the guitar body. As Joe wrote, it's used to determine the placement of the frets. That's all it's used for--a mathematical formula. SCALE length is different from STRING length. If you put your saddle at the end of your scale length, your guitar will not play in tune, for the reasons that Joe mentioned. Your STRING length must be longer than your SCALE length. There was a thread here recently touching on how that formula is achieved. Check it out. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|