Classical Vs. Steel String - Do you feel one is more responsive than the other?

[usb_chord]

I was having a discussion with a friend and told him I felt high-end classicals are as (if not more) responsive for fingerstyle than a steel string of equal quality. He vehemently disagreed. Curious to know your thoughts!

[rick-slo]

It depends on what one means by responsive and it also depends on the particular guitars involved.

For example my Albert Mueller steel string guitar is very sensitive (almost too much so) regarding the strength of plucking a string and the volume produced - a little less so regarding tone.

A very good classical guitar can produce lots of tonal variation in a range that is pleasant - often by the sharpness of picking attack and nearness to bridge.

The problem with a steel string and tonal variation is that they are relatively bright (more high frequency overtone content), so that going for a sharp attack and picking closer to the bridge for example can produce an unpleasant shrillness and brittleness.

As far as what works best for fingerstyle, it's personal preference. I generally like the brighter sound of a steel string and the longer sustain of notes (especially the trebles) to be had on a good steel string guitar.

[gauchita]

Hi
I play nylon and steel guitars. I don't make the comparison in the way you are . To me they are quite different instruments , requiring different techniques to bring out there best qualities .

[Mark Hatcher]

If by resposive you mean loudness, steel string guitars tend to be louder.
If you mean anything else I'd say you're comparing apples to oranges.
I personally love them both (the guitars and the fruit)

Mark

[Jimbolaya]

I don't play classical, but my understanding is that you can get a different tone base on which part of the nail you are plucking with. I think there has been a more established format for study and play in the classical world. Many techniques and tones would likely be more established and studied.
The steel string world is disorganized but has more techniques for play such as slide, tapping, finger picks, claw hammer, etc. i have had more success with steel string, but have a lot of respect for what guys are doing with classical.

[Sam Guidry]

I would argue that a good classical can be louder than a steel string. I like the feel of nylon strings, as I think they are more "touch sensitive", how ever they don't have the chime or sustain that a steel does

[MBE]

Originally Posted by Sam Guidry

I would argue that a good classical can be louder than a steel string. I like the feel of nylon strings, as I think they are more "touch sensitive", how ever they don't have the chime or sustain that a steel does

Absolutely. A concert-quality classical guitar played by someone with good technique reaches the back of a concert hall easily.

I agree 100% with the OP. A good classical is so much more touch responsive than a comparable quality steel string. Different mechanics, different technique, different result. Having seriously studied Royal Conservatory classical guitar for 5-6 years, I was amazed and humbled by the master players that I met and heard. The nuances that can be pulled from a classical guitar are immense, and greater than anything I have experienced on steel string since crossing over.

I wouldn't be surprised if those who disagreed were simply less familiar with classical guitar. It's a bit of a rabbit hole - the deeper you venture, the more you realize you haven't grasped yet.

[Trevor B.]

Originally Posted by Mark Hatcher

If by resposive you mean loudness, steel string guitars tend to be louder.
If you mean anything else I'd say you're comparing apples to oranges.
I personally love them both (the guitars and the fruit)

Mark

Hello Mark, not to be unduly contentious but in my 45 years of playing guitar I've yet to find an un-amplified steel string guitar that compares favourably to a nylon string guitar in terms of volume assuming that we're talking high end solid wood guitars in both categories and a well developed right hand technique.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about strummed with a pick steel string but rather fingerpicked steel string vs nylon string with classical guitar technique.

[mc1]

besides volume, classical guitars seem to be much more varied in tonal capabilities as well (as rick mentioned).

[Mark Hatcher]

Originally Posted by Trevor B.

Hello Mark, not to be unduly contentious but in my 45 years of playing guitar I've yet to find an un-amplified steel string guitar that compares favourably to a nylon string guitar in terms of volume assuming that we're talking high end solid wood guitars in both categories and a well developed right hand technique.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about strummed with a pick steel string but rather fingerpicked steel string vs nylon string with classical guitar technique.

That's fine Trevor,

I don't believe you're being unduly contentious. The only point I was trying to make was I love both types of guitars for different reasons. As far as volume goes, I was speaking shear overall decibels in the range of normal human hearing. I imagine someone with a decibel meter and a consisitent picking hand could easily settle which type of guitar tends to be louder for us and perhaps that would answer the op's question if that actually was the question in the first place.

Mark

[mr. beaumont]

Nylon by far.

[Trevor B.]

Originally Posted by Mark Hatcher

That's fine Trevor,

I don't believe you're being unduly contentious. The only point I was trying to make was I love both types of guitars for different reasons. As far as volume goes, I was speaking shear overall decibels in the range of normal human hearing. I imagine someone with a decibel meter and a consisitent picking hand could easily settle which type of guitar tends to be louder for us and perhaps that would answer the op's question if that actually was the question in the first place.

Mark

Although I'm primarily a classical guy we share a mutual love for both types. I also agree that the op's question is open to interpretation. For me the responsiveness of a steel string guitar is often "right" for one piece while the responsiveness of nylon strings is "right" for another. Then again, I often play Recuerdos de la Alhambra at my steel string gigs.
BTW-Checked out your website and I gotta say, you're building really fine guitars!!!

[Mark Hatcher]

Originally Posted by Trevor B.

Although I'm primarily a classical guy we share a mutual love for both types. I also agree that the op's question is open to interpretation. For me the responsiveness of a steel string guitar is often "right" for one piece while the responsiveness of nylon strings is "right" for another. Then again, I often play Recuerdos de la Alhambra at my steel string gigs.
BTW-Checked out your website and I gotta say, you're building really fine guitars!!!

Thanks Trevor!

Mark

[tbeltrans]

My observation from when I used to just sit in The Podium and listen to a range of players come in and play the classical guitars was that nylon string guitars can be more responsive/sensitive to a player's technique. However, it also seemed that to get anything worthwhile out of a nylon string (classical) guitar, one really needs well developed/disciplined technique. Most of us can just pick up a steel string guitar and get something reasonable out of it even if we don't have that disciplined/trained right hand.

With either type of instrument, good technique will yield better results, but with a nylon string guitar, the difference seems far more apparent to me. I could readily hear the difference between those players who were training on classical guitar technique and those who were not, in many cases. The typical steel string fingerstyle player seemed to have a somewhat anemic sound compared to the "cannon" sound a trained classical player could get, not to mention the dynamics and expressiveness of individual notes. We fingerstyle steel string players seem to mostly, if not always, use some form of the free stroke, while a trained classical player has the free stroke, the rest stroke, and whatever other techniques needed to bring out individual notes more clearly than others.

All that said, it would be a tough argument to say that a player of the caliber of Pierre Bensusan can't take a steel string guitar to its limits and get a lot of expressiveness in the process. I suspect that many of us do not pay that kind of attention to the myriad small details in technique that he does. Larry Pattis comes to mind as another who can do that.

Tony

[Alan Carruth]

I guess a lot depends on what you mean by 'responsive'. If it's a matter of loudness, it's possible that most people would find in favor of the steel string, but if you're talking about variety of tone colors then the Classical is usually preferred. As has already been indicated, and normal in talking about guitars, this is hedged about with qualifiers.

The energy in a vibrating string is proportional to the tension and the square of the amplitude. Steel strings generally have more tension, and thus more energy at a given amplitude. However, Classical guitars generally have higher action at the 12th fret, and thus can reach higher amplitudes before they buzz. In general, it's pretty close to a wash; either type of string can produce about the same amount of raw power.

The main difference between steel and nylon strings is that nylon strings have much higher damping: the energy is dissipated faster, all else equal. This happens in two ways. Nylon itself, as a material, has higher damping than steel. If you tap on a piece of nylon it goes 'thud', while steel rings on. The short duration and lack of a clear pitch from the nylon piece are both characteristic of high damping.

Secondly, nylon strings are fatter than steel strings, and have to move more air as they vibrate. This doesn't produce sound per se; it's more like trying to run in knee deep water. I've seen calculations that show the two sources of loss, internal and external damping, to be about equal for nylon strings.

Damping often works sort of like compound interest: it reduces the amplitude by a certain percent per cycle of vibration. Since high frequencies make more vibrations per second, damping tends to cut out the highs. If you pluck a nylon string and a steel one in the same place the initial signal they produce will be the same, with the same amount of energy in the upper partials. A second or so later the nylon string will have very little energy in the high range (say, above 3000 Hz), while the steel string will still have some energy all the way out to 8000 Hz or higher.

The result is, as one fine Classical player I know has said, that playing on a steel string is like listening to Julie Andrews in 'The Sound of Music': "There's no darkness!". In a palette of tone colors ranging from 'dark' to 'bright', you've lost close to half. A good Classical player can get a pretty 'bright' sound, with a fair amount of high end in it, from a good Classical guitar, but it's hard to get anywhere near as 'dark' a sound as a Classical can make out of a steel string guitar, no matter how good you are.

One corelative of this is that the main design problem is different for steel string guitars and nylon:, with nylon strings you have to get as much use as you can from the small amount of high frequency energy the strings will give you. On a steel string the issue is to get enough bass to balance all the treble. Bass is usually easier to get: you make the guitar bigger. Trebles can by trickier. For that reason it's harder to make a really good Classical guitar than a really good steel string. Note that many top-notch steel string players use factory made instruments, where few of the best Classical players do.

'Loudness' is, of course, a different thing than 'power'. 'Normal' hearing is more sensitive to highs than lows: it takes much less power for a sound to be audible at 3000 Hz than it takes at 100 Hz. For that reason we might well expect a steel string guitar to be 'louder', and 'carry' better than a nylon string guitar, all else equal. Of course, all else is seldom equal. For one thing, Classical guitars can take advantage of the lower tension to have tops that are more lightly built, so they will produce more sound for a given input of energy.

And so it goes. For 'average' players on 'average' guitars, I'd expect steel strings to have a slight advantage in 'loudness' and 'carrying power'. The best players and instruments of each sort would be more closely matched. It might well be in that comparison that the Classical player, by exploiting the wider range of 'color' available, could come out ahead in the contest of 'responsiveness', simply by being more interesting to listen to, but that's getting pretty speculative.