regarding string volume/tension

[steelvibe]

I've heard that strings with more tension will produce greater volume and strings with less....less volume- which makes sense.

I've also read that sometimes an increase in tension will actually "choke" the top of a guitar and thus decrease volume- which also makes sense.

So, what are your thoughts? Is is guitar specific (lightly built, bracing, type of tops)? Just a matter of trying everything you can to find that tailored suit for a guitar?

[jim1960]

No doubt there's some science involved with top stiffness and string tension and such, but no set of calculations is going to be a good substitute for my ears. Different strings sound different on any given guitar. Part of the fun in getting a new guitar is trying out various string sets to see what works best, and what works best is always up to my ears, not some set of calculations.

[musicman1951]

It depends on your technique, among other things.

I finger pick with what I suppose would be considered moderate RH finger pressure. If the strings are too stiff there is potential for more volume, but I actually get less as I don't get the top singing.

I suspect it's a guitar/player by guitar/player situation and you'd need to try a few different sets of stings to see what works for you, assuming more volume is your goal.

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by steelvibe

I've heard that strings with more tension will produce greater volume and strings with less....less volume- which makes sense.

I've also read that sometimes an increase in tension will actually "choke" the top of a guitar and thus decrease volume- which also makes sense.

So, what are your thoughts? Is is guitar specific (lightly built, bracing, type of tops)? Just a matter of trying everything you can to find that tailored suit for a guitar?

I think it depends on how the strings work in conjunctions with the guitar itself. I think it is finding that balance. Sometimes a single string, usually the low E that can make a huge difference in the volume output of a guitar. A couple of examples of gauge and its affect on volume...

DR Sunbeam 12's are extremely loud on my D35. 13's choke the sound. Is it tension? DR doesn't measure tension, but I would have to guess that with round core strings the tension would be on the lighter side for the specific wound gauges. The Sunbeam 12's are LOUD.

I was testing GHS Signature Bronze strings in various gauges and had an intersting and eye opening experience. I put a set of Sig Bronze lights on and they just sounded bright and insignificant. So I tried a set of True Mediums. Better in the highs, but a total loss of volume. With that set still on the guitar, I swapped in the light low E in place of the True Medium low E... and the volume and presence returned. Simply changing the 0.56 to 0.54 made all the difference. Also note that Santa Cruz strings light and medium tension sets have the same gauge low E string. I can only presume for the same purpose.

Having said that, on my Taylor 814ceDLX I went from Elixir lights (12-53) to Light-mediums (12-56). It improved the articulation of the guitar and I suspect the heavier lower strings help drive the Adirondack bracing which tends to be stiffer than sitka bracing. There does not appear to be any loss of volume going to the heavier lower strings. The heavier strings seem to drive the top a bit better and better articulation of lower notes and IMO a better balance and more pleasing sound overall.
The short answer?... It depends

[Alan Carruth]

There are lots of variables in this, as with anything related to the guitar, so you'll need to do some experiments to find out what works in your particular case. That said, there are a few principles that can be helpful.

The energy in a vibrating string goes as the tension and the square of the amplitude. The maximum amplitude you can get depends on the action height; once the string hits the frets you've maxed out. Raising the action by 41% gives twice as much energy before you hit the frets.

The tension at a given pitch depends on the cross sectional area of the string; double the area gives twice the tension. The area goes as the square of the diameter: a 41% increase in diameter gives twice the area and doubles the tension at a given pitch, all else equal.

To put some numbers on this: if you start out with a high E that's .012" diameter and .08" off the 12th fret, you can double the power in the string by either increasing the diameter to .017" with the same action height, or raising the action to .113" with the original .012" string.

Both of these will increase the torque load on the bridge; doubling the tension with the same action doubles the torque load, while raising the strings off the top increases it by an amount that will vary depending on the initial setup, but will probably be less. Doubling the tension also increases the shear load in the glue line. The bridge starts to come off when the torque plus the shear load along the back edge exceed the strength of the glue joint. Raising the tension with heavier strings probably gets you there faster, but, again, that depends.

Note that, so long as the effectiveness of the transfer of string energy to the top remains the same for each case doubling the power in the strings would give a 3 dB increase in sound output, which is a barely noticeable change in loudness for most people. What actually happens is more complicated.

A lot depends on the 'impedance' of the strings and the top. Mechanical impedance is a measure of how hard it is to drive something to a given amplitude at a given frequency, and also, reciprocally, how hard something moving at a given frequency can push. Heavy strings have higher impedance: they're harder to get going and push harder on the bridge. Higher tension does the same thing. The impedance of the bridge doesn't change (to speak of) with changes in the string tension; it's almost always higher than the impedance of the strings. You get the maximum transfer of energy from the string to the bridge when the impedances match. You don't want that.

There are two reasons for this. One is that when the impedances match all of the energy in the string flows into the top right away; the note is loud and has no sustain. The other is that it's the high impedance of the bridge that 'tells' the string how long it is, so it will make the right note. When the impedances don't match some of the energy in the string gets reflected back when the wave hits the bridge, and that keeps the string vibrating at the proper pitch.

One thing here is that impedance is related to frequency; its not the same at every pitch. It's lowest for a given system at a resonant frequency, and higher at other pitches. The string impedance might nearly match that of the bridge/top system at some harmonic of the note, and going to a heavier string could make that match closer or further off, changing the dynamics of that note.

Most of the energy that drives the top into motion comes from the string moving up and down relative to the plane of the top, and pulling the top along with it. The string can also move sideways, of course, and then you lose that driving mechanism.

The string tension also changes as it vibrates; it's higher when the string is 'up' and when it's 'down' than it is when the string is in the middle. This tugs the top of the saddle toward the neck twice for every full vibration cycle of the string, whatever direction the string vibrating. The higher the string is off the top te more of this octave-doubled signal there will be in the sound. However, this is not a very efficient way to drive a top. For one thing, as it pulls the back end of the top 'up' its pushing it 'down' in front of the bridge, so a lot of it gets canceled out. It's hard to move a bridge that way; we make them to resist that. Finally, there's a lot less energy in the tension change than in the 'transverse' pull: about 1/7 on average, depending on the string. The upshot is that raising the strings off the top does alter the mix of partials in the sound, with relatively more of the 2nd and 4th partials, but the overall power of the signal does not seem to be greater.

There's also a 'zip' tone signal, a lengthwise pressure wave within the string at high frequency, that works similarly to the tension change in the way it drives the bridge. You get more of that as you raise the strings off the top too. It's relationship with the fundamental pitch of the string is complicated, but it's often more or less dissonant, and it's usually high pitched, so a little goes a long way.

All of this is to say that the nature of the sound can change noticeably when you either change tension or action height. Even if the guitar doesn't become much more powerful the change in timbre might make it sound 'louder' or 'carry' better. Guitars vary a lot from one to another, and the way a particular instrument responds to a change can be unique. About all you can do is try. Raising the action is probably safer structurally than increasing the tension, but there's risk either way.

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

There are lots of variables in this, as with anything related to the guitar, so you'll need to do some experiments to find out what works in your particular case. That said, there are a few principles that can be helpful.

A lot of good technical information. But unless I missed it in your detailed and lengthy reply, the inter-dependent relationship of the strings and "resultant harmonics" caused by the string to string relationships also can have a tremendous effect on general volume.

[Oldguy64]

I can say that FOR ME and in MY experience I don’t get good results with higher tension strings.
I used to have a Taylor GS mini. Heck of a fine little guitar.
I strung mine with 12-53 or 11-52 strings. It sounded wonderful and played with ease.
I tried 13’s and the extra tension did choke the guitars tone.
I had a similar experience with my Full sized Takamine P3DC.
It took a few string changes to come to the conclusion that for me, 11-52’s were better.
All bets are off when you throw in thicker low tension strings.

[steelvibe]

Really appreciate these responses folks!

[Taylor Ham]

My experience is consistent with the responses above, and as always, guitars are individuals.

When trying out different string tensions, not only is the total tension important, but also distribution of the tension from string to string. Changing the distribution changes the tonal balance.

Typically the A D G strings will have the most. I believe there is good reason for this.

If you have a heavy attack or seeking more definition in the lower bass, going up a gauge on the low E can help.

In addition it is noteworthy that only 7-10 pounds total tension can make a world of difference, especially on an instrument with medium top area and a tight waist like a GA. Using a 56-42-32-24-17-13 set (174lbs) on a taylor 324, the response was more scooped but also duller than with a set of lights. Going back to a 53-42-32-24-16-12 set (163 lbs) of d'addario PB XT's produced the most volume I have had out of this guitar by far.

Plus the plain steel trebles of XT finally caught up corrosion resistance wise. Not noticeably dull even hours after normal plains would for me.

So IME too much tension can cause a specific guitar to choke.

YMMV with different shapes and woods.

[Alan Carruth]

vindibona wrote:
"...the inter-dependent relationship of the strings and "resultant harmonics" caused by the string to string relationships also can have a tremendous effect on general volume."

Explain? I can't say I've run into that term. Are you talking about audible beat frequencies?

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

vindibona wrote:
"...the inter-dependent relationship of the strings and "resultant harmonics" caused by the string to string relationships also can have a tremendous effect on general volume."

Explain? I can't say I've run into that term. Are you talking about audible beat frequencies?

Resultant harmonics are both sympathetic vibrations, combined with additional harmonics that the ears hear when frequencies "jive". I don't really know how to explain it well, so I'll do the best I can.

Sympathetic vibrations as easy for most to understand. The fundamentals and overtones excite other strings. Taking it further, when (as few as two) frequencies are in close alignment the ear will hear additional harmonics which increased what we hear as volume. So what you have when two frenquencies collide in perfect natural harmony (not equal temperament) you get a result of additional harmonics. This is why major symphony orchestras sound so much bigger (louder?) and fuller than less accomplished orchestras. They get resultant harmonics in their instruments and the combined instrumentation grows that even further.

Playing a single note instrument with other non-fixed pitched instruments (orchestras/concert bands) that are not bound by the physics of fixed pitch instruments provides an experience that really helps relate to the concept of resultant harmonics.

We do experience some of that with guitars when elements line up. I think the resultant harmonics is often what sets great instruments apart from less expensive instruments. I'll bet what sets your instruments apart from others is that you instruments Alan, due to your meticulous design and workmanship, produces sonic elements that you probably didn't even (cerebrally) know were in there. Resultant harmonics (or lack thereof) are tied to many aspects of every guitar's innate sound.

[Alan Carruth]

"...when frequencies "jive"..."

Do you mean 'jive', as in 'phony', or 'jibe', as in 'agree'? Sorry to lead with that, but I see a lot of people using one when they mean the other, and it's a sort of pet peeve of mine. I'm assuming you mean jibe.

Most instruments allow for at least some measure of pitch bending, and good musicians use this to alter the timbre in useful ways. Benade talks in one of his books about how wind instrument ensembles can produce sounds that are oily smooth or jarringly dissonant by this means. Winds tend to produce true harmonic series, but plucked or struck strings don't. I do know of guitar players who deliberately bend individual strings to obtain a 'fuller' tone, presumably by getting the inharmonic partials to line up better between stings.

It's well known that singers, such a 'barber shop' groups, deliberately depart from equal temperament to produce a vibrant and rich timbre. This takes a lot of skill. Max Planck tested ideas about this with choral compositions, to see whether groups of good singers would depart from ET intervals, and found that much depended on what sort of music they were singing.

I thank you for the compliment. I know that there's a lot going on in a good guitar that is simply beyond our control because the things are so darned complex. But I also believe that we can 'stack the deck' in favor of a good outcome in advance, and that's what I do as much as possible. In the latest 'matched pair' experiment the instruments were nearly identical in response below about 1000 Hz, but departed more and more from that as you went up in pitch. In that case there was no overall difference in 'quality' between them; they were equally 'good', even though they sounded different.

A lot of us feel that the difference between 'average' and 'better' guitars is in the way they respond in that higher frequency range. Getting the 'right' number of strong resonances, and the 'correct' damping, seems to produce guitars that people prefer. The guitar will only produce those pitches that the strings feed it, but, again, that's largely under the players control. But no amount of good playing will make a bad instrument sound wonderful, although it can improve it substantially. The best instruments are the ones that give the player the greatest ability to obtain the tone they want, whatever that might be.

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

"...when frequencies "jive"..."

Do you mean 'jive', as in 'phony', or 'jibe', as in 'agree'? Sorry to lead with that, but I see a lot of people using one when they mean the other, and it's a sort of pet peeve of mine. I'm assuming you mean jibe.

Most instruments allow for at least some measure of pitch bending, and good musicians use this to alter the timbre in useful ways. Benade talks in one of his books about how wind instrument ensembles can produce sounds that are oily smooth or jarringly dissonant by this means. Winds tend to produce true harmonic series, but plucked or struck strings don't. I do know of guitar players who deliberately bend individual strings to obtain a 'fuller' tone, presumably by getting the inharmonic partials to line up better between stings.

It's well known that singers, such a 'barber shop' groups, deliberately depart from equal temperament to produce a vibrant and rich timbre. This takes a lot of skill. Max Planck tested ideas about this with choral compositions, to see whether groups of good singers would depart from ET intervals, and found that much depended on what sort of music they were singing.

I thank you for the compliment. I know that there's a lot going on in a good guitar that is simply beyond our control because the things are so darned complex. But I also believe that we can 'stack the deck' in favor of a good outcome in advance, and that's what I do as much as possible. In the latest 'matched pair' experiment the instruments were nearly identical in response below about 1000 Hz, but departed more and more from that as you went up in pitch. In that case there was no overall difference in 'quality' between them; they were equally 'good', even though they sounded different.

A lot of us feel that the difference between 'average' and 'better' guitars is in the way they respond in that higher frequency range. Getting the 'right' number of strong resonances, and the 'correct' damping, seems to produce guitars that people prefer. The guitar will only produce those pitches that the strings feed it, but, again, that's largely under the players control. But no amount of good playing will make a bad instrument sound wonderful, although it can improve it substantially. The best instruments are the ones that give the player the greatest ability to obtain the tone they want, whatever that might be.

Jive= agree (for lack of a better way to put it). But it's more than just agree... There is something that is sonically "set off". The Barber Shop quartet reference may be one way to witness it. Would the volume of the combined quartet be perceptibly softer if all the voices were in equal temperament? I suspect so, to some degree. I've had the privilege of playing in symphony orchestras and other legit groups that many would consider a professional level. And while the groups I've been in don't rise to the level of a Chicago Symphony or NY Phil, perhaps it's because that perfect (non-equal) pitch alignment happens less consistently, we are able to recognize when those resultant harmonics occur- as they aren't always. So the more frequent absence of the maximum resultant harmonis possible in a situationmakes one much more aware of what they are when they do occur. At some point, when you become used to hearing them, you become acutely aware when they aren't present. You should see how many of us are adjusting our instruments at the beginning of a rehearsal (to "jive" with everyone else) as we are searching for our personal resultant harmonics to add to the group's. Finding the pitch "target" reminds me of that line in Mel Gibson's "The Patriot".... "Aim small, miss small".

If we were to reference the Taylor V-brace thing, I think that's sort of what their claim of "better intonation" is about; more sympathetic vibrations and resultant harmonics- which may or may not provide an improved listening experience.

[Alan Carruth]

vindibona wrote:
"Jive= agree (for lack of a better way to put it). But it's more than just agree..."

Everybody else uses 'jibe' for that, unless their spell checker plays them false.

[12barBill]

Originally Posted by vindibona1

Jive= agree (for lack of a better way to put it).

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

vindibona wrote:
"Jive= agree (for lack of a better way to put it). But it's more than just agree..."

Everybody else uses 'jibe' for that, unless their spell checker plays them false.

Maybe this could help:

https://www.thoughtco.com/gibe-jibe-and-jive-1689398