#61
|
|||
|
|||
That is positively psy.
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Evan, what can you tell us about your beautiful X10 thin bodied nylon string electric guitar?
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Cecil;
It is an incredible guitar. Its beauty starts with a case that is one of the best I've seen. The guitar is as beautiful as it gets. The sound is great and the guitar plays well. But I think I will be passing it along. Alistair and I have had a semantic moment. My notion of "thin-body" and his notion of "slim-line" vary. Or, putting it another way, his map is not my territory. This electric 10 is thinner than my acoustic 10 but nowhere near the thinness of the electric nylon 7. I am not playing the guitar at the moment, while I think about keeping it or going for the territory sought. It's a bit disconcerting, but I console myself with my Ruby Emerald 10 acoustic, the electric 7, and the RS Parlor. No tears here--just a lot of thought. This research and development stuff is hard work. |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Beautiful and very close to what's rolling around in my head for my next custom Emerald build. If it was a short scale and amber back and sides it would be almost perfect! The nut spacing is a little wide as well. I find that depends on the neck though. I've played some 1 7/8" nuts that I didn't mind if the neck is not too thick. I never thought about a thinner body but that looks pretty cool as well. I wish you were close as I'd love to hear that plugged into my system and feel what the ergs are like. Stunning though.
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Pretty sure Evan is in Arizona... I'm on the other side! Hmm... maybe I can do an audit of one of our suppliers in Arizona... if we actually have a supplier in Arizona!
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Evan is in an old mining town in Nevada. And a forum member has already expressed interest and has 1st right of refusal. We'll see, it's a mystery.
|
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Can you elaborate on this statement? Was there something in the physical build requirements that Alistair knew wouldn't work with the shorter scale and thinner body? I only ask because as I consider a custom nylon build the X10 body and short scale would be something I might want. And maybe the thin body as well. Just wondering what this particular combination of dimensions made him say 'no'.
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Methos;
Alistair did the short scale thin-body with the seven nylon electric build. He would have given me a short scale on the 10 electric but advised the long scale for better projection--I rolled with that and in retrospect wish I had not. The big problem, I think, was the thinness. The extra length of the 10 when combined with an offset sound hole may make insertion of a pickup almost impossible. That's a guess on my part. If I make another run at it, I'll suggest a plate on the back for access to a pickup. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Again, this scale length issue is caused by a lack of classical understanding.
For steel string guitars, a standard scale is 650mm = 25.6" A standard short scale is 632mm = 24.875" = 24 7/8" For classical guitars, a standard scale is also 650mm = 25.6" But a standard short scale is 640mm = 25.2" Below 640mm, nylon doesn't have enough tension to project well. The finest classical guitars are readily available in 650mm and 640mm versions. When Alistair is thinking short scale, he is thinking from a steel string perspective. He is correct that anything under 25" is detrimental to sound quality. But hundreds of years of classical guitar development has produced a short scale that isn't below 25", it's 25.2". I'm guessing that you would find a 25.2" scale quite comfortable compared to 25.6". |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
So much scale info here, interesting. I never even thought of such things not long ago except in length of pie-anos ..baby grand or full grand and spinets and various uprights...too much for a boy like me.
__________________
YUP.... Emerald: X-20, Center hole X-10 (Maple) and X-7 (redwood), Spalted Chen Chen X 10 level 3, CA: Early OX and Cargo McPherson: Early Kevin Michael Proto Some wood things by Epi, Harmony, Takamine, Good Time, PRS, Slick, Gypsy Music, keyboards, wind controllers.. etc |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know. Your guitar collection looks pretty upscale to me. Doing okay.
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Nice way to present it.
__________________
YUP.... Emerald: X-20, Center hole X-10 (Maple) and X-7 (redwood), Spalted Chen Chen X 10 level 3, CA: Early OX and Cargo McPherson: Early Kevin Michael Proto Some wood things by Epi, Harmony, Takamine, Good Time, PRS, Slick, Gypsy Music, keyboards, wind controllers.. etc |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Tom 2;
My belief is that new strings make a short scale possible on a nylon string guitar. My 7 electric is a short scale and even with an ultra thin body it resonates well acoustically. Hard tension strings make part of the difference. On my 7 I've used normal tension strings with no problems. My suspicion is that CF and new strings present a new instrument, not necessarily one that comports with traditional wisdom. Just a thought. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
All true, and there is a sweet spot that differs slightly from person to person.
Higher tension allows for lower action, which is preferred by steel string players. Carbon strings are higher tension, but I like the softness of larger diameter, lower tension nylon strings. Longer scales also produce higher tension, even with traditional nylon strings. I'm basically acknowledging Alistair's position against shorter scales for nylon, and offering a minimum scale length that takes his position into consideration while also offering greater comfort than 650mm. I like comfort, and will never acquire a guitar, steel or nylon, with a 650mm scale. |