Playability of Emerald X5 Life

[PeteCady]

Originally Posted by DavidE

I did hear back promptly from Alistair. As the saddle is as liw as it can go, i cant bring the action down further which is disappointing. I'm sure others would find it to be low enough, but I'd like it lower. I am going to try 10s on it. I have a set with me on vacation. Too bad I forgot my string cutter!

Another thing you can try is lower tension strings (made with a thinner core to be at lower tension at the same pitch). Martin FX have helped me battle arthritis in the left thumb joint. Newtone ("Heritage") are also good if you can find them. Thomastik Enfeld are another possibility if you have a large independent income. If all else fails, GHS Silk and Bronze MLs.

[sam.spoons]

Originally Posted by Doubleneck

The

The X05 has a 24" scale length. The nut and saddle provide the axis for the string tension any length beyond would be irrelevant. If you have "say a low "E" open note" on the 6th string of a guitar with a 24 inch scale with the same strings it will be easier to push down than a scale length of 25.5. That is just physics. If it is not compared to your longer scale length guitar, your set up is better. That can be nut depth relief or saddle height. You would need to compare each with your shorter length guitar and see where the setup is lacking

Actually that seems self evident but it's an over simplification of what is happening as it only considers one aspect of the effect of a shorter 'sounding length' of string.

I will measure the setup criteria on each guitar with some attention to accuracy but I think, from a quick inspection, the nut on the Emerald it lower than the Eastwood (and with a capo on I the harder feel is still there) and the action is about the same.

Yes the shorter scale means lower tension but to also means the deflection of the string is greater for a given action hight so the change in tension will be greater when you fret the string. Also, regarding the non-sounding part of the string, it is relevant when you consider the 'string as a spring' concept. So one aspect of the shorter scale results in less effort to fret the string but the other results in a greater effort required. Add in the short headstock's contribution and it's difficult to predict the combined effect. I'll set up my diddly bow and experiment later if I can devise a way of measuring tension and 'fretting' pressure with some accuracy (pound shop spring balance or using weights I think).

[Doubleneck]

String as a spring? I think you will find the string does not move over the nut and saddle when fretted. My Baby Keller really shows the shorter scale length effect cause it is 22 11/16 scale length. Strings can almost get sloppy by the decrease in tension.

[sam.spoons]

Actually the string does move over the nut and saddle when you fret, only a very small amount but it does move (unless you have a very sticky nut, too small slots for example which is bad). It's well accepted that bending a string (which is effectively just the same as fretting but way more exaggerated) can cause it to stick out of tune when you release it if the nut is sticky.

Extreme scale length changes will result in much lower string tension and that does feel sloppy, I had a Breedlove Passport travel guitar a while ago and sold it because I just couldn't get along with it. It had a 22¾" scale length.

Give this article a read, he explains it way better than I can. http://www.frudua.com/guitar_strings_tension.htm

[Doubleneck]

Originally Posted by sam.spoons

Actually the string does move over the nut and saddle when you fret, only a very small amount but it does move (unless you have a very sticky nut, too small slots for example which is bad). It's well accepted that bending a string (which is effectively just the same as fretting but way more exaggerated) can cause it to stick out of tune when you release it if the nut is sticky.

Extreme scale length changes will result in much lower string tension and that does feel sloppy, I had a Breedlove Passport travel guitar a while ago and sold it because I just couldn't get along with it. It had a 22¾" scale length.

Give this article a read, he explains it way better than I can. http://www.frudua.com/guitar_strings_tension.htm

This article talks about electric guitar and focuses on the bending of strings. I'm not sure that totally translates well to an acoustic guitar. Electric players tend to use lighter gauge strings and can bend very aggressively. I think on a typical acoustic guitar the feel of the tension is almost entirely between the nut and the bridge. There have been numerous discussions on this board that break angle is irrelevant to string tension, at the very least it is far less important than people make it out to be. I think the following quote from your articles kind of sums up the most important dynamics.

"So the rule is: everything else being the same to that pitch always correspond the same tension no matter what's up beyond the saddles and nut."

[sam.spoons]

There is no dispute that the tension in the string is entirely dependent on gauge, pitch and scale (or speaking) length. What is under discussion is the feel or compliance of the string when fretting or bending (in both cases deflecting the string).

Any road up.. I've devised a test rig and demonstrated that the force needed to deflect the string is proportional to the tension. No surprises there then.



The string is a .017" plain steel and tuned to B in all cases, the scale lengths were 24" and 18" and I measured the weight required to deflect the string by 5mm (as accurately as I could measure) at exactly the middle of the string. For the 24" scale it took 398g, for the 18" scale 296g so, allowing for measurement inaccuracies, exactly proportional to the scale length (and, therefore, the tension). What really surprised me was that changing the string anchor point behind the 'bridge' from around 8" away to as close as I could manage (only for the 18" scale) did not change the force required to deflect the string by 5mm. Obviously my measurement of the 5mm deflection has some inaccuracy, possibly as much as 10% but the other measurements are significantly more accurate. If I ever repeat the experiment I'll set up a dial gauge to get around that problem.

So it looks like my theory is wrong. I couldn't think of an easy way to test bending up to a particular pitch rather than a specific distance so it doesn't confirm if bending is affected by the non-sounding string length but I suspect that it is, I'll try to think of some way of testing it.

If somebody with proper lab facilities want's to repeat this with more accuracy I haven't copyright on the method so please go ahead

[Doubleneck]

Wow cool experiment! Hats off to you.

[Steve Christens]

Not sure why the above experiment did not confirm what's in the article, except that perhaps 5 mm is way too much deflection? A typical 0.020" string height above the first fret is just 0.5 mm.

All of this may not apply to acoustics as well as electrics, but I have seen it first hand in my electrics. I used to own a Gibson ES-335 with the trapeze tail piece instead of the typical stop tail piece. The trapeze gives you much more string length beyond the bridge, and made a noticeable difference in making the strings easier to bend compared with the stop tail piece (even though the stop tail piece gave better sustain). I also saw a video by Benedetto on making arch top acoustics in which he made the same point about the effect of tail piece length on string tension. So I do think there is something to this idea.

[sam.spoons]

Guitars are guitars, it matters not whether it's a hollow body or a solid, acoustic or electric, the sound source is the same 6 strings and the mechanisms to change pitch are the same. When you fret a string you are moving it a set distance, I went of 5mm 'cos it would have been impossible to measure accurately at .5mm. If anything the bigger deflection should have exaggerated the effect (if any). OTOH when you bend a string you are changing the tension by a set amount which may take a different deflection distance if the string anchor points are a long way beyond the "nut' and 'bridge'. I don't know yet (but I'm halfway to designing a way to test string deflection against pitch) so I'll try it when I work out a meaningful way to do it.

BTW, it's easer to bend a string at the dusty end, further from the nut and bridge than close to he nut. When you bend at XII position the effective (speaking) string length is 12-13" but the non speaking length is still the distance between the anchor points.......

[Purfle Haze]

Apologieas to the OP; your thread has been hijacked.

With all this discussion of scale length and tension, I learned today of a D'addario web site called StringTensionPro. It allows the user to calculate the tension for a given set of strings. Among other parameters, you can set the scale length for a given set of strings and see the tension for each string. It makes clear that when the scale is shorter, the tension is less; when it is longer, tension is higher.

[AndyFrank]

Anyone particular about their setup needs to buy their guitar locally, or buy a guitar that a local luthier can set up. Nuff said.

[sam.spoons]

Ok, think I found a way to test if the non-sounding string length on a guitar affects the 'compliance' of the strings.



The third break point, in the middle of the string acts as a fret and also, as it's moveable, a means of seeing how far the string needs to be deflect to achieve a two whole tone bend. With the string anchored close to the 'bridge' it needed 13mm, with the string anchored some 11" behind the bridge it required 16mm of deflection to achieve the same change of pitch. The string length from anchor to tuner was approx 21" in the former case and 30" in the latter. The string gauge was .017", pitch was B and the speaking length 18".

So it seems you do have to bend a little further to get a given change of pitch if you have a tailpiece (all else being equal) due to the elasticity of the string. This makes sense as it's known that a coil spring with more turns has a lower spring rate than one with fewer. The steel string doesn't stretch very much linearly but if you add 30% to its length you'll have to elongate it 30% more to achieve the same increase in tension.

That also suggests that when fretting the string the tailpiece should make it easier but the effect is so small that my previous efforts could not measure it (even with the exaggerated 'action' on my test rig).

[sam.spoons]

Originally Posted by Purfle Haze

Apologieas to the OP; your thread has been hijacked.

Yes, sorry, my fault It's probably a bit late to start a new thread now (mods?)

With all this discussion of scale length and tension, I learned today of a D'addario web site called StringTensionPro. It allows the user to calculate the tension for a given set of strings. Among other parameters, you can set the scale length for a given set of strings and see the tension for each string. It makes clear that when the scale is shorter, the tension is less; when it is longer, tension is higher.

I had used that site before and, as you say shorter scale length does mean lower tension, all other things being equal. But, see above

[DavidE]

Originally Posted by AndyFrank

Anyone particular about their setup needs to buy their guitar locally, or buy a guitar that a local luthier can set up. Nuff said.

Sorry, but many people buy used and it's almost 2016.

[sam.spoons]

A local independent luther will usually set up any guitar he's asked to irrespective of where it was bought, that's part of his job. You will have to pay him for his services though. If you buy from a reputable dealer they may well do a setup to your preference as part of the deal.