Guitars With Tight String Spacing?

KingRazor · #1 09-21-2011, 12:34 PM

My fingers aren't hugely fat or anything, but they're thick enough that I have the problem where when I fret one note, I wind up deadening adjacent strings. That's been the biggest reason I've struggled with guitar, since accidentally deadening strings doesn't work well with chords.

One time after struggling to play a clean C chord on a regular acoustic guitar, I grabbed my brother's yamaha that had tighter than average string spacing and I was suddenly able to play the chord cleanly.

It seemed counter-intuitive, using a guitar with narrower spacing to over come a problem of my fingers seeming too thick, but at that time it worked.

Has anyone else encountered this?

Also, if anyone knows of any brands of guitars to look for that have tighter string spacing, I'd like to know.

dave-chaulk · #2 09-22-2011, 06:01 AM

Good question.
My dad's fingers are easily twice as thick as mine, or more - they are strangely large, but his main guitar is a '74 Gretsch Super Chet, with very close to "normal" spacing, but a tiny bit on the tighter side. did you notice the profile and size of the neck itself? that may have an effect...

Blue_Whistle88 · #3 09-22-2011, 06:14 AM

Well, my ESP 5-string is 17mm (adjusted to be very slightly narrower with the Hipshot bridge), and my Ibanez is 16.5mm, so both my basses have what is considered narrow spacing, considering people seemed to bitch so much about not being able to get a 5 string Stingray with 19mm. That said, I like them and use them, and the Ibanez Gerald Veasley signature is 14.5mm? So 16.5 isn't THAT narrow....

steve_rolfeca · #4 09-22-2011, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingRazor

...One time after struggling to play a clean C chord on a regular acoustic guitar, I grabbed my brother's yamaha that had tighter than average string spacing and I was suddenly able to play the chord cleanly.

It seemed counter-intuitive, using a guitar with narrower spacing to over come a problem of my fingers seeming too thick, but at that time it worked.

After years of hanging around teaching studios, your experience raises a red flag for me. Neck width is just a preference issue, and an eighth of an inch difference shouldn't be a roadblock to playing chords. Regardless of hand size, a reasonably skilled guitarist can play chords on anything from a pencil neck to a baseball bat.

IME, whenever someone is looking for unusual solutions to a common problem, it usually turns out to be a matter of technique.

Hand position has a huge influence on how easily people get around the neck. You might get more mileage off a few lessons with a good teacher, than you would from chasing after unusual guitars.

KingRazor · #5 09-22-2011, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_rolfeca

After years of hanging around teaching studios, your experience raises a red flag for me. Neck width is just a preference issue, and an eighth of an inch difference shouldn't be a roadblock to playing chords. Regardless of hand size, a reasonably skilled guitarist can play chords on anything from a pencil neck to a baseball bat.

IME, whenever someone is looking for unusual solutions to a common problem, it usually turns out to be a matter of technique.

Hand position has a huge influence on how easily people get around the neck. You might get more mileage off a few lessons with a good teacher, than you would from chasing after unusual guitars.

There are only so many ways I can twist my fingers until they'll play clean notes on every string. It was easier to do that on that Yamaha than on other guitars I tried. I don't know how different the neck was, but the strings were definitely closer together than on another guitar I compared it too. That's why I'm looking for another guitar like that.

teleharmonium · #6 09-22-2011, 09:55 AM

The radius of the board and the neck profile also play a role. A chunkier profile and more rounded board (smaller radius) help your fingers spread out without actually having more width.

Also, what really matters is the string spacing itself, which does not always exactly track with board width. Guitars with bound necks often skip the binding when the nut is cut for the strings, so they have narrower string spacing even though the width doesn't reflect this because it includes the bound area; and the string spacing at the nut will vary on unbound necks also. So you really have to look at those too in order to understand why one neck works better for you than another.

That said, as far as guitars with narrower width across the board, the usual suspects would be most Rickenbackers and Mosrites, and late 60s/early 70s Gibsons and USA Epiphones. Guilds got narrower in that time frame too but not quite as narrow as the stuff made by Gibson. Older Japanese and German imports can have narrow necks as well, but not always.

KingRazor · #7 09-22-2011, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teleharmonium

The radius of the board and the neck profile also play a role. A chunkier profile and more rounded board (smaller radius) help your fingers spread out without actually having more width.

Also, what really matters is the string spacing itself, which does not always exactly track with board width. Guitars with bound necks often skip the binding when the nut is cut for the strings, so they have narrower string spacing even though the width doesn't reflect this because it includes the bound area; and the string spacing at the nut will vary on unbound necks also. So you really have to look at those too in order to understand why one neck works better for you than another.

That said, as far as guitars with narrower width across the board, the usual suspects would be most Rickenbackers and Mosrites, and late 60s/early 70s Gibsons and USA Epiphones. Guilds got narrower in that time frame too but not quite as narrow as the stuff made by Gibson. Older Japanese and German imports can have narrow necks as well, but not always.

The string spacing is what I'm talking about, not neck width. I'm not sure why neck width came up in the discussion.

steve_rolfeca · #8 09-22-2011, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingRazor

The string spacing is what I'm talking about, not neck width. I'm not sure why neck width came up in the discussion.

I mentioned neck width in passing, simply but it generally tracks pretty closely to string spacing.

If you figure that narrow spacing would work irrespective of neck width, why not simply get a new nut cut? If you're handy, you can do it yourself. It's a cheap mod, and easily reversible.

KingRazor · #9 09-22-2011, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_rolfeca

I mentioned neck width in passing, simply but it generally tracks pretty closely to string spacing.

If you figure that narrow spacing would work irrespective of neck width, why not simply get a new nut cut? If you're handy, you can do it yourself. It's a cheap mod, and easily reversible.

Hadn't thought of that. Good idea. Worst thing that happens is I don't like it and change it back.