• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Increase string tension by reversing headstock?

#61
You guys should look up a guy named Harold Conklin. He's one of the most brilliant minds in stretched string design. He holds patents on many great designs involving instruments that use stretched strings. He ran the R&D department at Baldwin for many years and designed a type of string called a "Syncrotone" string which Baldwin then sold to Mapes and Mapes promptly buried because it was far superior to anything else made before or after it. They got threatened and destroyed the machines you need in order to make them. They didn't want to spend the money to make them, but they knew they'd have to if people knew about them.

At any rate, the subject isn't a static one. The overall length of the string beyond the nut and bridge DOES absolutely have an effect on the behavior of the string. Strings don't only vibrate transversely. They also vibrate longitudinally...so back and forth from nut to bridge. They also stretch a little bit. Because of the dispacement in the string caused by your finger plucking it, the string is being forced to get longer...because the straight line between the nut and bridge is no longer straight. (ever notice that if you really nail a string loudly and let it ring, it starts out kind of sharp and settles into pitch after a second or so?) Where does the extra length come from? It comes from the string stretching. What part of the string stretches? The entire string...from tuner to tailpiece. Now, if there is a lot of downbearing at the bridge and nut, that force will prevent the string beyond the nut or bridge from moving as a result of what the string is doing between the nut and bridge to some degree. If the string goes over the saddle and immediately makes a 90deg turn and goes through the body, the part of the string past the saddle won't do much of anything. But if your headstock is a foot long, and there's not much downbearing at the nut, there's a lot more string material there to stretch, and that CAN TEND to make the string feel LOOSER!

It really depends on what was causing the string to feel wrong in the first place. If the string has to go through all manner of wranglings and funny angles to get from the nut to the tuner, and it's a fat string that doesn't bend easily, the natural tension of the string may not be enough to overcome it's own stiffness. So when you stretch it to make it vibrate...or as it pulls on itself because of it's own momentum...your still taking up LATERAL slack...which will make the string feel loose and non-responsive. In this case, making the string longer beyond the nut will probably help make the string feel stiffer. When you change your strings, if you take a minute to make all the break angles sharp and tune it up, your bass will stay in tune a LOT better after a string change. I do that and I only have to tune once after about a tune after a string change.

In the case of Fodera, we had heard about these theories and thought we should investigate. My bass has a flat headstock and a string tree and seemed like a good candidate. It seems to us that the main benefit is that the B string has a better chance of being absolutely straight between the nut and headstock which absolutely helps avoid the problem of lateral slack in the B string. The OTHER thing that I was trying to do was to maintain the same distance from nut to tuner on the E, A, and D strings as you find on a Fender Jazz. So that kind of put the B out in left field.

But I don't care what anyone tells you about static theories. It's always apples to oranges with this stuff. Saying that someone put a left-handed neck on a right handed bass and that it made the strings feel stiffer is probably a totally true statement. But the reasons why are are entirely a guess. If you don't determine why something feels a certain way (which is often almost impossible) changing the very heart of the instrument and affecting a change makes absolutely no scientific statement except that the instrument is better...so that's good. And you can't really argue about that. If it's better, it's better.

BUT...saying that the length of the strings beyond the nut and bridge makes no difference in the way the string vibrates is absolutely, unequivocally wrong and the experts back that up. If you lock the strings into the nut and bridge (a la Floyd Rose) then it's all about the mass, length, pitch, tension and temperature from nut to bridge. That is assuming all else is equal with the not-so-predictable tree that they're strung up on....That's a whole other set of variables.
 
#63
And by the way...and to set the record straight. To my knowledge, Fodera has NEVER engaged in BS marketing. On the contrary, we've tried things...some worthwhile and others not. Unless an instrument is simply grotesque, someone's probably going to buy it, and it will probably get seen...and then someone will wonder why it's so strange, then someone will try to explain it, and then someone will suggest that Fodera is trying to BS the market. Come on, guys...really. The Fodera shop has 3 people it. Vinny, Joey, and Vadim. They build the basses by themselves. I handle the electronics. They have a 2 year wait, and they're always behind. They don't have time to think about marketing. They don't really need to market anything when they've had 2 years worth of work backed up for the last 25 years. When Fodera makes something, it's because they wanted to try it and see how it worked. The market seems determined to make mountains out of mole hills and I'm guessing it's because everything that Fodera does is driven by a desire to make things better...generally with great success. If you ask Vinny if the extended B does anything, he'll probably tell you he doesn't know for sure. Does that mean if someone sees me or Oteil playing and orders a bass with an extended B he should tell them they can't have it? It's not like it's an upcharge or anything. Really...be reasonable.
 
#64
Mike,

Ok, so I'll paraphrase a bit here, and please point it out if I'm not getting your meaning right at any point.

I think there's common acnowledgement here that string theories for static tension hold true, and that extra length beyond the speaking length should make the string feel looser when plucking, rather than tighter.

Also that the stiffness of a heavy string making a sharp or large-angle break (without a permanent deformation induced at that point) can make the string "float" or "jump up", making it feel even looser, and probably make it sound bad.

I'm also reading that despite the extra length tending to make the string looser, "it may make it feel tighter any way, for unknown or unexplained reasons, and should be accepted as such on empirical evidence." Right?


Re "extra length has no effect at all," I think it has been mostly consistently stated that the nonspeaking length has no effect on static tension, rather than no effect on tone. I would argue, though, that once you start fretting, the effect caused by how and where you fret, and then by the extra non-speaking string between your finger and the nut, should have far more effect than any string on the headstock.

Re the longitudinal vibrations and the article, very interesting. Unfortunately i can't hear the samples here at work. I first ran into the concept on Novak's site, where he states IIRC (and in partial disagreement to Conklin) that the longitudinal pitch is related only to length, not to both length and ratio of core (tensioned) and winding (untensioned) masses. Novak then states that one of the goals of a multiscale is to force a varying set of these frequencies when fretting different strings simultaneously at the same fret.

Do you have any info on the aspect of the invention being buried, machines destroyed, etc.? I think you'd have to admit that, at least on the face of it, the assertion that "it was far superior, so they got threatened, and the product then vanished" sounds like a conspiracy theory attitude, like the traditional "there's a pill you put into a gallon of water and you can get 200 miles on a gallon of water but Detroit won't let it out" kind of thing. :)

Pete
 
#65
I don't know where I stand on this subject. I do think that if the tuning peg location is changed it is in fact an aspect of function and the perception of the instrument will change. Good or bad, severe or subtle I don't know.

This is a pretty good read and sheds a little light on the subject. It seems to lean towards guitar design, whereas I feel the bass realm is a little different and could possibly yield different perceptions. Lots of factors, lots to think about...

http://liutaiomottola.com/myth/perception.htm
 
#66
pilotjones said:
Mike,

Ok, so I'll paraphrase a bit here, and please point it out if I'm not getting your meaning right at any point.

I think there's common acnowledgement here that string theories for static tension hold true, and that extra length beyond the speaking length should make the string feel looser when plucking, rather than tighter.
Click to expand...

Yes. Although static strings don't make any sound. Nor do relaxed muscles for that matter.

pilotjones said:
Also that the stiffness of a heavy string making a sharp or large-angle break (without a permanent deformation induced at that point) can make the string "float" or "jump up", making it feel even looser, and probably make it sound bad.

I'm also reading that despite the extra length tending to make the string looser, "it may make it feel tighter any way, for unknown or unexplained reasons, and should be accepted as such on empirical evidence." Right?
Click to expand...

Sort of. I was just saying that if the sensation of a loose or floppy string is due to an untoward bend in a fat string beyond the nut, moving the tuner farther away would likely improve the situation, and has in my experience. I don't think the reasons are unexplained. I do not believe in magic. There are quantifiable reasons why things are the way they are. The really KNOWN fact is that if the string feels stiffer, it feels stiffer. Again, static tension isn't the issue. I see it as how the OTHER variables i.e. post bridge and nut geometery effect the strings ability to stay at that level of tension while vibrating/moving...which is what it's trying to get back to once you let go of it, and eventually will.

pilotjones said:
Re "extra length has no effect at all," I think it has been mostly consistently stated that the nonspeaking length has no effect on static tension, rather than no effect on tone. I would argue, though, that once you start fretting, the effect caused by how and where you fret, and then by the extra non-speaking string between your finger and the nut, should have far more effect than any string on the headstock.
Click to expand...

Sure. But that's kind of apples and oranges...maybe we should go with limes and lemons for a while...as I see it. There's obviously nothing to excite the string beyond the nut, whereas both "halves" of string get excited when you put your finger down. Also, the length of the "backside" of the string could well be more nearly the same as the speaking length.

pilotjones said:
Re the longitudinal vibrations and the article, very interesting. Unfortunately i can't hear the samples here at work. I first ran into the concept on Novak's site, where he states IIRC (and in partial disagreement to Conklin) that the longitudinal pitch is related only to length, not to both length and ratio of core (tensioned) and winding (untensioned) masses. Novak then states that one of the goals of a multiscale is to force a varying set of these frequencies when fretting different strings simultaneously at the same fret.
Click to expand...

I see. I guess in an ideal case, when fretting multiple strings on the same fret, you don't want the same longitudinal frequency or you'll have a pervasive "drone" effect. Although, I imagine on a bass with magnetic PU's, you probably don't HEAR the longitudinal vibration so much as hear the difference tone resulting from it beating against the transverse mode upper partials. At any rate, I wouldn't be too quick to discount Conklin. He's a very clear thinker. A long time friend of mine was his tech in the R&D lab at Baldwin. They developed the SD-10 together. I know what his practices were like and, although second hand, I can tell you he was entirely scientific and spent literally thousands of hours winding strings until it was all exactly right. If he says the ratio of the core weight to the winding weight effects longitudinal pitch, then there is a very, very high probability that it does. Intuitively, if you take a solid core, which has a particular longitudinal pitch, and then you wrap it with something with significant mass, I'd think it would tend to slow down the frequency at which it would vibrate. That's what I think, anyway.

pilotjones said:
Do you have any info on the aspect of the invention being buried, machines destroyed, etc.? I think you'd have to admit that, at least on the face of it, the assertion that "it was far superior, so they got threatened, and the product then vanished" sounds like a conspiracy theory attitude, like the traditional "there's a pill you put into a gallon of water and you can get 200 miles on a gallon of water but Detroit won't let it out" kind of thing. :)

Pete
Click to expand...

Ok, I concede that it sounds a little over the top. I probably interpolated the facts a little...as have many that know about Syncrotone strings. This is what I know...

1) The strings existed, and still exist today, although they've not been manufactured since the 80's so there probably aren't many out there. They'd be on a Baldwin SD-10 that had never been restrung.
2) I've played on them. My father's piano in his studio at Bowling Green State University had a set on it. I've played a few pianos that did have them.
3) The strings consistently had the same effect on every piano they were installed in...they made the bass sound enormous because they were designed to make the longitudinal frequency exactly in tune with one of the upper partials of the transverse mode vibration. They had extremely low enharmonicity...an objects tendency to vibrate at frequencies which aren't part of the overtone series of the main fundamental.
4) It was Conklin's patent, but like every good company man, he did for Baldwin. So they actually were the only one who had a right to sell it. And they did. They sold it to Mapes. The patent and the machines Conklin designed to make them.
5) Conklin was told that the machines were dismantled. The technology was never heard of again.

So was Mapes malicious? Who knows? My best guess is that the machines were so much more expensive that what Mapes had been using for years, and the strings cost so much to manufacture that they just decided it wasn't in their best interest to bother making them. However, their dismantling the machines suggests to me that they knew it was a technology interesting enough to someone to potentially cause them trouble. That's what I get from it. Typical corporate type crap.

Anyway, I know nobody wants to talk about this anymore. I've gotten totally off the subject, although it's nice to have a discussion about fact.

No what do we do about these piano tuners who believe you have to stretch octaves? I'll never get that one. An octave's an octave 250Hz-500Hz. One octave. Oh well......
 
#67
Hmmmmm.....

Well I just got back from looking at the Baldwin Site, and they're advertising that they supply Synchrotone strings on their pianos. Now I'm really confused. They're calling them Synchrotone II TM strings. I gave up and called Conklin. He doesn't know me from Adam except that we have a friend in common. I hope he gets back to me with the real answer.
 
#68
chris.gotfunk said:
If it does not work, then what is the point of Fodera's Extended B-headstock design? Just curious.
Peace,
Chris
Click to expand...

That is a classic case of a luthier being a great artisan but not much of a scientist. Increasing the string length a few inches after the nut has, as most have posted above, zero impact on tension.

However... the significant increase in headstock mass in the Fodera 'extended B string' design just might have an impact on the tonality of the instrument.

As Mike Pope posted, it probably does have an impact on the B, just not for the reason that most attribute to it.
 
#69
Vinny is not short on pragmatism. In fact, he's more like an engineer that it might seem. In our early discussions on the topic we both agreed that it doesn't make sense that it would work, but we should try it to see what happens. If it has been discussed so much, why not see for ourselves what it's all about? The results were positive for whatever reason so we went with it. It's no more profound than that.
 
#71
thepontif said:
Vinny is not short on pragmatism. In fact, he's more like an engineer that it might seem. In our early discussions on the topic we both agreed that it doesn't make sense that it would work, but we should try it to see what happens. If it has been discussed so much, why not see for ourselves what it's all about? The results were positive for whatever reason so we went with it. It's no more profound than that.
Click to expand...

+1... actually, given that bigger headstock, again, I do think it makes sense. More mass is a good thing. I agree, if it works, it works! And, maybe other stuff interacting as well.

Cool on the Markbass stuff... I do really like it.

Are you involved in the 'new' Fodera preamp pedal? Is that going to be available in the general US market?
 
#74
thepontif said:
...saying that the length of the strings beyond the nut and bridge makes no difference in the way the string vibrates is absolutely, unequivocally wrong and the experts back that up. If you lock the strings into the nut and bridge (a la Floyd Rose) then it's all about the mass, length, pitch, tension and temperature from nut to bridge. That is assuming all else is equal with the not-so-predictable tree that they're strung up on....That's a whole other set of variables.
Click to expand...
While I don't doubt that after length beyond the witness points may or may not affect the way a string's overtones ringout, I seriously doubt that the increased stretching ability of the added string length (beyond the witness points) when the string is fretted would be more than negligible at best.
 
#76
thepontif said:
Well...it does. Try it.
Click to expand...
I have. Played and owned enough different basses (with all kinds of different headstock and bridge designs) over my 30 years of pro-playing to know that I felt little or no difference in tension (perceived or otherwise) when same scale and strings were applicable. Sorry.
(While I don't have your credentials, Mike ;), I am probably as picky as anyone about setup. And I know what I feel.....and don't feel.)

Did the basses play and/or sound different? Sure.
But this was not a string tension issue.
 
#78
thepontif said:
Hmmmmm.....

Well I just got back from looking at the Baldwin Site, and they're advertising that they supply Synchrotone strings on their pianos. Now I'm really confused. They're calling them Synchrotone II TM strings. I gave up and called Conklin. He doesn't know me from Adam except that we have a friend in common. I hope he gets back to me with the real answer.
Click to expand...
Now, I love mysteries like this.
Please keep us posted.
 
#79
Mike

Thanks for the discussion. All points taken... As far as doubting Conklin, I don't at all--I'm rather more likely to doubt Novak, although I'll state explicitly that I have neither theory analysis nor data myself to support one over the other in the apparent contradiction.
 
#80
PhatBasstard said:
I have. Played and owned enough different basses (with all kinds of different headstock and bridge designs) over my 30 years of pro-playing to know that I felt little or no difference in tension (perceived or otherwise) when same scale and strings were applicable. Sorry.
(While I don't have your credentials, Mike ;), I am probably as picky as anyone about setup. And I know what I feel.....and don't feel.)

Did the basses play and/or sound different? Sure.
But this was not a string tension issue.
Click to expand...

I guess what I'm refering to is the phenomenon of giving a fat string (in my case, the B) enough distance to better straighten itself out. On my particular bass and headstock design, if I wrap the B around the B tuner (end of the headstock) it responds differently than if I wrap it around the E tuner (nearset the nut). That's fairly cut and dried. Same string, same bass, different tuner, different response. But understand that I am NOT saying that there is an acoustical relationship to the length of the string that is affecting this change. Just a geometrical one. Believe me...I wouldn't make this up.

As for the piano string thing, I have more goods on it. I've not spoken to Conklin, but I've heard from his assistant and got clarification. The Synchrotone II string is not the same as the Synchrotone string. The story goes that Baldwin, upon Conklin's receiving of the patent, tried to get into the string winding business. They send the machines to mexico to establish a facility there. The skill level required to run and maintain the machines, and wind the actual strings was greater than the workforce they had access to could handle. It turned into a disaster so they shipped the machines to Mapes and gave them the CONTRACT to build the Synchrotone strings. Apparently, Mapes contract with Baldwin was such that, although it was all about the Synchrotone strings, they were only legally bound to supply "strings". Since the machines were so hard to use and expensive to use and maintain, they unilaterally made the decision to trash them and continue making what they'd always made. That comes not from the horse's mouth, but a guy who strapped on the bag of oats. I for one believe him.

I wonder if the technology could be adapted to bass. Granted, a piano string only produces one fundamental ever, but I think if the longitudinal frequency were tuned to one of the upper transverse partials when the string is open, when you fret a note, since you're changing only the speaking length of string and not any of the other contributors to the longitudinal mode frequency, wouldn't the longitudinal frequency always change by the same amount as the transverse mode frequency?

BTW, you mention my credentials...I certainly don't expect you to believe anything I say just because I have a relationship with Fodera, or because I've played with Chick, or whomever. I'm pretty well educated and I have done lots and lots of experimenting and side by side comparisons over the years. Mostly with PU placement and treatment and active designs.
I do feel, however, that I have a very unique perspective in that I've experienced the interface between an instrument and some of the highest level musical environments there are...first hand. I personally know very few who have the ability to directly bridge the gap between the subjective musical parts of playing, and the objective cause/effect parts, particularly in the area of electronics.
So what does this have to do with floppy or tight strings? Nothing directly. But if I come off sounding high and mighty sometimes it's totally unintentional. Sometimes I've very sure of what I've both felt, and investigated. It's not meant to sound preachy. It's obvious to me that there are lots and lots of people on this board who know there stuff as well or better than I do. I'm just trying to offer my "stuff" too.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back