Length and Tension relationship with the Scale.

[Avezzano]

Mods: I have not found anything about this issue; if this thread is irrelevant, please delete.

So, let's imagine we have a 34" scale standard bass (a P, a J; whatever) and a 30" scale full hollowbody, that normally has a string retainer attached to the very bottom of the body (talk about my Ibanez AFB200). The path (ball to nut) of both basses strings is respectively 89 and 86 cm (give or take a few mm, also depends on the bridge installed on the solid body).

When you make an inquiry and ask about "which strings will fit my bass (hollowbody)?" unvariably the answer, in absolute good faith is: "these XYZ strings will fit. Maybe you have to cut some silk..." and other similar answers. All of which generally ONLY consider the length issue. Now, starting from another thread about 25" scale basses, from an informed fellow bassplayer I understood that a 30" scale proper string is built/wound at a tension different from a 34" one. (Let alone the 25" scale, that is completely another issue: what about opening a can of worms...)

In other words: is the tension - of a 30" string set on a 30" scale solid body bass brought to pitch - higher than the one of a 34" string set on a 34" scale solid body bass?

And what happens to a 30" HB scale bass, when you put a 34" strings set, because of the longer path due to the far away positioning of the string retainer? Asking because on my Ibanez AFB200 I mounted the TI Flats (some years ago) but they always feel floppy to me (Thomastik JF344 Set 43-100).

I don't know if I was clear enough...

 

[Jon Moody]

In other words: is the tension - of a 30" string set on a 30" scale solid body bass brought to pitch - higher than the one of a 34" string set on a 34" scale solid body bass?

Not typically, no. There are plenty of tension charts from companies that show that a 30" string set on a 30" scale bass brought to pitch has less tension than a 34" string set on a 34" scale bass.

There are exceptions where the short scale set is designed & optimized for the scale. But by and large, most short scale string sets were made by taking the 34" scale recipe and making it shorter.

 

[iiipopes]

What @Jon Moody said. Most have less tension. To get an idea of what the feel is like, take a conventional set of 45-105 strings on a 34-inch bass, tune them down to D standard and capo at the second fret. Then you will know what a conventional set of strings feels like at 30 inch scale at standard pitch compared to 34 inch scale.

 

[HaphAsSard]

Not typically, no. There are plenty of tension charts from companies that show that a 30" string set on a 30" scale bass brought to pitch has less tension than a 34" string set on a 34" scale bass.

There are exceptions where the short scale set is designed & optimized for the scale. But by and large, most short scale string sets were made by taking the 34" scale recipe and making it shorter.

Tension charts prove that, for at least some manufacturers, short and long scale strings of same diameter within a given product line are essentially identical save for winding length. Other makers use different diameters for different scale sets, in order to get their idea of the optimal recipe of feel, tension and tone for that scale. Yet others (the old version of the D'Addario short-scale 50-105 nickel-plated set comes to mind) do [EDIT - *in some cases*] tweak the core-to-wrap ratio in order to make the shortie strings inherently more massive than their longie counterparts, and in so doing eke out a little more tension without a corresponding increase in gauge.

However, one claim that is specifically made on this forum is that strings are wound at their intended tension: so, for example, a 100 gauge low E is wound at the adequate length for its fitting on a 34" scale bass, but also wound at the tension it is going to have at said scale; whereas a 100 gauge low E destined to a short-scale set, even if made of the same components as the former (same core diameter, same wire diameters for wraps), will be wound to the appropriate length but also at the tension it will have at 30" scale.

First of all: is there any truth about the claim?
Do you guys wind a given long-scale E string at the same tension it has at low E pitch at 34" scale, as listed on your tension chart?
And, crucially: in case you have a low E with the same unit length [EDIT2 - argh, I meant "unit weight"] as the former, only shorter, in order to put in a short-scale set, do you wind it at its tension at 30"?

The - also explicitly made - corollary to the above claim is that mounting the "wrong" length on an instrument
(typically, a long-scale set on a short-scale bass, but the opposite could happen, in theory - I could get a short-scale 5-string set, put the lowest 4 on a 34" bass, capo it at the second fret before the tapering point, but tune it up to DGCF, EbAbDbGb or even EADG)
will also mean not getting the "correct" tone from the string. It is unclear what exactly this means, read: what negative consequences there would be in terms of frequency response of the string when put to use in a scale different than intended; nor whether the phenomenon is bidirectional (do only long-scale strings suck when put on a shortie, or is the opposite as described above, however unlikely a scenario, also the case?). Also, logic suggests any downtuning of a string, even mounted on its intended scale length, will cause the same "incorrect" tone as installing it on another scale. Finally: what about in-between gauges? is the .075 D in an extra-heavy set different - because wound at different tension - from a .075 A in an extra-light set?

 

[Avezzano]

Thanks. This is what I always suspected. In good substance, on a general rule, a short scale strings set is nothing less than a standard set... cut shorter!

 

[Jon Moody]

Do you guys wind a given long-scale E string at the same tension it has at low E pitch at 34" scale, as listed on your tension chart?

And, crucially: in case you have a low E with the same unit length as the former, only shorter, in order to put in a short-scale set, do you wind it at its tension at 30"?

In order to do what you're stating, it would take an exhaustive amount of work. Tension relates to mass, and that mass changes while a string is being wound.

Hypothetically speaking, this 100 gauge low E string has 34lb of tension when tuned to pitch on a 34" scale bass. In order to be able to wind that string at its intended tension, you'd have to know what tension the core needs to be at when winding the first cover, the second cover, and then the third. And be able to allot for any changes while the machine is winding the cover/adding more mass.

Extrapolate that info over the span of an entire string family, with gauges ranging from 020 to 145 (in 005 increments) with four scale lengths for the popular gauges, and two scale lengths for the rest. That's an incredible amount of data that needs to be kept.

Simply speaking, no. Strings ARE wound under tension; they have to be. But it's a tension that yields a more ideal winding pattern for the string itself and allows the cover wire to lay down uniformly.

 

[HaphAsSard]

Simply speaking, no. Strings ARE wound under tension; they have to be. But it's a tension that yields a more ideal winding pattern for the string itself and allows the cover wire to lay down uniformly.

And, to be clear, there is *no* correlation between this winding-machine tension value and the intended (scale-length) uses of the specific string: in other words, said manufacturing tension is not set differently on the machine, depending on whether the string will end up in a short- or long scale set? Is this correct?
If so, it actually jibes with what I imagined. The claim I reported always sounded unlikely to me.

Oh, and thank you!

 

[Jon Moody]

And, to be clear, there is *no* correlation between this winding-machine tension value and the intended (scale-length) uses of the specific string: in other words, said manufacturing tension is not set differently on the machine, depending on whether the string will end up in a short- or long scale set? Is this correct?
If so, it actually jibes with what I imagined. The claim I reported always sounded unlikely to me.

Oh, and thank you!

To be clear, I do not speak for everyone.

But that would be correct; there is no correlation between the tension used to wind the string and the intended use of the specific string. The tension used on the winding machines is used to make the most consistent string with the best winding pattern. If that machine tension actually correlates to the intended tension of the string, I would think it would be more out of coincidence.

That's not to say that someone DID exactly that; ran the numbers, found the tension of the string at various stages and wound it under "tuned to pitch" tension. That would be an exception. I remember the "American Flyers" brand of strings that touted they were wound "at pitch," so the strings were more stable when tuned. Problem is, that was before we had tension charts so we had to take marketing's word for it...

 

[iiipopes]

Have you ever paid attention to where the silk begins as you bring a string up from just slack to full tension? The core stretches. You can see this from the point the silk begins being drawn towards the tuner post as the string is brought to pitch. What that means is that if you wind a string with the core drawn to pitch tension, not only would that be a strain on the winding machine, but when the string is released the core will contract, causing compression and possibly disruption of the windings as the string is prepared for packaging and shipping.

 

[SteveCS]

So, let's imagine we have a 34" scale standard bass (a P, a J; whatever) and a 30" scale full hollowbody, that normally has a string retainer attached to the very bottom of the body (talk about my Ibanez AFB200).
...
And what happens to a 30" HB scale bass, when you put a 34" strings set, because of the longer path due to the far away positioning of the string retainer? Asking because on my Ibanez AFB200 I mounted the TI Flats (some years ago) but they always feel floppy to me (Thomastik JF344 Set 43-100).

The section of string between the bridge and tailpiece is known as the 'afterlength'. Typical Fender bridge is about 25-30mm On your AFB is looks more like 80-100mm. The tension in the sounding length depends on the mass per unit length and tuned pitch and is dictaed by a fixed relationship. However, the afterlength can affect the 'compliance' and feel of the string. Longer afterlengths create a feel that is softer and more compliant under the fingers. So the same string at the same length and same pitch will have the same static tension - nothing you can do about that. But if you install with a long afterlength it will feel softer, even floppy. This is because the added tension required to deflect the string to the board/fret is distributed throughout the whole length (tail-stop to tuning post), not just the sounding length (saddle to nut/fret).
Add in the fact that you have to reduce tension to get the same pitch from a shorter string and very floppy is a predictable outcome.

 

[gln1955]

The section of string between the bridge and tailpiece is known as the 'afterlength'. Typical Fender bridge is about 25-30mm On your AFB is looks more like 80-100mm. The tension in the sounding length depends on the mass per unit length and tuned pitch and is dictaed by a fixed relationship. However, the afterlength can affect the 'compliance' and feel of the string. Longer afterlengths create a feel that is softer and more compliant under the fingers. So the same string at the same length and same pitch will have the same static tension - nothing you can do about that. But if you install with a long afterlength it will feel softer, even floppy. This is because the added tension required to deflect the string to the board/fret is distributed throughout the whole length (tail-stop to tuning post), not just the sounding length (saddle to nut/fret).
Add in the fact that you have to reduce tension to get the same pitch from a shorter string and very floppy is a predictable outcome.

I've heard many times about increasing the afterlength of a string by going string though or even some more extreme manner, to make a B string less floppy. That never made sense, but some players and builders swear by it.

 

[Avezzano]

I've heard many times about increasing the afterlength of a string by going string though or even some more extreme manner, to make a B string less floppy. That never made sense, but some players and builders swear by it.

Actually he is saying the OPPOSITE: the afterlength on a short scale increases the floppy factor.

 

[logdrum]

The only time I've seen that the short scale is made to be close to the full scale is with Thomastik Spirocore for Double bass, The have the S42, 3885 and 3887 for 4/4, 3/4 and 1/2 bass respectively but most people just use the S42 even though most basses are 3/4. For me since I have a 1/2 size bass ant 38.5, I got the 3887 and match the tension of my 3/4 at 41. Using the S42 made my bass strings on the 1/2 scale very floppy.

 

[gln1955]

Actually he is saying the OPPOSITE: the afterlength on a short scale increases the floppy factor.

Exactly. The physics make those other claims baseless.

 

[SteveCS]

I've heard many times about increasing the afterlength of a string by going string though or even some more extreme manner, to make a B string less floppy. That never made sense, but some players and builders swear by it.

Actually he is saying the OPPOSITE: the afterlength on a short scale increases the floppy factor.

Actually, there is a good reason for making the B string afterlengths longer (regardless of scale), and that is intonation towards the nut. With a big string comes high energy to get it going and big excursion once it gets going. That generally means higher action to avoid buzz. High action at the nut tends to create intonation issues where the deflection angles are larger. Because long afterlengths add less overall tension in the speaking length (because it is distributed along the whole string not just the speaking length) there is less sharpening of pitch for a given deflection. That means you can have a slightly higher action and still play in tune at the lower frets whilst at the same time reducing the effort needed to stop the string. There is good logical thought behind those odd-looking Fodera 'Long B' tuner arrangements.

 

[Avezzano]

Actually, there is a good reason for making the B string afterlengths longer (regardless of scale), and that is intonation towards the nut. With a big string comes high energy to get it going and big excursion once it gets going. That generally means higher action to avoid buzz. High action at the nut tends to create intonation issues where the deflection angles are larger. Because long afterlengths add less overall tension in the speaking length (because it is distributed along the whole string not just the speaking length) there is less sharpening of pitch for a given deflection. That means you can have a slightly higher action and still play in tune at the lower frets whilst at the same time reducing the effort needed to stop the string. There is good logical thought behind those odd-looking Fodera 'Long B' tuner arrangements.

Thee is a misunderstanding: we were talking of the afterlength... AT THE BRIDGE of my Ibanez AFB200 hollowbody! The nut extra string for the low B is a long story. Started by Gary Willis, with a few experiments on his own signature (IIRC). Finally he's found that a 2+3 tuners configuration was better than the usual 3+2 as for tighteness of the B string. Said in few words.

 

[fretlessman71]

The section of string between the bridge and tailpiece is known as the 'afterlength'. Typical Fender bridge is about 25-30mm On your AFB is looks more like 80-100mm. The tension in the sounding length depends on the mass per unit length and tuned pitch and is dictaed by a fixed relationship. However, the afterlength can affect the 'compliance' and feel of the string. Longer afterlengths create a feel that is softer and more compliant under the fingers. So the same string at the same length and same pitch will have the same static tension - nothing you can do about that. But if you install with a long afterlength it will feel softer, even floppy. This is because the added tension required to deflect the string to the board/fret is distributed throughout the whole length (tail-stop to tuning post), not just the sounding length (saddle to nut/fret).
Add in the fact that you have to reduce tension to get the same pitch from a shorter string and very floppy is a predictable outcome.

So, a Ray Ross bridge ( Ray Ross Guitar Parts | Solo Guitars ) would impart a tighter feel?

 

[SteveCS]

So, a Ray Ross bridge ( Ray Ross Guitar Parts | Solo Guitars ) would impart a tighter feel?

That follows. I've never played a RayRoss bridge, but I have played plenty of headless (double-ball-end) instruments in the past, and they feel tighter.

 

[SteveCS]

Thee is a misunderstanding: we were talking of the afterlength... AT THE BRIDGE of my Ibanez AFB200 hollowbody!
...

It makes no difference - afterlength is afterlength, provided you don't have a locking bridge or nut. You can put it at either end. or some at each end - it all counts and makes the same contribution.

 

[Jon Moody]

So, a Ray Ross bridge ( Ray Ross Guitar Parts | Solo Guitars ) would impart a tighter feel?

I can confirm that. I have a Ray Ross (given to me for feedback, review, social media) on my '74 jazz, and the strings are definitely stiffer feeling due to there being no break angle at the bridge.

Aside from that, I don't see the bridge as anything special. There are a lot of high quality, high mass bridges out there now for less than the Ray Ross.