Guitar string tension: effect of total length

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the theoretical effects of the total length of a guitar string, particularly the portion beyond the nut, on its tension and bendability. Participants explore the implications of headstock design on string tension and vibration, considering both practical and hypothetical scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the length of string beyond the nut affects its tension and bendability, particularly in relation to headstock design.
  • Another participant suggests that a longer string may require more force to achieve the same curvature as a shorter one, but is uncertain about the role of gravity in this context.
  • Some participants assert that the portion of the string beyond the nut does not influence the sound produced by the vibrating section of the string, as the bridge and nut are nodal points where no vibration occurs.
  • A hypothetical scenario is presented involving a mile-long string, questioning if the length beyond the nut matters if tension is constant along the string.
  • There is a suggestion that the tension is uniform along the entire length of the string, leading to the conclusion that the extra length beyond the nut should not affect the vibrating portion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the length of string beyond the nut has any effect on tension and sound. Some argue it does not, while others propose that it might have an effect under certain conditions. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various factors such as the role of the bridge and nut as nodal points, the influence of string gauge, and the hypothetical nature of extreme scenarios, which may limit the applicability of their arguments.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to guitarists, physics enthusiasts, and those curious about the mechanics of string instruments and the effects of design on sound production.

  • #31
billy_joule said:
Controlling pitch with muscle memory alone leads to poor results

Tell that to Jimi Hendrix, BB King, Eric Clapton, etc. etc.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Chrono G. Xay
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
Hornbein said:
Tell that to Jimi Hendrix, BB King, Eric Clapton, etc. etc.

Surely they would agree. Maybe that's why pre-bends are relatively rare in blues? The fine pitch control required to reach the blue notes (notes that are between the pitches of the 12 equal tempered notes) makes accurate pre-bends difficult as the usual means of pitch control cannot be used.

Pitch control for all musicians of non-fixed pitch instruments relies primarily on their ability to discern pitch.
If a musician cannot recognise when they are in tune then they cannot develop pitch control muscle memory in the first place. Muscle memory pitch control will never be as accurate when the aural feedback loop that was required to develop it is removed. As mentioned, this is a driver for increasing the quality of the feedback signal through better monitoring systems.
 
  • #33
billy_joule said:
Surely they would agree. Maybe that's why pre-bends are relatively rare in blues?

They do it a lot. Here's my favorite example, where Jimi Hendrix bends down instead of up. //youtu.be/LyqC6_TgLOo?t=40s

BB King does it a ton. Here's an example with a closeup of the fingerboard so it's visible.
 
  • #34
Randy Beikmann said:
I think what you're doing by pre-bending, letting the string slide off your fingers, or plucking at the end vs. towards the middle, is changing which harmonics of the string are dominant once the string is released.

That is not the case. You are isolating a smaller mass at roughly the same tension (owing to how the string is depressed slightly at the desired fret, resulting in--hopefully--the smallest of unavoidable bends) and allowing that smaller mass to vibrate instead- a length of string which has its own modes of vibration and fundamental frequency, and whose modes' frequencies follow the harmonic series. Then, that isolated lesser mass has its tension increased further by way of an excursion across the held fret, following a limit function for force/distance needed until the desired ratio of frequency change has been achieved, based upon past experiences with that string at that fret and/or surrounding frets/strings.

Playing 'natural' harmonics, on the other hand, by way of lightly resting the tip of one's finger on a point dividing the string's length by a simple fraction (such as 1/2L, 2/3L, 3/4L, etc.) and then plucking the string, isolates which modes are allowed to vibrate.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Chrono G. Xay said:
That is not the case. You are isolating a smaller mass at roughly the same tension (owing to how the string is depressed slightly at the desired fret, resulting in--hopefully--the smallest of unavoidable bends) and allowing that smaller mass to vibrate instead- a length of string which has its own modes of vibration and fundamental frequency, and whose modes' frequencies follow the harmonic series. Then, that isolated lesser mass has its tension increased further by way of an excursion across the held fret, following a limit function for force/distance needed until the desired ratio of frequency change has been achieved, based upon past experiences with that string at that fret and/or surrounding frets/strings.

Playing 'natural' harmonics, on the other hand, by way of lightly resting the tip of one's finger on a point dividing the string's length by a simple fraction (such as 1/2L, 2/3L, 3/4L, etc.) and then plucking the string, isolates which modes are allowed to vibrate.

He's not talking about natural harmonics.
The harmonic content of a plucked string is affected by how it's played. That is why a string plucked nearer the fixed end has a different tone than when it is played near the middle of the vibrating section - The former excites more higher order harmonics (more shrill tone) and the latter excites the fundamental more (duller tone).
 
  • #36
^ Ahhh, ok- if that's the case, then definitely. :-)

(I don't remember if it was in this thread where someone mentioned how acoustic pianos are designed so that the felt hammers strike at 1/7L soas to better avoid exciting the lowest dissonant harmonic, #7...)
 
  • #37
I invented "the sustainer"
 
  • #38
HowlerMonkey said:
I invented "the sustainer"

...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
18K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
10K