kitarist -> RE: Classical Strings vs Flamenco Strings (Jul. 25 2017 15:46:40)
|
I think there are mistakes in that chart. Also some random rounding - but the tensions are exactly the same (and yes, the basses in both sets are the same but forgot to say "composites"). For example, string 1: same tension but diameter listed as 0.285 and 0.29 - I bet it is the same diameter in both cases but in the second case someone just rounded it up to two significant digits in one case and did not round it in the other. Or, even more likely, they used to report to two significant digits after the decimal point, so 0.29, but the flamenco set is newer so someone measured it again, perhaps, and they now report to three s.digits. Then someone copied the older measurements from a chart for the EJ46/C and wrote it as 0.290 to conform to the new apparent format. For the bass strings, there are some transcription errors/typos I think - for example according to that family chart the EJ45C D string is the thickest of the bass strings and all three bass strings are thinner than the g-string. Really? Also the tension increases from D to A to E and is identical to that of the D-A-E strings of the "flamenco" set, but the diameter goes 38-28-35 which makes no sense physically unless they are all of different density materials (really?) yet calibrated to match exactly the tension of the flamenco basses (whose diameter makes physical sense with tension increase) to three significant digits after the decimal point. Really? :-) Another example - look at this regarding the total tension listed: I created an excel sheet some time ago to track and compare strings (and calculate implied density based on tension and diameter (and pitch), also calculate implied tension at different scale lengths). It was meant to become a comprehensive "database" eventually, but it is so hard to come by data for a lot of string manufacturers - including reference scale length.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
|
|
|
|