scale length & response (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - Lutherie: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=22
- - - scale length & response: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=226412



Message

bule_b -> scale length & response (Mar. 10 2013 22:59:11)

I spent some time this weekend playing a 665 scale blanca.

It was surprising easy to play, in fact easier than a 650 scale guitar there.

I didn't know the scale lengths until the end of the playing.
In past 665 scale was something I was mentally terrified about, I imagined its unplayable.

Also with capo I found that it was very nice, the fingers were less cramped with more space to play than 650.

The owner told me that: "665 scale guitars are more responsive and therefore require a lighter touch, which is why I found her easy to play"

Is there any truth in this?

Or is an easy playing guitar totally individual to each guitar (i.e. stiffness of top, setup) and not related to scale length?



Andy Culpepper -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 10 2013 23:48:09)

It's something I'm still investigating in my own guitars. I've built up to 660 but no 665. It's true that it doesn't feel that much different under the hands, but if a certain chord is a big stretch for you at 650 it might be unplayable at 665. Right now I can't say for sure whether guitars with longer scales are more responsive, but I would guess probably not in a very noticeable way between 650 and 665.

One thing to keep in mind is that the longer the string, the more tension it requires to be tuned to a given pitch. So identical strings are slightly stiffer on a 665 guitar than on a 650.

It's most likely IMO that the guitar you were playing was just well set up and a nice responsive instrument regardless of the scale length.



Ricardo -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 11 2013 16:59:57)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bule_b

I spent some time this weekend playing a 665 scale blanca.

It was surprising easy to play, in fact easier than a 650 scale guitar there.

I didn't know the scale lengths until the end of the playing.
In past 665 scale was something I was mentally terrified about, I imagined its unplayable.

Also with capo I found that it was very nice, the fingers were less cramped with more space to play than 650.

The owner told me that: "665 scale guitars are more responsive and therefore require a lighter touch, which is why I found her easy to play"

Is there any truth in this?

Or is an easy playing guitar totally individual to each guitar (i.e. stiffness of top, setup) and not related to scale length?


no it's all about the action, that's it.



jshelton5040 -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 11 2013 21:30:22)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

quote:



The owner told me that: "665 scale guitars are more responsive and therefore require a lighter touch, which is why I found her easy to play"

Is there any truth in this?

Or is an easy playing guitar totally individual to each guitar (i.e. stiffness of top, setup) and not related to scale length?


no it's all about the action, that's it.

Well I guess that clears up everything.

Of course each guitar is an individual case but I've found that on our guitars the 660mm scale generally allows lower more comfortable action than the 650mm scale. We haven't built any with longer scales but it certainly wouldn't surprise me to find that the action could be set even lower. I personally have always preferred longer scales for flamenco guitars even though we build everything from 640 to 660 mm. As a worthless over general rule of thumb one could say that a short scale results in softer feel but higher action and a long scale results in stiffer feel and lower action assuming the same strings.



bule_b -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 11 2013 23:17:52)

Andy & John, thanks very much for your great replies. It really helped.

As mentioned before, I had this 'mental block' when it came to 660+ scale guitars, assuming they would be unplayable except for pros. It has made me reconsider my "assumptions" about guitars.



estebanana -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 11 2013 23:37:26)

quote:

As a worthless over general rule of thumb one could say that a short scale results in softer feel but higher action and a long scale results in stiffer feel and lower action assuming the same strings.


I alway like to say ' overdetermined rule' generally speaking of thumbs.

I like you love longer scales, but I find customers reticent to try them. I build to a standard 655, but change it to suit what a guitarist wants. I have never had anyone in the last 5 years ask for longer than 655. I would not hesitate making a guitar for myself 660 to 664 ish, but it would be hard to sell it if I needed money and had to part with my own guitar, which I did last year. So maybe 66something is the way to hold onto a guitar.

I have also noticed that players will be surprised if the scale is longer than 650 and play normally unless you tell them ahead of time.

Many of the great Conde's I've played were longer scales guitars from the 1960's and 70's, they have more left hand tension in general and that makes it easier in my opinion to play rasgueado and alzapua, but not everyone agrees. I think longer scales can also sound better than shorter scales for flamenco, but the trend is to play short scales these days. Hopefully that will change.

Did you hear that Ricardo? I said Great Conde's - you can print that out and frame it and I'll sign it.

660 is an awesome scale length it is also known as 26" ~ 26- 1/8" is a great scale length too with a tenth of an inch of compensation. But everyone is too chicken to even talk about scale in inches......stupid metric system. [:D][:D]



constructordeguitarras -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 12 2013 2:17:32)

quote:

no it's all about the action, that's it.


I have found several puzzling things to influence the "ease of playing" including fingerboard thickness, which I could only guess is due to its effect on the flexibility of the neck+fingerboard. I have found that a 5-mm fb seems to make for easier playing than a 6-mm fb, although the thicker fb fits with my overall design better. What fingerboard thicknesses do others prefer?



constructordeguitarras -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 12 2013 2:34:00)

quote:

~ 26- 1/8" is a great scale length too with a tenth of an inch of compensation. But everyone is too chicken to even talk about scale in inches......stupid metric system.


That sounds like too much compensation. I make my flamencos 656 mm, unless otherwise ordered by clients, and I use only 1 mm baaalk!--I mean 0.04 inch--compensation. Is it a steel string guitar you're talking about?



n85ae -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 12 2013 3:04:18)

I have two 660 scale guitars and a 650, I switch from one to the next every couple
days and I honestly don't notice any difference except that one of the 660's has
a hard feel, the other a soft feel, and the 650 is in the middle.

I suppose I tend more towards the 660's, but it's very hard to know why. My hands
are not huge, however I don't really notice any difficult stretches.

Looking for a guitar, I wouldn't pay attention to the scale length, I'd just play the
guitar and buy it if I liked it ...

Regards,
Jeff



estebanana -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 12 2013 3:40:11)

quote:


~ 26- 1/8" is a great scale length too with a tenth of an inch of compensation. But everyone is too chicken to even talk about scale in inches......stupid metric system.


That sounds like too much compensation. I make my flamencos 656 mm, unless otherwise ordered by clients, and I use only 1 mm baaalk!--I mean 0.04 inch--compensation. Is it a steel string guitar you're talking about?

_______


Think about how much longer 660 and 664 to 665 ( why no 666?[8|]) compared to 655 and 650. The 26" 26-1/8" scales compensate very well with a tench of an inch which is basically 2mm. The most perfectly intonated guitars I've made were compensated like that. So I guess thats a 'scant' tenth on the pencil lines. [;)]

I marked it out on a stick and 650mm is 15 mm shorter than 665, right. So i compensate the 650 at 1.5 mm and the longer scales at a pencil line tenth of an inch which works out to be mas o menos 2mm fat. I'm just adding about a half mm to a scale 15 mm longer and that tenth works for the 26" scale as well. The 26" scale is my favorite, perhaps I should build with it anyway. I was building that scale when I started, but people got confused because they would only think in terms of the metric system and could not understand why i build in inches. I started called the scales in mm just so I would not have to explain over and over that 26" is an old Spanish scale length.

If you get a chance find this book called Lutes, Viols and Temperament. It goes into the historical scale values other than, and including equal temperament. After I read it I thought differently about compensation. Basically what I got from it, not to go into a long subject that only three people would actually follow, is that a few cents here or there ain't no big thing. Of corse it more than that. It also helped to have Gene Clark just give me that 26" and a tenth recipe for compensating the long scales. But in the end compensation is still not a science and each maker learns to compensate for the way they build.

In the final analysis for myself, I don't even like talking about scale in the metric system, but that is the mensuration system du jour so why fight what you can't change? 26" is so perfect, it's two thirteens.



Sean -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 12 2013 3:48:04)

Its no a surprise really, people in North America want things easy and don't want to have to work hard at anything. Where else will you find people 6'+ asking for 640mm scale guitars[:D] What does Paco Pena play, 663 Gerundino?
Two options: We lie about the scale length, or shame them into manhood[&o]



estebanana -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 12 2013 4:01:30)

quote:

Its no a surprise really, people in North America want things easy and don't want to have to work hard at anything. Where else will you find people 6'+ asking for 640mm scale guitars What does Paco Pena play, 663 Gerundino?
Two options: We lie about the scale length, or shame them into manhood


Aussies and Texans want everything bigger. JAJAJA

But ...um yeah there are a lot of wussies out there. I remember a trend starting in classical guitar in the late 80's to get away from 660 scales, but for flamenco I don't think it makes sense. With the cejilla on one you're already in another world.



Leñador -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 12 2013 4:03:05)

I want a 666 scale guitar \ii/



estebanana -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 12 2013 4:04:29)

quote:

I want a 666 scale guitar \ii/


The dreaded 'Gorbachev model'?



Ricardo -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 12 2013 17:35:06)

quote:

As a worthless over general rule of thumb one could say that a short scale results in softer feel but higher action and a long scale results in stiffer feel and lower action assuming the same strings.


I know you are generalizing but it sounds strange to me. By action I mean how high the strings are over the fingerboard (if you mean something else ignore the rest). So, perhaps you mean personally in your case if you use same strings and attempt to have each guitar with the exact same bridge and bone saddle height, THOSE are the results majority of the time??? Weird... do other luthiers concur? I don't understand why that is and of course in the actual world of different builds I don't see such a trend at all. I will say that in all cases, regardless of scale or strings length, and even bridge height, the guitars with LOWEST action are always softest/easiest to play.

quote:

Did you hear that Ricardo? I said Conde's are GREAT - you can print that out and frame it and I'll sign it.

[:D][:D][:D]


quote:

I have found several puzzling things to influence the "ease of playing" including fingerboard thickness, which I could only guess is due to its effect on the flexibility of the neck+fingerboard. I have found that a 5-mm fb seems to make for easier playing than a 6-mm fb, although the thicker fb fits with my overall design better. What fingerboard thicknesses do others prefer?


While fingerboard thickness might make things feel more or less comfy, it doesn't affect actual PLAYABILITY which is like 99.999999% action (ie string height over the fingerboard). Well, you can include bridge height in the there too in terms of "playability" for right hand things, but truth is with the lowest bridge in the world playability is STILL totally an issue of string height over the fingerboard. Jus look at old guitars with necks bent up or sunk soundboard. Low bridge down to zero and the guitar is still stiff.

As far as neck thickness, I say generally wide is ok, thin as possible is ideal within reason. In any case I would not choose a guitar for its neck shape if the action was not acceptable/adjustable.

quote:

I suppose I tend more towards the 660's, but it's very hard to know why.


I would wage money it's only because of action of the particular instruments. Compare string height over 12th fret for all 3 to prove me wrong.



quote:



ralexander -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 14 2013 16:32:49)

Coming from the steel string world, I'm used to referencing scales as 24.9", 25.4" etc. I had a guitar made a few years ago with a 26" scale which I strung with medium/heavy strings to be used in lowered alternate tunings ie CGCFBbD. The idea being that the strings wouldn't get as floppy as compared to an identical guitar with a short scale. Worked wonderfully. I also had a 28" scale jumbo baritone tuned B-B for standard with .017-.066 strings. That one is a very powerful rumble machine.

I'd love to try a 664mm flamenco guitar someday to satisfy my curiousity. I briefly owned a 660mm blanca from Jesus Bellido, but it was extremely difficult to play with a bridge string height of over 10mm (I forget the 12th fret height - 3mm+, anyway)

Based on my experiences, I'd wager that the reason a longer scale guitar can be set up with lower action is because the strings have slightly more tension and less movement when plucked, so they are less prone to string buzz with low action.



jshelton5040 -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 14 2013 17:49:06)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

quote:

As a worthless over general rule of thumb one could say that a short scale results in softer feel but higher action and a long scale results in stiffer feel and lower action assuming the same strings.


So, perhaps you mean personally in your case if you use same strings and attempt to have each guitar with the exact same bridge and bone saddle height, THOSE are the results majority of the time??? Weird... do other luthiers concur? I don't understand why that is and of course in the actual world of different builds I don't see such a trend at all. I will say that in all cases, regardless of scale or strings length, and even bridge height, the guitars with LOWEST action are always softest/easiest to play.


All of our flamenco bridges are the same height. The saddle height varies only slightly, this is accomplished with attention to the neck deflection and fingerboard taper. I can only speak to results I have noticed over several hundred guitars and 45 years of playing/building. When I started building I used a 655mm scale exclusively and switched to 660mm after several years to try to get more of the sound of the longer scale Spanish guitars like Esteso and Barbero. To be honest we haven't built a lot of 650mm or shorter scale guitars since my early experiments with them left me with the impression that the longer scale sounds better and has a better feel. Of course if a customer orders a short scale we're happy to build one, in fact we're applying finish to a 650mm blanca right now.



estebanana -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 14 2013 18:21:13)

quote:

When I started building I used a 655mm scale exclusively and switched to 660mm after several years to try to get more of the sound of the longer scale Spanish guitars like Esteso and Barbero. To be honest we haven't built a lot of 650mm or shorter scale guitars since my early experiments with them left me with the impression that the longer scale sounds better and has a better feel.


You just changed my mind back to using a 26" scale all the time. Thanks.



Miguel de Maria -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 14 2013 21:10:55)

I was petrified to get a long scale guitar from you. In the final analysis, I do like the nice clean feel in the RH. I'm not sure it would matter for flamenco configurations or anyone who uses a capo, but for a small-handed guy like me, it does pose some added difficulties in playing more difficult classical repertoire in the lower positions. A couple of the Sor/Segovia studies are noticeably more difficult with the longer scale.



Richard Jernigan -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 15 2013 15:25:30)

I have a couple of classicals one has 650 mm scale length. I ordered the other with 654 mm scale from Abel Garcia.. Both are strung with Savarez Cantigas, tension forte. Both have the same action at the 12th fret, and the same relief at the 7th. The longer scale Garcia is notably easier on the left hand. Besides cedar(the harder one)/spruce (Garcia), different plantilla and bracing and maybe different top thickness, the only obvious difference is that the hard one has a fraction of a millimeter higher action at the first fret.

The difference in left hand feel was immediately obvious to me. The difference in action at the first fret was not immediately noticed, but was measured with shims and my Mitotoyo precision caliper. I've never gotten around to filing the nut on the cedar one to see if that would make a big difference.

RNJ



Ricardo -> RE: scale length & response (Mar. 15 2013 16:36:17)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Richard Jernigan

I have a couple of classicals one has 650 mm scale length. I ordered the other with 654 mm scale from Abel Garcia.. Both are strung with Savarez Cantigas, tension forte. Both have the same action at the 12th fret, and the same relief at the 7th. The longer scale Garcia is notably easier on the left hand. Besides cedar(the harder one)/spruce (Garcia), different plantilla and bracing and maybe different top thickness, the only obvious difference is that the hard one has a fraction of a millimeter higher action at the first fret.

The difference in left hand feel was immediately obvious to me. The difference in action at the first fret was not immediately noticed, but was measured with shims and my Mitotoyo precision caliper. I've never gotten around to filing the nut on the cedar one to see if that would make a big difference.

RNJ


Simple test would be to put capo on first fret of both guitars and see if the short scale is still the harder one to play. Also curious about bridge height, although that shouldn't affect left hand.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET