Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
Posts: 219
Joined: Jun. 22 2012
From: Seattle, USA
RE: whats the benefit of 660mm scale... (in reply to sartorius)
How fortunate that the meter was defined (in 1793) in such a way that the ideal scale for an ideal sounding guitar works out to an even number of centimeters. Even more wonderful is how the guitar continued to sound great even after Spanish builders changed their system of units from inches to metric. Fortunately they had been using a scale length of 25.591" prior to the change (the best builders having determined their guitars sounded best at this scale), and miraculously this became 650mm after!
And how fortunate that the guitar sounds best when the tuning is C=256Hz ("scientific pitch"). Those clockmakers of the 16th century sure were prescient when they chose the length of the second so that instruments sound best when the C notes are tuned to a power of two. Even more fortunate is how guitars managed to sound good even while standard tuning varied over the years (with concert pitch A between 400Hz and 450Hz).
How wonderful is it that the Classical Guitar, of all instruments, settled on the scale length most suited to the vast majority of humans, even as the average human height varied up and down by 10cm over the past few hundred years? It's marvellous that the Classical Guitar chose the correct scale, and all those other guitars got it wrong - some full-size electric guitars for example are only 527mm! And some are an enormous 686mm! We all know that it's physiologically impossible to play an electric bass, which has a scale lengths up to 1000mm, and we all know you have to have freakishly tiny Trump™ hands to play an ukulele with a scale of 330mm.
If it's not clear yet, I'm mocking your assertion that 650mm is somehow a magical, preferred scale ideally suited to the instrument and to the average player, and that somehow the scale is the most important number, more important than fretboard width, or neck thickness/shape, or body size (length, width, depth) or action. All these things contribute to how comfortable a guitar is for a specific individual to play, and all of them are more significant that a 1% difference in string length.
Fretboard width, for example is chosen to be 52mm NOT because that is some ideal width, but because that is just the even number of mm close to 2". My guitar is 54mm at the nut - that's 4% wider than "standard", which is HUGE compared to the difference between 650 and 660 scale lengths. You can't believe that a 2mm difference in string spacing at the nut is less important than a fraction of a mm difference in fret spacing, or that 2" just happens to be the best choice for most people.
I agree 100% with @tijeretamiel:
quote:
If possible to choose, I'd always go for the scale which the maker likes the most be it 650mm, 655mm etc.
(Note he says If possible).
I believe guitar makers know what works best for them, and know how to produce a great sounding guitar. If how they build doesn't feel comfortable to you, find another builder, don't commission a guitar with all sorts of changed dimensions then complain that the guitar doesn't sound or feel good. And don't think you can demonstrate that you know better than the builder what dimensions will produce the best guitar. If the builder is willing to accommodate you, then great, but you also have to be willing to take no for an answer if the builder tells you he'd rather not.
The notion that a luthier can build a guitar and NOT know the scale, just happen upon 650mm unconsciously, is ludicrous. There's no way the guitar would intonate properly unless the frets were placed precisely and the saddle was placed precisely - these things don't happen by accident. Even if they're working from jigs most of the time there's going to be variations from guitar to guitar so a craftsman is going to verify this very important number. If he was "incredibly surprised " to find it a different scale, then at best he didn't have much to do with the building of the guitar. Or maybe it was a custom build - someone specifically requested a 650mm even though he doesn't normally build them, then that someone decided not to accept the guitar so it ended up in his special locker for who knows how long.
Still not sure why you reopened a >10 year old thread for this, but every person commenting on this thread is pretty much telling you the same thing ...
RE: whats the benefit of 660mm scale... (in reply to timoteo)
When building a violin, I find out how annoying guitarbuilding can be. Violins have fixed scale, nut width and neck thickness (almost) They are also in 99% of cases made with the exact same kind of woods. So what is left for the builder is "ONLY" to choose the model and make the best possible instrument and thats a pretty difficult task. It also, and thats very important, makes life for the players a lot easyer. They "only" have to find the instrument that suits them the best and not waste time and enrgy on something as unartistic as little nitpicking guitardetails. I totally believe we would have better makers and players if we would stop all this mm and tonewood babble.
BTW, when building a guitar to my own specifications I choose a 650mm scale and that is because I see no advantage in any other. If a client wants a 660mm scale, I happily make it that way and see no disadvantages.
RE: whats the benefit of 660mm scale... (in reply to timoteo)
I use 655 and have for years. But cello making you have to deal with the scale or mensur issue. Some players want short mensur. But guitars being tuned in forths don't have the shift and reach issues celli have. Tuning in fifths works really well on violin and mandolin size instruments, but enlarge them to a 26" scale and it's a world of shifting through positions to play scales. Guitars don't have the same technical problems, and that was one of the main points to the lute and guitar, chords.
So in agreement let's say on guitar scale not a big contrast when you consider why it's turned in fourths.
Posts: 15242
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: whats the benefit of 660mm scale... (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anders Eliasson
When building a violin, I find out how annoying guitarbuilding can be. Violins have fixed scale, nut width and neck thickness (almost) They are also in 99% of cases made with the exact same kind of woods. So what is left for the builder is "ONLY" to choose the model and make the best possible instrument and thats a pretty difficult task. It also, and thats very important, makes life for the players a lot easyer. They "only" have to find the instrument that suits them the best and not waste time and enrgy on something as unartistic as little nitpicking guitardetails. I totally believe we would have better makers and players if we would stop all this mm and tonewood babble.
BTW, when building a guitar to my own specifications I choose a 650mm scale and that is because I see no advantage in any other. If a client wants a 660mm scale, I happily make it that way and see no disadvantages.
The big irony is that when all things are considered equal, make model color woods etc, the stupid scale becomes a selling point for resale of used guitars....that being smaller scale tends to be easier to move. The irony there is buyers are under illusion that scale affects playability when actually it's the action only that affect playability.
Posts: 1696
Joined: Jan. 29 2012
From: Seattle, Washington, USA
RE: whats the benefit of 660mm scale... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
The irony there is buyers are under illusion that scale affects playability when actually it's the action only that affect playability.
I have seen this statement before and I beg to differ: Many things affect playability, including scale length, action, neck width, neck thickness and taper, fret height, fret width, size of plantilla, body depth, and even the weight of the guitar. Some of us are more sensitive to some of these factors than others.
RE: whats the benefit of 660mm scale... (in reply to timoteo)
It's a soupy mix, but I think Ricardo is saying not to let set-up and scale length get conflated. I think it's reasonable to say scale length is over sold as a line item. And also better to allow players to select guitars without using scale length as a prerequisite for choosing which guitarsare shown.
Scale length is not like shoe size. You might wear a size 11 shoe, but be fit into a guitar anywhere from a size 9 to a size 12. If guitars were shoes.
RE: whats the benefit of 660mm scale... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
The big irony is that when all things are considered equal, make model color woods etc, the stupid scale becomes a selling point for resale of used guitars....that being smaller scale tends to be easier to move. The irony there is buyers are under illusion that scale affects playability when actually it's the action only that affect playability.
I totally agree and will only add that nut width affects playability. The problem is that there is a lot of very good guitars out there for sale that a lot of players believe wont fit them because of a number they have read on an internet forum.
Posts: 15242
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
RE: whats the benefit of 660mm scale... (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anders Eliasson
quote:
The big irony is that when all things are considered equal, make model color woods etc, the stupid scale becomes a selling point for resale of used guitars....that being smaller scale tends to be easier to move. The irony there is buyers are under illusion that scale affects playability when actually it's the action only that affect playability.
I totally agree and will only add that nut width affects playability. The problem is that there is a lot of very good guitars out there for sale that a lot of players believe wont fit them because of a number they have read on an internet forum.
Yes I forgot to add that too about nut width and I would add it can have more to do with the spacing of the slots even. I have seen several wide enough nuts but they cut the grooves so the strings are all crammed up too close together and it feels awkward to play.
RE: whats the benefit of 660mm scale... (in reply to timoteo)
quote:
Yes I forgot to add that too about nut width and I would add it can have more to do with the spacing of the slots even. I have seen several wide enough nuts but they cut the grooves so the strings are all crammed up too close together and it feels awkward to play.
Oh yes, I forgot to add that as well. You can "widen" a narrow nut a good deal on the bass side. Some dont like the looks of a guitar nut that is not symetrical, but IMHO its the best way to go.
RE: whats the benefit of 660mm scale... (in reply to timoteo)
The real benefit of a guitar is the pleasure it will give you when you play it. As with cars and women (sorry but this is true) it's when we are at play with them that we will feel that something or not. If they also happen to be beautiful, the better.
So more than a matter of numbers and figures it's the overall feeling that counts.
RE: whats the benefit of 660mm scale... (in reply to timoteo)
quote:
How wonderful is it that the Classical Guitar, of all instruments, settled on the scale length most suited to the vast majority of humans, even as the average human height varied up and down by 10cm over the past few hundred years? ... My guitar is 54mm at the nut - that's 4% wider than "standard", which is HUGE compared to the difference between 650 and 660 scale lengths. You can't believe that a 2mm difference in string spacing at the nut is less important than a fraction of a mm difference in fret spacing, or that 2" just happens to be the best choice for most people.
I remember comments in classical guitar forums according to which Ramirez had adapted dimensions inquired by Segovia, which again developed to builders´standard. A bulky standard which I suspect to not be ergonomically fitting the average person of under 180 cm tall. Especially not regarding string spacing.
quote:
They "only" have to find the instrument that suits them the best and not waste time and enrgy on something as unartistic as little nitpicking guitardetails.
Like maybe a cousin of mine, who while being a collector of diverse instruments like of charangos, ukuleles or exotic flutes, never upgraded on his serial production estudio guitar. I suspect the only time he experienced fine crafted specimens was at my place years ago. Don´t know whether that experience may have inspired him, but at least until that day in decades as a rich man and traveler he would simply not be interested in upper guitar shelf. But he is also the same guy who once obtained a silly stratocaster dud made all of solid steel. While respecting him as a good musician, in respect of instruments I rather rely on my nitpicking with playability and sound.
quote:
Many things affect playability, including scale length, action, neck width, neck thickness and taper, fret height, fret width, size of plantilla, body depth, and even the weight of the guitar. Some of us are more sensitive to some of these factors than others.
I agree. A person who may have started playing as a kid, forced to cope with a standard sized guitar, may arrange himself too easily for to care much about proportions; but others -and as I assume the majority- may discover ergonomical advantage with dimensions rather suiting their individual body and limbs size.
Printable Version
You can "widen" a narrow nut a good deal on the bass side. Some dont like the looks of a guitar nut that is not symetrical, but IMHO its the best way to go. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread