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.
|
|
|
RE: whats the benefit of 660mm scale compared to 650mm?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
timoteo
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 ...
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 19 2017 22:20:42
 |
|
constructordeguitarras
Posts: 1674
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.
_____________________________
Ethan Deutsch
www.edluthier.com
www.facebook.com/ethandeutschguitars
www.youtube.com/marioamayaflamenco
I always have flamenco guitars available for sale.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 28 2017 19:56:16
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 30 2017 11:40:13
|
|
 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
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
9.765625E-02 secs.
|
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. 
