- #1
sgb
- 5
- 0
I suspect my question will be somewhat unique, please forgive me if it's entirely out of place. (Please also forgive my ignorance when it shows, my knowledge of physics is extremely limited.) You might wonder why I'm asking it here, rather than on a guitar forum. Let me simply say that the guitar community is infused with all manner of voodoo-like beliefs, such that it can be difficult to arrive at a straight answer on such matters. I don't expect that to be a problem here.
I'm interested to learn if the total length of a guitar string should, in theory, have any effect on its tension, i.e., it's bendability. Specifically, my question relates to headstock design. For those unfamiliar with guitars, let me quickly explain a few things.
A guitar string vibrates between two points: (1) the bridge, at the picking end; (2) the nut, at the other end.
The headstock is the material beyond the nut, where the strings are tightened by being wound around tuning pegs. (The strings are anchored at the other end, beyond the bridge.)
Headstocks generally come in two forms: (1) three tuning pegs on each side, called "3+3"; (2) all six pegs on one side, called "in-line."
In-line headstocks themselves come in two forms: (1) standard form, where the tuning pegs are on top, such that the thicker, lower-pitch strings have the least amount of length beyond the nut, since those tuning pegs are closer to the nut; (2) reverse form, where the tuning pegs are on bottom, such that the thinner, higher-pitch strings have the least amount of length beyond the nut.
And now I finally get to my question: Is there any theoretical reason to expect that the amount of string beyond the nut will have any effect on the tension (expressed as bendability) of the string between the nut and the bridge?
If the choice of standard or reverse in-line headstock should in theory have such an effect, I suspect most guitarists would choose the form which would impart greater bendability to the thinner strings and lesser bendability to the thicker ones.
I'd like to know if there's any theoretical reason to expect such an effect, even if in practice it would be too little to expect most players to feel a difference on a typical guitar. Should there be such an effect, palpable to the player, on a ridiculously atypical guitar? Suppose, for example, that the headstock is one meter long, such that there is even more string beyond the nut than between the nut and bridge. Or, for a visual unrelated to guitar, suppose a length of rope, pulled taught across two logs by two persons, such that it could be "plucked" between the logs; should the distance of the persons from the logs, and thus the length of the rope beyond the logs, have any effect on the perceived tension of the rope between the logs?
In order to raise a string of a given gauge to a desired musical pitch, it must be placed under a certain amount of tension. Some guitarists believe that the placement of the bridge and nut along the length of the string will have no effect on its bendability. Others believe that it will, and that the headstock form is therefore relevant.
So, should the total length of a guitar string (or any other wire, cable or rope, for that matter) have any effect on its perceived tension between the terminal points of its vibration?
I'm interested to learn if the total length of a guitar string should, in theory, have any effect on its tension, i.e., it's bendability. Specifically, my question relates to headstock design. For those unfamiliar with guitars, let me quickly explain a few things.
A guitar string vibrates between two points: (1) the bridge, at the picking end; (2) the nut, at the other end.
The headstock is the material beyond the nut, where the strings are tightened by being wound around tuning pegs. (The strings are anchored at the other end, beyond the bridge.)
Headstocks generally come in two forms: (1) three tuning pegs on each side, called "3+3"; (2) all six pegs on one side, called "in-line."
In-line headstocks themselves come in two forms: (1) standard form, where the tuning pegs are on top, such that the thicker, lower-pitch strings have the least amount of length beyond the nut, since those tuning pegs are closer to the nut; (2) reverse form, where the tuning pegs are on bottom, such that the thinner, higher-pitch strings have the least amount of length beyond the nut.
And now I finally get to my question: Is there any theoretical reason to expect that the amount of string beyond the nut will have any effect on the tension (expressed as bendability) of the string between the nut and the bridge?
If the choice of standard or reverse in-line headstock should in theory have such an effect, I suspect most guitarists would choose the form which would impart greater bendability to the thinner strings and lesser bendability to the thicker ones.
I'd like to know if there's any theoretical reason to expect such an effect, even if in practice it would be too little to expect most players to feel a difference on a typical guitar. Should there be such an effect, palpable to the player, on a ridiculously atypical guitar? Suppose, for example, that the headstock is one meter long, such that there is even more string beyond the nut than between the nut and bridge. Or, for a visual unrelated to guitar, suppose a length of rope, pulled taught across two logs by two persons, such that it could be "plucked" between the logs; should the distance of the persons from the logs, and thus the length of the rope beyond the logs, have any effect on the perceived tension of the rope between the logs?
In order to raise a string of a given gauge to a desired musical pitch, it must be placed under a certain amount of tension. Some guitarists believe that the placement of the bridge and nut along the length of the string will have no effect on its bendability. Others believe that it will, and that the headstock form is therefore relevant.
So, should the total length of a guitar string (or any other wire, cable or rope, for that matter) have any effect on its perceived tension between the terminal points of its vibration?