GregP

I don't know that it has to be "finished" in time for the gig anyhow. Just put it on, if you're not worried about gloss. Finish it properly later.

I don't know about the specific numbers, but it stands to reason that there won't be HUGE differences in the intonation. After all, with the right height of nut and well-adjusted action, the downward pressure of the string, especially at the 12th fret where intonating is done (unless you're using a technique I don't know about), produces an extremely small increase of string tension in the first place. Adding 25% more string length means that the entire tension is only being increased by 25%. That's tension, not pitch. Let's say that the first test had you pitching up by 5 cents (barely detectable by the human ear), and the second one (longer string length) had you now pitching up by only 4 cents, you're not going to very easily or accurately measure, and the change in intonation would be such that few people would even bother. No one in the world can hear a 1-cent difference. I'd put a 1-cent test in front of even these legendary folk with "perfect pitch" and challenge them to notice a difference. Heck, variations in how hard you're fretting your string will produce more than a 1-cent change. Now, those maths are not tested and confirmed ( ) but I erred on the side of generosity instead. There's often only a 1-cent difference between fretted and unfretted, meaning that the increased string length would be particularly unnoticeable. Greg

Did I miss something amidst all these posts (great thread, btw... lots of different people involved)? Intonation needs to be adjusted because the length of string from nut to tuners has changed, no?

Absolutely-- if you're using plug-in effects you'll still get latency, but if you're recording something dry, something with outboard FX, or a mic'd guitar amp, that's a good way to defeat latency issues. Greg

It depends on the guy. I agree that the majority of new (and especially young) learners will get more out of putting it into practice. There will always be a demographic, though, that gets more out of, "well, the longer the string, the more 'material' there is for distributing the tension" than, "make a model and tell me what you get." I'm simply advocating for the former, without discounting the latter. If stating the theory (and even debating it) helps a certain kind of learner to see what's going on, then great! It's a mistake to think that putting something into practice isn't the ultimate goal on this forum, and I value the contributions of the people who were willing to make the practical models as part of their own learning and then contributed that knowledge to the thread. I'm happy to let them take that role while I continue scrutinizing theory and physics! If people take it to PM, that's an unfortunate loss. If you ONLY debate and argue points, you're right-- you get nothing but a pedantic debate. That's why I do think that Perry's approach (and others') is not only helpful, but required! I merely wanted to state for the record that BOTH are important and that there's no shame in being a "theory" guy, too. -- Man... it's just teh interwebs after all...! Greg

Yup. They haven't had a demo since SX1, which was still available after SX2 came out, but which vanished after SX3. And even if the SX1 demo were still available, it wouldn't really be the same software anymore, making it pointless.

Gorecki, I'm very much with you in terms of anti-piracy, so this isn't about that-- but there is NOT actually a demo for Cubase. It's a real thorn in my side because I always tell people "try before you buy, download the demo when available," with "when available" always referring (even when I don't state it) to Cubase. I don't think you should pirate Cubase in order to try it, however-- I just think you should not buy Cubase at all unless you've tried it at a music store or friend's house and like it. Back on topic: Sonar is definitely intuitive if you're expecting the 'typical' paradigm. Some people already have a passing familiarity with how these softwares generally work, and Sonar does it better than most. But I can't imagine Tracktion escaping anyone's grasp in 5 minutes. I mean, there's literally nothing to it. You point your device at a track (clearly labelled) and press the world-wide standard "record" button. That's all. It doesn't get more intuitive than that! Greg

On an related point, sometimes it's the "calculators" (as a metaphor for theory, not as literally using a calculator) are exactly what's required to debunk the myth. Take the direct-mount vs. ring-mount pickup debate. There's no way of really knowing that any of the minute differences you may or may not hear aren't due to placebo effect. People have already proven as much by trying both results-- some of those "practical testers" saying that they heard a difference and others saying, "no way." Since there's no consensus, it's obviously anecdotal and unreliable evidence. I'd rather approach the problem logically, discussing the impact of direct vs. ring mount on the actual magnetic field, and the possibility that vibration in the guitar may or may not influence the pickup itself to produce a noticeable result (I say not, fwiw). It seems to me that this thread has a place for both. My getting defensive isn't analogous to saying that the practical way has no value, and indeed I said earlier that it DOES, so I'm keeping room in the thread for both and all ways of solving a problem or even just running off at the mouth about an interesting topic. Greg

This "calculator" guy (not that I'm against "real world", but just saying that I didn't do any physical tests for this thread) mentioned the length thing a long long time ago. That was my original and main point. As part of it, I mentioned that without retuning, your tension and pitch ALSO change with increasing headstock... so that was covered, too, even though I didn't string up an actual model. Damn, it's like reverse snobbery... instead of the typical definition of snobbery in which the crusty intellectual is sneering at the "unedumacated" it's looking down at someone who is able to imagine and visualize how the physics of it works in practice without actually having to rig something up. You have your own personal beef, Perry, in that you'd rather see more guys MAKING guitars than talking about them, which is all well and good. But it's just that... a personal beef, and one that's manifesting itself pretty overtly lately. There's no reason to discount other approaches just because of it. I mean, when the answer was right in front of your face, far be it to say, "Yeah, that's it." No, somehow the information is only correct if a practical test is done? Makes no sense. Every type of learning is valid, no less the way I (for example) approached this problem; and the expenditure of energy I could've spent mocking something physical up is much better spent on something else when I already know (yes, know, not suspect) the answer to the question at hand.... I don't have to be a pizza chef to understand that higher heat and shorter cooking times will let you crisp up your crust without drying out or overdoing the toppings, but that conversely if you have TOO high a heat you won't have enough cooking time for the crust to rise... you don't have to be a practicioner of every discipline in the world to be able to speak intelligently about them. Greg

I can't imagine Nashville tuning will deliver what you need. It's mostly used for texture in layered guitar parts and isn't particularly effective as a tuning for solo guitar. There's nothing to gain from it in solo arrangements, and everything to lose. I think going to a lighter guage and then tuning up is the way to go if you insist on not using a capo. Greg

I totally agree with guitarchump. Now, the tricky thing about your Zoom, monkey, is that even though it might have good converters, they're all internal and don't get your signal to the computer. So you're adding an extra 2 stages of conversion: guitar (analog) --> digital (zoom) --> line out (analog) Or, Analog to digital to analog. But since you are just generating an analog signal at the end of this (ie. it's not going directly into your computer's software) you need to convert the analog back to digital again, which is what happens at your soundcard. SO, what Guitarchump is getting at is that you need a decent interface (ie. soundcard, whether it's internal or FireWire or whatnot). Now, you can get EXCELLENT converters in an interface without paying through the nose, and if you buy something with decent bundled software, you can look at it as an extreme bargain. The tricky thing with using something like a Soundblaster or your built-in soundcard is that it will be tricky to monitor (ie. hear) your signal in realtime. With most setups involving consumer-grade soundcards, you'll play your instrument and then hear it a few moments later. This is called "latency" and is the bane of digital recordists' existence. IF you have any spare money at all, I recommend getting a "proper" soundcard and from there make a software decision. If the soundcard comes bundled with something decent (ie. NOT Live Lite, in my opinion), you're set; otherwise there's something like Reaper or other inexpensive software like N-Tracks. Greg

Free for a very limited time (soon to be inexpensive shareware), so grab it now, monkey: http://www.cockos.com/reaper/ I can't testify that it's great (I just use what I know, Tracktion 2) myself, but the forums (notably KvR and the Line6 TonePort forum) that I visit have users that absolutely love it. It's about as full-featured as Acid or any other program, has unique approaches to a few things, and even if you pay for it when it becomes commercial, it will be cheap. The main drawback: the included FX aren't my favourites. But that's what KvRAudio and a few good recommendations are for. Greg

Not an idiot at all. Rather, one of the smartest members of the forum who just happened to have overlooked something. The length of time and amount of words it took me to get to the point shows how much I had to work it out in my OWN head while trying to engage the topic. Greg

UAD-1 is indeed great. Expensive to get into, though. I'd rather UAD than the Waves, though, so I totally agree on that. I suspect that you'll be fine with any of the software I mentioned in my post and the very VERY high quality freeware that's available these days. When demos are available, always try before you buy. If you found Cubase a bit tricky, though, it's pretty much using the same basic standard interface as most other software. With notable exceptions, Sonar, Cubase, ProTools, Logic, and the rest tend to use the same "hardware look-alike plus tracks" look and feel. And all have lots of menus. Tracktion and Ableton Live are 2 notable pieces of software that break from this tradition, though I prefer Tracktion's way of doing so. Greg

Nah, friction is still taken into account for the sliding motion of the string as it moves along the nut slot during a bend, as well as friction against the "sides" of the grooves during a bend. This is true of all strings, but obviously more true with wound strings than plain ones, where the "drag" will be minimal. I wasn't really thinking of the horizontal factor (though I mentioned it in conjunction with positive contact), but I also didn't really emphasize that I acknowledge the friction on a plain string to be relatively minimal even in the real world. My main argument, despite long-windedness, comes down primarily to 2 concise premises, which I believe to be true and which can be proven in both theory and practice to be true: 1 - string tension is distributed along the entire length of the string (a locking nut effectively makes the nut the end of the string rather than the tuners, but in a "standard" guitar this includes the length of string from nut to tuner and bridge to tailpiece) 2 - It is the usable length of the entire string rather than break angle that makes a string easier to bend or not. Particularly true in a theoretical "frictionless" environment, but largely practically true as well since a plain string won't really get "caught" in a nut that often, for example. Given those 2 premises, I believe that the distance from nut to tuners (ie. string length) is far more important than break angle, since the added tension of string-bending will be distributed along this segment as well. Angle becomes important only insofar as creating the aforementioned "positive contact". Greg

- They're binding (getting "stuck") at either the nut or the bridge - The tuners are slipping - Too much slack at the tuning posts when you restring - Strings aren't being stretched out effectively In no particular order.

I can't imagine you'd get any sort of improved tone or string performance from the way the bridge in your pic is working vs. a standard wraparound.

Oh, I definitely see what you mean... but I was just thinking it could've been a Badass-style wraparound (not a true Leo Quan) strung up incorrectly. But pigtails and tonepros don't seem to do that, either. Could be proprietary.

Honestly, almost any program will work for you. I haven't much to add because Tracktion 2 will do exactly what you want. And you can STILL get Amplitube 2 or Guitar Rig 2 if that's what you really want to get. You're not forced to use Amplitube LE. Many interfaces COME with good software. Many offerings from M-Audio come with ProTools LE, a very capable piece of software with its own native plug-ins to start off with. Others come with Cubase LE, ALSO very capable and also including a few bland and a few great plug-ins. Mackie's interfaces come with Tracktion 2 (NOT including the commercial software bundle, however... still including Mackie plugs and a huge selection of freeware which is more convenient than downloading it all yourself). I don't know about sound cards, but my keyboard came with Sonar LE, which is GREAT value for money. The TonePort, however, comes with Live Lite, Line6 edition, which is absolutely horrible. I couldn't recommend Live Lite with good conscience. In short: 1. Tracktion 2 2. Cubase LE 3. Sonar LE or one of Cakewalk's other offerings 4. Pro Tools M-Powered (not sure if it's actually called LE, now that I'm thinking about it) They'll all do the trick. Other options are available if you're going to go the illegal download route, but I think that a decent recording package is worth paying for and running bug-free. Greg

I hate my MG30. I'll sell it to you, since you like it so much. It WOULD be pretty good for Maiden sounds, though. Greg

Are you absolutely sure it's not a Badass-style bridge that's been strung up improperly? [edit: I've had a look, and you might be right after all... although my theory MIGHT still hold true, none of the wraparounds I've seen in a quick search could be strung up incorrectly in the way pictured here.] Greg

Nifty!

[edited to add: I must've missed Tirapop's post at the top of this page, because he explains it much better than I did!] Just a quick amendment-- using 13-degrees instead of 167 IS the accurate way of looking at it. Which doesn't change that either side is the same. And incidentally, I agree that "string angle" is what's really being talked about. Mick, everything in my post (except for the non-friction part) CAN be used to increase knowledge of building and understanding of what's involved. It's not merely hypothetical, and is in fact simply a counter-argument... a REALLY long-winded way of saying that angle does NOT increase string tension. Another quick observation before moving on to answer your more practical question: Let's use an example of "no angle" = 100 lbs of tension (or whatever), = the note middle "A" [not the real math... just an easy-to-follow example]. Erik's absolutely right that the force generated by an angle will then increase tension. Say a 13-degree angle generates this force he's mentioning, and I totally agree that the tension IS changed. Let's say you now have 130 lbs of tension. But you no longer have the note middle "A". You have to then tune accordingly so that you're back to 100 lbs of tension = middle "A". The increased tension = higher pitch. Erik unfortunately misses that step and has the increased tension at the same pitch, as far as I can tell. To the more practical questions: Headstock angle is still important for at least one major reason: What people call "positive contact" with the nut. The very reason Fender uses string trees is because very shallow angles allow the string to be too "loose" in their slots. You need angle (and in turn, friction) to create a positive contact and therefore have good tone and non-wobbly strings at the nut. You could also make a case for aesthetics...if for no other reason than it "looks" good to be able to go without string trees, it's worth having an angled headstock. As for the non-compensated wraparound, the issue there has little to do with headstock angle. You will minimize the lack of compensation by having LONGER distances from nut to tuners, that much is certain. A really compact headstock won't give enough extra "material" (ie. string length) across which to distribute tension-- particularly since it's a wraparound bridge and therefore has no extra "material" from bridge to tailpiece. I think that with normal guages of string, a non-compensated bridge is a disaster waiting to happen, unless you like the funky vibe of intonation discrepancies; however, the position of the tuners will certainly have an impact. I might as well say it before someone else says it, but I hope everyone remembers that despite my high post count, I'm a rank amateur. That doesn't diminish my ability to reason things out, and it doesn't take a professional to know that lack of intonation at the bridge WILL cause intonation problems, no matter how you "minimize" them. Anyway, just worth restating that I'm not a very experienced guitar-builder. Greg

NOTE: I've tried finding the "effed up" quoting, but it seems to be fine. Dunno what the problem is-- I'll fix it up later but I'm about to head out the door! It's possible. Before I go into the details, it should be clarified that I do think that some guitars are easier to bend than others. I MERELY propose that it's not "string tension" that is the cause. Rather, it is either: 1-friction over the nut; or more importantly 2- the length of string (not the angle) between the nut and tuners and/or bridge and "tailpiece" (or string-through or whatever). Anybody who's arguing that "real world observations rule" is correct; however, you glanced past the fact that I'm talking with Erik primarily, who proposed a "zero-friction" (ie. NOT real world) math, and I'm discussing things in terms of the nut not having friction. Of course I agree that real world practice is ultimately more important than mere calculations and theory, but that's never been my point. On to the points at hand: This is the entire crux of my disagreement. The string tension between nut and tuning post does NOT increase. String tension is distributed evenly across the entire string. Even the force generated by your angle calculation has to be distributed across BOTH sides of the bisector, not just one. The nut isn't a magical area beyond which the rest of the string is ignored. For all the string cares, the "fretboard" side is exactly the same as the "tuner" side. All that "physics" knows is that you have a string, and there's a vertex. That's it. The tension is distributed evenly on both sides. Even with friction as a factor, one can assume that the nut could create an imbalance of tension on EITHER side. The reason that the headstock side FEELS like there's more string tension is because the length (again, my argument is to do with length, not angle or tension) is different. But the ACTUAL tension is distributed across the whole string. I'm frankly astonished that anyone could think that the tension just kind of 'hangs out' at one side. Whenever you create a vertex in a line (ie., the nut in this case), BOTH sides are treated equally. Let's look at the angle of the string (as opposed to the headstock) for a moment. The string is a line when there's no nut, but then it's a 168-degree obtuse angle (from the "under" side) when going over a nut at 12 degrees. If you bisect it, the resulting angles are simply an 84-degree angle and another 84-degree angle. This just repeats what I've already said, but in different words: the string doesn't know from tuner or fretboard, it just knows that it's bent at a 168-degree angle. The tension is still distributed evenly across the entire length. Yes, but the incorrect one. Even worthwhile hypotheses can be wrong. It doesn't take any sort of test to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that tension is distributed across the entire string. Even this force is still just exerted upon a vertex. It doesn't change the overall tension of the string or divide the string into 2 sections with different tensions. Your calculation that you made MUST apply to BOTH sides of the vertex! You're selectively only applying it to one, but that doesn't make it so! You operate under the assumption that one side (the tuner side) is at a 13-degree angle, which is first of all the incorrect angle (headstock angle isn't actually the angle created!) but then also assumes that the fretboard is "zero degrees" instead of simply the other half of the bissected vertex. It's a false assumption that SEEMS logical because our common sense and background (we always just think of headstock angle as relative to the fretboard) but which isn't actually sound. With that premise nixed, the rest of the maths are meaningless. OK, but now we're back in the real world. I'm going to assume that the incredible friction generated by an 18-degree angle is a contributing factor. Next, I have to know for sure that the string length is absolutely identical. I'll give a few mm of wiggle room, but even a half centimetre difference in length is by percentage a SIGNIFICANT amount of "material" across which to distribute tension. Furthermore, "easier to bend" can be a subjective observation and it might be psychosematic. Without mechanical scientific tests, there's no way of knowing that it doesn't just seem easier, even if the distance from strings to tuners are identical. In other words, this anecdotal supporting evidence isn't truly "evidence" at all, unfortunately. Again, less friction across the nut. Also, MORE string between its "anchor" on the bridge across which to distribute tension, vs. the TOM+tailpiece of the LP. higher strings on a Strat (the ones we usually bend) also have more length of string between the nut and tuning machines than on an LP. Again, it's this LENGTH that's important, not the angle. Consider it done! As I said already, the most rigorous of maths can be flawed if they're based on an incorrect premise; in this case, your automatic assumption that on the fretboard side there is "zero" angle and on the tuner side there is a 13-degree one. Agree. Well... it's an "anchor". You could do the same thing with a good grip, lots of muscle, and twisting and tying the string around the nail. The tuner itself does not exert the force. Your fingers exert the force when you're tuning, and the tuners just keep the potential energy "in place". The tuner itself does not exert any force at all. The resulting energy/force is stored throughout the entire length of the string, and doesn't just end at the nut. This is why we're able to do "behind the nut bends." By adding further tension by pressing down with our fingers, the string on the fretboard side has more tension added to it and the pitch goes up. Yes. On both sides of the nut. Also, the 11-degrees is the "negative" angle and not the resulting angle of the string itself, which is actually 169 degrees. Your fingers. Because the tension/force is distributed evenly across the string, you will find that the tension doesn't actually come "from" the tuner. I don't know where you could be getting that from, but it doesn't "follow" logically. Let's pretend you had a TOM-style bridge, and somehow made your guitar so that the string length from the bridge to the tailpiece is the same as from your high E to the tuning machine. You can and WILL observe that the pitch is the same when you "play" either length of string (from nut to tuner or from bridge to tailpiece). This is because the tension is distributed evenly across the string, and since you've made those 2 LENGTHS (again, nothing to do with angle) the same, they'll play at the same pitch. Heck, since we're on it, even if the angles of each separate length are different, the pitch will be the same, thereby showing that the tension is evenly distributed. No. The premise is flawed. The tuning post is just an "anchor", and not the source of the force. And even if for a moment I drop that line of argument, and say, "fine... the tuner is providing the force..." it's then providing it to the length from tuner to nut, but also from nut to bridge, and then from bridge to tailpiece. No, it all depends on the LENGTH, not the tension. That's what frets are all about! Pitch changes because we stop the string at different lengths, not because we change the tension. Therefore, I suggest you follow your own model and then discover that the pitch will be the SAME if you have 2 "lengths" of 4 inches each, under the same pressure. Your own suggested experiment is one I would suggest to YOU in order to discover the truth of it. Let me take it a step further: Put tuning machines on either side of a nut, both at the same length and angle away from the nut. Which side will be higher in pitch? Which one is the surrogate "headstock" and which is the surrogate bridge? Because your premise seems to believe that it's the tuner that's creating the force, and only the angle from tuner to nut matters. If they're both tuners, then are they both therefore equal? OK, if that's your premise, what do you suppose would happen if you had a strong enough stapler to just "staple" those lengths of string in place and remove the tuners altogether? Assuming they didn't slip, wouldn't you expect them to maintain the same pitches? What if you only "stapled" one side? Does that mean that only the tuner side is exerting a force simply because it "looks" like a tuner? -- I hate to say it, Erik, but your entire premise is flawed. Sorry for the long post. It was fun, but I don't know who's going to be able to wade through it. Greg

You're making it needlessly complex and missing some important points. And being a PhD scientist by day is a shaky qualification because I doubt that it relates to this point. My girlfriend is a PhD scientist by day, too, and she thinks you're wrong. So whose qualification takes precedence? Look, it's simple. The tuner exerts no force in and of itself. The break angle means that there IS force downward on the nut, but in the absence of friction (as proposed by you yourself) this is meaningless. The angle at which the force gets distributed is completely irrelevant to string tension, which is what we're discussing. No matter what forces are exerted, in no matter what direction, by no matter what source (whether it's a tuner or 2 Russians, one named Yakov and one named Boris), the string tension MUST be the same in order to produce an identical pitch from a string of identical guage. That's it, that's all. No vectors, angles, or anything else change that fact. And I don't need a PhD to know this. Don't lose the forest for the trees... your mathematical equations might be calculating something irrelevant and you won't even know it. You need to decide which factors are important and what is being calculated before you even get that far, or your energy is wasted. It's just as easy for me to turn around and say, "maybe if YOU sort out the logic in your findings we can get somewhere". PS, this is all fun for me... I like discussing logic and all that... so no hard feelings here at all. Yet.