Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Recommended string gauge
Re: Recommended string gauge
ARLOWE wrote:
> Just from my own limited experience.
> Larger strings ... but have a bit less sustain...
That seems backwards.
Larger strings (more mass) once set into motion,
continue to vibrate longer than strings with
less mass.
Compare a volkswagon and a mack truck,
both moving at 60 mph. The truck takes
longer to stop, and requires more energy
to stop, than the little VW.
Bullets, automobiles, airplanes,
falling rocks, brass bells, guitar strings...
The more mass, the more it tends to remain
in motion.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
ARLOWE wrote:
> Just from my own limited experience.
> Larger strings ... but have a bit less sustain...
That seems backwards.
Larger strings (more mass) once set into motion,
continue to vibrate longer than strings with
less mass.
Compare a volkswagon and a mack truck,
both moving at 60 mph. The truck takes
longer to stop, and requires more energy
to stop, than the little VW.
Bullets, automobiles, airplanes,
falling rocks, brass bells, guitar strings...
The more mass, the more it tends to remain
in motion.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
Re: Recommended string gauge
> Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote:
> ARLOWE wrote:
>
> > Just from my own limited experience.
> > Larger strings ... but have a bit less sustain...
>
> That seems backwards.
> Larger strings (more mass) once set into motion,
> continue to vibrate longer than strings with
> less mass.
>
> Compare a volkswagon and a mack truck,
> both moving at 60 mph. The truck takes
> longer to stop, and requires more energy
> to stop, than the little VW.
>
> Bullets, automobiles, airplanes,
> falling rocks, brass bells, guitar strings...
>
> The more mass, the more it tends to remain
> in motion.
>
>
> Lumpy
>
> In Your Ears for 40 Years
> w w w .LumpyMusic . com
>
>
>
That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
might actually retain more energy for longer time.
Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized mass.
ok. just wanted to mention this.
otherwise you usually have very informative posts.
> Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote:
> ARLOWE wrote:
>
> > Just from my own limited experience.
> > Larger strings ... but have a bit less sustain...
>
> That seems backwards.
> Larger strings (more mass) once set into motion,
> continue to vibrate longer than strings with
> less mass.
>
> Compare a volkswagon and a mack truck,
> both moving at 60 mph. The truck takes
> longer to stop, and requires more energy
> to stop, than the little VW.
>
> Bullets, automobiles, airplanes,
> falling rocks, brass bells, guitar strings...
>
> The more mass, the more it tends to remain
> in motion.
>
>
> Lumpy
>
> In Your Ears for 40 Years
> w w w .LumpyMusic . com
>
>
>
That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
might actually retain more energy for longer time.
Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized mass.
ok. just wanted to mention this.
otherwise you usually have very informative posts.
Re: Recommended string gauge
> Squier <squier@strats . net > wrote:
> > Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote:
>
> > ARLOWE wrote:
> >
> > > Just from my own limited experience.
> > > Larger strings ... but have a bit less sustain...
> >
> > That seems backwards.
> > Larger strings (more mass) once set into motion,
> > continue to vibrate longer than strings with
> > less mass.
> >
> > Compare a volkswagon and a mack truck,
> > both moving at 60 mph. The truck takes
> > longer to stop, and requires more energy
> > to stop, than the little VW.
> >
> > Bullets, automobiles, airplanes,
> > falling rocks, brass bells, guitar strings...
> >
> > The more mass, the more it tends to remain
> > in motion.
> >
> >
> > Lumpy
> >
> > In Your Ears for 40 Years
> > w w w .LumpyMusic . com
> >
> >
> >
>
> That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
> that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
> The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
> larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
> which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
> thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
> set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
> much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
> might actually retain more energy for longer time.
>
> Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
> account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized mass.
>
> ok. just wanted to mention this.
> otherwise you usually have very informative posts.
Just to clarify - I'm talking about sustain not 'tone'
tone and sustain are 2 different things.
tone is completely subjective and different issue.
you an certainly have a crappy tone and have it sustain
just as well as you could get a great tone and not have it sustain as long.
anyways - fatter strings actually can have less inherent sustain
when a magnetic pickup is below it ready to attract that large mass
and make it come to rest. From there it's all about pickup height
adjustment and the compromise between sustain and perceived tone.
If all you want it sustain then you turn down the pickups as low
as they will go yet still be able to get some sound coming out of the speakers
at the end. You could turn the pickups all the way down away
from the strings and then just add in some
super gain to the decreased signal down the line somewhere in the signal chain
(pedal, preamp.. whatever) and you'll get great sustain - but also probably
terrible bad tone.
oh here's the simple experiment -
take 2 iron or steel balls - one with larger mass than the other -
now place a magnet on a table in the path of where you are going to
roll the balls. Roll large mass Ball#1 (the magnet should be strong
enough to exert some measureable pull on the ball) and roll it past
the magnet. Now take the ball with the smaller mass and roll it past
the same magnet and at the same speed and at the same distance as it
goes past the magnet. You will notice that the ball with the larger
mass will be moved from its original straight line course when passing
the magnet much more than the smaller mass ball. So the same magnet
exerts more force on the larger mass. In the case of strings it means
the larger string will come to rest more quickly than a thinner string
even though the larger string is inherently charged with more initial energy.
Pickup height (magnet height) is the key adjustment here when it
comes to sustain versus tone.
ok. nuff said.
so in the end - don't over simplify and say that 'bigger string sets
sustain more than smaller string sets". And let us never confuse
tone with sustain. 2 different things.
whew - I type way too much.
> Squier <squier@strats . net > wrote:
> > Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote:
>
> > ARLOWE wrote:
> >
> > > Just from my own limited experience.
> > > Larger strings ... but have a bit less sustain...
> >
> > That seems backwards.
> > Larger strings (more mass) once set into motion,
> > continue to vibrate longer than strings with
> > less mass.
> >
> > Compare a volkswagon and a mack truck,
> > both moving at 60 mph. The truck takes
> > longer to stop, and requires more energy
> > to stop, than the little VW.
> >
> > Bullets, automobiles, airplanes,
> > falling rocks, brass bells, guitar strings...
> >
> > The more mass, the more it tends to remain
> > in motion.
> >
> >
> > Lumpy
> >
> > In Your Ears for 40 Years
> > w w w .LumpyMusic . com
> >
> >
> >
>
> That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
> that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
> The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
> larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
> which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
> thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
> set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
> much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
> might actually retain more energy for longer time.
>
> Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
> account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized mass.
>
> ok. just wanted to mention this.
> otherwise you usually have very informative posts.
Just to clarify - I'm talking about sustain not 'tone'
tone and sustain are 2 different things.
tone is completely subjective and different issue.
you an certainly have a crappy tone and have it sustain
just as well as you could get a great tone and not have it sustain as long.
anyways - fatter strings actually can have less inherent sustain
when a magnetic pickup is below it ready to attract that large mass
and make it come to rest. From there it's all about pickup height
adjustment and the compromise between sustain and perceived tone.
If all you want it sustain then you turn down the pickups as low
as they will go yet still be able to get some sound coming out of the speakers
at the end. You could turn the pickups all the way down away
from the strings and then just add in some
super gain to the decreased signal down the line somewhere in the signal chain
(pedal, preamp.. whatever) and you'll get great sustain - but also probably
terrible bad tone.
oh here's the simple experiment -
take 2 iron or steel balls - one with larger mass than the other -
now place a magnet on a table in the path of where you are going to
roll the balls. Roll large mass Ball#1 (the magnet should be strong
enough to exert some measureable pull on the ball) and roll it past
the magnet. Now take the ball with the smaller mass and roll it past
the same magnet and at the same speed and at the same distance as it
goes past the magnet. You will notice that the ball with the larger
mass will be moved from its original straight line course when passing
the magnet much more than the smaller mass ball. So the same magnet
exerts more force on the larger mass. In the case of strings it means
the larger string will come to rest more quickly than a thinner string
even though the larger string is inherently charged with more initial energy.
Pickup height (magnet height) is the key adjustment here when it
comes to sustain versus tone.
ok. nuff said.
so in the end - don't over simplify and say that 'bigger string sets
sustain more than smaller string sets". And let us never confuse
tone with sustain. 2 different things.
whew - I type way too much.
Re: Recommended string gauge
Squier wrote:
> so in the end - don't over simplify
> and say that 'bigger string sets
> sustain more than smaller string sets".
> And let us never confuse
> tone with sustain. 2 different things.
Well, I believe that it IS accurate to say
"bigger strings sustain longer". And I never
mentioned "tone".
If your pups are interfering with the vibration
of the strings, they need adjusting.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
Squier wrote:
> so in the end - don't over simplify
> and say that 'bigger string sets
> sustain more than smaller string sets".
> And let us never confuse
> tone with sustain. 2 different things.
Well, I believe that it IS accurate to say
"bigger strings sustain longer". And I never
mentioned "tone".
If your pups are interfering with the vibration
of the strings, they need adjusting.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
Re: Recommended string gauge
> Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote:
> Squier wrote:
> > so in the end - don't over simplify
> > and say that 'bigger string sets
> > sustain more than smaller string sets".
> > And let us never confuse
> > tone with sustain. 2 different things.
>
> Well, I believe that it IS accurate to say
> "bigger strings sustain longer". And I never
> mentioned "tone".
>
> If your pups are interfering with the vibration
> of the strings, they need adjusting.
>
>
> Lumpy
>
> In Your Ears for 40 Years
> w w w .LumpyMusic . com
>
>
Well Lumpy - in the end all that matters is what your ears hear -
and not necessarily any measurements on a chart.
With that we can definitely both agree.
There are plenty of times I have looked at
charts of speaker ratings (frequency response/decibels)
and it had little to do with what it actually sounded like
in any of my cabs.
The world is still a good place when people refute science and
mathematical models and charts and rely on their own common sense.
Makes both work harder.
take care.
> Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote:
> Squier wrote:
> > so in the end - don't over simplify
> > and say that 'bigger string sets
> > sustain more than smaller string sets".
> > And let us never confuse
> > tone with sustain. 2 different things.
>
> Well, I believe that it IS accurate to say
> "bigger strings sustain longer". And I never
> mentioned "tone".
>
> If your pups are interfering with the vibration
> of the strings, they need adjusting.
>
>
> Lumpy
>
> In Your Ears for 40 Years
> w w w .LumpyMusic . com
>
>
Well Lumpy - in the end all that matters is what your ears hear -
and not necessarily any measurements on a chart.
With that we can definitely both agree.
There are plenty of times I have looked at
charts of speaker ratings (frequency response/decibels)
and it had little to do with what it actually sounded like
in any of my cabs.
The world is still a good place when people refute science and
mathematical models and charts and rely on their own common sense.
Makes both work harder.
take care.
Re: Recommended string gauge
Squier wrote:
> Well Lumpy - in the end all that matters is what your ears hear -
> and not necessarily any measurements on a chart.
> With that we can definitely both agree.
What does that have to do with
adjusting your pups?
Geez. High school physics explains how Mr
Newton postulated that a body in motion
tends to stay in motion. And a heavier
body tends to stay in motion longer.
Anyone with a guitar can hear that big
wires sustain longer.
If your pups are damping the strings,
that's a problem. That doesn't negate
one of the most basic premises of physics
and sound.
Big strings sustain longer.
If you want to argue that magnets damp the
strings, you have to move the magnets so
that they damp the smaller mass strings
with the same amount of gauss that they
damp the heavier strings.
Otherwise the experiments aren't equal.
Big strings don't sustain as long if you
thread a rag through them either. But
that's hardly an equal comparison unless
you also thread a rag through the
small strings.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
Squier wrote:
> Well Lumpy - in the end all that matters is what your ears hear -
> and not necessarily any measurements on a chart.
> With that we can definitely both agree.
What does that have to do with
adjusting your pups?
Geez. High school physics explains how Mr
Newton postulated that a body in motion
tends to stay in motion. And a heavier
body tends to stay in motion longer.
Anyone with a guitar can hear that big
wires sustain longer.
If your pups are damping the strings,
that's a problem. That doesn't negate
one of the most basic premises of physics
and sound.
Big strings sustain longer.
If you want to argue that magnets damp the
strings, you have to move the magnets so
that they damp the smaller mass strings
with the same amount of gauss that they
damp the heavier strings.
Otherwise the experiments aren't equal.
Big strings don't sustain as long if you
thread a rag through them either. But
that's hardly an equal comparison unless
you also thread a rag through the
small strings.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Years
w w w .LumpyMusic . com
Re: Recommended string gauge
Lumpy wrote:
> Big strings sustain longer.
This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
Lumpy wrote:
> Big strings sustain longer.
This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
Re: Recommended string gauge
On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:23 GMT, Sean <sean@fake.con> wrote:
>Lumpy wrote:
>
>> Big strings sustain longer.
>
>This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
I'm sold on 13's on my acoustics & my cat just loves 'em.
tgif,
tony
On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:23 GMT, Sean <sean@fake.con> wrote:
>Lumpy wrote:
>
>> Big strings sustain longer.
>
>This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
I'm sold on 13's on my acoustics & my cat just loves 'em.
tgif,
tony
Re: Recommended string gauge
jimmy expounded in news:3edr24lca20lhlp1p52ta095950lhtqtu8@4ax . com :
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:23 GMT, Sean <sean@fake.con> wrote:
>
>>Lumpy wrote:
>>
>>> Big strings sustain longer.
>>
>>This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
>
> I'm sold on 13's on my acoustics & my cat just loves 'em.
>
> tgif,
> tony
If cats would only grow longer wiskers, you could use them on classical
guitars fer strings.
Snark.
** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
jimmy expounded in news:3edr24lca20lhlp1p52ta095950lhtqtu8@4ax . com :
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:23 GMT, Sean <sean@fake.con> wrote:
>
>>Lumpy wrote:
>>
>>> Big strings sustain longer.
>>
>>This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
>
> I'm sold on 13's on my acoustics & my cat just loves 'em.
>
> tgif,
> tony
If cats would only grow longer wiskers, you could use them on classical
guitars fer strings.
Snark.
** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
Re: Recommended string gauge
It happens that Charmed Snark formulated :
> jimmy expounded in news:3edr24lca20lhlp1p52ta095950lhtqtu8@4ax . com :
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:23 GMT, Sean <sean@fake.con> wrote:
>>
>>> Lumpy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Big strings sustain longer.
>>>
>>> This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
>>
>> I'm sold on 13's on my acoustics & my cat just loves 'em.
>>
>> tgif,
>> tony
>
> If cats would only grow longer wiskers, you could use them on classical
> guitars fer strings.
>
> Snark.
> ** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
I did read in Desi Serinas book that guitar strings can be made from
the intestines of roadkill
It happens that Charmed Snark formulated :
> jimmy expounded in news:3edr24lca20lhlp1p52ta095950lhtqtu8@4ax . com :
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:23 GMT, Sean <sean@fake.con> wrote:
>>
>>> Lumpy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Big strings sustain longer.
>>>
>>> This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
>>
>> I'm sold on 13's on my acoustics & my cat just loves 'em.
>>
>> tgif,
>> tony
>
> If cats would only grow longer wiskers, you could use them on classical
> guitars fer strings.
>
> Snark.
> ** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
I did read in Desi Serinas book that guitar strings can be made from
the intestines of roadkill
Re: Recommended string gauge
ARLOWE expounded in news:mn.89df7d8508abbe20.90583@nose.picker . com :
> It happens that Charmed Snark formulated :
>> jimmy expounded in news:3edr24lca20lhlp1p52ta095950lhtqtu8@4ax . com :
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:23 GMT, Sean <sean@fake.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lumpy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Big strings sustain longer.
>>>>
>>>> This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
>>>
>>> I'm sold on 13's on my acoustics & my cat just loves 'em.
>>>
>>> tgif,
>>> tony
>>
>> If cats would only grow longer wiskers, you could use them on
classical
>> guitars fer strings.
>>
>> Snark.
>
> I did read in Desi Serinas book that guitar strings can be made from
> the intestines of roadkill
I bet it screems like a girly squirrel.
Snark.
** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
ARLOWE expounded in news:mn.89df7d8508abbe20.90583@nose.picker . com :
> It happens that Charmed Snark formulated :
>> jimmy expounded in news:3edr24lca20lhlp1p52ta095950lhtqtu8@4ax . com :
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:23 GMT, Sean <sean@fake.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lumpy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Big strings sustain longer.
>>>>
>>>> This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
>>>
>>> I'm sold on 13's on my acoustics & my cat just loves 'em.
>>>
>>> tgif,
>>> tony
>>
>> If cats would only grow longer wiskers, you could use them on
classical
>> guitars fer strings.
>>
>> Snark.
>
> I did read in Desi Serinas book that guitar strings can be made from
> the intestines of roadkill
I bet it screems like a girly squirrel.
Snark.
** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
Re: Recommended string gauge
Charmed Snark wrote:
> jimmy expounded in news:3edr24lca20lhlp1p52ta095950lhtqtu8@4ax . com :
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:23 GMT, Sean <sean@fake.con> wrote:
>>
>>> Lumpy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Big strings sustain longer.
>>> This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
>> I'm sold on 13's on my acoustics & my cat just loves 'em.
>>
>> tgif,
>> tony
>
> If cats would only grow longer wiskers, you could use them on classical
> guitars fer strings.
>
> Snark.
> ** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
A Japanese musician friend of mine has a shamisen made with cat skin.
You can see and feel the cat's nipples on it. If you want to feel cat
nipples, that is.
Charmed Snark wrote:
> jimmy expounded in news:3edr24lca20lhlp1p52ta095950lhtqtu8@4ax . com :
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:23 GMT, Sean <sean@fake.con> wrote:
>>
>>> Lumpy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Big strings sustain longer.
>>> This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
>> I'm sold on 13's on my acoustics & my cat just loves 'em.
>>
>> tgif,
>> tony
>
> If cats would only grow longer wiskers, you could use them on classical
> guitars fer strings.
>
> Snark.
> ** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
A Japanese musician friend of mine has a shamisen made with cat skin.
You can see and feel the cat's nipples on it. If you want to feel cat
nipples, that is.
Re: Recommended string gauge
Sean expounded in news:BhsXj.3088$KB3.2750@edtnps91:
> Charmed Snark wrote:
>> jimmy expounded in news:3edr24lca20lhlp1p52ta095950lhtqtu8@4ax . com :
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:23 GMT, Sean <sean@fake.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lumpy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Big strings sustain longer.
>>>> This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
>>> I'm sold on 13's on my acoustics & my cat just loves 'em.
>>>
>>> tgif,
>>> tony
>>
>> If cats would only grow longer wiskers, you could use them on
classical
>> guitars fer strings.
>>
>> Snark.
>
> A Japanese musician friend of mine has a shamisen made with cat skin.
> You can see and feel the cat's nipples on it. If you want to feel cat
> nipples, that is.
Adds a whole new element to the number of ways
that you can skin a cat!
** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
Sean expounded in news:BhsXj.3088$KB3.2750@edtnps91:
> Charmed Snark wrote:
>> jimmy expounded in news:3edr24lca20lhlp1p52ta095950lhtqtu8@4ax . com :
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:54:23 GMT, Sean <sean@fake.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lumpy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Big strings sustain longer.
>>>> This is correct. Even my cat knows this.
>>> I'm sold on 13's on my acoustics & my cat just loves 'em.
>>>
>>> tgif,
>>> tony
>>
>> If cats would only grow longer wiskers, you could use them on
classical
>> guitars fer strings.
>>
>> Snark.
>
> A Japanese musician friend of mine has a shamisen made with cat skin.
> You can see and feel the cat's nipples on it. If you want to feel cat
> nipples, that is.
Adds a whole new element to the number of ways
that you can skin a cat!
** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **
Re: Recommended string gauge
Squier <squier@strats . net > wrote:
>> Squier <squier@strats . net > wrote:
>
>>> Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote:
>>
>>> ARLOWE wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just from my own limited experience.
>>>> Larger strings ... but have a bit less sustain...
>>>
>>> That seems backwards.
>>> Larger strings (more mass) once set into motion,
>>> continue to vibrate longer than strings with
>>> less mass.
>>>
>>> Compare a volkswagon and a mack truck,
>>> both moving at 60 mph. The truck takes
>>> longer to stop, and requires more energy
>>> to stop, than the little VW.
>>>
>>> Bullets, automobiles, airplanes,
>>> falling rocks, brass bells, guitar strings...
>>>
>>> The more mass, the more it tends to remain
>>> in motion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lumpy
>>>
>>> In Your Ears for 40 Years
>>> w w w .LumpyMusic . com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
>> that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
>> The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
>> larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
>> which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
>> thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
>> set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
>> much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
>> might actually retain more energy for longer time.
>>
>> Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
>> account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized
>> mass.
>>
>> ok. just wanted to mention this.
>> otherwise you usually have very informative posts.
>
>
> Just to clarify - I'm talking about _sustain_ not 'tone'
> tone and sustain are 2 different things.
> tone is completely subjective and different issue.
> you an certainly have a crappy tone and have it sustain
> just as well as you could get a great tone and not have it sustain as
> long. anyways - fatter strings actually can have less inherent sustain
> when a magnetic pickup is below it ready to attract that large mass
> and make it come to rest. From there it's all about pickup height
> adjustment and the compromise between sustain and perceived tone.
> If all you want it sustain then you turn down the pickups as low
> as they will go yet still be able to get some sound coming out of the
> speakers at the end. You could turn the pickups all the way down
> away
> from the strings and then just add in some
> super gain to the decreased signal down the line somewhere in the
> signal chain (pedal, preamp.. whatever) and you'll get great sustain
> - but also probably terrible bad tone.
>
> oh here's the simple experiment -
> take 2 iron or steel balls - one with larger mass than the other -
> now place a magnet on a table in the path of where you are going to
> roll the balls. Roll large mass Ball#1 (the magnet should be strong
> enough to exert some measureable pull on the ball) and roll it past
> the magnet. Now take the ball with the smaller mass and roll it past
> the same magnet and at the same speed and at the same distance as it
> goes past the magnet. You will notice that the ball with the larger
> mass will be moved from its original straight line course when passing
> the magnet much more than the smaller mass ball. So the same magnet
> exerts more force on the larger mass. In the case of strings it means
> the larger string will come to rest more quickly than a thinner string
> even though the larger string is inherently charged with more initial
> energy. Pickup height (magnet height) is the key adjustment here when
> it
> comes to sustain versus tone.
>
>
> ok. nuff said.
>
> so in the end - don't over simplify and say that 'bigger string sets
> sustain more than smaller string sets". And let us never confuse
> tone with sustain. 2 different things.
>
> whew - I type way too much.
Some of this *might* be true if you're one of those people who has to
jam the pickups up so close to the strings that you're right on the edge
of having the magnetic field dampen the string vibration.
I don't think most of us are at that point. I tend to have my pickups
fairly low.
But even if you tend to be on the high side, you're assuming that when
you change the string gauge you don't make any pickup adjustments. That
would be foolish.
So overall, I'd agree with Lumpy's statement, provided you've lowered
the pickups sufficiently that damping of the strings by the magnetic
field isn't an issue.
Squier <squier@strats . net > wrote:
>> Squier <squier@strats . net > wrote:
>
>>> Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote:
>>
>>> ARLOWE wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just from my own limited experience.
>>>> Larger strings ... but have a bit less sustain...
>>>
>>> That seems backwards.
>>> Larger strings (more mass) once set into motion,
>>> continue to vibrate longer than strings with
>>> less mass.
>>>
>>> Compare a volkswagon and a mack truck,
>>> both moving at 60 mph. The truck takes
>>> longer to stop, and requires more energy
>>> to stop, than the little VW.
>>>
>>> Bullets, automobiles, airplanes,
>>> falling rocks, brass bells, guitar strings...
>>>
>>> The more mass, the more it tends to remain
>>> in motion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lumpy
>>>
>>> In Your Ears for 40 Years
>>> w w w .LumpyMusic . com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
>> that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
>> The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
>> larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
>> which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
>> thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
>> set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
>> much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
>> might actually retain more energy for longer time.
>>
>> Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
>> account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized
>> mass.
>>
>> ok. just wanted to mention this.
>> otherwise you usually have very informative posts.
>
>
> Just to clarify - I'm talking about _sustain_ not 'tone'
> tone and sustain are 2 different things.
> tone is completely subjective and different issue.
> you an certainly have a crappy tone and have it sustain
> just as well as you could get a great tone and not have it sustain as
> long. anyways - fatter strings actually can have less inherent sustain
> when a magnetic pickup is below it ready to attract that large mass
> and make it come to rest. From there it's all about pickup height
> adjustment and the compromise between sustain and perceived tone.
> If all you want it sustain then you turn down the pickups as low
> as they will go yet still be able to get some sound coming out of the
> speakers at the end. You could turn the pickups all the way down
> away
> from the strings and then just add in some
> super gain to the decreased signal down the line somewhere in the
> signal chain (pedal, preamp.. whatever) and you'll get great sustain
> - but also probably terrible bad tone.
>
> oh here's the simple experiment -
> take 2 iron or steel balls - one with larger mass than the other -
> now place a magnet on a table in the path of where you are going to
> roll the balls. Roll large mass Ball#1 (the magnet should be strong
> enough to exert some measureable pull on the ball) and roll it past
> the magnet. Now take the ball with the smaller mass and roll it past
> the same magnet and at the same speed and at the same distance as it
> goes past the magnet. You will notice that the ball with the larger
> mass will be moved from its original straight line course when passing
> the magnet much more than the smaller mass ball. So the same magnet
> exerts more force on the larger mass. In the case of strings it means
> the larger string will come to rest more quickly than a thinner string
> even though the larger string is inherently charged with more initial
> energy. Pickup height (magnet height) is the key adjustment here when
> it
> comes to sustain versus tone.
>
>
> ok. nuff said.
>
> so in the end - don't over simplify and say that 'bigger string sets
> sustain more than smaller string sets". And let us never confuse
> tone with sustain. 2 different things.
>
> whew - I type way too much.
Some of this *might* be true if you're one of those people who has to
jam the pickups up so close to the strings that you're right on the edge
of having the magnetic field dampen the string vibration.
I don't think most of us are at that point. I tend to have my pickups
fairly low.
But even if you tend to be on the high side, you're assuming that when
you change the string gauge you don't make any pickup adjustments. That
would be foolish.
So overall, I'd agree with Lumpy's statement, provided you've lowered
the pickups sufficiently that damping of the strings by the magnetic
field isn't an issue.
Re: Recommended string gauge
> RichL <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
> Squier <squier@strats . net > wrote:
> >> Squier <squier@strats . net > wrote:
> >
> >>> Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote:
> >>
> >>> ARLOWE wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Just from my own limited experience.
> >>>> Larger strings ... but have a bit less sustain...
> >>>
> >>> That seems backwards.
> >>> Larger strings (more mass) once set into motion,
> >>> continue to vibrate longer than strings with
> >>> less mass.
> >>>
> >>> Compare a volkswagon and a mack truck,
> >>> both moving at 60 mph. The truck takes
> >>> longer to stop, and requires more energy
> >>> to stop, than the little VW.
> >>>
> >>> Bullets, automobiles, airplanes,
> >>> falling rocks, brass bells, guitar strings...
> >>>
> >>> The more mass, the more it tends to remain
> >>> in motion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Lumpy
> >>>
> >>> In Your Ears for 40 Years
> >>> w w w .LumpyMusic . com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
> >> that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
> >> The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
> >> larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
> >> which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
> >> thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
> >> set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
> >> much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
> >> might actually retain more energy for longer time.
> >>
> >> Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
> >> account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized
> >> mass.
> >>
> >> ok. just wanted to mention this.
> >> otherwise you usually have very informative posts.
> >
> >
> > Just to clarify - I'm talking about sustain not 'tone'
> > tone and sustain are 2 different things.
> > tone is completely subjective and different issue.
> > you an certainly have a crappy tone and have it sustain
> > just as well as you could get a great tone and not have it sustain as
> > long. anyways - fatter strings actually can have less inherent sustain
> > when a magnetic pickup is below it ready to attract that large mass
> > and make it come to rest. From there it's all about pickup height
> > adjustment and the compromise between sustain and perceived tone.
> > If all you want it sustain then you turn down the pickups as low
> > as they will go yet still be able to get some sound coming out of the
> > speakers at the end. You could turn the pickups all the way down
> > away
> > from the strings and then just add in some
> > super gain to the decreased signal down the line somewhere in the
> > signal chain (pedal, preamp.. whatever) and you'll get great sustain
> > - but also probably terrible bad tone.
> >
> > oh here's the simple experiment -
> > take 2 iron or steel balls - one with larger mass than the other -
> > now place a magnet on a table in the path of where you are going to
> > roll the balls. Roll large mass Ball#1 (the magnet should be strong
> > enough to exert some measureable pull on the ball) and roll it past
> > the magnet. Now take the ball with the smaller mass and roll it past
> > the same magnet and at the same speed and at the same distance as it
> > goes past the magnet. You will notice that the ball with the larger
> > mass will be moved from its original straight line course when passing
> > the magnet much more than the smaller mass ball. So the same magnet
> > exerts more force on the larger mass. In the case of strings it means
> > the larger string will come to rest more quickly than a thinner string
> > even though the larger string is inherently charged with more initial
> > energy. Pickup height (magnet height) is the key adjustment here when
> > it
> > comes to sustain versus tone.
> >
> >
> > ok. nuff said.
> >
> > so in the end - don't over simplify and say that 'bigger string sets
> > sustain more than smaller string sets". And let us never confuse
> > tone with sustain. 2 different things.
> >
> > whew - I type way too much.
>
> Some of this *might* be true if you're one of those people who has to
> jam the pickups up so close to the strings that you're right on the edge
> of having the magnetic field dampen the string vibration.
>
> I don't think most of us are at that point. I tend to have my pickups
> fairly low.
>
> But even if you tend to be on the high side, you're assuming that when
> you change the string gauge you don't make any pickup adjustments. That
> would be foolish.
>
> So overall, I'd agree with Lumpy's statement, provided you've lowered
> the pickups sufficiently that damping of the strings by the magnetic
> field isn't an issue.
>
>
Well that's why I made sure to add the comment about the
other variable "pickup height". With that taken into consideration
then yes - bigger string sets can sustain longer.
I guess I'm being a snot. But technically if both string sets
would be the same distance (pickup pole <-> center point of string)
from the magnet(s) then the bigger strings would not necessarily
have the advantage of longer sustain. Lowering the pups would
have them at an advantage though.
But in all reality - I just use my ears to what I like to hear.
The only time I really use any gauge at all is an electronic
tuner for intonation. Other than that it's all tactile and by ear
for other settings. (pup height, string height/saddles.. and any
electronics.. tone caps.. etc.. I just use my ear to get it dialed in).
Actually on my Strat I have the bridge pup turned down kinda low
and angled to equalize the E to E volume.
Sounds better to me that way.
Anyways my point was that a blanket statement that
bigger strings sustain longer has to also go with the other variable -
"as long as you also adjust pickup height..."
ahh.. one more week and its summer break time.
time to take some summer employment so I can
pay for some gear and maybe some supplies for next year.
the price of college textbooks is a crime.
> RichL <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote:
> Squier <squier@strats . net > wrote:
> >> Squier <squier@strats . net > wrote:
> >
> >>> Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography . com > wrote:
> >>
> >>> ARLOWE wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Just from my own limited experience.
> >>>> Larger strings ... but have a bit less sustain...
> >>>
> >>> That seems backwards.
> >>> Larger strings (more mass) once set into motion,
> >>> continue to vibrate longer than strings with
> >>> less mass.
> >>>
> >>> Compare a volkswagon and a mack truck,
> >>> both moving at 60 mph. The truck takes
> >>> longer to stop, and requires more energy
> >>> to stop, than the little VW.
> >>>
> >>> Bullets, automobiles, airplanes,
> >>> falling rocks, brass bells, guitar strings...
> >>>
> >>> The more mass, the more it tends to remain
> >>> in motion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Lumpy
> >>>
> >>> In Your Ears for 40 Years
> >>> w w w .LumpyMusic . com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's true Lumpy but you are not taking into account
> >> that part of the equation is magnetic pull.
> >> The larger mass may hold more inherent energy BUT that
> >> larger mass also offers more mass for magnetic attraction
> >> which actually can exert more force on the larger strings
> >> thus robbing it of its energy where as the thinner string
> >> set although not as charged with energy will not offer as
> >> much mass for the magnets (pickups) to pull on and thus
> >> might actually retain more energy for longer time.
> >>
> >> Everything you mentioned in your post does not take into
> >> account the concept of magnetic pull on larger or smaller energized
> >> mass.
> >>
> >> ok. just wanted to mention this.
> >> otherwise you usually have very informative posts.
> >
> >
> > Just to clarify - I'm talking about sustain not 'tone'
> > tone and sustain are 2 different things.
> > tone is completely subjective and different issue.
> > you an certainly have a crappy tone and have it sustain
> > just as well as you could get a great tone and not have it sustain as
> > long. anyways - fatter strings actually can have less inherent sustain
> > when a magnetic pickup is below it ready to attract that large mass
> > and make it come to rest. From there it's all about pickup height
> > adjustment and the compromise between sustain and perceived tone.
> > If all you want it sustain then you turn down the pickups as low
> > as they will go yet still be able to get some sound coming out of the
> > speakers at the end. You could turn the pickups all the way down
> > away
> > from the strings and then just add in some
> > super gain to the decreased signal down the line somewhere in the
> > signal chain (pedal, preamp.. whatever) and you'll get great sustain
> > - but also probably terrible bad tone.
> >
> > oh here's the simple experiment -
> > take 2 iron or steel balls - one with larger mass than the other -
> > now place a magnet on a table in the path of where you are going to
> > roll the balls. Roll large mass Ball#1 (the magnet should be strong
> > enough to exert some measureable pull on the ball) and roll it past
> > the magnet. Now take the ball with the smaller mass and roll it past
> > the same magnet and at the same speed and at the same distance as it
> > goes past the magnet. You will notice that the ball with the larger
> > mass will be moved from its original straight line course when passing
> > the magnet much more than the smaller mass ball. So the same magnet
> > exerts more force on the larger mass. In the case of strings it means
> > the larger string will come to rest more quickly than a thinner string
> > even though the larger string is inherently charged with more initial
> > energy. Pickup height (magnet height) is the key adjustment here when
> > it
> > comes to sustain versus tone.
> >
> >
> > ok. nuff said.
> >
> > so in the end - don't over simplify and say that 'bigger string sets
> > sustain more than smaller string sets". And let us never confuse
> > tone with sustain. 2 different things.
> >
> > whew - I type way too much.
>
> Some of this *might* be true if you're one of those people who has to
> jam the pickups up so close to the strings that you're right on the edge
> of having the magnetic field dampen the string vibration.
>
> I don't think most of us are at that point. I tend to have my pickups
> fairly low.
>
> But even if you tend to be on the high side, you're assuming that when
> you change the string gauge you don't make any pickup adjustments. That
> would be foolish.
>
> So overall, I'd agree with Lumpy's statement, provided you've lowered
> the pickups sufficiently that damping of the strings by the magnetic
> field isn't an issue.
>
>
Well that's why I made sure to add the comment about the
other variable "pickup height". With that taken into consideration
then yes - bigger string sets can sustain longer.
I guess I'm being a snot. But technically if both string sets
would be the same distance (pickup pole <-> center point of string)
from the magnet(s) then the bigger strings would not necessarily
have the advantage of longer sustain. Lowering the pups would
have them at an advantage though.
But in all reality - I just use my ears to what I like to hear.
The only time I really use any gauge at all is an electronic
tuner for intonation. Other than that it's all tactile and by ear
for other settings. (pup height, string height/saddles.. and any
electronics.. tone caps.. etc.. I just use my ear to get it dialed in).
Actually on my Strat I have the bridge pup turned down kinda low
and angled to equalize the E to E volume.
Sounds better to me that way.
Anyways my point was that a blanket statement that
bigger strings sustain longer has to also go with the other variable -
"as long as you also adjust pickup height..."
ahh.. one more week and its summer break time.
time to take some summer employment so I can
pay for some gear and maybe some supplies for next year.
the price of college textbooks is a crime.
Next: What guitar do I buy for my daughter?
Previous: How To Find The Best Cheap Music Download Site ???
