ShortScale.org

honeyiscool wrote:So you know that age old "wisdom" about 9s on Strats and 10s on Les Pauls for equivalent tension? That's complete BS and the math does not support it. 10s on Les Paul has 16% more tension than 9s on a Strat. Meanwhile, 9.5s on a Les Paul has about 5% more tension than 9s on a Strat. So when people think 10s on a Les Paul are easier to bend than 9s on a Strat, it ain't because of string tension. Really, the 3% scale length difference is not enough that you need to really make a string gauge difference. Meanwhile, from 24 to 25.5" you have about a 6% scale difference, so it makes sense to go up half a step. So really, when people say shit like "YOU NEED TO HAVE 11S ON MUSTANGS" you can mostly ignore that advice unless you think you'd never put anything below 10.5 on a Strat because that's mathematically equivalent to 11s on a Mustang. It's true on some instruments that 11s just don't work on Mustangs but it's not because of the scale, it's because of the bridge. With a shimmed neck, which increases the string pushing on the bridge, I've had fine luck with 9.5s on a Mustang.

So in conclusion, here's a simple formula you can use.

(Your favorite gauge on guitar A) * (Scale of guitar A) / (Scale of guitar B) = (Gauge you should use on Guitar B if you want to match string tension with Guitar A)

Soooo... plug in that math for 9s on a Strat to 22.5" scale Duo-Sonic and you get 10.2. Meanwhile, to match your 10s on a Gibson scale, the formula says use 11.25s. Now I tend to round up on these things because ultimately I think it's the safe thing to do because at the end of the day, I think shorter scale guitars can use a little more tension in general. So I'd suggest somewhere between 10.5s and 11.5s. Maybe something with a wound G? That's a good way to increase string weight and usually string tension.

Good attempt at the math but there must be something wrong somewhere, because 10s on my Mustang do NOT feel more taut than 9s on my Strat. Much the opposite, in fact. This can probably be proven with a weight gauge (which I don't own.) I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the experiences of pretty much everyone else I've read out there.

Also, equivalent string tension does NOT equate to the same force required to bend the string. Shorter strings at the same tension need more force to deflect them perpendicularly the same distance, which means that short scales actually need less tension to feel the same (making the math even more inaccurate, apparently.) This can easily be seen by anyone with a Mustang or a Jag. The string in front of, and behind the bridge are at the same tension, but it's obviously much much harder to bend the shorter lengths of the string behind the bridge. Vector mechanics and string elasticity explain this.

I have D'Addario .10's on both my Fender CIJ Jag and my Squier VM Jag. To be honest, I prefer the feel of .10's over .11's on these guitars and I have no issues at all with the lighter gauge strings on the shortscales.

I tend to like D'Addario 0.10's. I have tried 0.11's and 0.12's, but I like 0.10's because they aren't too thin or too thick. (To me. )

eldritchx wrote:Good attempt at the math but there must be something wrong somewhere, because 10s on my Mustang do NOT feel more taut than 9s on my Strat. Much the opposite, in fact. This can probably be proven with a weight gauge (which I don't own.) I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the experiences of pretty much everyone else I've read out there.

Also, equivalent string tension does NOT equate to the same force required to bend the string. Shorter strings at the same tension need more force to deflect them perpendicularly the same distance, which means that short scales actually need less tension to feel the same (making the math even more inaccurate, apparently.) This can easily be seen by anyone with a Mustang or a Jag. The string in front of, and behind the bridge are at the same tension, but it's obviously much much harder to bend the shorter lengths of the string behind the bridge. Vector mechanics and string elasticity explain this.

There's nothing wrong with my math. Don't just say something must be wrong because something doesn't feel the same. And I never claimed that equivalent string tension requires the same bending force. In fact, I mentioned nothing about bending, so how would you even know that the tension's not the same on either?

Just do the math yourself and try it out. The equation only comes from D'Addario themselves. They have a spreadsheet with all the individual unit weights of all their strings in all different gauges.

Strings of the same weight have the same tension whether on a Jaguar or a Mustang. That's why they have the same pitch. However, how they bend is often thought of to be influenced by the entire length of the string, not just the scale.

honeyiscool wrote:There's nothing wrong with my math. Don't just say something must be wrong because something doesn't feel the same. And I never claimed that equivalent string tension requires the same bending force. In fact, I mentioned nothing about bending, so how would you even know that the tension's not the same on either?

Just do the math yourself and try it out. The equation only comes from D'Addario themselves. They have a spreadsheet with all the individual unit weights of all their strings in all different gauges.

Strings of the same weight have the same tension whether on a Jaguar or a Mustang. That's why they have the same pitch. However, how they bend is often thought of to be influenced by the entire length of the string, not just the scale.

I didn't say there was something wrong with your math. I said there's something wrong with the math, which can be a whole lot of things. Your math, for example, assumes that the formula is accurate, that strings of increasing gauge are of uniform density and generally homogeneous, that the entire volume of the string is contiguous (which I believe wound strings are not), that there is nothing in the manufacturing process that could make the formula less than applicable, etc...

You clearly stated that there's no need to heed the advice of those who say you need 11s on shortscales to make it feel the same as 9s. At the same time, your math indicated that you only need so-and-so gauge to get the strings in a shorter scale to the same tension. Finally, guitarists don't magically detect tension in strings. Typically they notice the differences in tension when they fret/bend them. Thus, by making this recommendation, and by using your math to support the recommendation, you did in fact claim/assume/strongly imply that identical string tension equates to equivalent bending force required. If you insist that you did not, and that you were only talking about tension, then your math is of no practical use since it would have no relation to the 'feel' of the strings.

Also, I did not at any time compare string tensions in Jaguars to Mustangs. I compared the difficulty of bending strings in front of, and behind the bridge, which those two guitars happen to feature because of their design (and that Strats don't, for example,) to illustrate the effect of scale length on the 'feel' of the strings, given the same tension. Since any one string on a Jag or Mustang is at the same tension both in front of, and behind the bridge, which is reasonable assuming there is minimal frictional force exerted by the saddles, it's obvious that, despite the identical tension, it's harder to bend shorter lengths of string than longer. The entire length of the string does affect how much force you need to bend/deflect the strings, but only because of string elasticity. The vector mechanics that affect difficulty to bend only care about scale length.

Math is cool, but in this case it's only useful if it's supported by experimental data, which neither of us has at the moment. Barring that, I have personally noticed that 10s on a 24" scale are noticeably floppier than 9s on a 25.5", despite what the D'Addario formula and your math indicate. Now, it could be just me, except that it isn't. My teacher, for example, of over 20 years of playing experience, instantly detected the floppier feel as well, as has apparently everyone else. You can math until the cows come home, but it's not going to change reality. Remember that this math is just a model for that. And it seems that, somehow, based on a ton of anecdotal data, this model is flawed.

There are plenty of ways to settle this. You can use a weight gauge and measure the amount of force required to deflect strings of various gauges a certain distance on both 24" and 25.5" scales, for example. Or you could use a somewhat less accurate method and see how far you can bend each kind of string using the same finger(s), since pinpoint accuracy is not really required. Whatever the case, I have problems believing that that many people have been imagining things for so long.

That's entirely anecdotal. I find 9.5s on my 24.75" scale to feel floppier than 10s on my 24".

After a while I was so overwhelmed reading this thread about string tension, I started to tune out and think about playing the guitar.

I never really noticed any difference in tension with scale length to be honest. What i did find though was decreasing the break angle over the bridge (where applicable) by either raising a tail piece or lowering a bridge did change the tension.

there's a lot of tension in this thread . . .

These...

Recently changed to these. My fingers are still getting used to them but they sound heavy as fuck so its worth it.

56 56 56 56 56 56 For playing really powerful chords.

Gabriel wrote:Chromes are ok and last ages, but they're a bit bright for a flatwound string.

Hmmm. That actually appeals to me.

I always go for D'addario 10s or 10s with the heavy bottom, you get the best of both worlds with those.