Members GreenAsJade Posted February 3, 2011 Members Share Posted February 3, 2011 I have been thinking about these questions too, and I agree that I need to actually play the guitar and live with it both ways. I also agree that it gut feel seems logical that the tension on one side goes to the tension on the other side. This is why I'm not a closed minded sceptic, I'm geniunely interested in WTF is going on here Mechanics isn't always logical though. There's one thing that Carl's video gives the impression of: that adjusting the angle will change the relative intervals in the bend. Interestingly, he doesn't actually _say_ this. What he says is that you must adjust the claw until you have 3/2/1. He _implies_ that you will need to get the angle right to achieve this. What as been "busted" is this idea. You can have the angle any way you like, and as long as you have the correct travel in the bridge to achieve 3 on the G you will get 2 and 1 on the B and E. The other thing I need to do is put more extreme angle on to make sure I'm not missing some subtle effect. So I will go have my claw angled extremely one way for a week, extremely the other way for a week, and let y'all know how I go. It would be great if someone else, someone who thinks that this works, would reverse their claw too and see if it changes anything for them. It's easy to do - if you're careful tightening till it's level counting as you go and loosen the same amount on the other side then my experience is you won't even have to retune. GaJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members meganutt7 Posted February 3, 2011 Author Members Share Posted February 3, 2011 Honestly, at the end of the day, I don't really care WHY it works... I just care that, for me at least, IT WORKS. I don't CONSTANTLY think about the mechanical and aerodynamic qualities and possibilities of an airplane everytime I take a fklight... I am more prone to being analytical of something if it DOESN'T work. Carl Verheyen just took the guess work out of it for me, I guess. I saw a player I admire talking about the fact that it works for him... He is older than me, much more well known and hasa great reputation and a sound that I adore. I think he is a killer player and, upon heeding his advice, I was rewarded.... That is good enough for me.. As far as Mythbusters goes, that may not be a bad thing to try, but I don't know that this topic would have wide enough appeal for them to make it part of one of their episodes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeremy_green Posted February 3, 2011 Members Share Posted February 3, 2011 I am like you that way Danny ... never really cared much about "whys" ... if it works and I like the freedom it gives me - I do it. I started setting my tremolo like that several years back... initially i did it because, like Carl, I wanted that shimmer-y Bigsby type up and down sound on chords. Then I heard Jeff Beck hitting specific pitches ... it made sense to me to adjust it so I could hit a perfect semi-tone on the E string. Loved it, and have used it since. My guitar has always held it's tuning very well so I never questioned it.... probably never would have if it wasn't for this thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted February 3, 2011 Members Share Posted February 3, 2011 That's probably why you guys are great musicians and I'm just an engineer trying to be a musician If Carl hadn't said "due to the physics of it", or tried to explain _why_ it works in a way that doesn't make sense, I probably wouldn't have questioned either. But say something that doesn't make sense... that's a red rag to a (engineer) bull GaJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Wein Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 That's probably why you guys are great musicians and I'm just an engineer trying to be a musician If Carl hadn't said "due to the physics of it", or tried to explain _why_ it works in a way that doesn't make sense, I probably wouldn't have questioned either. But say something that doesn't make sense... that's a red rag to a bull GaJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Wein Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 There's one thing that Carl's video gives the impression of: that adjusting the angle will change the relative intervals in the bend. Interestingly, he doesn't actually _say_ this. What he says is that you must adjust the claw until you have 3/2/1. He _implies_ that you will need to get the angle right to achieve this.GaJ Whats funny is that I did this set up on a students brand new Mexican-made Fender strat last night and the bar was set from the factory to get those intervals already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted February 3, 2011 Members Share Posted February 3, 2011 Out of curiosity, was the claw angled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Wein Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Out of curiosity, was the claw angled? nope.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted February 3, 2011 Members Share Posted February 3, 2011 Would have been really fascinating if the angled practice had made its way into the factory! It's even pretty fascinating that it came set up that way. It could be a fluke though: when I floated my trem, it came out that way without trying. Yet I can totally see that there's a whole range of possibile ways it might have come out: that was weird. GaJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Wein Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Would have been really fascinating if the angled practice had made its way into the factory! It's even pretty fascinating that it came set up that way. It could be a fluke though: when I floated my trem, it came out that way without trying. Yet I can totally see that there's a whole range of possibile ways it might have come out: that was weird. GaJ I'm actually more into the idea that I have set intervals for the bar now....I'm going to end up annoying the crap out of people this weekend as I "explore the possibilities" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted February 3, 2011 Members Share Posted February 3, 2011 The mind boggles, eh? Supposing you can simultaneously bend one note in a chord by a tone and another a semi tone ... what would you do ... I can totally see your fellow musicians hiding your whammy bar by the end of the night Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Wein Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 probably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jasco Posted February 4, 2011 Members Share Posted February 4, 2011 Interesting thread. I'll have to try that on a couple of my strats, although it might be a while, as I have about a half dozen guitar fix-it projects to get to first. I do quite a bit of floating whammy stuff with the standard non-angled claw on strats and don't have many problems with tuning. Do they go out of tune - yes. But in very predictable ways, and there's a couple methods I can yank them back in tune in about a half second, so it doesn't bother me. I've noticed a bit of difference between the vintage style saddles and modern US saddles as far as the intonation relationship between strings when pushing or pulling the bar. Somethings that work on a vintage style setup don't quite work on a modern saddle bridge and vice-versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members meganutt7 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Members Share Posted February 4, 2011 Jasco, I know what you mean when you say "predictable ways".. On one of my strats it was ALWAYS JUST THE G STRING that would go SHARP whe nI used the bar... Also, I did not adjust the trem to 3/2/1, but just getting a half step on the B and a whole step on the G... The E pulls about 1/4 tone... For me this is more practical.. I like the lapsteel type dynamic you get doing major thirds on the G and B and then pulling the bar and getting a minor third right above it "diatonically". Plus, a minor third pull on the G would set my bar pretty far away from the body and I am not so into that.. I want it floating, but not too far... I do find though that my tuning literally DOES NOT GO OUT DISCERNABLY AT ALL!!! PERIOD!!! I had problems with my Suhr with tuning stability, too... This totally cured it COMPLETELY!!! My guitar sounds far more resonant, sustains better, and (since the string tension seems to have tightened a bit) it makes things less "flubby" when doing fast things like alternate picking, etc. Also, Jade...I think all of us, as musicians/music lovers, can be very overanalytical about certain things (mostly pertaining to music)... I have friends who are obssessed with pick gauges, sizes, angles, the holding of them, preper picking practices, etc. others are obssessed with chordal ideas... Others still - the scientific or technological... It's neverending. The one thing I can advise you is: Make your obssession WORK FOR YOU... if you're interested in this whammy bar theory.... explore it to the furthest reaches your mind can propel you to and utilize the knowledge you earned to further your playing and sound. Look at Steve Vai, Jeff Beck, Mattias Eklundh, Jimi Hendrix, Michael Lee Firkins.... All guys that have done things that were theretofore unheard of using a whammy bar. let's not even get into Adrian Belew and that whole crew of nuts... Listen to the Talking Heads album "Remain In Light" and King Crimsons' "Discipline" albums and hear Adrian Belew using a whammy bar, distortion, techinque and imagination to make elephant sounds, car crash noises, broken video game sounds, beautiful singing textures and so much more. The possibilities of mania are endless. Just channel them positively and you will most likely be rewarded... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted February 4, 2011 Members Share Posted February 4, 2011 I really hope that's what I'm doing. I'm not trying to shoot down some guy's fascinating idea, I'm genuinely interested in it. Who knows what I will learn as I figure it out. But also different types of people go for different solutions, yet they work for them. Take the people who wear magnets on their wrist for athletics. It works for them, despite there being no obvious explanation. There is one interesting (to me) thing that I can say about the mechanics of this. The thing that changing the angle of the spring changes is the force on each of the knife-edge pivots. The individual strings can't tell the difference about the individual string tension, but the pivots feel it. As you angle the claw so that there is more tension in the spring behind the higher tension strings, you are increasing the unevenness in the force on the pivots: you are putting "all the force of the thick E string on the thick E string pivot". So if there is an acoustic explanation for the difference in the guitar's behaviour, it will come from here. I can phrase this in a way that makes it sound bad. You are increasing the unevenness of the forces in the pivots, and decreasing the force coupling the thin E string to the pivot. I can phrase it in a way that makes it sound good. You are reducing the twisting forces in the bridge, and instead subjecting it only to a straight bending force, and increasing the coupling force nearest the thick strings. Both of these are complete wah from the point of view of understanding what is going on I'm pretty sure that this is so subtle that intuition isn't going to be a great help in understanding whether there's a physical/acoustic effect at play. But food for thought eh? At least for those of us (me?) interested in thinking about it Cheers, GaJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1001gear Posted February 5, 2011 Members Share Posted February 5, 2011 I really hope that's what I'm doing. I'm not trying to shoot down some guy's fascinating idea, I'm genuinely interested in it. Who knows what I will learn as I figure it out. But also different types of people go for different solutions, yet they work for them. Take the people who wear magnets on their wrist for athletics. It works for them, despite there being no obvious explanation. There is one interesting (to me) thing that I can say about the mechanics of this. The thing that changing the angle of the spring changes is the force on each of the knife-edge pivots. The individual strings can't tell the difference about the individual string tension, but the pivots feel it. As you angle the claw so that there is more tension in the spring behind the higher tension strings, you are increasing the unevenness in the force on the pivots: you are putting "all the force of the thick E string on the thick E string pivot". So if there is an acoustic explanation for the difference in the guitar's behaviour, it will come from here. I can phrase this in a way that makes it sound bad. You are increasing the unevenness of the forces in the pivots, and decreasing the force coupling the thin E string to the pivot. I can phrase it in a way that makes it sound good. You are reducing the twisting forces in the bridge, and instead subjecting it only to a straight bending force, and increasing the coupling force nearest the thick strings. Both of these are complete wah from the point of view of understanding what is going on I'm pretty sure that this is so subtle that intuition isn't going to be a great help in understanding whether there's a physical/acoustic effect at play. But food for thought eh? At least for those of us (me?) interested in thinking about it Cheers, GaJ What I was saying basically. Didn't realize you were on a scientific paper. quop. ( new expression ) Don't forget too that there is that mathematical constant - wood, involved and that that the bridge plate will torque - probably more of a factor than the mysterious horizontal correction. And the difference is on the intonation scale - mini microtones, not newton meters per cubic ton (IDK WTF that means) deep breath. lol, stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted February 10, 2011 Members Share Posted February 10, 2011 Oh no! you say Not this again!! But I just wanted to share a fascinating insight posted on YouTube about this... (drum-rolll) The thick strings on a guitar may have _less_ tension in them than the thin strings!!! Makes sense really: they vibrate slower. Tension them more and they vibrate faster. In fact, the reason that thick strings have to be thicker than thin stings is to allow them to vibrate slower while having any decent tension in them at all. If you tried to tune the high E string to low E, it would be so slack it almost fall off GaJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted February 10, 2011 Members Share Posted February 10, 2011 Note that I said "may" have less tension. This in itself is interesting. Suppose you have 11-44 strings. This means that your thick E string is 4 times the radius of the thin. That means it has 16 times the mass per unit length, if it was made of the same stuff. Which means it would be 4 octaves lower. But it is only 3 octaves lower. Is this because it is tighter, or because it is not made of the same stuff? We know for a fact that it is not as dense, because it is made of that coily-springy-wound stuff. This could explain why at the same tension it is 3 octaves, not, 4, lower. Or maybe it _is_ tighter, just a bit. I think the moral of the story is don't try to explain too much on a guitar using physics and maths, because it's way more complicated than you think But it sheds some light on why strings are in the approximate thickness ratio 11-44 or whatever: it keeps them all at roughly the same tension! GaJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members meganutt7 Posted February 10, 2011 Author Members Share Posted February 10, 2011 Note that I said "may" have less tension. This in itself is interesting. Suppose you have 11-44 strings. This means that your thick E string is 4 times the radius of the thin. That means it has 16 times the mass per unit length, if it was made of the same stuff. Which means it would be 4 octaves lower. But it is only 3 octaves lower. Is this because it is tighter, or because it is not made of the same stuff? We know for a fact that it is not as dense, because it is made of that coily-springy-wound stuff. This could explain why at the same tension it is 3 octaves, not, 4, lower. Or maybe it _is_ tighter, just a bit. I think the moral of the story is don't try to explain too much on a guitar using physics and maths, because it's way more complicated than you think But it sheds some light on why strings are in the approximate thickness ratio 11-44 or whatever: it keeps them all at roughly the same tension! GaJ I think your theory is flawed, my man.... First off... If you have a material, say WOOD, one plank 1 inch thick another 4 inches thick, and you set flame to them... same size flame, same location on the bottom of the plank.. whichj would burn first? If you burnt them halfway and tried to break them, which would break easier?? If those random analogies/questions don't convince you... You said if you detune a low E down an octave it becomes flubby... What about a high E??? If you detune IT down an octave it just STICKS TO YOUR PICKUPS and does NOTHING.... Try this if you want to experiment and find out which strings carry how much tension... Leave just one spring on the claw in the back of your guitar... Unwind all your strings so they are slack. Tune your High E up to pitch. Did the bridge move? measure the angle from it's being flush with the body... repeat this for every string... i think that by the time you reach the low E, you may change your mind.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted February 11, 2011 Members Share Posted February 11, 2011 Great suggestion: I will do that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted February 11, 2011 Members Share Posted February 11, 2011 Hah - no need - someone already did it: http://guitarmatrixblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/string-tension-charts.html An interesting read. Before you look at it, try to guess which string has the highest tension. Also, take a look at the comparative tension in the 11-49 set (which is closest to what I use, dunno about you guys). GaJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members meganutt7 Posted February 11, 2011 Author Members Share Posted February 11, 2011 I was always under the impression that the G or D strings would have the most tensio, as they are in the middle... But again.. I ahven't read the article yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted February 11, 2011 Members Share Posted February 11, 2011 It's very hard for me to resist saying "so the most tension is in the middle, seems to make sense that a level claw would match this best". Too hard to resist actually But that's a deliberately naughty thing to say, because the most tension is (according to these measurements) actually on the thick string side, it's just centered towards the middle. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the advice to "adjust the angle until you have these intervals" demonstrably doesn't make sense, since you can get those intervals with a straight claw... ... which in turn does not mean that the angle doesn't help. It only means that the advice about how to set it is misguided. GaJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members meganutt7 Posted February 14, 2011 Author Members Share Posted February 14, 2011 It's very hard for me to resist saying "so the most tension is in the middle, seems to make sense that a level claw would match this best". Too hard to resist actually But that's a deliberately naughty thing to say, because the most tension is (according to these measurements) actually on the thick string side, it's just centered towards the middle. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the advice to "adjust the angle until you have these intervals" demonstrably doesn't make sense, since you can get those intervals with a straight claw... ... which in turn does not mean that the angle doesn't help. It only means that the advice about how to set it is misguided. GaJ GaJ... At some point you just have to look at lightening and admire it without too much scientific analysis. Sometimes it's more enjoyable that way... I don't really care about the rhyme or reason... All I know is my Suhr was going out of tune ALOT and BADLY... I tilted the bridge and adjusted it as Mr. Verheyen suggests and, voila!!! It stays in tune!!! I could care less WHY it happens... So long as it happens, I am content. You could tell me that Vishnu looks favorably on this bridge angle and he grants it tuning stability... I would be ok with that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tubefox Posted February 14, 2011 Members Share Posted February 14, 2011 I'm wondering whether this is what Ritchie Blackmore did to keep his Strats in tune...he never said much about it except something about "ensuring the bridge was floating properly at a 45 degree angle"... Uh... 45? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.