String Guage for Short Scale Acoustic Archtops

[Paul Hughes]

Hi, I wondered if anyone can help with a puzzling question about string guage on short scale acoustic archtops. I'm confused because conventional wisdoms collide;

1) The standard wisdom for archtops is that heavy string are better because they create more downforce and drive the top (louder guitar).

2) The standard wisdom for short scale flattop acoustics and solid electrics is that if you put too heavy a guage on, then the lower tension on a scale neck creates a greater string arc and hence buzzing. Does this apply to archtops?

3) I have heard luthiers saying that too much tension from heavy guages on any top will kill the top as the tension actually dampens it.

So the question is - If the primary objective is to reduce buzzing and lower action - and volume is a secondary consideration - am I right in thinking that actually, lighter strings may be better (if quieter) on a short scale acoustic archtop?

My guitar has a 630mm scale, 46mm nut width and 19 frets.

I have a horrible feeling this may be a stupid question with a simple answer but hey ho!

Any help greatly appreciated.

Regards

Paul

[kamlapati]

For ages I used nothing but mediums (.013 high E) on all my archtops, I certainly never noticed anything like top damping, and I've never heard that mentioned by others. I really like the sound and feel of big strings on my old archtops.

Lately I've been using lights (.012 high E) on a subset of my guitars, i.e. modern archtops with lighter tops and x-bracing, and I've been really happy with them. I'm convinced now that not all guitars need the biggest strings your fingers can handle.

But lower than that? There's still the basic physics: more string mass means more energy transmits more energy to the top. Personally, I've never heard an acoustic guitar of any kind that was at it's best with smaller than lights. Not my Taylor x12, not my National 'O', but maybe that's just the way I play. I'm not planning on trying anything lighter than my current sets.

OK, and your question: I guess if sound is not important you could use the smallest strings in the world. Are you sure that's what you want?

[PTChristopher]

Yeow. Maybe one thing at a time here:

>>> heavy string are better because they create more downforce and drive the top (louder guitar).

The idea is that heavier strings can drive more acoustic volume because they have more mass, not because the press down more on the archtop (or pull up more on the flat-top).

>>> The standard wisdom for short scale flattop acoustics and solid electrics is that if you put too heavy a guage on, then the lower tension on a scale neck creates a greater string arc and hence buzzing. Does this apply to archtops?

Respectfully, this it too convoluted to respond to. There is no such standard wisdom. But to try and say something in response: In general, the principles of string arc apply the same way to a flat top, and archtop, or a solid body.

>>> I have heard luthiers saying that too much tension from heavy guages on any top will kill the top as the tension actually dampens it.

That is probably an over generalization - and often simply not true. There is ENORMOUS variety out there for guitar design. And for each guitar there is arguably a best range of string gauge for balancing the mass of the string (driving the top) and the tension on the top (in some ways inhibiting the top - but not as much as you may think). Note that in most cases, guitar top vibration is not really the strongest near the bridge.

>>> So the question is - If the primary objective is to reduce buzzing and lower action - and volume is a secondary consideration - am I right in thinking that actually, lighter strings may be better (if quieter) on a short scale acoustic archtop?

In brief, no. To meet your primary objective I suggest the following:

- Get the nut set up correctly. That is to say get the nut DOWN (down, down, down) to the height of the frets. There is a bit more to it than that, but it can be very tedious to go through all the details of a nut.

- Get the neck relief optimized for your playing style. In most cases this ends up meaning LESS relief.

- Seriously look at your right hand technique. If you use a pick, look at you right wrist and consider straightening it a bit - to attack the strings more perpendicular[ly] to the top.

- BALANCE your attack to the gauge of the strings. If you want to go heavier, then have at it. But of you like light strings, then you need to lighten up considerably on the right hand.

- There is nothing conceptually special about a shorter scale guitar. It will require less tension (on a given set of strings) vs. a longer scale. But there is nothing about a short scale guitar that suddenly makes it wise to use light strings to somehow reduce buzz. Nope.

All in my opinion.

Chris

[Scolohofo]

Hi Paul,

i put 10's on my the loar and i'm very satisfied with the volume anf feel with them.Well, i soon will try thomastiek plectrums just for pleasure.

[Snap]

1- Usually yes. But i've found guitars where the opposite is true.

2- Usually yes, but it actually depends in setup and fretboards geometry.

3- Yes, they say so. But like in point one, it depends on particular guitars and how are they built. I have guitars you won't believe how tall a bridge can be or how high breakover angle they have, while others need to live with short bridges and never going beyond than 11 or 12 degree breakover angle or they become muffled.

am I right in thinking that actually, lighter strings may be better (if quieter) on a short scale acoustic archtop?

My guitar has a 630mm scale, 46mm nut width and 19 frets.

I have guitars like that and even shorter (620 mm). I always use 13s on them. Yes, short scales are harder to setup for low action and buzz free but mine don't buzz unless played too hard. It's all about setup and fretboard geometry. My 620 mm scale Otwins never showed that problem while other 640 mm guitars certainly are more problematic even with quite high action and re-profiled to a supposedly optimum 12 to 20" compound fretboard radius. I have to say that the more problematic guitar in this aspect has a very tall bridge with a big breakover angle. Perhaps it's related to this issue too. I really don't know.

[Paul Hughes]

Many thanks for the answers - varying opinions but some interesting points.

Do't know that I'm any clearer but I have more to think about.

I suspect the answer will be to get 3 sets and spend a day doing an awful lot of string changing.

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by Paul Hughes

Many thanks for the answers - varying opinions but some interesting points.

Do't know that I'm any clearer but I have more to think about.

I suspect the answer will be to get 3 sets and spend a day doing an awful lot of string changing.

Bad idea! It will take more than a day to effectively determine which you like the most. Also, with each change of string gauge, you will need to "tweak" the guitar's set up. Now, I'm gonna take some heat for saying this, but I will anyway . . . . in essence, you're going to confuse the shit out of your guitar's neck with all of that continuous and rapid change of string tension, pull and truss rod adjustment. It's just going to continue to move as though the wood is still alive. Often times when a neck is adjusted to compensate for a change in string gauge, it will take hours, if not a day or two for the neck to stop moving. If I were you, I would determine which gauge string . . . (based upon prior experiences, not experiments ove a couple of hours) . . I though I would best be comfortable with. Then, I would have the guitar appropriately set up to accomodate that string gauge. Play the guitar for at least a week. Then, you will have a much better understanding of what you love . . .and what you hate about that particular string gauge. That will guide you on your next move. Repeat the process, if you decide to go with a different gauge.

[PTChristopher]

[P2] >>> I'm gonna take some heat for saying this, but I will anyway . . .

Hey, you could take over for me at my house - pretty much the same policy. Recycling is every other Wednesday, and umm,... that's pretty much all you need to know.

To go back to the original concept: No, do not use lighter tension strings to somehow result in a lower amplitude strung arc. No. Don't-a work that way.

[P2] >>> in essence, you're going to confust the shit out of your guitar's neck with all of that continuous and rapid change of string tension, pull and truss rod adjustment. It's just going to continue to move as though the wood is still alive.

If I may comment:

Wood is dead. It is even dead in a living tree. Really. The cambium layer just under the bark is alive, the rest is dead. Now the wood it is filled with all sorts of activity, but dead.

And it remains dead in the guitar. But it is a matrix of cellulose fiber and resins (and moisture), and the fibers can move relative to each other while the resins both slow down such movement and (oh, the irony) also secure the fibers into a new position after they have moved.

So yeah, wood behaves like it is alive in this sense of adaptability.

Under some pretty extreme conditions, a MAJOR truss rod adjustment can take a while to settle in. But most minor tweaks are pretty stable right away. The neck is always moving a little with changes in temperature and humidity anyway - so "stable" means anything that does not move more than the usual wandering.

But I think Patrick2 makes a good point even if the guitar neck is not in mortal danger. Decide what you want to do based on your goals (and somehow deal with the wildly divergent advice online, like my opinions), then implement the change and play for a while.

I have been down the, "Let's try everything right now" approach with players before. It most typically leads to overwhelming confusion.

Chris

[oldane]

Originally Posted by Paul Hughes

1) The standard wisdom for archtops is that heavy string are better because they create more downforce and drive the top (louder guitar).

Depends on the particular guitar. It may be true up to a certain point. But it's also the greater mass of the heavier strings which is at work at driving the top more.

2) The standard wisdom for short scale flattop acoustics and solid electrics is that if you put too heavy a guage on, then the lower tension on a scale neck creates a greater string arc and hence buzzing. Does this apply to archtops?

I don't quite understand what you mean. A heavier guage doesn't mean lower tension. A heavier string has higher tension than a lighter one - provided both are tuned to pitch and everything else is equal.

3) I have heard luthiers saying that too much tension from heavy guages on any top will kill the top as the tension actually dampens it.

Not on "any top". Again, it depends on the guitar. I have a Benedetto Fratello - a responsive, light, thin topped, X-braced instrument. It plays nicely with 12-52 strings, whereas it sounds kind of choked with 13-56. I also have a Triggs Master 400 (Stromberg copy) whick is much heavier built - thicker top, parallel braces. It can take the thickest strings, a high action and everything a strong man can put into it - a typical rhythm machine for a big band. OTOH, it's NOT the instrument for delicate fingerpicking. It would no doubt sound very thin with lighter strings (I have never had anything lighter than 13-56 on it).

So the question is - If the primary objective is to reduce buzzing and lower action - and volume is a secondary consideration - am I right in thinking that actually, lighter strings may be better (if quieter) on a short scale acoustic archtop?

If one could make a general statement it would rather be the opposite. But I don't think we can make such a general statement. It depends on the particular instrument, your playing technique, the style of your music - plus a lot more.

I have a horrible feeling this may be a stupid question with a simple answer but hey ho!

There is no such thing as stupid questions, only stupid answers. I think your questions are very relevant as they are about some of the often told myths about guitars, of which some are true and others are not.

Here's a web site about some other guitar myths:

Lutherie Myth/Science: The Tone of an Instrument Improves the More it is Played