Changing TI flatwound strings on Jazz Guitars

[jaymen]

I like to use the Jazz Swing series TI strings JS111 and JS112.
I found that the D string is just barely long enough to get 2 full turns on the sting post of my Epiphone Emperor Regent.
This is due to the "Frequensator" style tailpiece being very short on E,A, and D strings, with the D tuning peg being the furthest away.

The trick is simple however; do not plan on any extra string to cut off and just bend the end under around the string as usual, using as much of the end of the silk wrapped string as possible.

One other tip,: DO NOT tighten down the locking pin on locking tuners as it will damage the outer wraps and usually break the inner core. The result is that the string will come unwrapped!
It is critical to have the silked end of the string wrapped around the post to avoid damaging the wraps and core. Some locking tuners such as Sperzels have very little room for the strings to be wrapped around the string post, and due to that, they may not be compatible. Tomastik did not design these strings for use with locking tuners, but makes no mention of it on their site, or on the string packaging for their Jazz series flatwounds.

HTH,
Jay

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

I like to use the Jazz Swing series TI strings JS111 and JS112.
I found that the D string is just barely long enough to get 2 full turns on the sting post of my Epiphone Emperor Regent.
This is due to the "Frequensator" style tailpiece being very short on E,A, and D strings, with the D tuning peg being the furthest away.

The trick is simple however; do not plan on any extra string to cut off and just bend the end under around the string as usual, using as much of the end of the silk wrapped string as possible.

One other tip,: DO NOT tighten down the locking pin on locking tuners as it will damage the outer wraps and usually break the inner core. The result is that the string will come unwrapped!
It is critical to have the silked end of the string wrapped around the post to avoid damaging the wraps and core. Some locking tuners such as Sperzels have very little room for the strings to be wrapped around the string post, and due to that, they may not be compatible. Tomastik did not design these strings for use with locking tuners, but makes no mention of it on their site, or on the string packaging for their Jazz series flatwounds.

HTH,
Jay

Care is clearly called for, Jay. But I use TI JS on my Tele with locking Sperzels without a problem. I discovered long ago that the locking knobs should be gently finger-tight and no more. It's not just TIs that suffer - I broke a few Chromes and several unwound Es and Bs on my Carvin before figuring out that I was overtightening the locks. I never stopped to look at it on stage, where they invariably broke. It wasn't until I broke an 0.075" 7th string (!) at home that I realized where the problem was. The core had broken at the post hole, and the winding was stretched out so I could see exactly where the break had occurred.

So I started leaving the lockers loose and wrapping the strings around the posts just enough to secure them as though the tuners were non-locking. I haven't had any problem doing this with Sperzels - the posts are fine with one to two wraps, depending on the string gauge. When I got a new Tele with Sperzel lockers, I left them loose. And the guitar started having some weird resonances and rattles. I actually thought I had a broken truss rod becaue there was a fairly loud rattle when I picked up the guitar and shook it. I finally realized that it was the loose lockers that were causing all the noise. So I make sure that they're just barely finger tight every time I play, and I check frequently to make sure one hasn't backed off (which they do more easily than I imagined they would).

[cmajor9]

I like to use the Jazz Swing series TI strings JS111 and JS112.
One other tip,: DO NOT tighten down the locking pin on locking tuners as it will damage the outer wraps and usually break the inner core. The result is that the string will come unwrapped!
It is critical to have the silked end of the string wrapped around the post to avoid damaging the wraps and core. Some locking tuners such as Sperzels have very little room for the strings to be wrapped around the string post, and due to that, they may not be compatible. Tomastik did not design these strings for use with locking tuners, but makes no mention of it on their site, or on the string packaging for their Jazz series flatwounds.

HTH,
Jay

I would think that the majority of players using Thomastik JS111 and JS112 strings are not running them through locking tuners.

[RJVB]

If you replace entire sets you can also use the E or B trebles to make an extension for the too-short strings. Cut enough length off the ball-end side, thread the free end of that bit of wire through the "ball" of your new string, fold and wrap (possibly after threading through the extension's ball if you want to be extra-certain).

I've already done this and it works fine.

[jaymen]

RJBV, great stop gap solution! I did write a letter to TI customer service to inform them of the issue with the D string being too short for some Epis and other guitars with short tail pieces.

I also told them it would be a good idea to include instruction on installing their flat-wound strings and cautionary note on how to use them with locking tuners to prevent string failures.
It will be interesting to see if they respond.
Jay

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

If you replace entire sets you can also use the E or B trebles to make an extension for the too-short strings. Cut enough length off the ball-end side, thread the free end of that bit of wire through the "ball" of your new string, fold and wrap (possibly after threading through the extension's ball if you want to be extra-certain.

This method can result in weird resonances, since you can’t twist, wrap, and secure the extension as tightly and firmly as the twist & wrap on factory strings. If you choose to do it, I’d weave a 1/2 to 3/4” strip of leather over and under the strings between the tailpiece and the bridge to damp them.

[SOLR]

RJBV, great stop gap solution! I did write a letter to TI customer service to inform them of the issue with the D string being too short for some Epis and other guitars with short tail pieces.

I also told them it would be a good idea to include instruction on installing their flat-wound strings and cautionary note on how to use them with locking tuners to prevent string failures.
It will be interesting to see if they respond.
Jay

Been asked before and here's a thread D string too short for epiphone frequensator tailpiece on the very subject, you might find some useful answers. And this Frequensator help.. please??? - Epiphone Electrics - Gibson Brands Forums has some info too.....

S

[RJVB]

This method can result in weird resonances, since you can’t twist, wrap, and secure the extension as tightly and firmly as the twist & wrap on factory strings.

Did you ever observe this, and what "twist & wrap on factory strings"? If you're thinking of the winding, that's irrelevant in the sense that I don't even try to approach this. Basically you're adding a "finger"to your tailpiece, or extending an existing one if you have a finger tailpiece.

The tensions involved mean the extension string gets pulled really taut and can't buzz in the ball(s) it's being looped through. You might lose a bit of sustain, but I never really noticed that either.

I came up with this trick when I had just gotten my archtop, which evidently came with dead strings. I'd taken a set of Earthwood silk&steels that had been played, so I'd hear the sound of my new guitar, not the jangle of new brass. Turned out I'd cut the strings on the guitar they came off, so I found this solution and it worked just fine for the few days it took to receive a set of Plectrums.

[SOLR]

I’d weave a 1/2 to 3/4” strip of leather over and under the strings between the tailpiece and the bridge to damp them.

Why? the very reason for the frequensator is the exact opposite!! If one has to do this every time then you should change the tailpiece...

S

[jaymen]

I thought the purpose of the frequensator was to get the desired tension on the strings. Longer string equals more tension, shorter string has less tension. I have seen rubber bands, pieces of cloth, and strips of foam under the strings between the bridge and tailpiece to damp out the sound they make. In pinch however, the string extension has some merits.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

I thought the purpose of the frequensator was to get the desired tension on the strings. Longer string equals more tension, shorter string has less tension.

Why? the very reason for the frequensator is the exact opposite!!

The purpose of the Epiphone Frequensator was stated in their first ad for it in a 1937 issue of Downbeat, per this from the Dutch Archtop Guitar Museum:

"In a Down Beat magazine ad from September 1937, a radical new tailpiece called the Frequensator, was introduced. [see patent] The idea behind the design was to provide compensation between the tremble [sic] and bass strings, and the word “frequensator” was a contraction of the words “frequency” and “compensator”. The Down Beat ad promises “Greater Clarity, “Truer Tone” and “Eliminates Deadspots”.

The Frequensator consisted of two separate extensions of unequal lengths; a shorter one of 2,5 inch for the bass strings and a longer one of 5,75 inch for the tremble strings. The bass extension allowed longer strings lengths for the bass strings resulting in deeper response for these strings, and the longer tremble extension provided a more brilliant tone in these strings. A bent metal plate anchored the unit to the guitar. This tailpiece was used on the Emperor, De Luxe, Broadway and Triumph and also appeared on the Devon introduced in 1951."

I don't think the Frequensator was intended to reduce spurious resonances from the lengths between bridge saddle and tailpiece. In fact, I'm not convinced that it does anything for or to either sound or intonation, in the ones I've played or heard.

The tensions involved mean the extension string gets pulled really taut and can't buzz in the ball(s) it's being looped through. You might lose a bit of sustain, but I never really noticed that either.

There's no way you can twist and secure the cut end of the extension after looping it through the ball end to be as tight as the string is around the ball end itself. You can probably come close using safety wire pliers - but even with that, the twist will be at a much looser angle and will not hold as firmly. There will be some slack in your twist that can vibrate more than an intact string, and do so at frequencies that are not in the harmonic structure of the string itself. It can also cause spurious resonances, buzzes, and other noxious noises. Using a damper back there is all benefit and no harm or risk.

[RJVB]

I thought the purpose of the frequensator was to get the desired tension on the strings. Longer string equals more tension, shorter string has less tension.

The part in (my) italics applies to the sounding lenght of a string. Tension for a given string at a given pitch is given purely by the string's properties and the scale length, that is, the distance from nut to saddle. Any string length on the wrong side of the nut or saddle will be at that exact same tension (barring binding) and basically only contributes to bending stiffness.

Take a slothead guitar, on which exchanging the A,D and/or G,B tuners has a bit less effect on break angle coming off the peg-end of the nut. Do you think you'd hear a difference?

There's no way you can twist and secure the cut end of the extension after looping it through the ball end to be as tight as the string is around the ball end itself.

I get close enough; tension does the rest. But I have no objection if someone wants to use a piece of leather with my invention (just no black vinyl please )

[jaymen]

I guess I'm out to lunch here and here is why I am confused:

When I was younger we had a cattle fence with barbed wire. We would have to re-string parts of the fence every spring because the snow would sometimes break a wire. We would tighten the wire until it would ring out a certain pitch /note and then do the same for all the others we had to fix. Here is the point: On wires where the fence posts were further apart, we had to tighten the wire more to reach the same pitch as a wire between two closer fence posts. So the longer the wire, the more tension required to reach a given pitch. Also bigger diameter wire required more tension to bring it up to the same pitch as a smaller wire.

I was also under the impression that short scale guitars have less tension than long scale guitars, which would dovetail with my observation above.

So given that, it seems logical to me that the frequensator would somewhat balance the tensions between strings. I"m guessing that heart shaped tail pieces are a similar attempt at balancing the strings due to each one having a different diameter.

[RJVB]

On wires where the fence posts were further apart, we had to tighten the wire more to reach the same pitch as a wire between two closer fence posts. So the longer the wire, the more tension required to reach a given pitch. Also bigger diameter wire required more tension to bring it up to the same pitch as a smaller wire.

True. But those wire were doubtlessly fixed to each pole, possibly even in a way that it wouldn't slip if you tightened the same wire more on the next segment.

Let's do an experiment. Take 3 such poles, with the middle one somewhat off-centre. Fix wire to the left pole, string towards the middle pole (let's say you have a hook to guide it over, pull it to the desired pitch, and fix (say with a pin) it so it can no longer move. Do the same with the 2nd segment. You will now have your wire divided in 2 segments with unequal tension but that give the same pitch.
Now remove the fixation pin so the wire can slide through/over the hook. What happens to the pitch and what to the tension on both sides of that hook?

That hook is equivalent to your saddle, and to the nut as well.

I was also under the impression that short scale guitars have less tension than long scale guitars, which would dovetail with my observation above.

True, if you use the same strings. I understand the confusion here: it's often said that big guitars like dreadnoughts require heavier strings, but that is to get all that wood to move. On the so much more lightly built classicals you don't have that consideration, and you quickly learn that you need to use heavier (higher tension) strings on a smaller/shorter-scale instrument. A friend of mine who plays early 19th century romantic guitars uses high tension strings because on her instruments does become (like) normal tension.

Trust me, the formula that relates string mass, diameter, pitch and tension only considers the sounding part of the string. The parts between nut and pegs or saddle and tailpiece have just as much influence on pitch as the free end of the string sticking out of the tuning post or behind the tie-block.

[pauln]

Trust me, the formula that relates string mass, diameter, pitch and tension only considers the sounding part of the string. The parts between nut and pegs or saddle and tailpiece have just as much influence on pitch as the free end of the string sticking out of the tuning post or behind the tie-block.

All of that is true; however people still often confuse "tension" with "work" and don't understand how the same string, same tension, same pitch, same scale length on different guitars can feel different.

When bending a string up one semi-tone, the tension in the string needs to experience a certain increase. The amount of displacement of the bend depends on the available string length, including those sections of string outside the nut and bridge. The section beyond the nut will always (hopefully) be available with a slippery nut. The section beyond the bridge may allow the string to slide or not. Whatever outer string sections are available to stretch will become part of the string length that needs to increase that certain amount to raise the pitch up that semi-tone.

Depending on the outside section length, the displacement distance of the string to reach the certain increased pitch tension will vary even though the resulting force applied in the bend must be the same. However, what we feel is "work" which is force times distance. The longer the distance to result in the same force-tension-pitch, the less work - which to guitar fingers means it feels more slinky, easier.

One result of this is that when not bending, but just depressing the strings to the frets, more available string length beyond the nut and bridge means any sharpness in pitch from fretting a string is less, which may be good for guitarists preferring traditional jazz box action.

This is why Hendrix used right handed Strats strung to be played left handed to reverse the head stock, the opposite effect of above, giving the thin strings the least extra length section beyond the nut so that whammy bar motions would have the most dramatic effect on their tension (pitch) with the least displacement of the bar.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

1. All of that is true; however people still often confuse "tension" with "work" and don't understand how the same string, same tension, same pitch, same scale length on different guitars can feel different.
2. When bending a string up one semi-tone, the tension in the string needs to experience a certain increase. The amount of displacement of the bend depends on the available string length, including those sections of string outside the nut and bridge. The section beyond the nut will always (hopefully) be available with a slippery nut. The section beyond the bridge may allow the string to slide or not. Whatever outer string sections are available to stretch will become part of the string length that needs to increase that certain amount to raise the pitch up that semi-tone.
3. Depending on the outside section length, the displacement distance of the string to reach the certain increased pitch tension will vary even though the resulting force applied in the bend must be the same. However, what we feel is "work" which is force times distance. The longer the distance to result in the same force-tension-pitch, the less work - which to guitar fingers means it feels more slinky, easier.
4. One result of this is that when not bending, but just depressing the strings to the frets, more available string length beyond the nut and bridge means any sharpness in pitch from fretting a string is less, which may be good for guitarists preferring traditional jazz box action.
5. This is why Hendrix used right handed Strats strung to be played left handed to reverse the head stock, the opposite effect of above, giving the thin strings the least extra length section beyond the nut so that whammy bar motions would have the most dramatic effect on their tension (pitch) with the least displacement of the bar.

I think you left out a few critical physical factors, starting with the simple fact that steel strings are elastic. They will stretch under tension to a certain point short of breaking without significant permanent deformation, and they will return to their original dimensions when the tension is reduced within a limit too small to affect tuning or playability. In doing so, they also thin a tiny bit. How much they will stretch per force applied is measured and expressed by the terms in Young's Modulus of Elasticity. The overall changes in length and diameter of a string being bent are tiny - only the lateral displacement is enough to be visible. So:

1. I don't think that the physical concept of work applies here. Since the string returns to its original dimensions when back at open-tuned tension, no net work has been done. Energy is transferred from the finger to the string, but the formula for work does not include energy.
2. The amount of displacement depends at least as much on the modulus of elasticity of the string as it does on the other factors you cite. So the "amount of displacement of the bend" only depends in part "on the available string length...". Whether there's a shift of string material across nut and bridge saddle with bending has yet to be determined in any publishd work. I tried, but it's too small for me to measure on my own guitars without sensitive measurement equipment like an interferometer (which I don't have). Given the facts that the string itself stretches, the force is applied at a single point away from the end nodes at the nut and bridge, and the actual linear displacement is tiny compared to the lateral movement under your finger, there's probably no measurable linear movement of the string through the slots when bending. Also, the force of bending is applied laterally, and the slots will present more resistance to string movement through them from lateral force than from axial tension.
3. Work is the product of force times distance. So the longer the distance moved under the same force, the greater the work done.
4. Fretting pressure is vertical, but the added tension it puts on the string is axial. So there will be "more" shift of string mass through the slots at either end - but it's still a miniscule amount.
5. Hendrix used a righty guitar strung backwards because he couldn't afford to buy a lefty. Everything you say is correct about the effects of doing this. Other benefits cited include the fact that the pickup slants put the bridge pickup "treble" polepieces further fron the bridge, which adds a bit of fullness to the tone. But the reason he originally used a backwards righty was purely economic. He seems to have stuck with it because he had no need to change.

Yes, there are research papers on this, starting with this one entitled "String Theory - The Physics of String-Bending and Other Electric Guitar Techniques".

[RJVB]

I think you left out a few critical physical factors, starting with the simple fact that steel strings are elastic.

Of course they are, everything is elastic to a certain degree. But I've always understood that steel string elasticity is negligible in practical terms, contrary to composite strings. At least when you don't have a whammybigsbythingy.

Non-negligible string elasticity will do 2 things: reduce intonation errors due to fretting (see classical guitar action heights) and absorb much of your attempts at bending. I expect it also makes strings feel easier to play.

[pauln]

I think you left out a few critical physical factors, starting with the simple fact that steel strings are elastic. They will stretch under tension to a certain point short of breaking without significant permanent deformation, and they will return to their original dimensions when the tension is reduced within a limit too small to affect tuning or playability. In doing so, they also thin a tiny bit. How much they will stretch per force applied is measured and expressed by the terms in Young's Modulus of Elasticity. The overall changes in length and diameter of a string being bent are tiny - only the lateral displacement is enough to be visible. So:

1. I don't think that the physical concept of work applies here. Since the string returns to its original dimensions when back at open-tuned tension, no net work has been done. Energy is transferred from the finger to the string, but the formula for work does not include energy.
2. The amount of displacement depends at least as much on the modulus of elasticity of the string as it does on the other factors you cite. So the "amount of displacement of the bend" only depends in part "on the available string length...". Whether there's a shift of string material across nut and bridge saddle with bending has yet to be determined in any publishd work. I tried, but it's too small for me to measure on my own guitars without sensitive measurement equipment like an interferometer (which I don't have). Given the facts that the string itself stretches, the force is applied at a single point away from the end nodes at the nut and bridge, and the actual linear displacement is tiny compared to the lateral movement under your finger, there's probably no measurable linear movement of the string through the slots when bending. Also, the force of bending is applied laterally, and the slots will present more resistance to string movement through them from lateral force than from axial tension.
3. Work is the product of force times distance. So the longer the distance moved under the same force, the greater the work done.
4. Fretting pressure is vertical, but the added tension it puts on the string is axial. So there will be "more" shift of string mass through the slots at either end - but it's still a miniscule amount.
5. Hendrix used a righty guitar strung backwards because he couldn't afford to buy a lefty. Everything you say is correct about the effects of doing this. Other benefits cited include the fact that the pickup slants put the bridge pickup "treble" polepieces further fron the bridge, which adds a bit of fullness to the tone. But the reason he originally used a backwards righty was purely economic. He seems to have stuck with it because he had no need to change.

Yes, there are research papers on this, starting with this one entitled "String Theory - The Physics of String-Bending and Other Electric Guitar Techniques".

I have been down the rabbit hole for a while... I read the paper and wrote a very long post attempting to untangle the confusion of his three different ways of describing the business part of the string and finally took a close look at the equations to clarify what they were assuming. The equations are "interesting"...

Vf is the fundamental frequency of the string's scale length
Vb is shown as the fundamental frequency of the string's scale length subject to a "bend" (think about that for a moment)

The open high E string has a fundamental frequency of about 330Hz
Bend that string at the 8th fret from C to C# about 550Hz
Now the fundamental being bent is C, not E

That "bend" in the equations is not a fretted bend because it continues to refer to its effect on the fundamental frequency:

"...the fundamental frequency of a bent string... ...is... Vb=..."

The bend in the equations is applied not at a single location on the string, but as if by a field (gravity, magnetism, strong wind?) that does not "stop" the string, so its vibrating string length remains its scale length, the whole length vibrates, and the bend raises the fundamental frequency totally unlike fretting and bending a string which divides the string into a vibrating and non-vibrating length.

I'm still thinking about it...

[wzpgsr]

I have been down the rabbit hole for a while... I read the paper and wrote a very long post attempting to untangle the confusion of his three different ways of describing the business part of the string and finally took a close look at the equations to clarify what they were assuming. The equations are "interesting"...

Vf is the fundamental frequency of the string's scale length
Vb is shown as the fundamental frequency of the string's scale length subject to a "bend" (think about that for a moment)

The open high E string has a fundamental frequency of about 330Hz
Bend that string at the 8th fret from C to C# about 550Hz
Now the fundamental being bent is C, not E

That "bend" in the equations is not a fretted bend because it continues to refer to its effect on the fundamental frequency:

"...the fundamental frequency of a bent string... ...is... Vb=..."

The bend in the equations is applied not at a single location on the string, but as if by a field (gravity, magnetism, strong wind?) that does not "stop" the string, so its vibrating string length remains its scale length, the whole length vibrates, and the bend raises the fundamental frequency totally unlike fretting and bending a string which divides the string into a vibrating and non-vibrating length.

I'm still thinking about it...

Whatever the underlying physics may be, I’m glad you are drawing a distinction between string tension and feel. Proper feel is probably subjective, but I’ve parted with nice guitars if the strings felt either too loose or too stiff. It’s a mystery to me, and when I’ve discussed with luthiers, there doesn’t seem to be broad consensus on how to alter a guitar’s feel, despite the scale length, string gauge, etc. and other variables being presumably equal.

[supersoul]

I found that the D string is just barely long enough to get 2 full turns on the sting post of my Epiphone Emperor Regent.

One other tip,: DO NOT tighten down the locking pin on locking tuners as it will damage the outer wraps and usually break the inner core. The result is that the string will come unwrapped!

With locking tuners the strings should have less than 1 turn at most. You pull the string through the hole so that it has some gentle tension, then turn the locking mechanism until it's finger tight. When you tune the string up to pitch it might go 1/2 to 3/4 turn around the peg, and that's just fine.

In general less wraps are better for tuning stability. Less wraps means less ways the string can get caught up. Without locking tuners just wrap once around the post, stick the string through the hole so that it comes out with the wrapped string is on top, then as you add tension have the rest of the string come in below so that the string through the hole is sandwiched between the two wraps.

[RJVB]

In general less wraps are better for tuning stability. Less wraps means less ways the string can get caught up.

I've never really noticed a difference. Now that I have a 0 fret on my archtop I've begun to get more wraps onto the posts so as to get a little steeper break angle at the peg-side exit off the nut. *Maybe* strings take a tad longer to settle when 1st installed, but I keep them tight by hand when making those 1st wraps around the peg.
I already did it with the plain wires: I'm convinced that letting them come off a wider part of the peg reduces metal fatigue from tuning and this the risk of strings breaking when you need to take the tension off. I learned this with my nylon-strung resonator btw: even nylon strings don't like to be wound on thin pegs, and the thinner ones tend to snap around where they come off such pegs.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

I'm convinced that letting them come off a wider part of the peg reduces metal fatigue from tuning and this the risk of strings breaking when you need to take the tension off.

But the diameter of the post also affects the effective tuning ratio. There's less linear excursion of the string when wrapped around the thinnest part than around the thickest part because one turn of the key turns the post through the same arc no matter how big the post is. The larger the diameter is, the longer the circumference and the further the string is pulled per degree of rotation. So it takes more care when tuning to make fine adjustments accurately.

I don't think I've ever had a string break within the coils wrapped around the post.

[RJVB]

So it takes more care when tuning to make fine adjustments accurately.

I don't think I've ever had a string break within the coils wrapped around the post.

The difference (in tuning rate) is minimal in my experience, at least with the rate on the tuners on my guitar. In fact, I probably overshoot less, which used to be a real issue (turn, turn, nothing happening, let's give it a bigger turn, oops too far).

I also don't recall having a string break in the coils around the post (except maybe when trying to reuse a high E), which makes sense because they're not being bent/unbent regularly. What did happen to me was new 1st strings breaking when just losening them, around the point where it came (used to come) off the peg. Has to be metal fatigue, IMHO.

IMHO those "wasp waists" on peg heads are chiefly to get a better lock (through a sharper kink where the string goes through the hole). The Grover StaTites I have on my guitar also exist with pegs that don't have this waist.

[John A.]

Whatever the underlying physics may be, I’m glad you are drawing a distinction between string tension and feel. Proper feel is probably subjective, but I’ve parted with nice guitars if the strings felt either too loose or too stiff. It’s a mystery to me, and when I’ve discussed with luthiers, there doesn’t seem to be broad consensus on how to alter a guitar’s feel, despite the scale length, string gauge, etc. and other variables being presumably equal.

A few thoughts come to mind:

1. Scale-length is not always as labeled. Gibson calls the scale-length of its guitars 24-3/4", but most of their electrics are actually a little shorter than this (either 24-9/16" or 24-5/8" depending on model and year). This is a result of changes they made in how they calculate fret spacing. They use an archaic rule of thumb that rounds one of the terms in the formula to an integer. This results in a shorter overall length than if the term is rounded to a couple of decimal places. For some reason they made this change in the late 50s. Some other manufactures copy Gibson exactly, and some others do their own calculation to greater precision, even including Epiphone. You can check this by measuring the distance from the nut to the 12th fret and doubling this. So you could have two nominal 24-3/4" scale guitars, only one of which actually is 24-3/4". That one will have slightly higher string tension than the other, which you may or may not notice in play-feel. A luthier can't fix this. All you can do is buy guitars that have the actual scale-length you prefer.

2. If the hypothesis that more string length beyond the bridge and nut = less effort to fret but more distance to achieve the same pitch change when bending, you should be able to alter that aspect of feel a little by changing tailpiece length on a trapeze or break angle over the bridge on a stop-tail.

3. Other aspects of neck dimensions affect how the neck fits your hand, which affect to play-feel. A luthier could in theory shave down a thicker neck. Fingerboard radius probably has an effect as well (and nominally identical radii on different guitars may actually be different).

[pauln]

A few thoughts come to mind:

1. Scale-length is not always as labeled. Gibson calls the scale-length of its guitars 24-3/4", but most of their electrics are actually a little shorter than this (either 24-9/16" or 24-5/8" depending on model and year). This is a result of changes they made in how they calculate fret spacing. They use an archaic rule of thumb that rounds one of the terms in the formula to an integer. This results in a shorter overall length than if the term is rounded to a couple of decimal places. For some reason they made this change in the late 50s. Some other manufactures copy Gibson exactly, and some others do their own calculation to greater precision, even including Epiphone. You can check this by measuring the distance from the nut to the 12th fret and doubling this. So you could have two nominal 24-3/4" scale guitars, only one of which actually is 24-3/4". That one will have slightly higher string tension than the other, which you may or may not notice in play-feel. A luthier can't fix this. All you can do is buy guitars that have the actual scale-length you prefer.

2. If the hypothesis that more string length beyond the bridge and nut = less effort to fret but more distance to achieve the same pitch change when bending, you should be able to alter that aspect of feel a little by changing tailpiece length on a trapeze or break angle over the bridge on a stop-tail.

3. Other aspects of neck dimensions affect how the neck fits your hand, which affect to play-feel. A luthier could in theory shave down a thicker neck. Fingerboard radius probably has an effect as well (and nominally identical radii on different guitars may actually be different).

Good points; the experience and expectation of the hands is so often left out in these matters. I have been trying to get my jazz box to feel playable for a while. I have put big flats (w3) and raised the bridge to a comical height, yet the action remains absurdly low and the strings are excessively slinky... I can't play it yet, it feels like an air guitar. My main guitar (old Strat) feels absolutely perfect in every way, yet the action is visibly high and the strings (max gauge that will fit through the nut) firmly tight.

In the world of electronics/mechanics there is impedance and the importance of matching impedance when transferring power. In the guitarists' world of playing hands, "power" is all about application of forces with speed, accuracy, precision, timing, control, finesse, economy, etc..., not brute force... intelligent (mostly subconscious) mechanical dynamic control.

My hand feels sort of "blind" over a plane of strings without any depth of action (although how my hand "knows" the finger board is not visual but tactile). Maybe playing the same guitar for almost 35 years does that in a way that having a played collection or changing through a series of different ones over the years doesn't.