[Xplora]

Hey guys, I'm new. Lurked a bit in the past, I find the people here to really know their stuff. A unique community when it comes to expanded ideas on guitar.

I'm fishing for some ideas and toying with the idea of having an 8 string built. I currently use a 2001 Ibanez 7421 which I've just been amazed with for the price for years now. (Cost me about 300 US brand new). Better than the Universes on all counts, but moving along...

Here is what I was thinking...

Metal styled body, most likely a V based closely on the BC Rich Jr V.
8 strings, tuned to major thirds
Ab - a bit lower than Korn's low A
C
E - normal low E on a guitar
Ab
C
E
Ab
C

So the top C is a "baritone" tuned string, more or less.

Probably a 27" scale. Small hands. LOL
Mahogany wings with an Ebony top
Mahogany/Maple or Mahogany/Ebony neck with scalloped ebony fretboard.
Stainless steel frets

I want a super tight low end, but with a lot of that wonderful broad mahogany growl. I also want a highly stable neck that is pretty thin (definitely no thicker than 19mm). And not too heavy and very balanced

Now, some points I'm considering...
-I don't know how stable I need the neck to be or if its possible given my specs.
-I don't know how much concern I need for low end tightness with wood choice - Ab doesn't seem very low to me. I've been using Blaze's tuned standard with a drop A for months and its plenty tight with crap basswood and crap dimarzios. I use a 66 with 10-52s right now.
-I need more tension in my treble strings right now! LOL A bigger scale is totally necessary!
-Headstock design is beyond me. Can't steal the Widow headstock, so where from there?
-is an ebony top insane? It would look pretty
-What about body shape? I lurrrve the Explorer obviously, but I don't think it would look any good with an 8 string. V has symmetry in its favour...
-how do you cope with pickups and hardware?
-I was thinking that a peizo bridge might be possible as well, for acoustic cleans although the Vamp's clean acoustic emulations are VERY nice...
-Chambered wings? And what about with an ebony top?
Lastly, putting 28 frets on it seems like a good idea (to get that final high E). Do "middle position" neck pickup sounds work OK?

I'm open to suggestions. Obviously I'm really pushing the limits of patience but this is a project that could see reality all too soon. Too many woodworkers in the family since I married

[xwmucradiox]

Im waiting on a Blackmachine B2 which will have an oiled ebony top. You will have two issues: Finding a large wide piece of ebony to bookmatch will be difficult and therefore expensive. I have seen them on Benavente basses ($5000) and Blackmachine guitars ($3300). You will also need to keep the top very thin (1/8") to prevent extreme brightness and weight. The benefit is that you can get away with a nice oil finish but a clear gloss finish will probably take away from the beauty and just look like a streaky black stain.

[Xplora]

Had a look at the Blackmachine site... its probably not a bad template to work from. I didn't want a thick ebony top, just something for the colour. I'd want guitar satin gloss finished though. Too much risk for the weather and my sweat is not good for instruments. The rust around my Ibanez's bridge is scary. Plus I'm not very attentive to things like oiling. If the ibanez rust was bad, our oiled chopping board would make you cry...

[Durero]

Glancing at your specs, I'd definitely make it a 9-string. Your tuning scheme is perfect for that - just add your high E and you've got 3 sets of major 3rds spanning 3 octaves. I'd very much recommend using a multi-scale (fanned-fret) design - you could keep a 27" scale for the low Ab and use a regular 25.5" for the high E. This is a very subtle fan, and I'd bet that you'd find it more comfortable than straight frets, especially if you've got smaller hands.

I've got a 9-string 28.5" Ergo guitar and the neck is extremely comfortable. I always tune it strictly in 4ths, but between you & ElRay talking about major 3rds I think I'll give that tuning a try.

Good luck with your project, and keep us informed.

[Xplora]

OK I'm a real newb when it comes to things like fanned frets, not to mention the sheer intensity of 9 strings. I feel that if I was that needy for full string to octave octave coverage, I would just stay with a 6 and let the bass do some work (I don't use the wound strings much past the 12th fret). Having 28 frets on the high C accesses all the notes, surely that's enough!

Most of the reason I'm liking the major thirds tuning is basically a motionless octave (a chromatic requires zero position moves), so how does the fanning interfere with that? (or does the term interact make it sound better? hehee). I kind of like the idea of a baritone'd set of treble strings, I LOVE the resonance and richness of a tight string. Eb sounds cool, but E has better tone! And how are you supposed to mute all your strings if your right hand is on the bridge for palm mutes (I'm a Suffocation/Nile type dude, not an Yngwie).

[Durero]

My thinking on making it a 9-string is that it'll get you your high E string back, and also that you'd have this beautiful symmetry in your tuning with three complete sets of three strings in 3rds: (low pitch to high) Ab1 C2 E2, Ab2 C3 E3, Ab3 C4 E4. Personally, if I was designing a guitar around that tuning, I wouldn't be able to resist having a 9th string. It would give you 4 octaves of range in 1 position, with the ease of a non-shifting chromatic scale as you say. In this way, I think I'd find it easier to play than an 8 string version.

I'm a huge fan of fanned-frets (pardon the bad pun ) because of the great clarity of tone and even tension they create, as well as the playing comfort for your fretting hand.

The fanned specs I suggested were to make the high (pitched) E feel normal and very bendable if you like that traditional feel, but a 27" scale for the high E is no problem - it's the same as taking a regular 25.5" scale and tuning your high E up 1 semitone to F - nice & tight indeed

A 25.5" to 27" fan extremely subtle, and I doubt either your fretting or picking hand would notice much difference between that and straight frets - probably just a little more comfortable for both hands. Having the bridge at a slight angle actually makes palm-muting easier and more comfortable than a straight bridge, especially for a large number of strings (7, 8, 9, etc.) And for your fretting hand, having to reach across 8 or 9 strings will ensure that your thumb is behind the neck in the 'classical position', and the fan of the frets matches the way your fingers 'fan' apart when you play which is subtle but more comfortable than straight frets imo.

My 7-string has a much greater degree of 'fanning': 32" to 36" scales. I find it extremely comfortable and will never go back to straight frets on any instrument I design for myself.

[Xplora]

"Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter"

I'm trying to conceive of a 9 string guitar that I would actually be able to play. I presume that you have to squeeze the strings at the nut a bit to make it physically reasonable to play? I feel that I'd be pushed to my absolute limit with 8 strings. I guess I don't feel so attached to my high E, its just not that much of an issue to me. I think the guitar could sit in my palm as an 8 string, whereas my first finger lacks the length to reach a 9th string without some stretching.

I'm looking for the low Ab because I listen to a lot of Nile, and my own music requires the access to the depth that the string offers. High stuff is less relevent IMO, and this guitar would probably accompany a normal E-E with a drop A 7th string as well (diminished chord acoustic passages aren't the same on the different tuning).

I like the fanning idea. How does one start thinking about where to have the perpendicular fret? I've always found a G major scale to be the easiest scale from the 3rd fret, three notes a string, to play... would that impact where my fan should be from? Let's just say that actually playing a fanned fret guitar is not going to be an option in Australia.

I was thinking about the fanning and scale and I think a 27 to 30 inch fan would be the ticket. Using Ernie Ball Regular Slinky (10-13-17-26-36-46) with a 56 low C and 66 Low Ab - I'm thinking in terms of availability more than anything else - I reckon this could be a reasonable enough compromise for deep tunings, skinny but tight strings - I like crunch! - and reasonable scale for playing length.

I was only thinking about the fanning last night that it should make the normal fretting of simple chords (such as a xx3223x) easier, not more difficult, in the lower frets? That your hand just rotates with the fan?

Sorry about the long post, you've gotten me thinking much more about how all this comes together!

[Durero]

Originally Posted by Xplora

"Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter"

Originally Posted by Xplora

I'm trying to conceive of a 9 string guitar that I would actually be able to play. I presume that you have to squeeze the strings at the nut a bit to make it physically reasonable to play? I feel that I'd be pushed to my absolute limit with 8 strings. I guess I don't feel so attached to my high E, its just not that much of an issue to me. I think the guitar could sit in my palm as an 8 string, whereas my first finger lacks the length to reach a 9th string without some stretching.

Certainly an important issue. I've got a 9-string and a 10-string both made by Ergo in California and the total width at both the bridge and nut is wider on the 9 than it is on the 10. So the 10 has a very tight string spacing and the 9 feels much more roomy. I'm a classical guitar guy so I'm very used to strictly having my fretting-hand thumb centered in the back of the neck, so I find reaching over to the 9th or 10th string to be no problem at all on either instrument. But I hear your concern - when I was designing my 7-string fanned-fret prototype I made a simple mockup of the neck using a thin piece of wood with the frets & strings drawn on with a pencil. It really allowed me to try fingering scales & chords before committing to the real thing - and the results felt exactly as I imagined they would from the mockup. Even a piece of cardboard would do the trick - I'd recommend trying it.

Originally Posted by Xplora

I'm looking for the low Ab because I listen to a lot of Nile, and my own music requires the access to the depth that the string offers. High stuff is less relevent IMO, and this guitar would probably accompany a normal E-E with a drop A 7th string as well (diminished chord acoustic passages aren't the same on the different tuning).

I was thinking about the fanning and scale and I think a 27 to 30 inch fan would be the ticket. Using Ernie Ball Regular Slinky (10-13-17-26-36-46) with a 56 low C and 66 Low Ab - I'm thinking in terms of availability more than anything else - I reckon this could be a reasonable enough compromise for deep tunings, skinny but tight strings - I like crunch! - and reasonable scale for playing length.

I tune the lowest string on my fanned 7 to that same Ab - with a 36" scale it sounds clear as a bell and is nice and tight even with a string as thin as a .048" gage. So yes, definitely the longer the scale the better in terms of a clear tone & tight feel. I think your 27" to 30" fan would be excellent, and you'd be very happy with the tone of your low Ab.

Originally Posted by Xplora

I like the fanning idea. How does one start thinking about where to have the perpendicular fret? I've always found a G major scale to be the easiest scale from the 3rd fret, three notes a string, to play... would that impact where my fan should be from? Let's just say that actually playing a fanned fret guitar is not going to be an option in Australia.

Ah you're in Australia, damn, I was going to suggest that if happened to live anywhere close to my area you'd be welcome to come for a visit & try my guitars. Oh well, if your ever flying over here let me know. But in the mean time there's a fantastic Australian builder who goes by DPM here and runs Oni guitars.
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/members/dpm.html

He's already built an 8-string fanned fret beauty for another member here. Check out the pics in this thread: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/extended-range-guitars/2879-oni-guitars.html

To help layout your fanned fret specs and choose which fret you'd like to be the perpendicular one, make sure you get to know this great online program which will spit out fretboard diagrams with all the dimensions according to any specs you choose: http://www.fretfind.ekips.org/2d/nonparallel.php

Originally Posted by Xplora

I was only thinking about the fanning last night that it should make the normal fretting of simple chords (such as a xx3223x) easier, not more difficult, in the lower frets? That your hand just rotates with the fan?

I'd say so yes. The frets kind of splay outwards the same way your fingers do when you hold your wrist below the neck (which you'd probably be forced to do anyway with that many strings.) As I love to say, I'll never go back to straight frets - the fan is so much more comfortable.

Another point which many who don't play long scales are not aware of is that the longer the scale, the easier it is to press the strings down to the frets. This is because the perceived tension on each string feels exponentially tighter as you approach the nut (or bridge, but of course there's no frets at the bridge) and on a longer scale guitar there is a greater distance from the nut to the first fret. So it feels like you have much lower action than you actually do, compared to a regular scale guitar.

Originally Posted by Xplora

Sorry about the long post, you've gotten me thinking much more about how all this comes together!

Well here's one right back at you! I obsess over these design issues every day, so I'm very happy to discuss them with anyone who'll listen . I'm currently working on a trem design for my next prototype which will be a 9-string tuned in all 4ths. Keep me informed of your thinking and whatever steps you decide to take on your instrument - I think there's nothing like playing a guitar which you conceived out of your own imagination.

[Durero]

Oh one more thought about choosing the perpendicular fret - if you choose the 12th fret then the angle of your nut and bridge will be perfectly symmetrical - if you have the exact same string spacing at both ends (no string taper.) But most guitars do have some taper with a narrower spacing at the nut than at the bridge. So then the 11th or 10th fret being perpendicular will get you a symmetrical nut & bridge angle.

However, many fanned-fret players prefer to have the bridge at a steeper angle than the nut - this feels very natural for damping & palm-muting with your picking hand, and makes barring across the strings easier at the first fret because of the shallower angle. Again, consulting that Fretfind 2D program mentioned above will allow you to tweak this to your liking.

(and you can never make too many fretboard mockups!)

[Xplora]

Well I feel pretty sold on a fanned fret setup. Just a matter of getting a few fretboard cardboard blanks and having a play around with that.

Still floating a bit on the wood selection. It has to have mahogany in the body, it just has to. Best tonewood for my purposes ever. EMG 81 plus Mahogany is a sound that I will never tire of, too many of my favourite bands used that combo. But I need to step out a bit as well, which is why I've considered the ebony top and laminate neck. Bit more brightness into the sound. But I've been told elsewhere that I'd be wasting my time with the ebony? I kinda felt that an ebony top would go pretty well, even if it was only maccassar ebony. Pretty it up a bit. I like maple too, oh the decisions! (A flame maple fretboard and top over a maple/mahogany laminate neck could be an acceptable alternative I suppose).

(BTW, fanned frets plus scallops sound OK?) - What have I created?

[Durero]

Originally Posted by Xplora

Well I feel pretty sold on a fanned fret setup. Just a matter of getting a few fretboard cardboard blanks and having a play around with that.

Right on!

Originally Posted by Xplora

Still floating a bit on the wood selection. It has to have mahogany in the body, it just has to. Best tonewood for my purposes ever. EMG 81 plus Mahogany is a sound that I will never tire of, too many of my favourite bands used that combo. But I need to step out a bit as well, which is why I've considered the ebony top and laminate neck. Bit more brightness into the sound. But I've been told elsewhere that I'd be wasting my time with the ebony? I kinda felt that an ebony top would go pretty well, even if it was only maccassar ebony. Pretty it up a bit. I like maple too, oh the decisions! (A flame maple fretboard and top over a maple/mahogany laminate neck could be an acceptable alternative I suppose).

I think if you can get a thin enough slice of ebony you could have the aesthetic beauty of it without adding too much weight. My fanned 7 has an ebony fingerboard which pretty much dominates the appearance of the guitar because it's so big. I've got alder body wings capped with flamed maple which is stained black to match the ebony.

Originally Posted by Xplora

(BTW, fanned frets plus scallops sound OK?) - What have I created?

I absolutely love the feel of scalloped fingerboards, but I much prefer to achieve this using extra-tall stainless steel frets rather than cutting the wood away. This guy (TK Instruments) has a very cool fret design which achieves this:
http://www.tkinstruments.com/id17.htm
He claims that scalloping weakens the neck structure so he implants steel rods for frets instead.

But if scalloping is your preference then I'd say just ask your builder how they feel about doing it; probably would depend on their experience with both scalloping & fanning.

[dpm]

There's too much to say here, and I'm too lazy to say it

Thanks for the props Durero, your work also kicks ass

Xplora, where in Aus are you??

[Xplora]

I'm in Sydney, dpm.

Getting a lot of good ideas and research material guys... appreciate the support a lot!

[dpm]

Cool. I'm in Brisbane. I might end up visiting Sydney at some point soon, if it happens I'll post here at sevenstring.org to organise a meeting.

Basically, everything Durero is saying is correct. Multiscale fretboards are a lot more ergonomic. Regarding string spacing, I find it very important to keep things within the familiar realm. IE, a wide neck with a similar spacing between strings to standard will feel more comfortable than a narrow neck with tight spacing. Obviously there are limits to this, but use your common sense and you should be fine.

[Xplora]

I had a look at the TK instruments site. Definitely a good "lazy man" design, with no radius at all to complicate things (esp for a fanned fretboard). Whether or not its practical to do this with my guitar remains to be seen. I like his jumbo frets idea. It seems to be the normal approach to get that non touching feel.

dpm, where do you source your stuff from? Got a couple links but nothing with the normal USA guitar species.

[Durero]

Originally Posted by Xplora

I had a look at the TK instruments site. Definitely a good "lazy man" design, with no radius at all to complicate things

Perhaps this is just an issue of taste, but I'm definitely with the TK guy on the radius issue. Maybe it's just because I'm used to no radius from playing classical guitar, but just can't feel or even imagine any functional benefit to having a curved fingerboard. I think I've ranted about this in another thread so I'll stop with that, but I'm in complete agreement with TK on why zero radius is better.


I really like the TK extended range designs - the multi-scale fretboards & 4ths or 5ths tuning schemes. Interesting 9-strings on there as well. Although they don't match Oni for shear beauty imo.

[dpm]

I don't fully support the zero radius thing for one reason - if you have no radius on the board then the top of the strings form a kind of reverse radius due to the increasing diameters.

Been thinking about trying a fretboard that is flat on the treble side but slightly radiused on the bass side, so that across the top of the strings the result is a flat plane.

[Durero]

Originally Posted by dpm

I don't fully support the zero radius thing for one reason - if you have no radius on the board then the top of the strings form a kind of reverse radius due to the increasing diameters.

Ah cool, that's an excellent point. I visualize the increasing diameters as forming more of a sloped plane rather than reverse radius, but that's also a reflection of my design choices of a big fan and wide string spacing.

I still prefer the zero radius and I think a subtle reverse radius feel caused by the varying string gages is actually advantageous for most playing techniques - especially scale & chord playing & string skipping - but is obviously not helpful for barring over 3 or more strings. However, the barring problem is solved for me by combining the flat fretboard with very tall frets, making it easy to get contact with the strings all along the edge of my finger.

Originally Posted by dpm

Been thinking about trying a fretboard that is flat on the treble side but slightly radiused on the bass side, so that across the top of the strings the result is a flat plane.

A very cool idea and a subtle refinement that would probably be perfect for many players - good thinking!

[ElRay]

Originally Posted by Durero

My thinking on making it a 9-string is that it'll get you your high E string back, and also that you'd have this beautiful symmetry in your tuning with three complete sets of three strings in 3rds: (low pitch to high) Ab1 C2 E2, Ab2 C3 E3, Ab3 C4 E4. Personally, if I was designing a guitar around that tuning, I wouldn't be able to resist having a 9th string.

GRRRRR! I don't even have my first build built, and already I'm re-thinking the design of #2 -- Which was #1 but became #2 after I realized that for the price of hardware alone, I could buy both Donnie and Dorkie.

Funny how thoughts converge. I haven't yet bought a long scale 7, so I haven't really played with my A-to-A in Major 3rds idea yet, so I've had more time to think about it. After the single-string-capo diversion in another thread, I decided I'd drop everything by a half step, so I could get A, D and E drones, if I needed them, with at most two slightly modified "3 String" capos. I could even use two "Third Hand Capos", but they make the other strings at those frets inaccessible.

Ray

Originally Posted by Durero

I think I've ranted about this in another thread so I'll stop with that, but I'm in complete agreement with TK on why zero radius is better.

Ahh, that's infinite radius my friend.

Ray

[Durero]

Originally Posted by ElRay

Ahh, that's infinite radius my friend.

Man what a bunch of nerds we are

[Xplora]

Had a play around with a string tension calculator today, and apart from the fact that it was difficult to use, it shows up some pretty serious flaws in my current design plan. I'm probably going to need to aim towards a much smaller fan (probably 2 inches).

[Durero]

Yah the user interface is crude to say the least, but why would you need a smaller fan? What are these flaws of which you speak?

[Xplora]

And after an even more careful examination, it seems that I'm just going to get really annoyed looking at the string tension calculators when I'm coming down with the flu. I mean, I thought these things were supposed to make things easier?

I'm trying to approximate a normal high E string, 10 gauge, with a detuned C note, and get roughly the same tension as with a normal "E". If my goal was to get a fairly even tension across all strings, I don't see how a fanned fret guitar is going to help that when I have fairly "normal" tensions in the bass strings already, and I need more tension in my trebles? If anything I need less tension in my bass strings?

[Durero]

I ran some calculations for you based on your 8-string, 3rds tuning, and 27" to 30" multi-scale.

I assumed that 10's are what you're used to and ran the calculator at 25.5" scale to get an average string tension for this set. (You can see from the results how uneven tension traditional string sets are )

Originally Posted by String Tension Calculator

len 25.5"

E4 .010" PL == 16.21#
B3 .013" PL == 15.38#
G3 .017" PL == 16.57#
D3 .026" NW == 18.41#
A2 .036" NW == 19.54#
E2 .046" NW == 17.48#
total == 103.59#

I chose 16#(lbs.) as a tension input for each string to get a custom gage even-tension string set for you at the multiple scales of your 27-30" fan.

Originally Posted by String Tension Calculator

len 27"
C4 16# PL == 0.0118"
len 27.42857143"
A3b 16# PL == 0.0147"
len 27.85714286"
E3 16# PL == 0.0182"
len 28.28571429"
C3 16# NW == 0.0245"
len 28.71428572"
A2b 16# NW == 0.0301"
len 29.14285715"
E2 16# NW == 0.0382"
len 29.57142858"
C2 16# NW == 0.0479"
len 30"
A1b 16# NW == 0.0588"

So an 8 string set with the following gages should give you a very even feel across the neck:
plain: .012 .015 .018
wound: .024 .030 .038 .048 .059
(all rounded off)

Just cut & paste the above quote into the calculator and fiddle with the tension values you want to get the appropriate string gages.

For example, I prefer the wound strings to have a touch more tension than the plain ones, so here's the results with 16# for the plain and 18# for the wound strings:

Originally Posted by String Tension Calculator

len 27"
C4 16# PL == 0.0118"
len 27.42857143"
A3b 16# PL == 0.0147"
len 27.85714286"
E3 16# PL == 0.0182"
len 28.28571429"
C3 18# NW == 0.026"
len 28.71428572"
A2b 18# NW == 0.0322"
len 29.14285715"
E2 18# NW == 0.0405"
len 29.57142858"
C2 18# NW == 0.051"
len 30"
A1b 18# NW == 0.0624"

[Xplora]

Yeah its that custom gauge phrase that I'm extremely wary of. Can make strings extremely expensive to keep up with.

Actually Duerero, can you do that with a 28" to 30" fan? I'm not sure where you were getting the scale lengths from. That string set vaguely resembles a 10-52 set with an extra D string plus the 8th string....

len 28"
C4 15# PL == 0.011"
len 28.2845"
A3b 15# PL == 0.0138"
len 28.56942"
E3 15# PL == 0.0172"
len 28.85475"
C3 17# NW == 0.0247"
len 29.14049"
A2b 17# NW == 0.0307"
len 29.42662"
E2 17# NW == 0.039"
len 29.71313"
C2 17# NW == 0.0493"
len 30"
A1b 17# NW == 0.0605"

More calculations

len 28"
C4 .010" p == 12.32#
len 28.2845"
A3b .013" p == 13.38#
len 28.56942"
E3 .017" p == 14.71#
len 28.85475"
C3 0.024" n == 16.03#
len 29.14049"
A2b 0.030" n == 16.35#
len 29.42662"
E2 0.042" n == 19.67#
len 29.71313"
C2 0.052" n == 18.83#
len 30"
Ab1b 0.066" n ==

len 27"
C4 0.011" PL == 13.86#
len 27.42857143"
A3b 0.014" PL == 14.59#
len 27.85714286"
E3 0.018" PL == 15.68#
len 28.28571429"
C3 0.024" NW == 15.4#
len 28.71428572"
A2b 0.030" NW == 15.87#
len 29.14285715"
E2 0.039" NW == 16.69#
len 29.57142858"
C2 0.052 NW == 18.65#
len 30"
A1b 0.064" NW == 18.84#

Seems to be the best selection... Daddario MedHeavy Top/Heavy Bottom, with an extra 24 in the middle, a swapped out A string (39 instead of the 42) and the extra 64 on the bottom. I like a bit of meat on the low two anyways....

len 27.5"
C4 0.011" PL == 14.37#
len 27.8559"
A3b 0.014" PL == 15.05#
len 28.21225"
E3 0.018" PL == 16.08#
len 28.56901"
C3 0.024" NW == 15.71#
len 28.92619"
A2b 0.030" NW == 16.11#
len 29.28375"
E2 0.042" NW == 19.48#
len 29.64169"
C2 0.052 NW == 18.74#
len 30"
A1b 0.064" NW == 18.84#

Holy Doublemerged posts Batman!

OK. This one, with a design favouring a longer string on the bottom 3 strings? As in, perhaps an extended string through to help even out the feel?