# 25.5" Scale 8 string, what's wrong with it?



## Brohoodofsteel75 (Feb 5, 2012)

So I see an Agile intrepid pro dual 825 and I've been Playing 25.5" scale guitars forever, then I notice the Ltd H 308 and think geez! Gotta get me one soon! But I read that 25.5" is bad? Why is that? I like to bend when I play guitar so a 27" scale would be hard wouldn't it? Couldn't you slap an 82 gauge for the drop E and a 60 for b and normal for the Rest on the 25.5"? Anyway what are the pros and cons of the 25.5" and the pros and cons for the 27"?


----------



## ralphy1976 (Feb 5, 2012)

you have answered your question.

it is not "bad" per say, but you will have to increase your string gauge substantially to avoid floppiness.

increasing the scale length will allow you to use thinner strings, but will cause you to hate bending!!!


----------



## vampiregenocide (Feb 5, 2012)

It's not bad, but a lot of people (myself included) feel that baritone scales are more logical and practical for lower tunings.

They have increased tension which means your strings aren't flubby and loose. You can use thinner strings for lower tunings which are a little easier to play for some. Plus baritone scales give a tighter, brighter tone which really helps with such low notes. 

You can use a 25.5" scale 8 and just use thicker strings, but for me personally thicker strings aren't as easy to play especially for faster stuff, and they don't sound as good (in my opinion).

It's simply personal preference at the end of the day, but there's a reason baritone scales exist.


----------



## loktide (Feb 5, 2012)

the problem with 25,5" and a string tuned as low as F# (or lower) is that:

1. you won't be able to intonate/tune it properly

2. the tone will be VERY muddy on the lowest string. since longer scales tend to sound a bit more scooped in the low-mids and have overall better note definition.

3. string tension. as mentioned on the comments above, increasing scale length also increases string tension. this is often an undesired effect on the higher strings, but facilitates playability on the lower ones.

depending on your usage of the lowest string as well as tuning, you might get away with 25.5". for example tuning it up to G with a string gauge smaller than .70 should still work 'ok'.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Feb 5, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> It's simply personal preference at the end of the day, but there's a reason baritone scales exist.



This sums up the whole normal/baritone scale debate. I used to own an LTD FM-408, and I loved it. It played very well. More recently I got the chance to play an Agile Intrepid 828, and while I could tell the differences between the scales (tonality, feel), I can't say I prefer one way or the other. I'd really like to play a 27" scale 8-string, since that seems like the happy medium.



loktide said:


> the problem with 25,5" and a string tuned as low as F# (or lower) is that:
> 
> 1. you won't be able to intonate/tune it properly
> 
> 2. the tone will be VERY muddy on the lowest string. since longer scales tend to sound a bit more scooped in the low-mids and have overall better note definition.



I have not found these to be the case in my experience.


----------



## Don Vito (Feb 5, 2012)

OP, you might want to try a 26.5 8 string from say, Schecter.

It adds a little extra tension, without going to far from the usual scale. 27 is always a safe choice though.

Not my video but


And I think he's tuned half a step down here.


----------



## Brohoodofsteel75 (Feb 5, 2012)

Huh, ok I'm getting the reason for the 27" scale. So would putting lower gauge strings on the higher strings help with the bending issue or will I still have to bend further to get the note I want out?


----------



## Brohoodofsteel75 (Feb 5, 2012)

kennedyblake said:


> OP, you might want to try a 26.5 8 string from say, Schecter.
> 
> It adds a little extra tension, without going to far from the usual scale. 27 is always a safe choice though.
> 
> ...




Yeah Ive played the Schecter 8 stringers before, it felt nice and comfortable, Im just worried about the string spacing on it, it might be a little too close to actually enjoy owning. I've played on guitars with locking nuts for a long time so I still go to guitar center once a week to try their 8's to reassure myself that's what I want. Haha next time I'm bringing a strap and seeing how I did the feel if I were playing live.


----------



## Zonk Knuckle (Feb 5, 2012)

Yes, lighter gauges will help for bending. I used a custom set starting with a .007" when I had a 28.625 8 string, and bending was pretty easy.


----------



## kevdes93 (Feb 5, 2012)

25.5 is fine but it depends on your personal preference. my h-308 is 25.5 and i love the thing to death. i just like how a standard scale feels compared to 27"


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 5, 2012)

Errr those saying its not possible to intonate a 25.5 need to realize thats a shortcoming on their guitars! Its all about how much room your bridge has. There's a reason that hipshot sells shorter saddles!

*waits for explorer


----------



## Explorer (Feb 5, 2012)

@Stealth - Ninja'd because I got caught up in a phone call. *laugh*

----

At any tension and pitch, one needs to apply the same total sideways pressure to bend an identical amount. It doesn't take more force to deflect a string at A2 at 25.5" than A2 at 28.625", and if they are at the same tension initially, they'll increase the same amount in tension to reach the bent pitch. 

Lighter gauge strings don't mean lighter tension when you move to longer scale lengths. 

As for intonating lower pitches at shorter scale lengths, this can be a problem if the saddles don't allow enough movement. I can't correctly intonate C2 on a lot of Tune-o-matic bridges when I use full fifths tuning. Fortunately, my Agiles allowed me to replace the lowest bridge saddle with a shorter saddle from Hipshot. I was able to correctly intonate Bb0 at 25.5".

Using full-range active pickups eliminates any problems with muddiness at the low end. The current round of EMGs were developed after so many started using EMG bass pickups in their experimental ERG builds. EMG probably didnt decide to up the muddiness. *laugh*

The other side of that is that using sound reinforcement which doesn't cover those lower ranges is another factor leading to bad tone. 

Good luck!


----------



## TomAwesome (Feb 5, 2012)

If you really like the 25.5" scale, then it shouldn't give you any real problems. The only thing that would be a problem for me is that once strings get past .075" or so, they start to sound a bit more basslike than I like. Different pickups or rig settings can abate this, though, and a lot of people just prefer that sound, anyway.


----------



## Zonk Knuckle (Feb 5, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Using full-range active pickups eliminates any problems with muddiness at the low end.



I just want to say "eliminates" is the wrong word to use here.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 5, 2012)

You're right. Muddiness can also come from a dead string or a lack of tension. Thanks!


----------



## Zonk Knuckle (Feb 5, 2012)

That's not what I was saying. But, I think you know that. I was saying that full-range active pickups don't eliminate all problems with muddiness at the low end. Saying that makes active pickups sound like they have some magical quality, and it's misleading.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 5, 2012)

So, are you saying one of the following?



 A vibrating string is just naturally muddy once it gets past a certain size.
 All passive and active pickups are muddy on larger string sizes.
 The low strings on guitars and basses get muddy once you fret them at a scale length equal to 25.5" (equivalent to the second fret on a 28.625" guitar").
Regardless of your argued mechanism, I know you've been passionate about this in other topics. Start a topic specifically for this, and I'll contribute. As it is, the OP already knows that different people here have different opinions, and can do whatever further research they wish to see what credence they place where.


Back to topic. Cheers!


----------



## Zonk Knuckle (Feb 5, 2012)

Explorer said:


> So, are you saying one of the following?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As always, you fail to see the point. I was saying neither of those things. I'm sorry, but there's nothing more I can do to explain it to you. You've got to be the most irrational person I've encountered on this forum. Right next to your admirer stealthdjentdick.


----------



## djpharoah (Feb 5, 2012)

Zonk Knuckle said:


> As always, you fail to see the point. I was saying neither of those things. I'm sorry, but there's nothing more I can do to explain it to you. You've got to be the most irrational person I've encountered on this forum. Right next to your admirer stealthdjentdick.



*Consider this as a warning - we don't tolerate personal attacks on this site. Next one is a nap.*


----------



## nightflameauto (Feb 7, 2012)

I just wanted to interject that I use a 25.5" 8 string without difficulty. I have had it tuned all the way down to E with a .080. That's right on the edge of floppy. At F# it's fine.

Though I've been told over and over again that this is not possible, unacceptable, and utterly wrong, it works for me. Increase mids, decrease gain, and don't hit it quite as hard and it's nice and fat sounding.


----------



## Diggy (Feb 7, 2012)

It's just a matter of preference really.. the only problem is that you wont know what you prefer until you've played all scale lengths in question. Even after trying them, you may need alot more time with each guitar to know if each guitar works for you in whatever tunings you want to use.. which will then bring you to choosing string gauge and tension thats is comfortable to you.. then intonation probs "could" occur, depending on the bridge, tuning, string gauge, tension..

I think it would be safe to say that 27"+ will normally lead to the best overall feel, sound, and playability for low tunings. I couldnt imagine playing 25.5 or less tuned lower than F#.. May as well be playing a bass IMO.


----------



## Andrenighthound (Feb 7, 2012)

I'd say for you to go with a 27 28 or 30 inch scale. Leave the fender scale to when u play standard guitar. Once you play both a lot, you can go back and forth with little effort. Bass tones (generally) sounds better with a longer scale and people play 8 string guitars to get the extended bass notes. Good luck!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 7, 2012)

The only thing "wrong" with a normal scale 8 is that ppl don't unanimously love them. Then again that could be said for more or less ANY guitar.


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 6, 2022)

Actually they would have to make Special Strings & they have a Thicker Core wire to compensate for the shorter scale length. A Longer scale Length allows you to get away w/ thinner strings & a brighter sound, we can also use Fanned Fret Guitars.


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 6, 2022)

ralphy1976 said:


> you have answered your question.
> 
> it is not "bad" per say, but you will have to increase your string gauge substantially to avoid floppiness.
> 
> increasing the scale length will allow you to use thinner strings, but will cause you to hate bending!!!


That's no longer the case cause they've since improved them & they have a Special Flexible Octagonal Core.


----------



## CanserDYI (Oct 6, 2022)

Dude @Oscar Stern how is it possible you necrobump so many threads? Its wild my dude lol.


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 6, 2022)

CanserDYI said:


> Dude @Oscar Stern how is it possible you necrobump so many threads? Its wild my dude lol.


I have those instruments too. The technology for making strings is constantly improving so it really makes people more open minded than ever. What if Santa Cruz made these Types of Strings too? I think it would rock.


----------



## CanserDYI (Oct 6, 2022)

My guy what are you talking about?


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 6, 2022)

CanserDYI said:


> My guy what are you talking about?


It's about some Special Strings that are made in a way that's appropriate for a 25.5 in scale 8 string.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 6, 2022)

"Special Strings" sounds like a scam to me. Higher density and lower modulus of elasticity can make for strings with better low-frequency characteristics at lower tuning, but nickel steel is already about as dense and elastic as you're going to get without losing magnetic properties. Beware of anyone who has some secret ingredient in their strings that they are not willing to hint about, because it happens quite often that new companies will market their strings as "high tensile" or "high density" or "high fidelity" when they are just regular strings.


----------



## Kymatik (Oct 6, 2022)

Do you absolutely hammer the shit out of your low strings while riffing or are you playing with a light touch ? If it's the first I bet you will hate 25.5 like me, but if you play really soft it might work out without pitch bending the low string a semitone when you hit it (or using 90+ strings)


----------



## ixlramp (Oct 7, 2022)

Oscar Stern said:


> That's no longer the case cause they've since improved them & they have a Special Flexible Octagonal Core.


Perhaps you mean hexagonal cores? If not, who is making strings with octagonal cores? Can you post a link? How exactly does an octagonal core create an advantage?


----------



## Winspear (Oct 7, 2022)

ixlramp said:


> Perhaps you mean hexagonal cores? If not, who is making strings with octagonal cores? Can you post a link? How exactly does an octagonal core create an advantage?



It would be an 8.84% core mass increase over hex core (roundcore would be a 20.88% increase). I guess the tone would be somewhere between the two - I've heard of wrap instability from lack of core edge grip as an issue with roundcore construction so I guess the more mass you can get whilst retaining edges could be considered advantageous


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Oct 7, 2022)

Bongripper tunes Les Pauls to F with special strings boiled in 666-year-old bongwater.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Oct 8, 2022)

bostjan said:


> "Special Strings" sounds like a scam to me. Higher density and lower modulus of elasticity can make for strings with better low-frequency characteristics at lower tuning, but nickel steel is already about as dense and elastic as you're going to get without losing magnetic properties. Beware of anyone who has some secret ingredient in their strings that they are not willing to hint about, because it happens quite often that new companies will market their strings as "high tensile" or "high density" or "high fidelity" when they are just regular strings.



I tried two string company’s “higher tension at lower gauge strings” and there was no difference compared to the same tension strings from D’addario or Ernie Ball. Unless the technology behind strings has changed in recent years then I presume it’s the same marketing BS.


----------



## ixlramp (Oct 8, 2022)

ixlramp said:


> who is making strings with octagonal cores? Can you post a link? How exactly does an octagonal core create an advantage?


They actually exist! 
https://www.mapesstrings.com/octacore/
https://www.mapesstrings.com/product/octacore-acoustic-strings/
"Octacore Strings engage the wrap with 8 gentler points".
Perhaps these can provide some of the characteristics of roundcore while retaining some useful 'bite' into the wrap wire.


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 10, 2022)

Winspear said:


> It would be an 8.84% core mass increase over hex core (roundcore would be a 20.88% increase). I guess the tone would be somewhere between the two - I've heard of wrap instability from lack of core edge grip as an issue with roundcore construction so I guess the more mass you can get whilst retaining edges could be considered advantageous


Speaking of Octagonal Core Strings, Mapes makes those types of strings.


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 10, 2022)

Lorcan Ward said:


> I tried two string company’s “higher tension at lower gauge strings” and there was no difference compared to the same tension strings from D’addario or Ernie Ball. Unless the technology behind strings has changed in recent years then I presume it’s the same marketing BS.


Actually those are Prototype Strings from Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz supplies their Guitars w/ Special Strings.


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 10, 2022)

Lorcan Ward said:


> I tried two string company’s “higher tension at lower gauge strings” and there was no difference compared to the same tension strings from D’addario or Ernie Ball. Unless the technology behind strings has changed in recent years then I presume it’s the same marketing BS.


The String Making technology has since improved during the Covid19 Lockdown.


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 10, 2022)

ixlramp said:


> They actually exist!
> https://www.mapesstrings.com/octacore/
> https://www.mapesstrings.com/product/octacore-acoustic-strings/
> "Octacore Strings engage the wrap with 8 gentler points".
> Perhaps these can provide some of the characteristics of roundcore while retaining some useful 'bite' into the wrap wire.


That's the same company that also makes Piano Strings, such as those for the Yamaha CP-80 Electric Baby Grand Piano.


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 10, 2022)

I bumped into an interesting string type (I could only find it in Russian), the Hex wound strings. Basically Roundwounds in the shape of a Hexagon. There are 2 problems 1) the technology isn't yet advanced enough to have the wrap wire wind around the string in the shape of a hexagon, & 2) the corners would have to be sanded (or polished) smooth to prevent them from cutting into your fingers.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 10, 2022)

If I understand correctly, that the wrap conforms to the shape of the core, I would expect that to put an awful lot of stress on the vertices of the hexagon. But this sort of thing could be achieved more easily by grinding six flat surfaces after the string is wound - although, I have no idea what the purpose would be. I would think that playing strings with pointy ridges along their length would be uncomfortable, but maybe the effect is subtle enough that you can't really feel it.


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 10, 2022)

bostjan said:


> If I understand correctly, that the wrap conforms to the shape of the core, I would expect that to put an awful lot of stress on the vertices of the hexagon. But this sort of thing could be achieved more easily by grinding six flat surfaces after the string is wound - although, I have no idea what the purpose would be. I would think that playing strings with pointy ridges along their length would be uncomfortable, but maybe the effect is subtle enough that you can't really feel it.


Actually they've made it more comfortable by polishing the corners to make them rounded. The other thing is that the wrap wire is actually glued to the wrap wire via ultra-sticky super glue (it's 15 times as sticky as normal glue) so that it stays put. The purpose of those is to have the best tuning stability while being flexible. What they did rather cleverly to make them flexible is to make them compound wound just like Strings for bowed instruments.


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 10, 2022)

bostjan said:


> If I understand correctly, that the wrap conforms to the shape of the core, I would expect that to put an awful lot of stress on the vertices of the hexagon. But this sort of thing could be achieved more easily by grinding six flat surfaces after the string is wound - although, I have no idea what the purpose would be. I would think that playing strings with pointy ridges along their length would be uncomfortable, but maybe the effect is subtle enough that you can't really feel it.


The other thing is that they're working on an Octagonal Core version.


----------



## guitar_player4_2_0 (Oct 10, 2022)

Welp, just opened this thread here and liked a 10 year old post before realizing that was a 1 and not a 2.


----------



## dspellman (Oct 10, 2022)

Brohoodofsteel75 said:


> So I see an Agile intrepid pro dual 825 and I've been Playing 25.5" scale guitars forever, then I notice the Ltd H 308 and think geez! Gotta get me one soon! But I read that 25.5" is bad? Why is that? I like to bend when I play guitar so a 27" scale would be hard wouldn't it? Couldn't you slap an 82 gauge for the drop E and a 60 for b and normal for the Rest on the 25.5"? Anyway what are the pros and cons of the 25.5" and the pros and cons for the 27"?


Nothing wrong with an 8 string 25.5" scale if you like it. 

I'm leaning hard toward a multi scale 8-string headless like the Strandberg Sarah Longfield (which does not at all preclude bending). I think Agile probably has some headless 8 strings that would work well with your situation as well.


----------



## ixlramp (Oct 11, 2022)

This thread ...



Oscar Stern said:


> Actually those are Prototype Strings from Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz supplies their Guitars w/ Special Strings.


https://santacruzguitar.com/santa-cruz-parabolic-tension-strings/
Quotes:

"*Santa Cruz Strings* are engineered to do what others cannot, to put the exact tension on each individual string to create the appropriate download pressure."
This claims that no one else can fine tune the tensions of individual strings in a set.

"*Santa Cruz Strings* require precise core to wrap ratios and precision fit and finish for unprecedented tolerances of one half of one thousandths of an inch."
'One half of one thousandths of an inch' is .0005, the difference between a .009 and a .0095.
Even if this refers to the final full gauge of a wound, this means a tolerance that results in a .020 being anything between .0195 and .0205, which is a poor tolerance.
Apparently this tolerance is 'unprecedented' 

Either they do not know what they are doing, which is unlikely, or this is marketing that tries to impress non technically minded people by deceiving them.


Oscar Stern said:


> I bumped into an interesting string type (I could only find it in Russian), the Hex wound strings.


After the first time Oscar Stern claimed these exist i investigated that information on the WIkipedia page. It is a misunderstanding of a description of hex core strings.
Here's my investigation: https://www.sevenstring.org/threads/wound-vs-plain-string-tension.337378/post-5376490


----------



## CanserDYI (Oct 11, 2022)

I'm 99% sure Oscar Stern is some sort of bot or weird algorithm at this point.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 11, 2022)

Five ten-thousandths is pretty much the base level tolerance for a wound string anyway. I'd say that's nothing at all special for better or worse. Companies with a bigger production yield, like GHS, Ernie Ball, and D'Addario, for example, all have better tolerances than that, though.

A lot of companies, though, can make quality products, but their marketing departments don't speak the same language that engineers and engineering-adjacent people speak, so the marketing materials can come off sounding like they are selling a gas mask to a moose. I don't think that's necessarily a sign that the product is bad, but it's definitely not the sign that a product is good quality.

Regarding hex wrap strings, assuming for a moment that such a product would exist, what would be the advantage? A higher unit weight per unit thickness? But at the cost of higher internal stress within the wrap material and possible weird overtones that deviate from the harmonic series? It seems to me like a lot of effort put into something that would have no obvious purpose. Or am I missing the big idea here?


----------



## nightflameauto (Oct 11, 2022)

bostjan said:


> Five ten-thousandths is pretty much the base level tolerance for a wound string anyway. I'd say that's nothing at all special for better or worse. Companies with a bigger production yield, like GHS, Ernie Ball, and D'Addario, for example, all have better tolerances than that, though.
> 
> A lot of companies, though, can make quality products, but their marketing departments don't speak the same language that engineers and engineering-adjacent people speak, so the marketing materials can come off sounding like they are selling a gas mask to a moose. I don't think that's necessarily a sign that the product is bad, but it's definitely not the sign that a product is good quality.
> 
> Regarding hex wrap strings, assuming for a moment that such a product would exist, what would be the advantage? A higher unit weight per unit thickness? But at the cost of higher internal stress within the wrap material and possible weird overtones that deviate from the harmonic series? It seems to me like a lot of effort put into something that would have no obvious purpose. Or am I missing the big idea here?


More = better. I think that summarizes the logic completely.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 11, 2022)

nightflameauto said:


> More = better. I think that summarizes the logic completely.


Okay, but you started with a bigger string and then removed some material. So you ended up with less than how much string you had to start, right? Maybe, instead, make hex cores out of tungsten, so that the strings weigh a ton and are super strong, and wrap them with nickel steel, so that the strings still work with magnetic pickups, and then you have a string that costs a fortune for some sort of reason (never mind the details that young's modulus is going to offset any tonal gains from the increased density- those are just details, and details don't put money in your pocket when you are running a snake-oil product scam).

Where this sort of thing would really matter, anyway, is with bass. Why? Because guitar, even tuned super low, is still going to be tuned higher than bass, in the same context, and the high gain tone of the guitar will cover up a lot of the mud in the tone. But the bass sounds better clean and bright and snappy, but when we are talking about an instrument that people are scared to death to extend the scale more than 35", are afraid to have any other tuning than an octave lower than the guitar, and generally agree sounds like the water at the bottom of a hot dumpster with too much distortion- that's where you would benefit the most from strings that sound brighter and clearer. So that's why bass strings use things like double winding, and you see more varieties of materials on the market. But if there's some incredible new technology that allows lower tuning without losing fidelity, and it's being applied to guitar strings but not bass strings, that, right there, tells me that the technology is likely a sham.


----------



## nightflameauto (Oct 11, 2022)

bostjan said:


> Okay, but you started with a bigger string and then removed some material. So you ended up with less than how much string you had to start, right? Maybe, instead, make hex cores out of tungsten, so that the strings weigh a ton and are super strong, and wrap them with nickel steel, so that the strings still work with magnetic pickups, and then you have a string that costs a fortune for some sort of reason (never mind the details that young's modulus is going to offset any tonal gains from the increased density- those are just details, and details don't put money in your pocket when you are running a snake-oil product scam).
> 
> Where this sort of thing would really matter, anyway, is with bass. Why? Because guitar, even tuned super low, is still going to be tuned higher than bass, in the same context, and the high gain tone of the guitar will cover up a lot of the mud in the tone. But the bass sounds better clean and bright and snappy, but when we are talking about an instrument that people are scared to death to extend the scale more than 35", are afraid to have any other tuning than an octave lower than the guitar, and generally agree sounds like the water at the bottom of a hot dumpster with too much distortion- that's where you would benefit the most from strings that sound brighter and clearer. So that's why bass strings use things like double winding, and you see more varieties of materials on the market. But if there's some incredible new technology that allows lower tuning without losing fidelity, and it's being applied to guitar strings but not bass strings, that, right there, tells me that the technology is likely a sham.


I make zee jokez.

Honestly, this whole conversation feels instigated by crazy and way out there. I know folks really like to dive deep on the nitty-gritty over scale length and strings around here, but it's all so very tediously silly.

Don't get me wrong, I'll play with tension calculators when I'm wanting a new set on anything past six strings, but the string obsession about content, windings, even material types? Meh.

My main test for strings is the same today as it was forty years ago. Feel good? Sound good? Good. No? Change them.


----------



## CanserDYI (Oct 11, 2022)

Question, how are hexagonal strings at .009 or some odd small ass measurement even created? Are they extruded and pushed playdough style through a hexagonal hole? Are the sides pressed onto an originally cylindrical string? ELI5, please.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 11, 2022)

nightflameauto said:


> I make zee jokez.
> 
> Honestly, this whole conversation feels instigated by crazy and way out there. I know folks really like to dive deep on the nitty-gritty over scale length and strings around here, but it's all so very tediously silly.
> 
> ...


Yes. At best, it's a whole lot of ado about a very small improvement, but, on average, it's just snake oil cloaked in jargon.



CanserDYI said:


> Question, how are hexagonal strings at .009 or some odd small ass measurement even created? Are they extruded and pushed playdough style through a hexagonal hole? Are the sides pressed onto an originally cylindrical string? ELI5, please.



Usually steel is not extruded, but drawn through a die with the desired shape. If you look at hex wire under a microscope, it's actually kind of slightly pillowed out, generally, so, it's not really a clean hexagon like it is in diagrams, but something more like this:


----------



## ixlramp (Oct 11, 2022)

Since we're on the subject, again, of hexagonal wound strings, i will link this somewhat related video


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 12, 2022)

ixlramp said:


> This thread ...
> 
> 
> https://santacruzguitar.com/santa-cruz-parabolic-tension-strings/
> ...


Those strings I'm using were custom made by Martin & Rickenbacker. So my idea was to to have Electric Guitar versions of the Santa Cruz Parabolic Tension string sets & what distinguishes them from other Electric Guitar string sets is that the 3rd String is a Special Flexible Wound G String.


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 12, 2022)

CanserDYI said:


> I'm 99% sure Oscar Stern is some sort of bot or weird algorithm at this point.


Actually those were prototype strings that are being worked on. Santa Cruz has EQ'd the tension of each string in their Parabolic tension string sets, what if that was applied to Electric Guitars too?


----------



## CanserDYI (Oct 12, 2022)

Yep, gotta be a bot. I'm so confused.


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 12, 2022)

Wait a minute, Santa Cruz makes Baritone Guitar string sets that feature a Wound 2nd String (like what Eddie Lang used).


----------



## Oscar Stern (Oct 12, 2022)

CanserDYI said:


> Yep, gotta be a bot. I'm so confused.


Wait a minute, I have a 25.5 in scale 8 String Electric Guitar made by Martin & Rickenbacker. The strings it has on it are Prototype Santa Cruz Parabolic Tension 8 String Electric Guitar strings made for a 25.5 in scale.


----------



## nightflameauto (Oct 12, 2022)

Dis parabolic tension shit sounds like the worst tech-death album of the year, bro.


----------

