# String gauges and inharmonicity



## bostjan (May 30, 2006)

Ok guys, there is something that I've been hiding from you, merely because I hadn't crunched the numbers. Most of you probably won't believe me anyway, but here goes.

When extending the range on a guitar or bass, there are certain things to worry about. It seems lots of us have been neglecting the details, and just going by gut feel. This is fine for experimentation, but lets use some science and see what happens.

Most of you know that the strings sound best with good tension, usually about 70% or more of the maximum yield. This does several things, such as making sure the string can move without being distorted and making sure the picking action does not noticeably change the tension. Most of you know the tension formula involving the frequency, mass per unit length, and length of the string. Mass per unit length and maximum yield of the string are sketchy unless you have a handy-dandy table and plenty of time to look these things up.

The thing it seems no one cares much about is the *inharmonicity* of the string. This sets a boundary on how heavy a string we can use for a given pitch at a given length. The way inharmonicity works is that as a string gets thick enough, compared to it's length, it stops behaving as a string (thin line of mass) and starts acting more like a cylander (tube of mass), and cylanders don't give harmonics the same way strings do.

I set some limits and crunched a couple numbers. The main limit I set was for nickel wound strings with a typical density and Young's modulus (just your average properties of nickel wraps). Actual results will vary, but I was really pretty liberal, so if anything, the limits are high. I wanted to set the limit of inharmonicity to a quarter-tone at the eighth harmonic (third octave natural harmonic) of the open strings. A quarter tone is huge, but the eighth harmonic is not so strong. It is, however, strong enough to be noticed, so a quarter tone at the eighth harmonic is going to be noticeable.

If you aren't interested in the harmonic content of your guitar's tone, then read no furtherbut, if you want a nice clear tone, this may interest you a bit.

What you may find weird is that this sets an upper limit on the thickness of a string. Most of the results aren't possible anyway, but if there is some ridiculously huge gauge for a string, it just means everything is okay, because the maximum gauge is not set by inharmonicity, but by snappage, so we will be well beyond the 70% limit, and it doesn't matter.

The main point of this is to point out how crappy the harmonic content of a low F# is, numerically. Crappy harmonic content just means that playing clean chords on the low strings will turn to mud. If the harmonic content get's really bad, even distorted power chords will become mud, but these are based on the third harmonic, so they will be far less affected.

Now for those of you who want to play distorted with only power chords, I have a different set of parameters, which will allow you to get away with murder. I set the limits as 10 cents off for the third harmonic. This means the note itself, distorted, will sound like a  and that power chords will be as muddy as if you had two chorus pedals on them with the depth knob buried. This could also serve as an ultra-liberal limit for everyone interested.

For Gibson Scale Length (24 5/8")
A: .120" safe .200" safe
E: .090" safe .152" safe
B: .067" not bad .114" safe
F#: .051" no way .085" not at that scale

For Gibson copies (24 3/4")
B: .068" not bad .115" safe
F#: .051" no way .086" not at that scale

For PRS (25")
B: .070" safe .117" safe
F#: .054" no way .088" questionable

For BC Rich (25.4")
B: .072" safe .121" safe
F#: .054" no way .091" this is possible

For Fender and everyone else (25 1/2")
B: .072" safe .122" safe
F#: .054" no way.091" possible

These are not Schecters (26")
B: .075" awesome .127" safe
F#: .056" not good enough .095" now we're talkin'

Schecters (26 1/2")
B: .078" definately safe .132"
F#: .059" still too small .099" better

Ibanez XL (27")
F#: .061" really iffy .102"

Most Extended Scale (28")
F#: .065" almost possible .110" fo' sho'

Warmoth (28 5/8")
F#: .068" a ha! .115" safe

Baritone/Short Bass (30")
F#: .075" safe .127"

Note that as scale gets longer, you can use bigger and bigger strings with the same inharmonicity, but you can also get better tension.

Keep in mind that I was very liberal with parameters, so if it looks like a string gauge you would use is the one listed, than it probably is out of the tolerances I mentioned. Also, these tolerances are enough to become irritating, even to the untrained ear, but then again, tone is subjective. Maybe a poor harmonic content is what you're going forin that case, you shouldn't have read this far.

Remember, this is just the harmonic content of the string itself, so these are best case scenarios neglecting the effects of tonewoods and pickups. To be safe, you should probably go about .010"-.015" less with the limits to compensate for natural resonance.

The results have me thinking that a low F# is destined to be muddy as hell on any scale less than 28 5/8", no matter what gauge is used. My experiments with different gauges on a 25 1/2" neck have confirmed this for my ears. With an über-heavy string, I could live with drop G for power chords, but not for single note stuff. A seemed fine, though, even with a lighter string.


----------



## bostjan (May 31, 2006)

In case you are wondering, here are some interesting formulæ:

String breakage for steel strings- maximum frequency = 11703 diveded by scale length in inches.

example: 25.5" scale length = 11703 / 25.5 = 459 Hz.

This will vary with different strings, but if you know the Tensil strength and the density, replace 11703 with the square root of tensile strength divided by density, then divide by two times the fourth root of two.

To find the inharmonicity of a string, it is not so easy without lots of data. Best way to do it is to find the G-factor and then the inharmonicity is 1731 times the natural log of (G+1)

Finding the G-factor.
There are many different G-factors. The biggest one is from thick nickel strings, but there are separate G-factors for having a trem and for un-uniform strings as well.

G-density is (pi squared over 128) times (young's modulus over density) times (diameter over frequency) squared divided by scale length to the fourth power.
I would never attempt to use english units to make such calculations, since the conversions get tedious and leave lots of room for mistakes, so buck up and use metric, the answer will come out unitless anyway.

G for trem is interesting. There is a detuning of the string because it is clamped to something that moves under force.
G trem = (4 times unit weight times scale length) divided by (four times pi squared times the mass of the trem assembly minus the stiffness of the spring over frequency squared)

Now, once you have the G-factor, you can not only find the inharmonicity, as described, but you can also recalculate the fundamental frequency based on the "dummy frequency" used for all of the initial calculations

actual frequency = dummy frequency times (G+1).

For plain steel strings, this will make no difference, whatsoever, so you might as well forget it, but for nickel strings tuned low on a short scale length, you are going to run into problems. A low B on a 25.5" scale will be approximately one semitone off! So your B will actually be a C. But since the G-factor changes with harmonic number, you can bet that all of your nice natural harmonics will also be sharp. The higher the harmonic, the more sharp it will be.

These things are pretty much out of our control. For those of you who use D'Addario strings, if you post your string gauge, tuning, and scale length for your lowest string, I will try to post up the inharmonicity ASAP. For simplicity's sake, I'll just throw out the G-factor and inharmonicity of the fundamental, and second harmonic.

Does anyone know the stiffness of the springs and the mass of their trem?


----------



## noodles (May 31, 2006)

Hmm, I'll bite. I'm Bb standard, 60-48-36-26-17-13-10.

Intersting post. I'll have to look at it again later when I have the time to devote to comprehending all of it. If I try it now, I'll lose all train of thought on my monitoring server project.


----------



## bostjan (May 31, 2006)

Ok, I'll assume 25.5" scale.

Eb (311 Hz) - .010", Force = 64 N, G = 7.45e-5, Inharmonicity= 1/100 of a cent fundamental or 1/20 of a cent @ 2nd harmonic.
Bb (233 Hz) - .013" ps, Force = 61 N, G = 2.24e-5, Inharmonicity= 1/20 of a cent fundamental or 1/6 cent @ 2nd harmonic.
Gb (185 Hz) - .017" ps, Force = 66 N, G = 6.09e-5, Inharmonicity= 1/9 of a cent fundamental or 2/5 of a cent @ 2nd harmonic.
Db (139 Hz) - .026" nw, Force = 73 N, G = 2.10e-4, Inharmonicity= 1/3 of a cent fundamental or 1 cent @ 2nd harmonic.
Ab (104 Hz) - .036" nw, Force = 77 N, G = 7.17e-4, Inharmonicity= 1 cent fundamental or 5 cents @ 2nd harmonic.
Eb (78 Hz) - .048" nw, Force = 75 N, G = 2.27e-3, Inharmonicity= 4 cents fundamental or 16 cents @ 2nd harmonic.
Bb (58 Hz) - .060" nw, Force = 68 N, G = 6.32e-3, Inharmonicity= 11 cents fundamental or 43 cents @ 2nd harmonic.

43 cents is huge! Check your octave harmonics on the low Bb and see if they are within ten cents of each oth.


----------



## shadowgenesis (Jun 1, 2006)

So this is what all that garbledy-gook about how guitars can never be perfectly in tune was all about eh?
interesting...

If it wasn't 2 in the morning, I'd calculate the inharmonicity of playing 11's on my carvin... I'll def be comin back to you on that.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 1, 2006)

Well, the perfectly in tune part could refer to hundreds of things. The inharmonicity of the plain steel strings on a hardtail is so incredibly small, that I think no one is really concerned about it. When it comes into play is when:

a) Thick strings, like low B and especially low F# on shorter scale lengths
b) Trems, especially with soft springs or light bridges
c) Old or crumby strings, where the unit weight of the string becomes poorly defined due to variable density.
d) High magnetic field damping the strings.

The thing about guitars never being in tune, most of the time, has to deal with equal tempered tuning and it's crumby representation of natural harmonics and the just scales (especially thirds and sevenths).


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 1, 2006)

Interesting topic bostjan!


----------



## Drache713 (Jun 1, 2006)

Dude...you are my fucking hero. I LOVE this kind of shit! All this scale length, harmonics, and string tension shit is starting to click with me now...boy I'm glad I don't want to tune down to F# anyways, playing a 28 5/8" scale would be hard! I really do see the benefit of having a fanned fret instrument now if people do choose to go that route...definently not for me though.  Again, you're a badass.


----------



## dpm (Jun 1, 2006)

Ahh, you are the uber-geek my friend 
Does this Young's modulus thingy, and do your calculations in general take into account that nickel wound strings are not a solid wire, but a thin solid core slowed down by the mass of the winding(s)? ie. they're more flexible than a solid would be.
This inharmonicity stuff seems to show why I can't get single wound .065 string to intonate properly or sound at all half decent (to my ears) at B, but a double wound string of the same thickness and approximate tension with the same pitch/scale lenght parameters works quite well.


----------



## XEN (Jun 1, 2006)

bostjan said:


> The results have me thinking that a low F# is destined to be muddy as hell on any scale less than 28 5/8", no matter what gauge is used. My experiments with different gauges on a 25 1/2" neck have confirmed this for my ears. With an über-heavy string, I could live with drop G for power chords, but not for single note stuff. A seemed fine, though, even with a lighter string.


I have to agree. I tuned my 28 5/8" to F# with a 0.074 and it was very phat, but I would not try to tune to F# on a standard scale instrument. I actually tuned it all the way down to D at one point, and while it was floppy as heck it still had tone. My next custom will be a 30.325" so I can go lower and, thanks to Garry Goodman and his strings, higher too.


----------



## bulb (Jun 1, 2006)

So i am trying to wrap my brain around this but im not exactly getting what the number in red represents.

tell me this, what string gauges would you reccomend for a 30" 8 string with a low B and low F#? (if you dont mind of course)


----------



## noodles (Jun 1, 2006)

bostjan said:


> Ok, I'll assume 25.5" scale.



You would be correct.



> Eb (311 Hz) - .010", Force = 64 N, G = 7.45e-5, Inharmonicity= 1/100 of a cent fundamental or 1/20 of a cent @ 2nd harmonic.
> Bb (233 Hz) - .013" ps, Force = 61 N, G = 2.24e-5, Inharmonicity= 1/20 of a cent fundamental or 1/6 cent @ 2nd harmonic.
> Gb (185 Hz) - .017" ps, Force = 66 N, G = 6.09e-5, Inharmonicity= 1/9 of a cent fundamental or 2/5 of a cent @ 2nd harmonic.
> Db (139 Hz) - .026" nw, Force = 73 N, G = 2.10e-4, Inharmonicity= 1/3 of a cent fundamental or 1 cent @ 2nd harmonic.
> ...



Wow! That explains why the low Bb never quite sounds right to me. I've been thinking of making the jump to a .068 (and .050 on the Eb). Do you think that will help, or is this more or less scale-length related?


----------



## bostjan (Jun 1, 2006)

dpm said:


> Ahh, you are the uber-geek my friend
> Does this Young's modulus thingy, and do your calculations in general take into account that nickel wound strings are not a solid wire, but a thin solid core slowed down by the mass of the winding(s)? ie. they're more flexible than a solid would be.
> This inharmonicity stuff seems to show why I can't get single wound .065 string to intonate properly or sound at all half decent (to my ears) at B, but a double wound string of the same thickness and approximate tension with the same pitch/scale lenght parameters works quite well.



I took the low road and calculated the wound strings as a nickel alloy wire wrapped around a steel wire. With more data on the thickness of each, and the number of winds, I could come closer, but I tried to get as close as possible without skewing things too far. The main trick was finding young's modulus over density, which are both bulk properties, but have to be broken up into two separate sets of data with two materials. What I did was to find the bulk properties of a bronze wound string, work backwards to separate the core from the wrap, then replace the bronze characteristics with nickel. This way, the interactions should still be fairly well represented without doing a crapload of geometry. Plus, the data given for bronze wounds covered the gauges we use for low B.

If I have time, one of these days, I'll crank out the geometric modeling and see how well these match up.

Noodles, If the tension is too low, you can use a bigger string, but if the tension is high enough, you actually just need a longer scale length. The inharmonicity won't ever go away, but it sure would be a lot lower with higher density strings. I'm not sure where you get high density wrapped strings, but it would help in two ways: a) the high density lends itself directly to lower inharmonicity, and b) the higher density means you can use thinner gauges, and thinner gauges lead to much smaller inharmonicity.

10 cents on a low Bb, I could live with, but it would irk me. The problem, when the theory of inharmonicity takes over the simple string theory, happens when you go lower than low A, because of all of the exponents in the equation, things go downhill really fast from there.

For anyone who plays with a more percussive tone, like a bass player or a strictly rhythm player, the inharmonicity is not percieved. But, the longer a note sustains, and the more complex the colors of the intervals, the more sour the sound will be. Even just a pedal drone over jazz changes will lead to some pretty painful tones.





bulb said:


> So i am trying to wrap my brain around this but im not exactly getting what the number in red represents.
> 
> tell me this, what string gauges would you reccomend for a 30" 8 string with a low B and low F#? (if you dont mind of course)




At 30", the world is your oyster. You won't need heavy heavy strings as you would on a shorter scale just to get tension, so go ahead and use a light gauge that supplies enough tension to meet your needs, this will give the lowest possible inharmonicity.

The whole idea of inharmonicity is dominated by scale length, then string gauge and tuning come in a distant second, then lastly, the material you use to make the strings. At 30", a cheap nickel wound string tuned to F# will be good enough. I wouldn't go more than 0.70". Think of it as a low A on a 25.5" scale, as far as tension goes. So a .064" or .065" should give good tension, and even an .060" would give you 60 N of tension and less than ten cents of inharmonicity.


----------



## dpm (Jun 1, 2006)

Way cool. So you could calculate things fairly accurately with accurate data such as core and wrap diameters, and material densities?
I'm finding myself drawn to stainless wound strings lately, I assume you'd need to know which alloy they're wound with to crunch the numbers?


----------



## Garry Goodman (Jun 1, 2006)

bulb said:


> So i am trying to wrap my brain around this but im not exactly getting what the number in red represents.
> 
> tell me this, what string gauges would you reccomend for a 30" 8 string with a low B and low F#? (if you dont mind of course)



Just a thought
30" scale is the same as the Hofner Beatle Bass.A short scale set is:

G2 - .040
D2 - .055
A1 - .070
E1 - .095


As you know,your low B is B1, is a whole step above the bass low A,and your low F#,F#1 is a whole step above a bass guitars low E. Those short scale bass strings sound pretty good. As an example G.H.S. makes several short scale strings such as an .075 and a .076 A1 string,even an .084.They should be a little tighter tuned up to B1.The .084 at F#1 could be a possibility.
Have you tried these?


----------



## bostjan (Jun 1, 2006)

dpm said:


> Way cool. So you could calculate things fairly accurately with accurate data such as core and wrap diameters, and material densities?
> I'm finding myself drawn to stainless wound strings lately, I assume you'd need to know which alloy they're wound with to crunch the numbers?




Yeah, I could, and in fact, I should. I'll disect a string and weigh the component parts when I get more time.

I could try with stainless as well. Stainless steel should give far less inharmonicity than nickel, but I shouldn't speculate. Which stainless are you using? Are they the D'Addario's? If so, I could probably get a rough estimate (+/- 10%) right now, and get a better idea in a couple weeks (+/- 0.5%).

I haven't even thought about coated strings yet, that could get very complicated


----------



## dpm (Jun 1, 2006)

Garry Goodman said:


> The .084 at F#1 could be a possibility.
> Have you tried these?


 
I've designed my 'string retainer plate' (basically string ferrules all in one unit) to accept both bass and guitar ball ends for exactly this reason. Just thought I'd mention that 



bostjan said:


> Which stainless are you using? Are they the D'Addario's?


 
I'm about to put a set of D'Addario's stainless on the UV. Gauges 70, 54, 40, 28, 20w (or 18w), 12, 9. Tuning BEADGCF.

Just got some Ken Smith stainless bass strings to trial (on bass). I like them, they have thinner outer windings than some other brands so feel smoother, they sound good too.


----------



## Drache713 (Jun 2, 2006)

STICKY! 

Wanna calculate the inharmonicity for my situation?

27" scale, B standard

60, 46, 36, 26, 17, 13, 10


----------



## bostjan (Jun 2, 2006)

E (330 Hz) - .010", Force = 81 N, G = 5.28e-6, Inharmonicity= 9/1000 of a cent fundamental or 1/30 of a cent @ 2nd harmonic.
B (247 Hz) - .013" ps, Force = 77 N, G = 1.59e-5, Inharmonicity= 1/40 of a cent fundamental or 1/10 cent @ 2nd harmonic.
G (196 Hz) - .017" ps, Force = 83 N, G = 4.31e-5, Inharmonicity= 3/40 of a cent fundamental or 1/3 of a cent @ 2nd harmonic.
D (147 Hz) - .026" nw, Force = 92 N, G = 1.49e-4, Inharmonicity= 1/4 of a cent fundamental or 1 cent @ 2nd harmonic.
A (110 Hz) - .036" nw, Force = 97 N, G = 5.08e-4, Inharmonicity= 8/9 cent fundamental or 4 cents @ 2nd harmonic.
E (82 Hz) - .046" nw, Force = 87 N, G = 1.48e-3, Inharmonicity= 2 cents fundamental or 10 cents @ 2nd harmonic.
B (62 Hz) - .060" nw, Force = 85 N, G = 4.48e-3, Inharmonicity= 7 cents fundamental or 30 cents @ 2nd harmonic.


Those are some seriously high tensions. Seven cents isn't too bad, but I'm surprised it is so high with an extended scale.  I double checked everything, though.


----------



## Drache713 (Jun 2, 2006)

bostjan said:


> E (330 Hz) - .010", Force = 81 N, G = 5.28e-6, Inharmonicity= 9/1000 of a cent fundamental or 1/30 of a cent @ 2nd harmonic.
> B (247 Hz) - .013" ps, Force = 77 N, G = 1.59e-5, Inharmonicity= 1/40 of a cent fundamental or 1/10 cent @ 2nd harmonic.
> G (196 Hz) - .017" ps, Force = 83 N, G = 4.31e-5, Inharmonicity= 3/40 of a cent fundamental or 1/3 of a cent @ 2nd harmonic.
> D (147 Hz) - .026" nw, Force = 92 N, G = 1.49e-4, Inharmonicity= 1/4 of a cent fundamental or 1 cent @ 2nd harmonic.
> ...


yeah, I like to beat the shit outta my strings - I have a heavy picking hand. Would the inharmonicity numbers be more appealing if the string gauges were 9, 11, 16, 24, 32, 42, 58?


----------



## Mind Riot (Jun 2, 2006)

I'll bite:

26 1/2" scale (by the way, Schecters either use a standard 25 1/2" scale or 26 1/2" like mine, not 26")

Guages and tuning:

.009 high E
.012 B
.016 G
.028 D
.038 A
.052 E
.070 Low A

This is some cool stuff. Hit me with some data and explanation, baby!


----------



## bostjan (Jun 2, 2006)

Drache713 said:


> yeah, I like to beat the shit outta my strings - I have a heavy picking hand. Would the inharmonicity numbers be more appealing if the string gauges were 9, 11, 16, 24, 32, 42, 58?



Yes. I'll do both calculations tonight

Thanks for the correct on the Schecters.


----------



## noodles (Jun 2, 2006)

bostjan said:


> Noodles, If the tension is too low, you can use a bigger string, but if the tension is high enough, you actually just need a longer scale length.



Well, it does feel a little too loose for my tastes, which is why I was thinking of going up. I just have to burn through the rest of .060's I got from Just Strings. 



bostjan said:


> B (62 Hz) - .060" nw, Force = 85 N, G = 4.48e-3, Inharmonicity= 7 cents fundamental or 30 cents @ 2nd harmonic.



Not quite as bad as my Bb. Maybe the scale length is the key, but longer scales are a real PITA with my small hands.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 2, 2006)

Drache713:

.009" E: G = 4.28e-6, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 1/133 of a cent, @ second harmonic = 1/30 of a cent
.011" B: G = 1.14e-5, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 1/50 of a cent, @ second harmonic = 1/12 of a cent
.016" G: G = 3.82e-5, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 1/15 of a cent, @ second harmonic = 1/4 of a cent
.024" D: G = 1.27e-4, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 1/5 of a cent, @ second harmonic = 8/9 of a cent
.032" A: G = 4.02e-4, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 2/3 of a cent, @ second harmonic = 3 cents
.042" E: G = 1.23e-3, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 2 cents, @ second harmonic = 8 cents
.056" B: G = 3.90e-3, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 6 cents, @ second harmonic = 27 cents

Mind Riot:
.009" E: G = 4.61e-6, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 1/125 of a cent, @ second harmonic = 1/30 of a cent
.012" B: G = 1.46e-5, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 1/40 of a cent, @ second harmonic = 1/10 of a cent
.016" G: G = 4.12e-5, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 1/15 of a cent, @ second harmonic = 1/3 of a cent
.028" D: G = 1.86e-4, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 1/3 of a cent, @ second harmonic = 1 cent
.038" A: G = 6.10e-4, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 1 cent, @ second harmonic = 4 cents
.052" E: G = 2.04e-3, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 3 cents, @ second harmonic = 14 cents
.070" A: G = 8.28e-3, inharmonicity @ fundamental = 14 cents, @ second harmonic = 56 cents!

You've got some serious tensions, too!


----------



## Mind Riot (Jun 3, 2006)

Hmmmm...that doesn't sound too good as far as the inharmonicity. Any suggestions for a possibly better low A string at that scale? 

And yes, they are pretty tight. I like 'em tight on the wound strings. But it's wierd how much things depend on the guitar. These strings on the Schecter feel looser than 10-52's on my 25 1/2" scale Squier 51, even though mathematically the Squier strings are looser. Might have something to with the string trees on the Squier versus a tilt back headstock on the Schecter, or the extra couple of inches on the Schecter for the string through versus the 51 being a top loader with the strings anchored right at the bridge. 

So many factors involved in these things. They certainly don't feel too tight.


----------



## dpm (Jun 3, 2006)

Was that calculated for a double wound .070? I have a D'Addario offcut that I can disect and measure for you.

OK, the D'Addario 70 measurement, as close as possible with just a vernier  

Total diameter both windings - 1.78mm (0.070")
diameter of outer winding wire - 0.43mm(0.017")
diameter of inner winding wire - 0.2mm (0.008")
diameter of solid core - 0.5mm (0.020")

So it's a .020 wound with 1 layer of .008 then 1 layer of .017


----------



## nyck (Jun 3, 2006)

What gauge would I need for a fairly tight with good tone F# on a 26" scale?


----------



## bostjan (Jun 3, 2006)

dpm said:


> Was that calculated for a double wound .070? I have a D'Addario offcut that I can disect and measure for you.
> 
> OK, the D'Addario 70 measurement, as close as possible with just a vernier
> 
> ...



So it's a .020" plain with a double winding? Do you happen to know how many winds per unit length or the thickness of the core and inner windings together?


----------



## dpm (Jun 3, 2006)

Um, yeah, well considering the math you've been doing I thought you'd be able to handle that bit 
OK, so maybe my post wasn't clear. 
Core - .020"
Core + inner winding - .008 + .020 + .008 = .036
Total diameter = .017 + .008 + .020 + .008 + .017 = .070


----------



## bostjan (Jun 3, 2006)

yeah, unclear&#8230;that's it&#8230; 

Hey, just because my computer is doing lot's of math, doesn't mean my brain is functioning propperly.


----------



## voas (Jul 7, 2006)

Great job man  

could you calculate this:
26.5" scale length
Bb standard, 70-50-38-28-18-14-11

it'd also be cool to know what Open C tuning would give


----------

