# Extreme fan classical - will it fly?



## jack_cat (May 4, 2013)

Hello, 
Nube here has been lurking for some time. 
For the last year I have played a 7 string classical straight fret 650mm = 25.5" BEADGBE. It has really opened some interesting musical horizons. I play in the classical position, not to be confused with the missionary, with a big footstool that I often put both feet on. I use a condensor mic and PA, and am half of a duet - we are in a tourist town and have a commercial repertory to make $ and various other musical interests just to keep the mix fertile. I've been playing guitar for over 40 years and have played for a living for at least halfl of that time when I didn't have to have a day job for some darned reason, and have not too much fear about going fanned fret, it's just a question of how radical to go... 

Now jonesing for a FANNED FRET EIGHT STRING! or, as you will see, I said well, if 8, why not 9? (Gulp.) 

The standard "brahms guitar" design has quite a conservative fan, 615mm = 24" to 650mm = 25.5". The king of this design, Paul Galbraith, uses carbon strings for GBE but nylon for the high A - high a is always the problem child. 

My string tests tell me that 560mm = 22" is a good length for a carbon high A w/ diam .47mm, which is readily available. .435mm, also available, does not have enough mass. 

First, but not last, I have drawn full size - not to be accused of not thinking far enough outside the box - a 9 string from 560mm to low F# at 710mm = 28". This is a 6" fan. Is this totally unplayable? (Not to ask the parallel question of whether an acoustic box can support this range - with ER electrics, obviously you can EQ whatever you want, but with an acoustic box?) But the more important question - what about playing such an extreme fan? 

2nd, I have also drawn an 8-string, a more probable scenario, with the low B at 660 = 26". This is only a four inch fan. What do you think? 

Last, but I haven't finished the drawing, would be a 3" fan which might run anywhere from 580 - 660 (23-7/8 - 26") or both extremes a little longer up to 600 (24") on the high string, but this would not be an A but a G, and the whole thing down a whole step.

I have only had the 7-string for a year, and it took a few years to save the dough, so this is not urgent, because I have to play a lot of gigs before I start talking to my luthier. He had never built a 7 string - but I love it! Never go back to six, too small a stage now. But - I want a full four octave range, like Bach's basic clavichord, and without crawling around above the 12th fret so much. With the high A string, I could get by with as few as 15 frets. Cutaway is out of the question because I want the biggest possible box to get nice fat basses. Love that low B! Now, a low F# I have as yet no musical use for, but I reckon I might find some use if I had it in my hands. 

But, after asking over on the Delcamp forum about Brahms guitars, I find that I am not happy theoretically with the conservative design that has become the standard, and am wondering just how far out of that box I can get, and whether it will be worth investing several grand in a really radical design - meaning 4" fan as in my projected 8 string or even this 6" fan monster with high a and low F#. Please give me all your thoughts!


----------



## Winspear (May 4, 2013)

I like your style sir!

Check out my posts with regards to high strings, tested on 24.75"
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/ja...on-strings-tuning-above-e4-great-results.html

Also, I've tested the WS080 (silverwound .080) from Labella strings, their thickest classical string (actually meant for lute) and it was perfect for 25" F# / 26.5" F / 28" E. 

I have also experience with a larger fan, on a 24.75-29.25 (4.5" fan) 9 string. Here it is strung with nylons but only on the inner 7 
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/recording-studio/217955-modern-meat-aal-vik-nylon-piezo.html

This video recording, plus the testing of high A / low F# that I have done was research into a specifically nylon build that I have on order. I have decided that it will be 9 strings EADGCFADG on 28" - 24.5". This will work perfectly with strings from .020 to .080

I would keep the fan to the 4.5 range like mine. My perp fret is at the 8th. The nut angle is extreme but perfectly comfortable (though I should state that my finger certainly DOES come across the nut a lot, but it's nice and smooth and I don't even notice - and this is more during riffing. Playing barre chords and such it's perfectly fine). You could move the perp fret higher but I'd be cautious of how close you'd be picking to the bridge on the treble strings in such a case. Of course, being a classical I presume your string spacing will be wider (mine is 6.8mm nut 10.16mm bridge) so that lessens the extremity of the fan a bit. 

The nut on the 6" fan with the perp at 7th looks to extreme for me - and, as my string testing shows, 22" isn't necessary for A. You could do 23.5 very safely.


----------



## Murch (May 4, 2013)

Fan comfortability is something that's different for everyone. The 6" fan will make it incredibly challenging to barre any chords, for sure, unless you move the parallel fret closer to the nut. Outside of that, it depends on playing style and how used to the fan you are. Try to find a guitar with a similar fan that you can try out if possible. If not, throw something together on Fretfind2d/ that you can print out and test over top of your guitar.


----------



## Winspear (May 4, 2013)

Murch said:


> Fan comfortability is something that's different for everyone. The 6" fan will make it incredibly challenging to barre any chords, for sure, unless you move the parallel fret closer to the nut. Outside of that, it depends on playing style and how used to the fan you are. Try to find a guitar with a similar fan that you can try out if possible. If not, throw something together on Fretfind2d/ that you can print out and test over top of your guitar.



+1
I used a printout from Fretfind taped onto my 6 string bass fretboard many many times before I settled on my 4.5" fan. It will indeed be different for everyone. I don't personally find my fan makes chords hard at all but I'm sure some would. The only thing hard on my guitar is the frets above 15 or so (which still isn't hard at all for lead work - simply muscle memory from standard guitar doesn't apply)


----------



## jack_cat (May 4, 2013)

Thanks!
Ethereal: I saw yr nylon-electric video, cool. Also read your post on the string tests, which is good. The 23.5 figure I will consider, but here's my deal: 

I have been way using exclusively fluorocarbon strings for the last 5 years, and there are several important (to me) reasons: (1) The tone is overall brighter, (2) Nylon is much more temperature sensitive. I have spent many years playing in restaurants, and with nylon strings every time the door opens the trebles go out of tune... fluoro doesn't have this problem. (3) A further reason is that I can buy them by the 25 meter roll, so if I want to break a half a dozen testing them I haven't wasted six sets of strings!!


(I buy bass sets and my odd 7th from stringsbymail.com. I'm using a lightweight .048" D'Addario silver-plated on my low B. Otherwise I like light tension Aquila "Alchemia" silver wounds; I have a set of D'Addario silver wounds waiting to try next month.) The fluoro rolls are Seaguar Fluoro Premier; Seaguar's cheaper lines are not uniform enough for good intonation. My current high E at .51mm is a different brand because Seaguar doesn't have this size but I rejected so far 3 alternate brands because they frayed out quickly, major problem with fluoro at high tensions and small diameters. My proposed high A is a .47mm, thinnest reliable that I can find. 

So. There is a different sort of "vanishing point" for the variables of thickness, mass, tension with fluoro than with nylon, and I can't get a fluoro high A that I trust at more than 22". With nylon, you can go longer. I will, of course, redo my string tests a couple of more times before I have this thing built (whatever it may be in the end.) 

So, thanks to both of yous, Murch and Ethereal, for throwing cold water on my 6" fan. However, it's gratifying to hear that you think the 4" fan will fly, at least with the 8 string. I couldn't do a 9 string starting at 22", I don't think, cuz the low F# would be at 26.5" with a 4.5" fan, and that is too short according to most info here. But the 8-string seems to be coming into focus. On the other hand, if I do surrender to a 23.5 nylon (not fluoro) A string, then I could stretch the low F# out to 28", and what an interesting instrument that might be. Hmm. Almost down to a traditional double bass. BUT I think that the major problem there might be with the acoustic design of the box itself. That's a question for the guy who builds it (Yes I have a guy in mind).

And by the way, since I took photos of these drawings, I am going to cut them out and paste them onto cardboard and then onto a beater guitar and sit with them awhile, as you suggest. I went to the Fretfind2D site and played with the parameters, but I am more comfortable working with a pencil, straightedge and calculator, at least for this rough-in stage. You may be able to see that my pencil lines are not as accurate as the calculations, but I think they are close enough for an estimate. 

Appreciate the input very much, thanks. 

- Jack


----------



## vansinn (May 5, 2013)

Very interesting thread 

Have you considered/tried nylon/polymer-coated kevlar strings?
I've used D'Addario's super high tension set for years. where I simply kept the G kevlar string when changing strings, and as such use this for both G and b with good results.

I too find pure nylon strings to suffer from changes in temperature; however, my top E really doesn't change much, so I can accept nylon for this.
I don't play classic per se, more like semi-classic/flamenco/jazz , and also bends strings a lot, which simply doesn't work with nylons; however, the kevlars works fine for this.

I have a set of D'Addario carbons to try out, so don't know how yet well they'll stack up.
Also haven't tried high tunings with neither kevlar nor carbon (only have a 6-string acoustic).

I do have quite some experiences with the stretching abilities in kevlar from skydiving, where kevlar lines were used to handle the opening shock, when the sport moved to free-style with much higher speeds (rate of fall); that is, until people started noticing kevlar lines started to floss, and was replaced by other materials.

Now, I was thinking that maybe kevlar, with it's stretching capabilities in contrast to carbon, which will hit it's limit harder at some point, just might work well for high tunings - but I can't be sure as I haven't been able to locate thin enough kevlar strings or roll wire, and also do not have a multi stringer with decently short enough high-end scale..


----------



## jack_cat (May 5, 2013)

Van sinn - no I have not yet tried kevlar! OK, I'll get on it, a missing piece of my education if it's working for the likes of you. 

While I call my guitar "classical", and it is, I am not... I don't play any classical repertory any more - who the hell would listen to me play Bach these days? Like singing in the shower. I do my own thing, such as it is, totally fingerstyle righthand tech and a lot of commercial arrangements which "fill the tip jar". Semi-classic-flamenco-jazz is the basic mix here in the tourist zone where I am, where the former classical guitarists go who wake up one day to the fact that there is no future in playing Leyenda and Leo Brouwer. although my own paying gig is based on mostly arrangements of latin pop tunes. And I will say that bending strings works fine on fluoro although you bend a whole step, but half steps and quarter tones are fine. 

Ethereal Entity - on rereading your post about your nylon build in process, I see that you are indeed going for a nine-string version of my "Plan B" which would be to tune the whole thing down a step to give Renaissance G-lute tuning with now THREE extended quartal basses. This is very cool. 

I have strongly considered this move but I don't like the idea of moving my repertory all down a whole step OR rebuilding it OR using a capo... I am on vacation now for the hot season but when the rains come and I start to gig again I have about 3 hours of legacy repertory as half a duet which needs to come along on this adventure. I ported it all to my sevenstring last year and am sure that I could do that again with a high A added, but tuning down a whole step... ehh. Also, the increased difficulty of tuning up onstage with another guitar tuned EADGBEA (more about that below). 

Can you tell me more about the guitar that you are having built - all the specs please!! Woods, details, assumptions!! Thank you!! 

FYI, my duet partner also plays 7 string with a straight-fret 58cm scale (that's about 23.25" I think?) tuned EADGBEA, the short scale suits her hands and she's very happy with it. Her high A is a D'Addario .022" nylon, the other three trebles are Seaguar Fluoro Premier, and the basses are Aquila Alchemia heavy guage. We like those Alchemia basses, instead of silver plated copper they are pure silver wound, about $16 USD a set but we get 3 months out of them at 4 gigs a week plus practice, and they don't have that sharp contrast between a bright tone when new and then totally dead two weeks later like you get with silver plated basses. They just keep on with this nice fat mellow sound. When I play her guitar I think the high A is a little thin, but when she plays it I have no complaints. I don't like Aquila's proprietary polymer trebles, though, the high E tends to be a little wierd with the intonation. 

- jack


----------



## Winspear (May 6, 2013)

Sounds like you know exactly what you're doing which is great! 

You mentioned the shorter F# and said that "that's too short according to most of the info here". 
I just want to check - do you mean on this forum in general? If so, that's mainly regarding electric guitar for metal, in which case I agree, it's far too short. Nylons however...

I originally was planning to do an 8 for this reason rather than a 9. However, upon picking up that Labella .080 I was perfectly satisfied with how it performed as a 28" E - thus fretted 25" F# / 26.5" F. 

So personally I think it would be fine. Granted a longer scale will sound better but it didn't seem to be a requirement as much as it is with nickelwound strings on electric guitar going for a very bright, clear sound. 

I suggest you order one and try it yourself on a 24.75/25.5 scale tuned to G, which will equate to around 26.5/27" F#. See if you are satisfied  I was very pleasantly surprised that I would be able to do a 9 string.

With regards to my guitar, it is coming from the same luthier that built the one in the video - ViK guitars. 
It is not a classical guitar - more like a hollowbody electric strung with nylons. Hoping to get a full traditional soundhole rather than an F hole. Woods undecided yet but probably a wenge neck, ebony board, mahogany back and ziricote top  Amplification will be with a piezo saddles (it will also have MIDI output). I'm looking into an additional amplification method for a more natural, less snappy sound too. Something in the body which is nice and simple, works with the extra strings..no ideas yet but haven't thought about it too much. I'd like it to be loud enough to benefit from being mic'd up, too - but I'm not entirely sure how successful that will be


----------



## Kroaton (May 6, 2013)

EtherealEntity said:


> Something in the body which is nice and simple, works with the extra strings..no ideas yet but haven't thought about it too much. I'd like it to be loud enough to benefit from being mic'd up, too - but I'm not entirely sure how successful that will be



You could create an impulse response of the actual body of the guitar and pass the piezo signal through that or use Ijdata's Bodilizer plugin or something of that nature.

I've been messing around with turning a clean electric guitar into an acoustic using this method + heavy EQ work , and it's amazing how close you can get.


----------



## jack_cat (May 6, 2013)

EtherealEntity said:


> You mentioned the shorter F# and said that "that's too short according to most of the info here".
> I just want to check - do you mean on this forum in general? If so, that's mainly regarding electric guitar for metal, in which case I agree, it's far too short. Nylons however...


Yes, I was accepting the metal specs generally found in this forum, I have not done any testing yet, myself, on ultra low strings. Guess I will have to put in another string order. 

So your info changes the ball game a little bit more, yet again - possible a 9string w/ less extreme fan! However... I am playing with a low B now at 650mm (= 25.5") using a .048" string (I forget which brand is on there now, I bought several). I started with a .052" I think, sold as part of a standard classical ten-string package (there are many straight fret classical ten strings being made usually 25.5") for a low B or C, and it was too tubby, I wanted more clarity. A workbench test might not give the kind of subjective "I like it" info that having it on the guitar and in front of folks does. I think that even with just the low B, another centimeter or two of length would be a really good thing! So it seemed to me reasonable to accept the 28" spec for my first 9 string drawing, and I was happy to see that that brought the low B out to more than 27". 



EtherealEntity said:


> I originally was planning to do an 8 for this reason rather than a 9.


Well, me too. 


EtherealEntity said:


> However, upon picking up that Labella .080 I was perfectly satisfied with how it performed as a 28" E - thus fretted 25" F# / 26.5" F.
> 
> So personally I think it would be fine. Granted a longer scale will sound better but it didn't seem to be a requirement as much as it is with nickelwound strings on electric guitar going for a very bright, clear sound.
> 
> I suggest you order one and try it yourself on a 24.75/25.5 scale tuned to G, which will equate to around 26.5/27" F#. See if you are satisfied  I was very pleasantly surprised that I would be able to do a 9 string.


Thanks, Ethereal Ent. So trippy to find somebody ahead of me with these ideas. 

Now, one thing that comes up is the string spacing. That fat 9mm string spacing is great on my 7 string, I can play very cleanly, but I admit to difficulty in a couple of positions involving the outer strings. I seems to me that I had better bring the spacing in to at least 8mm with the 9 string design, and possibly even narrower than that. I have a Washburn parlor guitar that I play now and then, I´m not sure at this moment of the exact spacing but it has about a 1-7/8" neck at the nut, and I switch back and forth OK... seems like getting the neck narrow enough is going to be a necessary compromise with the classical design. 

See - I'm psyched! Maybe this 9 string is going to fly after all if I can refine the details!! HooAh! 

I have been dabbling in, or struggling with, counterpoint on the guitar in various forms for my entire life, and my extended range quest came when I said to myself, gotta play Bach's well-temp clavier on the guitar if I'm going to really understand this game, and so that's what I've been doing, but as you can imagine it's still a bitch on the sevenstring. Now I'm going to sit down with the book and the fret map of the 9-string and see just what it would do for me. 

over and out for now - 
jack


----------



## Kroaton (May 6, 2013)

One thing to consider is unamplified projection in the lower range (if tuning to F# or E).
I can't really say I know alot about physics behind the subject , but I've played atleast 10 acoustic basses in the past and apart from two of them the low E string had no balls or bass whatsoever when played unamplified.
The say can be said about poorly constructed double basses. So material selection in this case becomes quite important.
the ideal body/neck construction would be to get the most out of the low-end of the guitar. Maybe looking up some scientific articles that regard the subject would help.


Your project really hits home , seeing how I have an old 1930's Russian 7 string guitar with a bowed neck that's going to be getting a new fanned 27.5" - 24" one hopefully sometime during this summer.

Please keep us up to date on the progress of your project , info on classical ERG builds is quite slim.


----------



## vansinn (May 6, 2013)

Kroaton said:


> Your project really hits home , seeing how I have an old 1930's Russian 7 string guitar with a bowed neck that's going to be getting a new fanned 27.5" - 24" one hopefully sometime during this summer.
> 
> Please keep us up to date on the progress of your project , info on classical ERG builds is quite slim.



And you _must_ do a thread about that Russian marvel 
1930's.. next thing will be that I must build a _real_ tube amp with my 1942 Luftwaffe Telefunken tube  (it's pretty big)


----------



## Kroaton (May 6, 2013)

It's in really bad shape right now so calling it a "marvel" would be quite unjust.And 1930 for a classical guitar is really not that old , it was only 15Euro's from an old Folk Guitarist.He had it strung with steel strings , and the neck now looks like a horse shoe.

I have a friend who recently converted a 144 year old cello into an Arpeggione , that's impressive as hell.


----------



## jack_cat (May 11, 2013)

Kroaton said:


> One thing to consider is unamplified projection in the lower range (if tuning to F# or E).
> (snip) ... acoustic basses ... the low E string had no balls or bass whatsoever ... ideal body/neck construction would be to get the most out of the low-end of the guitar. Maybe looking up some scientific articles that regard the subject would help.
> 
> ... info on classical ERG builds is quite slim.



Well, fortunately I do play amped now, with a condenser mic, although I have done periods of years when I played without amp at all. Still, it's easy to imagine a low F# not having any punch. But I'm not worried about that yet. First the fingerboard, then the strings, THEN I talk to my luthier. 

And, you said, it, there isn't much out there on ERCG. Five years from now people will probably still be poring over this thread trying to find some concrete information! Did this guy really build this thing or not??!! One builder on the delcamp told me he had built "a number" of fanned fret classicals and that the widest fan was about 1.5". In general, the classical builders are being quite conservative. 

Mine may not qualify as the world's first 9-string classical if I narrow the string spacing too much - it'll be a "nine string classic crossover!" I think I can live with 8mm between the strings... still drawing! 

Good luck w yr Russian rebuild! 

I have a new drawing I like (sorry, no pic today) of a nine string from 22" to 26.5", perp fret at the 5th, which makes the first pos fan nice and easy compared to some of my other drawings and - considering no cutaway so no barring past the tenth fret anyway - the upper range doesn't look too bad. I'm going to do a few more drawings and then turn my attention to 
testing strings. Have the design for a new bench-top production-model string breaker-tester percolating. 

I have been routinely calculating my fret placements using the rule of 18. Into the calculator goes the string length in mm (much easier to calculate and measure than inches, duh) and this sequence of keystrokes: 

length L
memory plus
divide by 18
memory minus
memory recall = length from bridge to first fret

memory plus
divide by 18
memory minus
memory recall = length from bridge to second fret

etc. 

After doing this a few times, I learned to write down the series of lengths instead of repeating the whole darn thing or missing a keystroke cuz I was busy drawing at the same time. Rounded to the nearest mm, natch.

over and out for now - 
- jack


----------



## Kroaton (May 11, 2013)

I played a "guitarrón mexicano" today for the first time in my life and the combination of huge size, 29.9" scale lenght and the strange curvature of the back, make the low D and the A below it sound incredible.Blew away and acoustic bass I've ever heard.
My double bass has the same curvature on the back and I can't really seem to find any info on why they design it that specific way.

Thought I'd share this little tidbit of info.


----------



## wookie606 (May 14, 2013)

God I want to see this.


----------



## jack_cat (May 14, 2013)

Kroaton said:


> I played a "guitarrón mexicano" today for the first time in my life and the combination of huge size, 29.9" scale lenght and the strange curvature of the back, make the low D and the A below it sound incredible.Blew away and acoustic bass I've ever heard.
> My double bass has the same curvature on the back and I can't really seem to find any info on why they design it that specific way.
> 
> Thought I'd share this little tidbit of info.


I've met and listened to a few guitarrón players with mariachi bands and they all tune the thing differently. Also they very often play their oompah bass lines in octaves for a nice fat sound. Mariachi bands as a rule are not too critical about tuning. But yeah, the guitarrons have punch, they have to compete acoustically with trumpets and violins in a ten piece band often outdoors. That big fat body is a good thing, not like these little skinny "acoustic" bass guitars they sell in guitar center. 

The curved back is a relic from some 17th century design, I believe, and the same curved back is also used in the 5-string mexican vihuela, which looks like a miniature version of the guitarron. They have always built them that way, that's why they build them that way! Whereas Mexican guitar design has been updated by market demand to conform with modern Spanish/Classical models. 

Although I have read that the mariachi ensemble dates to the mid-19th century, to me it really looks like an evolutionary remnant of a Baroque orchestra with continuo, with the bass, guitar and vihuela constituting the continuo group, together with a string section, a horn section, and voices. There is a parallel remnant from the 17th century in the "Estudiantina" groups, which are bigger and have no horns, use a double bass instead of the guitarron, and dress in 17th century costumes. The repertories overlap quite a bit, although they have their specialties as well. 

We digress. 

I am busy practicing my seven string and so have no new report on the ER classical project. However, I was just watching a charlie hunter video and his fan is pretty extreme, I'm going to see if I can google the measurements and specs. 

- jack.


----------



## Durero (May 15, 2013)

Very cool project 

For whatever it's worth, I've played on a 25" - 30" fanned 8-string and found it to be extremely comfortable.

Keep up the mockup drawings 

Really looking forward to how your design takes shape


----------



## jack_cat (May 16, 2013)

Durero said:


> Very cool project
> For whatever it's worth, I've played on a 25" - 30" fanned 8-string and found it to be extremely comfortable.


Durero: It's definitely worth something, and it would also be worth it to me to get some more info on the guitar that you played and found comfortable, if you would, thanks. 
Is it yours? 
Did you play on it a lot - months or years - or like, for a few minutes?
Make, model and year?
What tuning? 
Electric, acoustic steel or nylon? 
What's the spacing between strings at the nut?
Where's the parallel fret? 
These are the juicy questions that I am looking for answers to in this thread! 
Also, you have the record for widest fan - 5" - reported "comfortable" so far in my researches.

thanks, appreciate your input. Yeah, have more drawings in the mill. I figure that as well as information, it's a means of "creative visualization" perhaps helping to bring this axe into focus on the non-physical plane and thereby encouraging it to eventually manifest in wood in the real world - and then again in the sonic world. 
- jack


----------



## Durero (May 16, 2013)

Jack - I played the guitar I mentioned with the 5" fan for about a week.

There's a thread on it here.

There's another guitar with 10-strings and a 5" fan here.


I've been playing my self-designed headless 7-string with a 4" fan (32" - 36" scales) for the last 10 years and I absolutely love long scales and big fans. I'll be making a series of extended range instruments based of this design but with up to a 12" fan.


----------



## jack_cat (May 18, 2013)

Thanks, Durero. I'll go read those threads. 

I would like to mention to Ethereal Entity that I have been doing some more string experiments, wanting to second-guess my results of last year that led me to decide on a 22" high A string. My new experiments appeared at first to support a 23.5" A string. I was able, for example, to tune the .47mm diameter fluorocarbon string (that I've been working with) up to a B at 23.5", satisfying Ethereal Ent's criterion that the string should go a whole step higher than desired without breaking. HOWEVER, mocking this up on a beater guitar with a capo and playing on it for a while tuned only at A, it broke in about an hour. So the mere ability to attain the pitch is not all there is to it. It's a question of whether the string will also hold up while being played on. This requires actually playing on it for a while. I have my dummy string tester set up on the workbench for further experiments, but the results from stretch tests can't necessarily be trusted without also playing on the string for a while. If it won't last for a couple of days it's not in the running. So I am being conservative. 

- jack


----------



## jack_cat (May 29, 2013)

I'm having the prototype fanned fret 9 string classical built this summer. 
String lengths (even 15mm increments with the low E at 650mm): 
A 560mm 22 1/16th"
E 575mm 22 5/8"
B 590 mm 23 1/4"
G 605 mm 23 13/16"
D 620 mm 24 3/8"
A 635mm 25"
E 650mm 25 5/8"
B 665mm 26 3/16"
F# 680mm 26 3/4"

string spacing 8mm
perp fret at the 5th

Where the body meets the neck is still open to question and will be dependent on the placement of the bridge which in turn is dependent on the internal bracing scheme, and this is over my head, so I await developments. 

I need to order a set of basses in custom diameters. Both D'Addario and La Bella have a range of diameters, but I don't know how to make the calculations other than trial and error (no such problem with the trebles, the calculations are more straight forward.) I may just buy a complete range of likely bass strings. The E will be normal at 650mm, the A and D will need to be proportionately heavier gauge and the B and F# are anybody's guess. Ethereal Entitiy's test results give a place to start, of course. 

Ethereal, if you have some input on this I am open to it, thanks. 

The prototype will be made with an inexpensive top and Palo Escrito back and sides. It's going to be a test, clearly, and a trial run for my luthier, who joked that if I like it I can buy it and if not he'll set a match to it, and later we can talk about a more expensive one with endangered species woods and all after I play this one for a while. There is a whole new creative process necessary for the design of the internal bracing under the diagonal bridge. 

- jack


----------



## Winspear (May 29, 2013)

^ Nice!!
String Tension
http://daddario.com/upload/tension_chart_13934.pdf
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/Files/3443/5/Phys_img024.jpg

Take the unit weight of the NYL054 silverwound bass and you get a 15lbs B string. I recommend shooting for progressive 15 to 10 lbs on this so that's perfect.
D'addario don't go thicker than that, but as I said above the LaBella 80 was very well tensioned for a 26.5 F next to my 15lbs D'addario set. They don't publish string weight data and weren't able to give me anything useful via email either, so it's hit and miss. But I'm guessing that 80 string was pulling about 15lbs too..So if you're going up a semitone to F# at 26.75 I would recommend a 75 or so from Labella. 
A .020 rectified nylon from D'addarios chart weights will pull 10.8lbs of tension for the high A. 
So yes, I would recommend putting together a .054-.020 set for the B-A, and around 75 from Labella for the low. You could get all the other strings from Labella too - they don't publish weights but it should be pretty similar to what you can calculate with D'addarios info
Let me know what you come up with!


----------



## vansinn (May 30, 2013)

^^ & ^ - this is going to get mighty interesting, to say the least


----------



## Cloudy (May 30, 2013)

Im super excited to see this finished.


----------



## HStarfire (May 30, 2013)

how much for the cutaway version??


----------



## troyguitar (May 31, 2013)

I somehow only saw this thread today.

An extreme fan should work better on a classical guitar than it does on an electric guitar - the reason being that you don't need to make the entire 24+ fretboard easy to play. You can shift the perpendicular fret further down toward the nut and focus on only the first 15 frets or so.

For my high A electric plans (8 string tuned AEADGCEA) I have mocked up scales from 22" on the high side to 26" on the low side which seemed perfectly fine. That same fan spread across 9 strings like you are doing should be very easy to play.


----------



## jack_cat (Jun 3, 2013)

EtherealEntity said:


> ^ Nice!!
> 
> Take the unit weight of the NYL054 silverwound bass and you get a 15lbs B string. I recommend shooting for progressive 15 to 10 lbs on this so that's perfect.
> D'addario don't go thicker than that, but as I said above the LaBella 80 was very well tensioned for a 26.5 F next to my 15lbs D'addario set.
> ...



Thanks Etherial! That helps a lot. I will, as I said, order enough different thicknesses to have room to experiment. (With my current seven, I ordered a complete set of Savarez low strings for a 25.5" classical ten string to try for my low B, but ended up going lighter gauge at only .048. This is probably a little lighter than 15 lbs, but part of the problem was stiffness - the thicker strings were fretting sharp. Why I want longer basses, of course. )

I'll put in an order to stringsbymail sometime this month. 

- jack


----------



## jack_cat (Jun 3, 2013)

HStarfire said:


> how much for the cutaway version??


That will depend on the varieties of wood chosen more than on the cutaway. Whether a cutaway is necessary or desirable also depends on the (evolving) bracing scheme which will determine where the body meets the neck. I am only concerned with access to the 15th or 17th fret, myself - on nylon or fluoro strings the super high notes give diminishing returns on tone. Anyway, I don't have a price yet, but not less than a couple of grand US, more or less I expect... (gulp) ... for basic woods. If you're going to want one I'll put you in touch with my builder for next year when we have the kinks worked out of the design. 



troyguitar said:


> I somehow only saw this thread today.
> 
> An extreme fan should work better on a classical guitar than it does on an electric guitar - the reason being that you don't need to make the entire 24+ fretboard easy to play. You can shift the perpendicular fret further down toward the nut and focus on only the first 15 frets or so.
> 
> For my high A electric plans (8 string tuned AEADGCEA) I have mocked up scales from 22" on the high side to 26" on the low side which seemed perfectly fine. That same fan spread across 9 strings like you are doing should be very easy to play.


Right, I have the right-angle fret at V so as to bias the playable area more to the lower frets, as I said, if I get up to the 17th it should be enough because the tone quality of the high notes drops off more with classicals than with electrics - IMO - could be disproved, ¿quien sabe? So, your fan is about the same as mine, although you don't mention where you put the right-angle fret. Glad to have yet another person confirm that this will be "easy to play" !! As I have mentioned, it's more extreme than the classical builders are doing so far. An eight string was also on my drawing board, and of course was my first thought, and many classical 8s have been built although with much smaller fans, usually not more than 2". But I'm going for nine... hoo ah!


----------



## jack_cat (Jun 4, 2013)

Replying to Ethereal on wound bass string tensions for the nine string, evolving process: 

Thanks for the links to the D'Addario pdf. I found that in one of the several lists of wound bass strings, the "model numbers" of the wound basses actually contain the measurement in thousandths of an inch embedded, like "NYL035W" which is .035" diameter, thus giving a translation of the unit weights into diameters in thousandths of an inch, very useful! 

I did calcs based on 15 lbs and chose the near values, but then, I considered: the low B on my seven is a .048, very light (and I like it), and so I reverse calculated this to get just under 12 lbs of tension, and so then I went back and did a new set of calcs based on 12 lbs and so came up with, for each bass string, a 12 lb value and a 15 lb value, within the range of which Unit Weight values I found two or three string diameters listed, to wit: 

D at 620mm 24.375" - .026, .028
A at 635mm 25" - .033, .034 
E at 650mm 25.625" - .040, .041, .042 
B at 665mm 26.1875" - .050, .052, .054
F# at 680mm 26.75" - ??? D'Addario doesn't make 'em this fat, so La Bella as you said. But extrapolation based on the D to B series puts the F# at somewhere from .065 to .075, broadly speaking... I'll buy several. You know, calculated values are one thing, and then the way the strings feel when they are on the guitar becomes something very subjective anyway. 

For the trebles strings, I have fluorocarbon on hand. My high A at .47mm calculates to 7.7 kilos, or just under 17 lbs, a little tight but I think not too extreme. If it doesn't work - i.e., if it breaks every two days, then I am confident that I can fall back to nylon in the .020 to .024 inch range. 

I'm switching back and forth from English to Metric measurements all the time these days, I miss my old Construction Master calculator, a jewel of a tool! (Long gone.) Translated decimal inches to 64ths to metric and back again. 

My digital caliper from Stewart McD doesn't do inch-fractions, only decimal inches, and my rulers only have 64s. Also the caliper usually disagrees with the published values for string diameters by a couple of thousandths of an inch - oh well. With strings, though, this can be significant. 

Thanks for your help with this, very much appreciated indeed. Hope to have the prototype in hand in a couple of months more or less. 

- Jack


----------



## jack_cat (Sep 9, 2013)

Ladies & Gents, presenting the 9-string fanned fret classical: 

built by Salvador Castillo, Paracho, Michoacan, Mexico
Englemann spruce top, Palo Escrito back and sides. 
Specs as in previous post except string spacing closer: about 7.6mm.
Still don't have the right strings, but coming soon.


----------



## Winspear (Sep 9, 2013)

Fantastic!!
Awesome to see you went through with it


----------



## jonajon91 (Sep 9, 2013)

Okay, Serious WOWs on this one! Are you planning on getting any vids out? I would love to hear this thing in action


----------



## shawnperolis (Sep 9, 2013)

this is ridiculous, I love it


----------



## Cloudy (Sep 9, 2013)

That bridge is crazy looking!


----------



## LordCashew (Sep 9, 2013)

jack_cat said:


> Ladies & Gents, presenting the 9-string fanned fret classical...


----------



## Kroaton (Sep 9, 2013)

That thing looks delicious.We need soundclips and overall impressions.


----------



## ElRay (Sep 9, 2013)

jack_cat said:


> Ladies & Gents, presenting the 9-string fanned fret classical:





Ray


----------



## cbhiamthewall (Sep 9, 2013)

HNCFFGD! Your own biggest fan.


----------



## Durero (Sep 9, 2013)

So great to see it has come to life!

Congratulations!


----------



## shadscbr (Sep 10, 2013)

Awesome!!!! 

Shad


----------



## Xplora (Sep 10, 2013)

cbhiamthewall said:


> HNCFFGD! Your own biggest fan.



I hate you so much right now butters... 

OP. Congrats on converting the idea into reality!


----------



## vansinn (Sep 10, 2013)

Yum yum, definitely needs sounds from this one - a video will be cool to see what it actually looks like playing such a fan in classical position.


----------



## jack_cat (Sep 16, 2013)

Thanks for all the positive feedback, yall, and for all the support I got during the design phase. It'll be a while before I get the video out - I can still hardly play anything coherently on it! 

But thanks again, everybody, and particularly Ethereal and Durero. 

Believe me, I am up to my ears in the learning curve. There is so much to learn, so many new chord voicings. Hog heaven. 

As promised by many here, there is zero difficulty adapting to the fanned frets. In fact it is a rather beautiful experience... to the mind used to being warped anyway!!

- jack


----------



## InfinityCollision (Sep 17, 2013)

Glad to hear it turned out well! Looking forward to footage of you playing this beast


----------



## dudeskin (Sep 17, 2013)

looking forward to hearing this so bad.
a cutaway version would have been killer too


----------



## jack_cat (May 17, 2015)

Hi, this is the Original Poster back:

After a year and a half plus:

The low F sharp was unsatisfactory. I had a .074 string on it which sounded reasonably well for individual notes but made an unacceptable clicking sound against the frets when I tried any moving licks. 

The 8mm spacing is too narrow for nylon strings and particularly for the basses. What's necessary is to space the strings progessively farther apart on the bass side. The low B is almost a millimeter fat and the Fsharp more than a millimeter. 

As far as the sound of the extreme strings, it took quite a while for the spruce top to start to open up, and until then the high A and the low Fsharp were pretty weak, but they are much better now. 

However, I was getting blisters on my right hand fingertips from trying to play guitars with different string spacings, and I went through several cycles of that before I was sure that I couldn´t live with it. So:

I took the Fsharp string off and converted it to an eight string by making a new nut and a notched saddle. The low B at 28" sounds really good. 

I have learned a number of lessons of course. (somebody has to stick his neck out to get lessons learned.) 

1. Either 9 mm spacing at the nut, or progressive from like 8.5 at the treble side and 9.5 at the bass side. At the bridge end, 11 mm; there is no advantage to putting them closer. 

2. The high A would be fine at 62 mm (I forget what that is in inches.)
(This build was 56mm, too too short I now agree. However, it may be that a high A will have a tinny quality no matter what....!!!

3. The low F# needs to be more like 27 or 28 inches to be thin enough to play well. This build was 26.5 about. After all short scale basses are 30. 

Over an out, gotta go! jack


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (May 18, 2015)

Kroaton said:


> He had it strung with steel strings , and the neck now looks like a horse shoe.


 



Kroaton said:


> I have a friend who recently converted a 144 year old cello into an Arpeggione , that's impressive as hell.


Please tell me you have pics of that?


----------



## jack_cat (Jul 16, 2015)

dudeskin said:


> looking forward to hearing this so bad.
> a cutaway version would have been killer too



the next build is on the drawing table and it will be a cutaway. 
jack


----------



## Mysticlamp (Jul 17, 2015)

No clis?


----------



## jack_cat (Jan 28, 2016)

OP here:
Hello all my friends and fanned fret brothers and sisters, 
amazing news: the new 2016 9-string Fanned Fret classical guitar has been started.

I have written about all the details at our web site Jack and Frances

Now, two things: 

First, I'm going to really need to sell off some of my old guitars. (Some details are on our site. My classical 7 is among them.) 

Second, I am creating a campaign to sell advance copies of the CD of original music that I'm going to record on the new guitar, and this is going to go out to our mailing list in a week or two, with links to the project pages on our website. In the meantime, I am polishing up the description of the project, with all the technical and historical detail I can find. 

You all might be interested in the project description although some is redup of info found here, but more to the point, since you are all into the details of ERGs, fanned frets, etc, you could help me by just pointing out where my data are wrong, comments insupportable, or where I have missed a trick or two in describing the project. Like, are there more FAQs I haven't thought of, and so on, or whatever strikes you as wierd or counterproductive. As I'm sure you all know, it's hard to see the forest for the trees sometimes. There could be a few artifacts left from the first versions of the pages, before the build was actually started (which took me a little by surprise, and I've been busy revising).

Here's the back story: I made drawings that I really like last summer, in 2015, after some valuable exchanges of posts here at 7string.org ERG. Just after New Year's of 2016 I traveled to Paracho, Michoacan, Mexico, and talked with my luthier, Salvador Castillo (guitarrascastillo.com) and said, look, I want to build this thing, here are my concept drawings, I need an estimate, I'll go home and put the money together and maybe you could start around March 1st, 2016, I hope. Then about two weeks later I get an email titled just "photos" and he has already cut out the top, put lattice bracing on it, made the rosette and also the neck and headstock...

Well - do I say, no, wait a minute!!?? Heck no... I say, I'll send you some money soon! (He knows me... I already bought several guitars from him.)
anyway, I'm in up to my neck and off we go for the ride. 

thanks for all your help, I got so much info off this forum that I never could have carried this off without. Special thanks to Durero, Ethereal Entity, Holloway, and the rest of yas. 

jack
Jack and Frances


----------



## InfinityCollision (Jan 28, 2016)

Will be following this project with interest.

I think you'll be pleased with the modified bracing and soundport/bridgepiece locations. The new configuration should better enable the top to vibrate; you've got more surface area to work with in critical areas and the new soundhole location is in a relatively "dead" space on the top (ie doesn't compromise vibration/projection!). Should even out response somewhat and give better projection overall.

What led to the decision to shift the location of the perpendicular fret?


----------



## jack_cat (Jan 29, 2016)

Yes, the whole reconfiguration of the top is the most radical change over the prototype. The A4 string on the prototype took a long time to wake up, because its anchor point on the tip of the slanted bridge was so close to the transverse bar, there wasn't much room to vibrate. It's much better now, with the development of the spruce top over two and a half years, the sound has melded somewhat. It is true that the A4 string has a very different character from traditional classical guitar expectations, and this is one of the things to just get used to with an A4 instrument, I think. The prototype actually has more uneven-ness in the sound of the different treble strings than might be desirable, I think the new one with the redesigned top will improve. 



InfinityCollision said:


> What led to the decision to shift the location of the perpendicular fret?



Anatomy. (It has actually been quite a physical challenge to play the prototype, though I have the action down to almost buzzing. First my bar muscle in my left thumb gave out, then when I nursed that around, I got tennis elbow in the left elbow for a while, and this intensified when I actually started to play our regular gigs with the Prototype back before Christmas. I've either had tendonitis or been recovering from it or working up a new case for about half my life, so this is not unfamiliar and I'll get over it with careful practice, but

First position on the prototype puts a twist on my left wrist. I want to ease that up a little bit, since the neck is a little longer on this new build. The additional length is only 4 centimeters, or about 1-9/16", and some of that is over the body, so it isn't much, but on the other hand small measurements have proven more significant than I might have thought in this guitar design business. 

Although it makes the upper frets more slanty, that doesn't worry me because: (1) comparing with the six string, the highest the six string classical w/ 19 frets goes is B5, and on the nine string w its A4 that's only the 14th fret. Most of my old repertory, when transferred across the fingerboard to the A4 string, works below the 10th fret. First position work has several new registers, including that given by the A4 string, and so I find that I am working a lot with the new chord positions and sonorities in the low positions. For instance, I am playing a lot of Renaissance lute music in my "spare time" ( that means I'm goofing off and not practicing repertory), which never goes past the 10th fret. 
(2) The very slanted frets up top are fun to play on and I can invent new licks however I want, and it's not so important to transfer any old licks to that area of the fingerboard. The fingering patterns on the slanted frets are a whole new ball game anyway and invite many different stretches and crossed fingerings. I don't think I'll mind that they are even a little more slanted than the prototype, given that the frets will be slightly farther apart as well. 

I have to built an extension to my mental harmonic map onto the upper reaches of the A4 string as well as in the doublebass registers, a lot of work to do there, requiring many hours of practice, I certainly don't want to have that process derailed by tendonitis, and the lower perpendicular fret is just hedging the bet a little bit. Our duo repertory does have some room for improvisation, and when I go off the edge of my known harmonic map, playing the Prototype in public, I end up grabbing for likely patterns which are sometimes comically outside the chord. I really want to be able to woodshed all day for the next couple of years and get this instrument down, meaning necessary harmonic patterns in all keys in the new registers. As you know, the three fourth-tuned strings B3 E4 A4 generate a whole field of slightly different positions for treble range chords.

Anyway, to keep making a short answer longer, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few adjustments that I might make in yet a third build! but I don't know what they are yet. I am happy _enough_ with the prototype that I'm sure this second build will be really good. Beyond that, I'm sure that in the next half century the design will be perfected, but by then I'll be over a hundred and out of the game. 

- jack


----------



## InfinityCollision (Jan 30, 2016)

Geometry is so important to good design. Not just the measurements and angles of the guitar itself, but how they interface with your own body and how you use the instrument as a whole.


----------



## PBC (Jan 31, 2016)

Awesome that you're building a second one. The entire history and build up of ERG classical guitars was well written and informative. You are definitely taken all the issues with the first build and addressing them here. 

It's cool to read about the resonance and development of the guitar. That the high a4 string sounds different after two years of aging and maturing. 

I'm excited to see it finished and will be watching this thread. Hoping that the combination of best design coupled with your playing optimization. 

My only question is why you didn't go a hair longer on the low string? With the perpendicular fret so close to the nut and the sound hole truncating the upper frets it would seem a safer option. 

Here is what I initially was able to replicate with the design on the website. 

I also have been experimenting with Dan Oni's E-scale type to accommodate large fans. I've extended their idea to a kind of Log Scale (L-Scale) to try and make frets straighter over large fans. Here are two designs I came up with concerning your specs. *All credit to Dan Oni's and the rest of the Ways to Multiscale thread*

It's perpendicular at the 6th but you can play with it. 
Modified of your existing specs

How I would perhaps want it even though I don't play you're type of instrument. 

Here: 29.4"-23.62"

Good luck Jack. I'll be checking out the progress as this develops and want to see it it built. You now have 119 cds to go


----------



## InfinityCollision (Jan 31, 2016)

The way your curvature reverses partway through the fan is unusual. Not sure that would work well in practice. Part of the beauty of the escale system is the way it distributes the increased scale length and fret angles in a way that maximizes benefits while minimizing obstructions and compromises in playability. While the benefits to the treble strings are preserved, I'm concerned with how the more significant changes in the middle strings and reversal of curvature in the bass strings might feel unintuitive under one's hands.

My own variation (design shown is WIP):







23.5-26.52" with extensions, designed for A1-A4 tuning. Note how much of the fan is relocated to areas where chord/arpeggio playing is kept to a relative minimum. It's transparent throughout the middle of the fretboard, and angles on strings 1-7 at the nut and 1-5 towards the bridge are held within certain parameters to maximize playability. It plays more like a 2" fan while retaining the timbral perks of the full 3" spread.


----------



## jack_cat (Feb 1, 2016)

PBC:
I really did consider going a hair longer on the low string, 74 centimeters or 29 inches as you are suggesting. I have been limited by fear of breaking the classical guitar 65 centimeter barriers, which was a very strong influence on the prototype design and hasn't yet dissipated. Standard classical length being 65c or 25-5/8", there are "long scale" classicals at 66 or 67 c which, in the days of my youth, I played and rejected as "too big for my hands". So when 68c (26.75") proved short for my low F#1, I even considered just going up to 70 c... anyway, it's under construction now at 72c. (If the low F#1 still proves unsatisfactory, at least I will probably get an A1 out of it. )

I also didn't want to max out the length of the A4 string (say 62c or 24-3/8") or to increase the fan width to more than 12c (4.75"). Maybe these are all arbitrary or imaginary limitations. I actually wonder how many guitarists have duplicated these experiments already, making the same mistakes independently around lengths of A4 and F#1 strings. It really would be nice to have, say, fifty grand to put into a series of definitive prototypes. Yeah, dream on, jack. 

The curved frets designs are fascinating, obviously extremely malleable as far as variations, and really have some promise for the future but I really didn't think I could sell the idea to my luthier, even if I were committed to it myself. Have you guys actually played these things? I have only seen one photo of an actual build (I'll look at that link.) 

There are in fact other bells and whistles that I have considered, and which I decided to leave aside so as not to complicate things excessively. One of the problems with the prototype was simply that it tried to answer too many prototypical questions at once, and became a flying cameleopard in the process. 

"...That the high a4 string sounds different after two years of aging and maturing..." is a function of the spruce top, which has a long break in period. Cedar tops give everything right away, and I considered that for this new build so as not to wait, but I am going for spruce because Castillo likes it better. It is true, the A4 was really pinched sounding in the beginning, and now it sings much more.

over and out-
jack


----------



## InfinityCollision (Feb 1, 2016)

jack_cat said:


> The curved frets designs are fascinating, obviously extremely malleable as far as variations, and really have some promise for the future but I really didn't think I could sell the idea to my luthier, even if I were committed to it myself. Have you guys actually played these things? I have only seen one photo of an actual build (I'll look at that link.)





Dan of Oni Guitars started implementing the e-scale concept in his builds about 4.5 years ago. That's one of his builds in the picture on your website. It's certainly a bit of extra effort, and doing the fret slots properly virtually requires CNC machinery, but I think the results are worthwhile for what I'm currently pursuing.


----------



## PBC (Feb 1, 2016)

Thanks InfinityCollision! That&#8217;s one thing I really enjoy about this forum is that I can get constructive feedback for designs/ideas. Looking back, it definitely takes a major flaw with the tremble side of things. My initial reason for exploring this idea was that tuning higher than E4 becomes extremely dicey as the scale length increase and, as a fan of thing gauge strings, tuning lower becomes difficult to get that clarity and brightness with thick strings. My reasoning was that the most flexible real estate on the fretboard is the in between of the fretboard. So the &#8220;L&#8221;-scale is two exponential series trying to converge in the middle of the board. 

I did divergent (D-Scale) scale from starting at the middle and growing outwards but it's very unplayable as you can see in this mockup. I also tried doing asymmetric series starting at different strings like 6th or 3rd string of a 9 string but it exacerbates the problem.

I remember your comment about the Ann Rosso Etherial guitar which has frets that looks like this.





From Etherial&#8217;s Pinterest account: 
_&#8220;ANN Rosso | Dark Helm Full details on the website Etherial Guitars | ...of Unearthly Artistry Additional notes: Curved multiscale Due to the larger scale range 30-25.5&#8221; and the tuning used G/A- D- G- C- E- A- d- g, 30&#8221; &#8211;25.5&#8221; with standard multiscale can be a bit of a stretch to play. So the curved multiscale makes the bridge spacing feel less steep underhand while also making the fret feel closer together too. The curve is determined by 4 factors, 3 of which are governing scale ranges (30&#8221; 28&#8221; and 25.5&#8221 These are the skeletons so to speak and the curve in determined by a bézier curve (4th factor) using the 3 skeletons as end points and curve parameter. Each string has an optimised scale length for the tuning giving better tension and even feel to the strings. This also means each string can be intonated correctly, essentially each string has an isolated scale length to best suit it&#8217;s tension/tone. This builds right off a normal multscale but refashioned to feel like a less steep multiscale This is not a novel idea but for this particular build is was the optimised solution.&#8221;_

I tried messing with ekips to try and figure it out. But I couldn&#8217;t get anywhere close without making the middle scale 25.5 and having it flanked by the 30&#8221; and 28&#8221; on either side respectively However, this contradicts the use of getting a tangible G4 string. While I understand the math behind the Bezier curve, I have no idea how translating scale lengths and fret positions to a Cartesian plane. 






It's hard to see. 

I initially had a though of creating triangles with a hypotenuse of the first and last fret(red is 1st to 8th string, green is 2nd to 7th) and have a gradual asymmetric grow that passed through the line but then I realized the connections would not line up with either the string or the fret itself, plus I had no idea how to calculate it. 

In regards to your design. I think it&#8217;s a great one. I see that unidirectional and unigrowth fretting is the best solution. If you&#8217;re tuning from A1-A4 I&#8217;m assuming that it&#8217;ll be something like from low to high:

A1(B1), D2(E2), ADGBEA with the lowest string scale length on the behind the nut being about 29.77&#8221;. 

It looks like you&#8217;re doing the opposite of Rook&#8217;s .strandberg, where he opted for having dropped at the normal nut and standard tuning on the negative frets. I&#8217;m curious about your thought process, with the dropped negative frets it would be making those glorious dropped chords voicing, using the sixths and seventh voicings potentially difficult because everything is shifted. Actually I just realized that you would be able to make those low major and minor thirds in the key of B and allowing for further control of your tonics with the sevenths provided by standard tuning. It would still make 9ths, which are easier in drop tuning, difficult but there must be caveats. 

I&#8217;ve wanted to create a usable 10 string for quite some time. Using Bb0F1BbEbAbDbGbBbEbGb4. That would be about a 32-25.5&#8221; or 25&#8221; which is ludicrous even for E-scale (don't know what would be optimal for that high G#4). I think the behind the nut solution would work best using similar tuning to you. In keeping with the 2 semitone fashion it would be a 25.5&#8221;-28.5&#8221; E-Scale with 2 negative frets for the 9th and 10th string (Becoming G#0 and Eb1 Respectively). If 3 negative semitones I would do 25.5-27&#8221; with negatives for 8th 9th 10th but that might be too extreme G0D0G0 and for playing. 

InfinityCollision any plans soon of getting it built? That nut looks narrow 51mm? Also what software do you use to get that fretboard layout? It looks nicer than FretFind2d plus it allows for negative frets. 

I know this was a novel and I don&#8217;t mean to digress from the point of this thread which is Jack&#8217;s String 9. Thanks for your feedback.


----------



## shadscbr (Feb 1, 2016)

Hey Jack,
What a cool project, I still love it, again w V 2.0!

In the name of sharing ideas, I would like to suggest a side soundport or two.

I opted for a side soundport in my 7 string ERG steel sting acoustic, and the tonal benefits are much greater than I expected. If I had it to do again, I would have done 2 ports, each one,to some extent, pointed towards each ear (when held in classical position). Sometimes, I can't stop playing because i'm mesmerized by the harmonic goodness coming from the port 

best of luck, can't wait to see how it turns out 

Shad


----------



## InfinityCollision (Feb 1, 2016)

PBC said:


> My initial reason for exploring this idea was that tuning higher than E4 becomes extremely dicey as the scale length increase and, as a fan of thing gauge strings, tuning lower becomes difficult to get that clarity and brightness with thick strings.


Indeed. Chasing A4 and simultaneously pursuing clarity in the strings is a challenge, and a big part of the driving force behind this particular project. I can't go much longer on the treble end without switching to specialized strings (an option, but one I'm currently disinclined to rely on), and while I'd like to go a bit longer yet on the bass end I'm not sure if I want to gamble on how that'd impact playability.

I remember that Etherial  If nothing else, the man certainly isn't afraid to try new things. I'm still highly skeptical of the implementation, but hopefully the buyer had better results with it than I would.



> If you&#8217;re tuning from A1-A4 I&#8217;m assuming that it&#8217;ll be something like from low to high:
> 
> A1(B1), D2(E2), ADGBEA with the lowest string scale length on the behind the nut being about 29.77&#8221;.


Correct.



> I&#8217;m curious about your thought process


I did experiment with drop A when I first transitioned to 7-string, but ultimately gravitated back to B standard. It's a more natural fit for what I'm doing and covers more of the repertoire I'm interested in playing when not working on my own music. Still, having those lower notes can be useful. The idea of a standard tuned guitar with access to a low D wasn't entirely new to me (useful for certain tunes in drop D where I can modify fingerings, but need access to D/D#), so extending that to the low B string wasn't much of a conceptual stretch. Adding the low A/D grants situational access to those pedal tones as desired, opens up some options that standard tuning lacks (note selection, key considerations, pedal tones, etc), adds a certain "neatness" to the range by completing a 5-octave spread, and conveniently suits certain personal writing habits. Bassoon was my first instrument, one I've played for many years. The lowest note on that instrument is B&#9837;1, though a few pieces call for A1 via use of an extension.



> I&#8217;ve wanted to create a usable 10 string for quite some time. Using Bb0F1BbEbAbDbGbBbEbGb4. That would be about a 32-25.5&#8221; or 25&#8221; which is ludicrous even for E-scale (don't know what would be optimal for that high G#4).


G&#9837;4 should be fine out to around 27" or so with standard strings and some care (no rough spots in the string path, bridge and tuner included). A bit beyond 28" is technically possible, but it's best not to push the tensile limits of your strings too far. That brings it down to about a 4.5-5" fan if you want the bass end to be 32", which is doable. Still a large fan, but working with extreme ranges/scales is inevitably an exercise in compromise. Escale doesn't change that, it's just another way of managing those compromises.



> InfinityCollision any plans soon of getting it built? That nut looks narrow 51mm? Also what software do you use to get that fretboard layout? It looks nicer than FretFind2d plus it allows for negative frets.


Soon! I've been slowly refining the design while waiting for certain other projects to reach fruition. I'm finally at a point where I feel that everything's coming together and I can start moving things forward.

The nut's actually relatively wide, as is the bridge. More in line with what you might find on a jazz archtop built for fingerpicking.

I created a spreadsheet that does the bulk of the calculations for me, then use that data to create rough mockups in EMachineShop. Someone with programming or CAD experience could probably create something more efficient (and I'll likely have to use CAD software for the final product anyway), but EMS is easy to use and "good enough" for quick tests. I believe Dan does most/all of his design work via CAD.


----------



## jack_cat (Feb 3, 2016)

shadscbr said:


> Hey Jack,
> In the name of sharing ideas, I would like to suggest a side soundport or two.
> Shad



Shad: I already have a soundport (Ruck style about 3c diameter) going in on top of the lower bout right under my left ear. You have yet another location in mind? I have been very impressed with the soundports on guitars I've played. (Haven't gotten out the hole saw and made any in my own guitars yet.)

Perhaps you all would like another progress pic, see attached. 

Thanks all! Curved frets on the next one? That's some out there stuff. 
The problem evident with the curved-fret drawing that I made, (nothing I intend to pursue) was that it was biased toward the shortest scale (in my case, the high A4 at 60 c) with only the longest basses going out on the long end of the curve. Although this might be very comfortable to play, the B3 and G3 would be comparatively short too and therefore sound tubby and have poor intonation - I think, and thinking nylon strings in my case as well. In terms of optimizing string lengths, it seems it would be better to run the curve the other way with the basses close to the same lengths and the treble strings running out the far end of the curve, but I don't think this would be comfortable to play. 

Infinity and PCB, I am totally impressed by you all's math and wouldn't know whether you are just grandstanding or not! ha. very good, carry on. 
- jack


----------



## jack_cat (Feb 9, 2016)

some more "in progress" pics
- jack


----------



## jack_cat (Feb 16, 2016)

This is on the fast track... going to be done before I'm quite ready, yow.

All assembled, lacking fingerboard and bridge. 
Cocobolo back and sides
Inlay mockup (on the fingerboard of the 2013 prototype) - still have
some work to do on these little pieces of shell. The sun rays look a little thick still I think. 

Very interesting learning to work with shell. The stars are cut from 
a sea snail about 4" x 3". The interior is pure white, the figure is only on the surface. I am, today, trying to dye the stars a gentle yellow with Behnken alcohol and turmeric. I have doubts whether it will strike thru to the interior. 

The sunburst is cut from abalone - from a little piece I bought in the artisans market. This is beautiful stuff, tho a little darker than I imagined. The figure runs all the way thru and emerges like burl wood patterns. 

The snail shell fractures easily, I made almost twice this many stars. The abalone is easier to work but also has fracture lines that follow the grain of the figure. I crazy glued a couple of them back together. 

I used a Dremel with a minute cutting wheel, and various files, sandpaper, and a magnifying glass / light combo. I fractured some pieces trying to tighten them in the vise. Also sanded the skin off my thumb...

It could be finished within a couple of weeks. 

- jack


----------



## PBC (Feb 16, 2016)

Looking great Jack. I'm amazed at this turnaround for such an experimental build. 

Can't to see it finished.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Feb 18, 2016)

It is so cool to go through this thread and see everything come to fruition over a few years. Awesome work Jack!


----------



## jack_cat (Feb 27, 2016)

Thanks. Awesome for me too. 

Fed Ex has mislayed the inlays and the strings for ten days on a "two day" delivery, so things have been held up. The guitar is still at least two weeks from being finished, starting whenever the inlays show up. I shudda carried them to Paracho myself. Oh well - ni modo. Hope they show up today or Monday. 

On the bright side, and thanks very much to some folks from here who have contributed, and many others now: between my fundraising lecture-concert on the 24th, some donations from close friends, and the sale of two guitars and quite a number of CDs, the cash is mostly in hand to pay for the construction cost. My nice 6 string cedar and palo escrito Castillo sold. A couple of others are still hanging out there. 

And FYI, my lame attempt to dye the inlay stars yellow didn't work. 

- jack


----------



## Winspear (Mar 21, 2016)

Can't be long now?  Excited to see, looking awesome!


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Mar 21, 2016)

EtherealEntity said:


> Can't be long now?  Excited to see, looking awesome!


My first time stumbling upon this thread. I initially thought that this was being made for you, Tom. 

OP is going to have something nicely interesting here!


----------



## PBC (Mar 23, 2016)

Jack, 

I got your CD in the mail. Any update on the guitar?

Eagerly await more pictures.


----------



## jack_cat (Apr 11, 2016)

Hello my friends, 
I have the new guitar in my little paws!
First_Time_05.jpg





I want to earnestly thank, again, all of you seven-string-orguers who have helped me out so much with feedback, encouragement, and your own ever-more-radical examples. Also to those folks who went to our website and bought a CD and helped out thereby with the short-term finance problem just enough to get me over the hump! All the more big-hearted of them since I can't imagine any of you young shredders care much about my stuff! 

Yes, it's awesome. So far improved over the 2013 Prototype it is unbelievable. 
I took a video of the first piece I played on it, and will make that available
shortly. 

Very even transitions from string to string, much more seamless than on prototype. 
Plays in tune way farther up the neck.
SOUNDPORT!! with soundport and soundhole so close to each other, you get a stereo image of the sound bouncing around inside the guitar even after the note is finished. And it makes a very effective stage monitor, I can hear myself much better than ever before. 
Neck layout is very comfortable. I'm VERY happy with the 3rd fret at right angle. Having first position comfy does not make the extreme-angled upper frets unplayable. With cutaway, I am practicing scale patterns on all strings right up to the sound hole. 
JJB pickup sounds awesome. 
Beautiful bass response from the coco bolo. 

Now: apologies. New Guitar Day was almost two weeks ago. But I had a little problem with a rattling pickup wire and I was sort of bummed until I got it worked out - I didn't really want to travel back to the luthier's shop to deal with it. A friend with small hands got in there and put a bit of tic-tac on it, and, knock on wood, it's OK for now. But for that, I would have been crowing on Thursday March 31st. I took the pic above on Tuesday the 29th and returned home on Wed. 

Criticisms: There is little to criticize, really, except for my inlays. (A little rough, learning on the job by yours truly, I did not make the shapes deep enough and some were partly sanded away, one star exposing a back cut. Oh well. They're real pretty from a certain distance.) Otherwise this design really worked 99 % of the bugs out which were manifest in the prototype. And bear in mind that this is a very brand-new spruce top which will like all spruce classicals not really mature for another five years. And for a brand new spruce-top this thing really sings. And it's CocoBolo, one of the densest classical box woods available, so I fully expect that there is considerably more developing sound to be heard in the future. 

But such as there is, is this, so far: the very lowest frequencies, F#1, G1 and G#1 are just a little bit less focused than those notes A1 and higher on the same string (which are very good and blend well with those above them on the B1 string.) I will try a thicker string for the F#1 which I don't have yet. Currently there is a .075" on it. I calculated .072. I may try up to .080 to find out. 

One thought that naturally arises has to do with the length of the F#1. PCB piped up right away with "Why dincha make it 74 centimeters?" Well, maybe he was right. This 72c F#1 is far, far better than the Prototype's at 68c, but now that I have played it, I have this thought:

Since this design is far easier to play than I thought it would be, and since the entire story of this thing is about getting over the fear of long scale lengths, NOW I can imagine another build - O, GAS - with a 15c fan 60c to 75c... oh, maybe in five years! This guitar is pretttty nice to go talking thataway Jack... 

but seriously: to anyone who is going to try a classical build with an F#1: 68 centimeters doesn't cut it! 70 looks very iffy! 72 works! 75 might be better! 

60:75 reduces to 4:5, an even better Pythagorean ratio than the 5:6 of the current build (yeah, yeah, if that matters really as a design factor), but requires a 15c fan (almost 5-15/16", almost 6 inches that is.) From my current perspective this is nowhere near as intimidating as it was three years ago. 

GEAR QUESTION: might as well put this here while I have your attention:
It is a curious coincidence that our speakers (of a certain cheap make, often derided) apparently have the low frequency cutoff point about 52 hz, and that the bass notes which are weakest (as stated above) are just below this cutoff, and therefore they are also weak when amplified. Could it possibly be worth adding a crossover and sub, or a separate feed to a bass amp, just to amplify three more low notes? Eh... probably not, I think...

I will post a bunch of pics shortly.

Thanks all! 
- jack


----------



## jack_cat (Apr 11, 2016)

this just testing the process:


----------



## Winspear (Apr 12, 2016)

Looks lovely! And incredibly playable.

Do you find, with the bridge at such an angle, any tonal issue between picking the strings? Given you are picking the basses almost close to halfway down the string.
This may also compound the lower string tension issues, as you give the string more energy there so it feels looser, has more room to vibrate, and also sounds warmer, than it would if you picked toward the bridge.

Re. string gauges, I use Savarez 5211r .075 for E1 on 69.3cm. It works well for me, but I can see why you may want longer. I also use a .058 for G1 on 73.3cm, that feels tighter. I mostly play jazz on the shorter guitar, so I'm going for a different tone there and some buzz doesn't bother me. Wouldn't suit classical. The 58 G is good for that. All a matter of taste though!

You have a high A4 on this? What string are you using?

I can't remember if I ever mentioned to you - have you heard of 11 string alto guitars? Perhaps they would interest you, given the rapid scale increase toward the bass. Depends if you are fretting notes on the lowest strings or not, they are not useful there and function only as a frettable 7 string, with stepwise basses.


----------



## InfinityCollision (Apr 12, 2016)

Congratulations Jack, looks lovely. Looking forward to the video 


jack_cat said:


> But such as there is, is this, so far: the very lowest frequencies, F#1, G1 and G#1 are just a little bit less focused than those notes A1 and higher on the same string (which are very good and blend well with those above them on the B1 string.)



This is likely a physics problem of a different sort. The acoustics of such instruments are complex, but one important property is that they behave (roughly) as a Helmholtz resonator because of the soundhole. This behavior is important to the guitar's sound, as it smooths out and extends the instrument's low frequency response (otherwise dominated by resonances in the soundboard and to a lesser degree the body; the first such mode is generally tuned to 190~200 Hz). However, such a resonator's ability to effectively project below this frequency is limited both in power and quality. It just so happens that the Helmholtz frequency of a guitar is typically around or just below 110 Hz, or A2 (open A string).

So why is this only such an issue once you've gone another octave down? The fundamental is not necessarily the strongest frequency for any given note you play; the first couple of overtones generally dominate a pitched instrument's sound. As such the instrument can accommodate a fundamental below its resonant frequency without much issue - instruments of the violin family likewise often have Helmholtz resonances in line with their open second string, rather than the first. Once you go more than an octave below the resonant frequency though, the first overtone suffers accordingly. The first two or three overtones would also fall below the primary resonant frequency of the guitar itself, which may contribute as well.

Hence the decline in sound quality despite increasing string length as you move towards the nut. There are ways to lower the resonant frequency further, but I'm not sure how low you could easily go or what side effects you might incur in the process.


----------



## jack_cat (Apr 15, 2016)

Thanks to two of my best kibbutzers here. 

Simplifying Infinity Collision's explanation, we can put it thus: there is the usual classical box's hotspot at A2, which is where Castillo like some other classical and flamenco luthiers likes to tap-tune the components. A2 feeds back on most amplified classicals, some worse than others. This hotspot then also makes the A1 a little hot, and this in turn makes the notes below A1 appear to drop off a little harder, perhaps combined with additional factors. Oh. It's not a major problem demanding any resolution, just observation. It may be also, in addition to trying a fatter string (pending acquisition of same) that merely raising the action of the ninth string a hair at the nut would improve it, but I will wait until I have tried the fatter string. Don't want to raise the action... (poor old tendons.)

Ethereal Entitiy wrote:
"Do you find, with the bridge at such an angle, any tonal issue between  picking the strings? Given you are picking the basses almost close to  halfway down the string."

Jack: What I am finding with this guitar is that most of the time I am preferring maximum mellow, picking far up toward the soundhole, which does require a softer touch. The guitar will play loud in a jam, and louder picked near the bridge, but because the action is very low, it overdrives like a flamenco guitar, OK in some circumstances not others. Did the first tentative recording yesterday and discovered to keep the sound "classically" clean requires quite a soft and even touch, a long way from the high action and hard tone I used to use. Since playing it still maxes out my left hand grip (I have to periodically use increased right-elbow pressure to give it a break when barring), the low action is a must and this in turns demands a soft attack. To get a bright attack near the bridge, yes, I have to move my right hand around from string to string to some degree, and the highest string in play gets the brightest sound, but I really don't find that there is any issue worth mentioning, at least for me. Also, the strings themselves are much more tonally even with each other than with the prototype, other than that the first few frets of the A4 string are significantly brighter than any other spot on the fingerboard. 

Eth Ent: "This may also compound the lower string tension issues, as you give the  string more energy there so it feels looser, has more room to vibrate, "

Jack: Yes, precisely: necesarily picking farther from the bridge, combined with the low action, there's little headroom before distortion, most particularly with the open F#1. 

Eth Ent: "You have a high A4 on this? What string are you using?"

Jack: D'Addario rectified nylon .022". This in preference to .020 and .021, the only others I have on hand. I have not yet tried any fluorocarbon strings; calculation says it would be a .016 or .017 fluoro, but I don't have any Seaguar material this size (the fishing supply substituted the next size up when I last ordered) and other brands are lousy. I ordered 3 sizes of nylon (instead of fluoro) for each string, because a wider range of sizes is available and because they are (purchased singly) much cheaper, for the initial experiments - which were all done by Castillo before I picked up the guitar, anyway. Because this guitar has so much bigger a sound than the 2013 prototype did, I am for the moment very happy with the nylon, although it annoys me by changing pitch with the temperature. 

Eth Ent: "I can't remember if I ever mentioned to you - have you heard of 11 string alto guitars?"

Jack: Yes, I'm aware of the Alto Guitar as probably the main competing design to mine or the Brahms Guitar in the realm of extended range classicals. ("Dresden Guitar" very similar.) It has obvious advantages in some ways: short scale, A4, and lots of open-string basses. However, the fact that the completion of the chromatic bass range is on frets that cannot be reached while playing the upper strings is cludgy design in my book. Also, my musical goals have slightly diverged from those of the players of Alto Guitars - who tend to have not yet really escaped from the classical guitar ghetto, IMO - because I want to use my lower strings to PLAY BASS, not to just play open strings under higher fingered chords. Since most of my lucrative activity is as half of a guitar duo, and we play NO classical repertoy (kiss of death there) but instead play arrangements of pop tunes all composed within living memory, I am now developing my accompaniment skills in the direction of "accompanied bass", with the bass line as rhythmically active as I can manage, and minimal two-voiced chords in the midrange (which now, with this instrument, can be comfortably separated from both the bass line and the melody, whereas when we used to work with two 6-strings, the middle voices were always getting squeezed out.)

Thanks for your comments. 

Pics next. 

- jack


----------



## jack_cat (Apr 15, 2016)

Pics:


----------



## jack_cat (Apr 15, 2016)

More pics:


----------



## jack_cat (Apr 15, 2016)

two more and that's all for now:

You may well observe that the rosette has a little zen mark; there are some others. This is just to remind me that, however lusciously beautiful each successive built, there will be no perfect and definitive instrument; when perfection comes, it's in a pine box six feet under; until then, stay in process and keep practicing, Jack! This really is the most amazing instrument to play - what I most enjoy about the increased range is having four notes of the same pitch class under the fingers in a single position, plus another half octave. Thus I can start, say, on A1, and play a D-major-seventh arppeggio including all four tones in each octave, right up to D5 without changing positions. Or whatever.

Regrettably, the main obstacle to playing keyboard-style complexities on an ERG is not the lack of strings or range, but the lack of fingers. A multii-generational breeding program could solve this one: we establish a race of six-fingered humans by the year 2300 or so and then move on to seven fingers. This will require a great deal of inbreeding and we may have to euthanize the occasional three-fingered or three-eyed sport. It might also be wise to try to breed out the computer-addiction genes which interfere so much with music practice. Further details I leave to your imagination... 

but on second thought this is really a very old-fashioned approach, it could probably be done much sooner, and probably will be, with genetic engineering. No doubt there is a major lab somewhere working on the problem, and first 16-fingered, then 32-fingered guitarists,  64 fingered, then 256 fingered guitarists will be showing up posting on the seven-string org forum!!! ("How many fingers do you have?" "1024 on each hand - how about you?" "oh, I only have 512!" "and do you use fingernails?")

- jack


----------



## PBC (Apr 18, 2016)

Looks great Jack. Happy to see that it turned out well. 

One thing to say and chat about prototypes, and more stones to you for going through with the built a second time! 

Congratulations and I look forward to the video.


----------



## jack_cat (May 2, 2016)

Ethereal Entity, I must apologize for the answer quoted below, which represents only part of the sonic picture. Sorry. I was thinking about this while observing what I actually do when I am playing on stage, rather than ruminating in my studio, and have some further things to report. More below:



jack_cat said:


> Ethereal Entitiy wrote:
> "Do you find, with the bridge at such an angle, any tonal issue between  picking the strings? Given you are picking the basses almost close to  halfway down the string."
> 
> Jack: What I am finding with this guitar is that most of the time I am preferring maximum mellow, picking far up toward the soundhole, which does require a softer touch. The guitar will play loud in a jam, and louder picked near the bridge, but because the action is very low, it overdrives like a flamenco guitar, OK in some circumstances not others. Did the first tentative recording yesterday and discovered to keep the sound "classically" clean requires quite a soft and even touch, a long way from the high action and hard tone I used to use. Since playing it still maxes out my left hand grip (I have to periodically use increased right-elbow pressure to give it a break when barring), the low action is a must and this in turns demands a soft attack. To get a bright attack near the bridge, yes, I have to move my right hand around from string to string to some degree, and the highest string in play gets the brightest sound, but I really don't find that there is any issue worth mentioning, at least for me. Also, the strings themselves are much more tonally even with each other than with the prototype, other than that the first few frets of the A4 string are significantly brighter than any other spot on the fingerboard.
> ...



So, what I am observing is that this spruce top asks for a different picking location for different volume levels when playing together with my duet partner, amplified in our usual anything-but-pristine live audio environment. When I play melodies, I may want a bright toneto cut through the mix, and then I go both loud and toward the bridge, and conversely playing pure accompaniments, I go soft and toward the soundhole. This is first of all a kinesthetic choice about how stiff the string feels, with auditory feedback backing it up - do I like what I hear? So, yes I am moving my right hand around a lot just following the auditory sweet spot on each string, which sweet spots naturally are roughly parallel to the angled bridge. 

Hence the question: any issues with this?

Yes. The right hand must be free to travel. 
Generally, and beginning with the six-string years ago, I have cultivated a right hand tech that allows the hand to move up and down, which required that I "train out" the unconscious clutching of the guitar with the right elbow to stabilize it against the breast bone in order to relieve the left hand of having to develop bar strength (I have known many players who do this, and if done consciously it has its place, but if it's not conscious then the guitar jumps around when the left hand moves up and down the neck, something that marred my playing years ago.) 

However, with this 9-string bar strength IS an issue. Notwithstanding that my luthier set it up as low as a Flamenco guitar, and that it is very sweet to play, I have nevertheless blown out my left thumb again over the weekend - which is why I'm on line this morning instead of practicing. 

So, I have been strategically using the right-elbow clutch-clamp technique to take the pressure off my left hand thumb - but when I do this, then my right hand is not free to travel. Now I think I can deal with the left hand thumb blowout just by taking it easy, which has been hard because I've been really excited to play this thing as close to 24-7 as I can.

So, that issue aside, yes, when I need to get a nice bright sound out of the bass strings, my right hand needs to travel down into the angle of the bridge so that to reach up and play the treble strings isn't possible. 

Also, the A4 string gets very shrill close to the bridge, so for that string I have to stay even a little farther toward the sound hole.

So, as I climb up out of the bass registers, my right hand has to progessively travel toward the sound hole. 

However, all this right hand movement, which really only occurs over a distance of a few inches, quickly became part of an automatic response to 
the kinesthetic/auditory sensation feedback loop and I wouldn't have been thinking about it at all if it hadn't been for your question. 

Like other aspects of fanned frets, it's just a detail that's different and requires a slightly different technique, and it in no way constitutes any real detriment that could possibly count against the very real advantages of this design. 

Yeah, I have really been enjoying it. I'm just like a rat with a bigger exercise wheel. Part of how I hurt my hand was playing long scale sequences with the metronome last week. So I need a few hours of rest! 

(And yes, I can see where admitting that I hurt my hand on it could set the critical fingers wagging: What did we tell you, Icarus? Six strings weren't enough for you, huh? etc. ) 

Whatever. I'm sure you all know where I'm at with it, and it's a very minor setback. 

- jack


----------



## jack_cat (Aug 24, 2016)

A summing-up by the Original Poster. 
As I have accomplished what I set out to do when I started these two threads (one on the Delcamp English forum, and one in the ERG forum at sevenstring.org), and as I feel that it is very unlikely that I will go any farther with any radical guitar design process myself, I feel that it is time to sum up the results of my researches and to thank everyone who has helped me in the process. It has been interesting to observe that the Delcamp forum has generally been quite conservative, as reflecting its classical orientation, and the sevenstring.org forum has been generally encouraging of more radical ideas, reflecting its orientation toward electric instruments and eclectic modern musical styles. 

The final result of this three year process is a 9-string fanned fret classical guitar tuned
F#1 - B1 - E2 - A2 - D3 - G3 - B3 - E4 - A4. 
This is, of course, the standard tuning of the six string guitar with one additional treble string and two additional bass strings. 

The longest string (F#1) measures 72 centimeters. 
The shortest string (A4) measures 60 centimeters. 
The "right-angle" fret is the third. (On my 9-string prototype of 2013, the right-angle fret was #5, and this resulted in difficulty with first-position work. The third-fret right-angle is far better. The increase in the angle of the upper frets is not significant.)
The string spacing is 9mm at the nut (left-hand) end, and 11mm at the bridge (right-hand) end. 
It has four 20mm piezo discs wired together into a single jack and glued to the underside of the top. This pickup combination was made for me by JJB electronics. It is slightly bass-heavy, easily corrected with EQ. 
Tuners: Schertler. These are the only classical guitar tuners I have found that are not 3-on-a-plate and come individually. I had to buy two complete sets anyway. They have an 18:1 ratio and are very sweet tuners. 

I have abandoned fluorocarbon strings and am using rectified nylon. The high A4 is now a D'Addario .021". The low [email protected] is a wound .075" - Savarez or La Bella, I don't remember. The La Bella lute strings, sold by Strings by Mail as single strings, are a blessing, because a normal guitar D string is not long enough to reach the end of the peg head. 

With these specifications my design can be reproduced. The details of the specific build, realized in February and March 2016 by Paracho luthier Salvador Castillo, will be discussed below. I am very happy with the design and am playing the new guitar exclusively, not without some physical problems as mentioned below. 

In 2012 I had Castillo build me a straight fret seven-string guitar with string length 65 centimeters, tuned as a standard six-string plus a low B1. Although this was a beautiful instrument and I played it for several years, two further considerations arose. (1) It appeared to me that the low B string was not long enough at 65 centimeters. (2) I began to desire an additional treble string, an A4, but for this purpose, 65 c. was clearly too long: all available strings break at that length and pitch. 

Researching the question, I looked at the "Brahms Guitar" design played by Paul Galbraith. I could not find at that time any specific information on the critical dimensions: length of longest and shortest strings, number of the "right-angle" fret, and fingerboard width (which is to say, string spacing). By the time I had found this information, the more radical designs of the fanned-fret electric guitars being shared on the sevenstring.org forum - which have up to eleven strings - had led me to consider a 9-string design instead. 

For the reader who is looking for specs on the "Brahms Guitar", these seem to be the usual norm (if there is one) based on Galbraith's design:
Longest String (B1) 65 centimeters.
Shortest String (A4) 61.5 centimeters.
Right-angle Fret: Number 7 or 8. 
String Spacing: I assume 9 mm at the nut. (This could well be a personal choice, as many players prefer narrower spacings; some classical guitars have 8 mm or 8.5 mm spacing at the nut. However, some players, myself included, have made the mistake of choosing an impractically narrow spacing, as I did on the 2013 9-string prototype (7.5mm at nut.) Electric guitars are often very much narrower than classical guitars.)

These specs of Galbraith's show a concern with minimizing the width of the fan, at the expense of the tone quality of the "added" strings B1 and A4. My own recommendation for a fanned fret 8-string, based on my own experiences now with a number of ERGs (3 7-strings and 2 9-strings), would be to make the A4 at 60 centimeters and the B1 at 68 centimeters. This will much improve the quality of those added strings at the expense of making the fan more than twice as wide (but only 2/3 as wide as my new 9-string). The appropriate location of the "right-angle" fret should then be determined empirically through making multiple drawings, cutting them out and putting them on cardboard mockups. Probably the fifth fret would be fine. 

The advantages of my nine-string design are:

(1) The upper six string are tuned as a Renaissance lute in A. This gives me direct access to the entire lute literature of the sixteenth century on my regular instrument. The range, although not the tuning, of these upper six strings is also the same as the Mexican Requinto, allowing me to closely imitate that instrument also, although with slightly different chord forms under the fingers. 

(2) The standard six-string tuning is preserved intact, so that all legacy repertory is portable without modifications, except for some occasional intonation issues which mandate moving some very high passages to the upper (lute) string set, requiring re-fingering.

(3) With the addition of a low B1 as on the Brahms guitar or on my 2012 7-string, a guitar has a nominal range from B1 to C6 (with 20 frets) which is the same as the 5-octave keyboard which accomodates most of the keyboard music of J. S. Bach. However, on 7- or 8-string instruments, the low register is not accessible at the same time as the high register. On the contrary, with the 9-string, the desirable low bass notes around C2 are moved up to the middle of the fingerboard, and the desirable high register in the 5th octave is moved down five frets, requiring less crawling around above the 12th fret. The cutaway, however, makes the uppermost register very accessible also. The extreme angles of the upper frets are not a disadvantage and in fact are better ergonomically (whereas an extreme angle at the other end near the nut is a decided disadvantage, based on my experience with the 2013 9-string prototype). 

(4) The addition of two extra bass strings gives me a full bass register. The four strings F#1 B1 E2 A2 essentially are, together, a four-string bass tuned one whole step higher than normal. This allows me to use my regular instrument to play bass when I want to. The low F#1 played open remains a little bit unfocused in sound. I conclude that to make that low a pitch resonate is just below the capacity of a normal-sized classical guitar body. However, the note G1 is better, and the note A1 is the equal of all of the higher notes. Playing the F#1 string higher on the neck, it is perfectly and beautifully functional, and has none of the unpleasant clickiness that the F#1 on the 2013 prototype exhibited at 68 centimeters length. It does not appear to me to be worth it to build another guitar with the F#1 at 75 c., although I have thought about it, because of the following issue:

Apologies for whining, of course, but for the sake of sharing info on the experience, I pass it on. On receiving the instrument around the first of April 2016, I began to practice long hours. Within two months I had abused my left wrist thoroughly by attempting many full barres and stretched-out positions (particularly in my study of the Bach two-part Inventions), which translated then into a chronic sore elbow which has persisted. In June I was forced to reduce my practice schedule to only a very few hours a week in order to be able to maintain my 10-hour-a-week performance schedule, due to pain in my left elbow and wrist. I have been too stubborn to go back to a smaller instrument, as I really like playing this one. (I am 60, maybe a younger player might be able to adapt more easily.) Naturally I don't admit defeat and have high hopes that I will overcome this obstacle in time, with care and patience. I have had many episodes of tendonitis, but mostly with the right hand in the past, seldom with the left. 

This difficulty met another: the new guitar was developing a dip-and-bulge around the bridge. I had ordered a variety of strings (three different thicknesses for each of the nine) based around a nominal tension of 7 kilograms per string. Castillo, in my necessary absence, chose from the strings I had sent him, and chose those that made the guitar sound like one of the flamenco guitars which are his regular stock in trade, and in fact complained that a couple of the strings could be higher tension yet. Yes, it sounded great, and when I first picked it up, it seemed quite easy to play - until I had been at it a couple of months. In the interest of sparing both myself and the guitar, I have recently replaced the strings with thinner ones at 6 kilos of tension. (I have ordered more thinner strings and intend to try 5 kilos next.) The bulge-and-dip flattened out considerably when I put the thinner strings on, to my relief, and I find it easier to play. This move to thinner strings requires that I be content with less projection. Amplified, this is not a problem. Also, ornaments are easier. Anyway, the super-digital, bright, loud sound of high tension strings that became the 20th century norm for the six-string classical isn't going to work for this guitar or for me playing it. I was able to do it with my seven string, but with nine, the string tension must be less for sure. 

When I had Castillo build the 9-string prototype in 2013, we were both aware that there are many 10-strings around (of the Yepes pattern - it's a popular design with the university students here) which have developed structural problems due to the extra string tension. The 2013 prototype was overbuilt and never quite sparkled. With the new 2016 build, it appears he took a chance on underbuilding it for the sake of the sound. Viewed through the soundport, the spruce top is quite translucent and looks scarily thin. The lattice bracing is gossamer, and does not extend all the way to the sides, so the entire top seems to float. However, it sounded fabulous from the first time I picked it up, and continues to sound better. I would not trade this beautiful sound for mere sturdiness, even if it is necessary to reduce the string tension more. 

The Cocobolo back has a big X-brace on it. You will appreciate that the line between overbuilding and underbuilding is a complete crapshoot with such an experimental design. In this case, the displaced soundhole (placed away in the bass side of the upper bout in order to free up some room for the top to vibrate around the A4 end of the bridge) also made an unpredictable design variable. At any rate, I am very happy with the sound, and as it was impossible for me to physically continue playing it with heavy gauge strings, it appears that going with lighter gauge strings is a happy compromise for both me and the guitar. 

So once again, I want to thank all of the interested people who have helped me with advice, encouragement, and even cash, during the three-year-plus process of designing this guitar and having it built. It has been quite an experience and worth it all the way. It feels like a summing up of my lifetime as a musician. Hope I get another couple of decades to play it! I also hope that some young players will pick up the design and run with it. 

The recording I have promised is on ice for a few months yet. 
- jack


----------



## Winspear (Aug 24, 2016)

Thanks for the detailed post Jack! As you know I share a lot of your interest and similar experience in this area so this was interesting to read. Sorry to hear that you are having some troubles, I hope things improve! Absolutely awesome guitar


----------



## Durero (Aug 24, 2016)

Yes thanks so much for such valuable and detailed information. 

This is immensely valuable and I will be building myself a similar design in the coming years. 

All the best to you with your wonderful guitar!


----------



## PBC (Aug 25, 2016)

Sorry to hear about the wrist issues. Thanks for posting this awesome info. It'll help the rest of us down the road. 

Hoping for a speedy recovery!


----------



## jack_cat (Oct 22, 2018)

Hello my ERG friends,
OP back again after 2 years.
I love this 9-string fanned fret classical! I haven't played anything else in over 2 years for more than about a minute.

Some info that I overlooked posting before:
ON INTONATING THE SADDLE ON NYLON STRINGS WITH A4
On all three classical-type guitars that I have played along this line that have an A4 string, the nylon G string frets about 10 to 12 cents sharp at the 12th fret if not compensated. The rest of the strings made an array of lesser values. Saddle compensation is essential.
When I started looking at this seriously, I did a rough calculation that indicated that the additional saddle set-back for the G string, relative to the set line of the saddle which gave good 12th-fret intonation for the A4 and the F#1, needed to be about 2 millimeters. Unfortunately, the guitar was built with a standard narrow classical saddle bone which was just less than that.

So, I took a razor blade and some custom-filed chisels and widened the saddle slot to 4 millimeters and put in a wider bone, and was able to compensate the G string to improve the intonation considerably. This had the interesting added benefit of immediately improving the tone quality of the low F#1 string. I had to cut the bone from a whole cow femur, I recommend a band saw! which I don't have, used the table saw.

In doing this I did envy electric players their adjustable saddles.

I have had some problems with this process. As mentioned, the top and the lattice bracing are quite delicate, and the top goes up and down slightly with different gauge strings, hence not only the action changes but the intonation. As I was experimenting for a time with the string gauges, I was trying to get the action set and the saddle intonated at the same time, but the variables were all changing with different strings. I made several different saddles. I could improve it again with another one... I should make clear that I am really not complaining about this, because it has a fabulous sound and if it's a little temperamental I can live with it. The top has a lot of tension on it with nine strings, and it does move. It also changes pitch more when the room gets warm than my duet partner's guitar, bass stings as well as treble.

Now, somebody asked about the possible inconvenience of playing close to the bridge with the extreme angle on the bridge, and that is worth talking about again. Now that the spruce top has begun to mature, there is a "tone zone" at a certain point near the bridge where there are some very interesting sounds; a rather small move toward the bridge changes the tone dramatically and gives a nice volume boost. This is the most responsive spruce top I have had like this. Yes, this point is different on each string, and so my right hand has to move horizontally. However, the horizontal distance is not very much, and since finding the sweet spot on each string is a matter both of how it sounds and how the string feels under the right hand fingers (I play no-nails now), I have found no inconvenience. Not only that, I love the tones I can get out of it, which are responsive to finger pressure and angle. 

I took the pickup out that I had built in: I knew this was an experimental feature because due to the strange sound-hole placement, it was inaccessible; I had a physical, not electronic, buzz I couldn't solve - or maybe I just imagined I did, but it bugged me - and I was more interested in the guitar than in the pickup, and wanted to get that issue out of the way, so I just left the discs, snipped the wires and took out the wiring harness and jack. I wired up three piezo discs in parallel and put the jack on the butt end with velcro - this is going into a bbe acoustimax sonic maximizer, the 3rd such box I have bought to try, and it works. If I ever have another one built, I may try an internal pickup again, but there is nothing lost - I am only glad that there were no experimental features which were fatal on this one!

Gotta run--- over and out. 
jack


----------



## jack_cat (Apr 16, 2019)

Update on the 9-string Fanned Fret Classical Harp Guitar Project 4-16-19
Redundant but complete.

To recap: I drew designs in the spring of 2013, had a marginally successful prototype built in the fall of 2013, did revised designs in 2015, had the current instrument built in Feb-March 2016, and have been playing it for three years. It is a nylon-string classical with lattice-braced European spruce top, cocobolo back and sides. 
The tuning from bottom to top is F#1 – B1 – E2 – A2 – D3 – G3 – B3 – E4 – A4.
The F# string is 72 c long / 28.4 inches, and the high A4 string is 60 c / 23.6”.
This is a good length for the A string. The F# might sound better longer, but would increase the difficulty.

Physical issues playing the instrument:
It took me two years to adapt. I had pain in wrists, elbows and shoulders for two years, and after the first few months had to reduce my practice time. (I don't blame this on the guitar entirely, some of it was about me, but you can draw your own conclusions.) I had to stretch my left hand considerably, and Ihad a temporary failure of my barre muscle. Increased use of my RH pinky finger for plucking, since there are so many juicy five-note chords spread across various string combinations, caused me some discomfort in my right elbow. This was all embarrassing; naturally I was concerned that I might be forced to abandon the instrument and regress to a simpler instrument. In the third year those issues disappeared and I have resumed a reasonable practice schedule of two to three hours most weekdays plus weekend gigging. I recognize the wisdom of Galbraith's radical change of playing position, but I don't have any plan to go there myself. I can imagine ergonomic changes in the shape of the instrument, but I don't have a clear idea of them. The neck and headstock are heavy and the body quite light, but it's not as bad as a theorbo! I experimented with, and rejected, a strap.

Musical results:
I have adapted my repertory to the new instrument and haven't played any other guitar for the last three years. My hobby project of the last year has been to study Tomas de Santa Maria's “Arte de Tañer Fantasía” of 1565. This could be done with any of the current types of ERCG that are being made and played (Brahms guitar, Alto guitar, Dresden guitar...? etc), but on the six-string a person would face some limitations. The nine-string provides the ranges of three instruments in one: the top six strings are tuned like an A-tuned Renaissance lute or vihuela and also have the range of the Mexican requinto; the 2nd to 7th strings are the legacy guitar tuning; the bottom four strings are like a four-string bass tuned a whole step high. It's very versatile.

Technical issues with the design and build:
The 2016 build is way more successful than the 2013 prototype, but there are still some issues. These issues are not deal breakers, and I expect to play this instrument for many years. It has a really beautiful sound, and I am very happy with the sound, and with the variations of tone and volume available by moving the right hand position even slightly; in this respect the spruce top and its lattice bracing are a great success. All the same,I can certainly imagine having another one built someday - GAS can be suppressed for a while...

Angled Bridge:
The most serious issue is an unanticipated behaviour of the angled bridge. The pull of the strings, which as with a straight classical bridge pulls up on the back of the bridge and pushes the front of it down in a bulge-and-belly pattern, forces the point of the bridge on the treble side down into the top while pulling up (relatively) on the bass side parallel to the strings. The depth of the belly on the treble side varies with the gauge of the strings, with the treble side going down more than the bass side (which goes down very little) and this variability has made it difficult to get three related factors adjusted correctly: the action, the string gauges, and the intonation. I have made several different saddles, each a better approximation, and right now it is playing very nicely in tune, but the action is a little low on the treble strings. In designing this instrument, I moved the sound hole away from center in order to move the transverse bar away from the angled bridge, and to place the place where the A4 string attaches to the bridge more into the middle of the vibration field (on the prototype, the attachment of the A4 was close to the transverse bar, and the A4 string didn't sing). However, the lattice braced top of the 2016 build is designed symmetrically as though the force of the string pull would be concentrated in the center of the bridge – which appeared reasonable at the time – and so, that point of pressure at the point of the bridge beyond the A4 string is off on the side where the lattice is thinning out. The answer, I presume, is to judiciously beef up the bracing under that particular point – on another build. Another possible tactic is the tailpiece used on the Brahms guitar. My luthier says not to worry about the belly in the top and is confident that it will not fail, and I am confident that he will fix it if it does, and so this is merely a stage in the development of what is after all still an experimental instrument.

Compensation of the nut: Using my own hack of Greg Byers's method, I glued thin bone calzaditas to the nut at the G, B and E strings in a graduated series to flatten the notes on the second and third frets of those strings where they must be in tune with open strings at the octave. The G is compensated about .3 mm, and the A4 not at all. This improved the intonation of all first-position chords.

Compensation of the saddle: I put in a wider saddle in order to do this, because the G string required about 2 mm of additional setback, and the first saddle was not wide enough. The 2013 prototype, despite my disclaimer at the time that its intonation was no worse than any other guitar, had intonation problems above the 8th fret, because the B and G string fretted sharp. I did not compensate the prototype's saddle because of multiple other issues with the design. On the new build, the first and ninth strings are not compensated, and the other seven all have additional setbacks, with the greatest setbacks on the G3 and D3 strings. I did this empirically with a digital tuner and cannot explain why the setback pattern of the basses is the reverse of the trebles.

Intonation above the 12th fret:
Everything is sharp above the octave fret. However, I have never played any classical guitar that played really well in tune there. Single notes are fine because it is easy to pull them into tune. Chords are problematical and must be chosen carefully. The apparent reason is that the mathematical layout of the frets does not account for extra stretch in pressing the strings down in that region where the action is higher. I can imagine, on a future build, gluing temporary wooden frets above the 12th fret, and then measuring the intonation AFTER the action, string gauge and nut-and-saddle compensation are done, and only then putting permanent frets above the 12th fret, with a possible intermediate stage of a second set of temporary frets to test the intonation of the adjusted layout.

The Fan Layout:
The 2013 prototype had the right-angle fret at #5. With such an extreme fan (12 c difference between bass and treble) the first position barred F chord on the angled first fret required that my left elbow be closer to the body than the shoulder and wrist, creating a lack of alignment between left wrist and shoulder. (This might go away with Galbraith's position.) This issue is considerably diminished with the right-angle fret at #3 on the 2016 build. It is true that the F#1 string would sound better if it were longer, but given the difficulty I had adapting to this instrument, I have no plans to experiment with a 75c F#1 string, and will leave that for somebody with bigger hands.

A Proposal for a Re-Designed Bridge With Adjustable Intonation:
In building several compensated saddles I had occasion to envy the adjustable saddles of electric guitars. I don't want metal screws, and have begun to imagine a bridge design in which each string would sit on its own adjustable bone saddle block, say 4 x 4 x 8mm, each saddle block being mounted in a groove or mortise parallel to the strings in which it could slide to adjust the setback. I have tried to imagine how each individual saddle could also have adjustable height, but the idea is incomplete.

My current strings are as floppy as I can stand, so I get a certain amount of buzz when I overplay. Stiffer strings are out of the question for the sake of my left-hand barre muscle as well as the delicate top. I have D'Addario rectified nylons for the trebles and various La Bella, D'Addario and Savarez round-wound basses. I don't put new basses all at once, lots of squeaks!
F#1 .075"
B1 .052
E2 .041
A2 .036
D3 .028 wound
G3. 036 rect nylon (a little thin)
B3 .034
E4 .029
A4 .022

This completes the current update, if I haven't forgotten anything. As far as I know I have nothing more to say about it until the distant day when I seriously consider another build. So, don't expect to hear anything more about it for a while. I'm just working on my music projects.

Once again I have to thank all of the helpful people on both the Delcamp forum and the Sevenstring forum for your help and encouragement during the design and building of this guitar. Bless you all.
jack


----------



## Durero (Apr 16, 2019)

Thanks for the update, it is very much appreciated!

It would be great to have recordings or videos posted in this thread as well, if you have any time.


----------



## ElRay (Apr 17, 2019)




----------

