Talk:String (music)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Details vary

This is a good start to the article. Please remember that the subject applies to strings for a wide variety of instruments. What I'm reading looks like it applies to my fiddle a lot more than to my classical guitar. Kbh3rd 23:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that too. Made it a little less violin-centric by pointing out different materials used for string winding depending on the instrument. --ILike2BeAnonymous 06:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Material in violin article

I added a note the the violin talk page noting that the discussion on strings there seems a lot richer in some details than here, and that seems backwards. Who can merge that information into this article? -- Kbh3rd 20:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge "Guitar strings" into this article

I propose this be done. The guitar strings article is redundant (and badly written to boot). Put a redirect from "guitar strings" to here. --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. It should be just scraped and replaced with a redirect. --GreyCat 19:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you do that? I'll do it right away, absent any strong protest. --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean badly written? I was just respnding to a request plus it was the first article I've written. it wasn't that bad apart from the start. St jimmy 11:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, nothing personal: you know what they say here about having a thick skin, seeing your work get "mercilessly edited" and all. Yes, it is badly written, but your creating it in response to a request is still appreciated. But you didn't respond to the merge question: is it OK with you to merge it into this article? --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's ok to merge. What could I do to improve the article or do different next time? St jimmy 10:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that the articles should be merged. (See Guitar Strings "talk" page.) So how do we get this done? How does one "just scrape" an article? Can someone do this? --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. I just cut-and-pasted the article without seeing this discussion. I don't think the Guitar strings article was not of bad quality, just the information is more useful in the context of this article. So therefor, I put the information in this article. Anyone disagree, take it out. --Banana04131 20:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I did just that. Looks like you didn't really even read this article before pasting the "Guitar strings" stuff into it. That material was 98% redundant with what was already here. So the articles are now merged. I'll go ahead and remove the suggested merge tag. That is all. --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

History section requested

Someone could include a History section in which they could write about the history of the musical strings, when where the first strings made? for what instruments? What materials were used? etc... --Francisco Valverde 09:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Title

Why is this page title at the plural "Strings"? See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns. Hyacinth 18:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but contra that, see this. Me, I'm not sure: seems to me that since almost all stringed musical instruments have more than one string, it would make more sense to refer to them in the plural. When talking about a piano, for instance, it seems more natural to refer to "piano strings" rather than "the/a piano string", unless one particular string is under discussion. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Silk and Steel

I edited the article to remove the suggestion that silk and steel strings were only for 12-string guitars. I've bought and used 6-string sets for years. In fact, I've only just recently found silk and steel strings for my 12-string. Having said that, I love them on the 12-string!!

Also, I've never seen the wound with unplated bronze -- the ones I've used were usually silver-plated. andersonpd 23:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And generally the windings on sets labeled "silk and steel" are not bronze but silver-plated copper--see Frank Ford's strings page at frets.com or the D'addario or GHS sites' description of their S&S set. The only companies I could find that use bronze wrap on silk/steel-core sets are GHS, John Pearse, and Tomastik--and these are all labeled "silk and bronze" (except the Pearse sets, which are called just "Silks"). RLetson 17:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Strings wound for mass, not thickness

This is apropos the little edit-spat we (JustPlainBill) and me had recently, over a pretty small thing: a statement that strings were wound for reasons of mass and thickness. Sorry to be such a nit about this, old buddy, but my initial research is showing that I'm correct in this. From just the first page of Google hits on "string instrument" wound mass comes these links:

• MUSICAL INSTRUMENT STRING AND METHOD OF FABRICATION; kinda weird 'cause it's apparently a patent application scraped by someone, but it says:

Wound strings rely on the additional string mass per unit length supplied by the spiral wrap to supply lower pitched notes at an acceptable string tension.

Nothing about thickness. (Gawd, the language patent writers use is just as stilted as the stuff around here! "Supply" lower-pitched notes? "Hey, Larry, we're running out of them low G-flats. Got any more back in the warehouse?")

• Acoustics for Violin and Guitar Makers; this PDF does have this to say about thickness:

Table 4.6 shows that the density for aluminium is 2 x Gut, for steel it is 6 x, for silver 8 x and for gold and wolfram (tungsten) it is 15 x. Thus the string mass could be greatly increased by winding with little increase of thickness", i.e., the string weight has been doubled but the diameter has not been changed.

But this merely says that the choice of winding metal will affect the diameter (thickness) of the wound string, which we already know, and that certain choices may result in less increase in diameter. But the reason for winding the string in the first place is still to increase its mass, not its diameter.

• Lutherie Info; this site has the formulaic stuff relating string tension, pitch, blah blah blah, but it also has an interesting little explanation of the rationale behind wound strings: an 16th century instrument, the orpharion, which had splayed frets to accomodate the extremely thick (and "floppy") bass strings then used.

I could probably find more, but I think I've had enough fun for now. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Like you, I don't have all the time in the world to pick at this nit, but here are two things that popped out near the top of a search for Pickering Daddario and Helicore:

String manufacturers pay attention to a lot of things about their product. Thickness is one of those things:

"These innovative materials have enabled us to design strings with a very
small diameter to provide extremely quick bow response. The application of
damping resins under selected windings gives the Helicores a warm, rich sound,
quite unlike steel strings of the past." 

That's from p.5 of a Daddario blurb

An interesting interview with a Daddario R&D engineer doesn't say "we wind for thickness" but does hint at the variety of reasons behind the choices made in designing a string and its winding. Manufacturer asks string players what they want. They say they want a certain feel or response or sound. I bet none of them says they want a certain mass per length. You can bet the manufacturers design the winding to give the players what they want. Mass is just one factor to balance among many others.

The easy things for a player to tell about a string include rigidity/floppiness (while off the instrument), thickness/thinness, a rough idea of playing tension at pitch, fast/slow response, whether the string is "hard" like steel or "soft" like gut when played into, plus subjective stuff about the sound. There's an interaction between all of the above and probably other stuff as well. Golden ears may be able to tell something about the damping of a string, bright, warm or otherwise, but I bet very few of us consciously judge the sound of a string in terms of damping factor.

That a metal winding makes a string thicker is undeniable. That manufacturers choose winding materials to manage string diameter will likewise be hard to argue against. Seen any aluminum-wound Dominant 4/4 violin G strings lately? No need to wonder why... they'd probably be as fat as my C string, and not be accepted well in the market.

All of this doesn't even go near the reasons for winding an E string. How about leaving the "why" out of it, for example, "or they may have a core of one material with an overwinding of other materials, increasing their mass and thickness."

__Just plain Bill 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is just a misunderstanding. But no, I disagree with that last suggestion: I still stand by the assertion that strings are wound to increase their mass. Period. However, that doesn't mean that the windings aren't selected with the string's final diameter in mind: obviously, string manufacturers don't want to produce strings that have the correct mass, but feel like bridge cables to the player. So yes, the selection of the winding material does affect the diameter (and possibly even something more subtle, the feel of the string under the finger); but the only reason strings are wound in the first place (unless you can find an explanation to the contrary) is to increase their mass. (I believe this even goes for wound violin E strings.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wound E strings are a peculiarity of the violin world. For those unfamiliar, a violin E is almost always a steel wire, of about similar gauge to a guitar high E. Some are plain, some are plated, and some are aluminum wrapped. The plating and wrapping have very little to do with mass, and a lot to do with the surface characteristics of the string, managing how it responds to certain attacks of the bow hair. Some players have a problem with a whistling E string in some musical circumstances, which the winding is supposed to alleviate. Not about mass at all, maybe a bit about thickness, probably more about giving the string a different torsional behavior.

Let's let it sit this way for a while. __Just plain Bill 23:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's always an exception, isn't there? How about this: Strings are wound to increase their mass, except in the case of bowed string instruments, where a string's winding may affect how the string responds to the bow. Or something like that ... later, as you say. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of time and thought, I've discovered a root of the misunderstanding. We've been looking at it upside-down, arguing about bananas when the issue is really blueberries. Strings are not wound to make them thicker, they are wound to make them thinner. The average player cares jack about mass, but can easily feel how thick or thin a string is. Pirastro's Chorda plain gut violin set has three plain-gut strings and a wound G, since plain gut for that string would be inconveniently thick. Eureka! __Just plain Bill 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Annother thing, slightly related; the thicker a string is, the stiffer it is. The stiffer it is, the more it deviates from having a mathematically well-defined harmonic series of overtones; it goes from having the characteristics of anideal string towards the characteristics of a solid object (like the tines of a harmonica, the metal bars of a celesta, a cymbal, or the like). It is THIS that causes the stretched octaves mentioned in relation to the piano in this article. Having the string wound lets you keep a certain mass, while decreasing the core string diameter, which is what primarily determines the stiffness. Cernael (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That is true if the core of the string is solid. Piano strings, for example, generally have a solid steel core. Other instruments may use different core materials and geometries. Bowed strings are sometimes made on a "rope" core, which can be quite flexible. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased?

This article seems to be biased towards bass strings. Maybe someone should even it out a little, mention bass strings some places and other strings other places. Gopherbassist 08:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Special gauges

Should variations on gauges also be mentioned, such as the Zakk Wylde configuration, or how other artists prefer their strings, or should that be kept on the pages about the artist/musician themself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.96.228 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 July 2007

I notice that the table of steel string guitar gauges is simply wrong in many respects. By most standards in the commercial arena, a set of .013" to .056" is Medium Gauge. I don't think the table has value, since these specs vary a bit from manufacturer to manufacturer. There is no single standard. There area commercial sets labeled "heavy" that run from .015" to .065".

I also note that the diagram for the hex-core strings depicts them as hex in shape, which they are not. They are just as smooth and cylindrical as a string wound on a round core, and feel no different to a player. Who posted this? Why would anyone assert such a thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Hostetter (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Gauge measurement in mm

I've added string gauges in inches fractions, but sometimes later someone added also mm measurements. I find it confusing and somewhat "original research"-like. I've never seen anyone, any major manufacturer of strings to measure their strings in mm. It seems to be industry tradition to measure in inches and I don't really think that wikipedia should break it and start confusing it's readers with self-done mm conversions. If there's no real proof of that mm gauge measurement exists and is widely accepted in any areas, I propose to delete mm to stop confusion. Don't get me wrong, I'm totally into Si system (living in Russia), I don't use inches anywhere in real life - except places like these, where inches seem to be the only understandable thing. If one would get to the shop and ask for 9-42 strings, any seller would gladly offer ones, but I doubt anyone will catch one if you'll ask for 23-107 strings (the best they could do would be offering bass strings like 40-130). --GreyCat 08:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As no one seems to oppose and no one provided any evidence, I remove mm measurements. --GreyCat 09:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Different countries, different instruments. Historical strings in the UK at least are never measured in inches, only mmStrumStrumAndBeHanged (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

D'Addario provides mm measurements for all of their strings, which can be found on the back of the package or at their website here: D'Addarrio String Guide. I'm not certain, but I believe a few other brands provide string diameters in mm as well.--71.37.1.253 (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Using too high of a gauge

As it's personal experience I'm putting it here since it'd probably count as original research, but i seem to recall one time breaking the nut on the bass end of my first 6-string since I decided to try out a set of 13s and the .056 was far too much for it to handle. Anyone else had similar problems before/feel that it's worth mentioning in the section on gauges? 加持 (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Having done guitar repair, I've never seen that happen before. Sounds as if there was a defect in the nut (was it bone, or plastic?), or possibly the notch wasn't wide enough and the string fractured it as it forced its way into it. In any case, not worth mentioning in the article. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any good sources on it, but some guitars are only made for a certain gauge. too high of a guage can cause neck warping cause the tension is too high for a heavier string. If someone could find some info about that, it would make a good addition to the article. Adamclmns (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true for all guitars, you can change the string gauge a little (+- 0.002" or so), but you have to be careful when changing to thicker strings. Using strings that are too thick might warp the neck, and using strings that are too thin might cause the strings to buzz against the frets. The latter isn't exactly dangerous to your guitar, since it can be easily fixed by changing the nut to one that has smaller notches for the strings, and maybe also a taller one, so that the strings are higher. Modern, high quality guitars can usually take the higher tension pretty well, but the necks on cheaper ones can get warped quite easily. Kaji01's nut probably broke because of the notches being too small for the strings, like ILike2BeAnonymous explained. But I think that it might be worth mentioning in the article that you have to change the nut and also the saddle on acoustic guitars, when changing the string gauge (not with small changes). -- Kankkis (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Guitar String Gauge Chart

The string gauge chart for guitars under the gauge section of the article is focused on electric guitars and the information is incorrect in regards to acoustic guitars, for example, what is currently listed as a heavy gauge would be a light on an acoustic. It might be a good idea to create a second chart for acoustic string gauges or at least to specify that the information is only correct for electric guitar strings.--71.37.1.253 (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. ChrisHardy73 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hexcore

Deleted mention of hexwound strings, because they are not hexwound, but rather hexcore. Also removed this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hexwound_strings.png because it shows the string being hexagonal externally, which it is not. Conical Johnson (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be singular?

1Z (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

how gauge/tension and materials affect sound?

Thanks for a great article. I went to this page specifically to learn how different gauges/tensions and materials affect the sound quality and I didn't see that here. Perhaps you could include something about this, i.e. how these varying qualities of the strings interact with the instrument itself to produce different timbres, warm/dark vs. bright tones, etc. (My instrument is viola so In particular I'm asking about the bowed string family.) Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.125.45 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Now there is a question that would take years of research to even begin to address. There was a time when my viola wore Gold Label guts, but I got tired of fiddling with their tuning. Now I've got a quasi-Russian arrangement with Zyex below, and Helicore on the top two. Not saying that would suit everyone, and I came to it somewhat at random, but for the moment it works. Not trying to turn this into a forum discussion, just sympathizing ;)

The difficulty of addressing this in a general strings article has to do with a lot of things. For one, bowed strings are given constant excitation from the bow, so the demands on them are different from strings that are hammered or plucked, and then expected to sustain a vibration. The real difficulties have to do with the individuality of instruments, bows, and players. Players are all built differently, and have different preferences for sound and response.

One big difference among string types and brands is hardness or softness, with gut being the softest, and solid steel the hardest. That can affect how easy it is to shape the sound, and the amount of care that needs to be taken with intonation when playing more deeply into a soft string. Various synthetics are meant to mimic gut, and rope-core steel strings such as Superflexible or Helicore are a bit softer than solid steel. From peeling them apart, I know that the Helicores have a layered structure in their windings, which I believe was designed to manage the damping of various overtones.

Short answer, sad to say, is that this article may never contain the kind of info you came looking for. There is so much opinion and differing experience on the subject, that nailing down verifiable generalities looks like a forlorn hope. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Overwound

Assuming it's correct, it would be nice if String (music)/Archive 1#Winding were clarified to define "overwound" as what I hope it means – one material wound helically over another (as in the lower three typical steel-over-nylon strings of an acoustic guitar). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hand Wound?

"Round core strings are more labour intensive to manufacture as the winding must be done by hand" this is completely wrong! I recently read about a home made machine for winding round core strings, and know for a fact that most mass-produce strings are round core. Stub Mandrel (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered about that myself. Thanks for fixing it. With the mass quantities of guitar strings being made, it would be astonishing (and incredible) to find that the process had not been mechanized. How much minding the machines need, how much intervention by a human operator, would make a mildly interesting topic.

Just FYI, violin-family strings are mass produced, and virtually all of them are flat wound. Black Diamond was an exception to that, and may still be. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion to move "String" to "String (disambiguation)"

In order to make way for moving Draft:String to article space to take the place as the primary topic, I've posted a proposal at Talk:String#Requested move 16 January 2017 to move the disambiguation page currently at "String" to "String (disambiguation)". Your input would be helpful to establish a common consensus on whether or not this move, or something else, should be done. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter. The Transhumanist 22:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)