9's on 25.5 scale guitars tuned to concert pitch?

[rupe]

Variability in no way negates the factual science.

The pickups magnetics sense more metal and provide more output.
( boosting the amp inputs adds desirable compression and some breakup)

The guitar body resonates and vibrates more.
(Longer sustain ,more dynamic)

String tension directly affects the amount of string modulation happening.
( loose strings can actually produce a sort of chorusing effect)

It goes on...

Sure the players touch can add or detract from the final tone but the three example I used above are proven AND inherent long before the guitarist even picks up the instrument, plays it or amplifies it.

You may be trying to say this resulting in "better" tone is subjective. That I could stand behind, MANY guitarists sound like total crap and think its awesome.

Other than that I completely disagree with you, the facts of my testing have shown me otherwise.

Don't believe me because I said so, do your homework, break out the oscilloscope, consult l some scientists, test some strings at tension , the proof is there waiting for you to discover.

I consulted a collegiate physics professor and an acoustician friend of mine while testing theories. At the time we were designing string sets that never got off of the ground due to my busy touring schedule and actually getting beaten to the punch by another string maker.

My point is that the "factual science" doesn't necessarily translate into better/bigger tone. The only test anyone needs to do is listen...anything else just muddies the waters.
I'm not saying that the things you've pointed out aren't true, rather that there are variables that affect these "truths". The science you present misses how a particular electric guitar may respond with a particular amp/speaker at a certain volume and in a certain place...there are mechanics at play in that scenario that aren't accounted for by your explanation (which essentially only holds true for an "unaffected" natural string vibration). You're over-simplifying things a bit when it comes to amplified tone as opposed to natural (acoustic) tone. And of course, as you noted, "better" is completely subjective.

Ahh much clearer, I see your points. Though I am adamantly against the idea of " just listen" or " use your ears" our ears are truly deceiving as they are connected to our brains. So much happens that my et cannot perceive yet is paramount to the resultant sound. I need more evidence than just my ear telling me its "good" ; what if I like bad guitar sounds!

FYI we did also take many other factors into account, resonances, resonant peaks , used an anechoic chamber for some studies. Amplifed, acoustic, different woods etc... Two years worth of fun is not accurrately represented in my post above.

Anyway, not arguing just enjoying some discussion.

Absolutely

I used to feel the same way as you about the "just listen" approach, but came to my current position through the realization that any tonal traits that are essentially inaudible are also essentially unimportant. If the end goal is to produce a desirable sound, what's the point if I can't trust my ears to tell me that it's good? With a few exceptions, I think trusting your ears is the only way to go...it basically "filters out" all of the non-essential bs that we as players can tend to dwell on and focuses on what we (and our listeners) can actually hear.

That said, I'm all for the scientific approach in determining cause/effect tonal relationships in electric guitars. I've done some fairly robust testing in the past with different body/neck woods and direct mounted vs ring mounted pickups.

 

['63-Strat]

Not a difference in tone as much as feel and how hard you play.
When I get nervous or excited I tend to mash the piss out of my
guitar, so heavier strings work out better for me . What ever tool
works for the job.

Yeah Dick Dale uses something like14-58, and he strangles the shit out of his strat.

thats what im talking about. and his tone is undeniable. Its thick and scary good. but I think its interesting that in this discussion the two Strat players with thicker gauge strings I can indentify with to a degree. there is MORE happening in the low end with thicker strings for me. it always sounds beefier. MUCH beefier. Im playing a 7 string with 56 on the LOW B. that shit sounds fat. much fatter than any 8.9.10's I have heard anywhere else.

A 56 tuned to B is actually A lot less tension than a 42 at E fyi. So you actually like light strings

 

[moltenmetalburn]

Not a difference in tone as much as feel and how hard you play.
When I get nervous or excited I tend to mash the piss out of my
guitar, so heavier strings work out better for me . What ever tool
works for the job.

Yeah Dick Dale uses something like14-58, and he strangles the shit out of his strat.

thats what im talking about. and his tone is undeniable. Its thick and scary good. but I think its interesting that in this discussion the two Strat players with thicker gauge strings I can indentify with to a degree. there is MORE happening in the low end with thicker strings for me. it always sounds beefier. MUCH beefier. Im playing a 7 string with 56 on the LOW B. that shit sounds fat. much fatter than any 8.9.10's I have heard anywhere else.

A 56 tuned to B is actually A lot less tension than a 42 at E fyi. So you actually like light strings

His remarks all seem to talk about string thickness and not tension. "Heavy" could apply to unit weight OR tension.

 

['63-Strat]

Not a difference in tone as much as feel and how hard you play.
When I get nervous or excited I tend to mash the piss out of my
guitar, so heavier strings work out better for me . What ever tool
works for the job.

Yeah Dick Dale uses something like14-58, and he strangles the shit out of his strat.

thats what im talking about. and his tone is undeniable. Its thick and scary good. but I think its interesting that in this discussion the two Strat players with thicker gauge strings I can indentify with to a degree. there is MORE happening in the low end with thicker strings for me. it always sounds beefier. MUCH beefier. Im playing a 7 string with 56 on the LOW B. that shit sounds fat. much fatter than any 8.9.10's I have heard anywhere else.

A 56 tuned to B is actually A lot less tension than a 42 at E fyi. So you actually like light strings

His remarks all seem to talk about string thickness and not tension. "Heavy" could apply to unit weight OR tension.

Well on a seven string a 56 is neither thick nor high tension. And he was talking about Dick Dale and SRV who's gauges are both.

 

[ke2]

My 7 has a 060 as the low B, and it's a 26,5 scale guitar.
I'd like to go even thicker, it doesn't quite have the tension I'd like to have.

The high E is a 009, or a 0095, I can't remember. It's got fine tension. I like kinda thin high strings, and a little thicker on the bass side. 009 to 046 is great on a superstrat.

The exeptions are my Tele and my Danelectro. Both have single coils, and on those two, I'd rather have 011s.

 

[moltenmetalburn]

Not a difference in tone as much as feel and how hard you play.
When I get nervous or excited I tend to mash the piss out of my
guitar, so heavier strings work out better for me . What ever tool
works for the job.

Yeah Dick Dale uses something like14-58, and he strangles the shit out of his strat.

thats what im talking about. and his tone is undeniable. Its thick and scary good. but I think its interesting that in this discussion the two Strat players with thicker gauge strings I can indentify with to a degree. there is MORE happening in the low end with thicker strings for me. it always sounds beefier. MUCH beefier. Im playing a 7 string with 56 on the LOW B. that shit sounds fat. much fatter than any 8.9.10's I have heard anywhere else.

A 56 tuned to B is actually A lot less tension than a 42 at E fyi. So you actually like light strings

His remarks all seem to talk about string thickness and not tension. "Heavy" could apply to unit weight OR tension.

Well on a seven string a 56 is neither thick nor high tension. And he was talking about Dick Dale and SRV who's gauges are both.

Ok, what I think you are still missing here is the fact that Reza never said he uses high tension strings, he compared his .56 at B to standard .08 , .09, and .10 sets all of which have thinner low strings than .56.

Reza also never said he preferred high tension strings only that thicker strings sound beefier to him.

As for what is " normal" on a seven string comparatively yes .56 is not thick.

As for dick dale and SRV ummm, extraneous information.

Not sure what exactly you are clarifying but whatever:

 

[syncrodude007]

thanks for the lively debate...been a 9's Strat. / 10's LP guy a long time...good discussion...

 

[TheMagicEight]

I think I'm going to do a blind test on this and report back when I get the chance. Would be pretty awesome to see if there's any consensus in tonal "thickness" between, say, a set of 9s and 12s.

I'm personally of the opinion that lighter strings are less resistant to deformation, and when struck the same way and without obstruction (too low of action), tend to allow higher frequencies to resonate more readily than thicker strings. For me, thicker strings come across as muddy, comparatively, when significant distortion is involved. This is anecdotal, but it's the reason I went back to thin strings after trying for months to hear why I should be using 11s or 12s.

Will report back though. Maybe in a couple of weeks I could throw together a test. Clip A and B, Les Paul --> plexi with two different sets of strings, all else equal.

 

[rokker]

A longer string will be capable of producing more bass and treble...a 25.5 scale vs 24.75 is longer and will be able to vibrate at a slightly lower frequency than a shorter one.
Tom Anderson stated this in relation to his 25.5 vs24.75 scale models on his anderson forum.