Agile Chiral Parallax - any point to the models with more than 8 strings?

[Xfing]

I noticed those beautiful headless models in Agile's repertoire some time ago:
https://www.rondomusic.com/cgi-rondomusic/sb/productsearch.cgi?search_field=agile chiral parallax

But Agile being Agile, they went completely overboard as usual and made them in 9 string or even 10 string varieties. The thing is, though, the scale length/fan doesn't change between these models, it's always 25,5'' on the high end to 28,625'' on the low end on all the models from 8 to 10 strings.

While that does sound like the optimum fan for eight strings, if a bit extreme and might take some getting used to, that nice Strat-tier high end playability has to be appreciated. But with nine or ten strings 28,625 is simply not enough to keep the low strings from being floppy. Hell, I have an Agile Septor 930 and I had to swap out the stock 0.90 string with a La Bella 0.100 on the 9th string for it to have reasonable tension at C#, and that guitar has a 30'' scale length all the way through. This means a tenth string at low G# would need to be like at least 0.110, and strings of that girth are probably not even made outside of basses - again, that's for a thirty inch scale, while Agile's product is 1,375'' short of that, even with the ten string variety. I've seen a limited edition Halo Octavia and that one had 28''-32'', which although an extreme fan, I feel is the very least a true ten stringer has any point being on the low end. 28 inches for the high end is tense, but playable, and you can probably even pull off a full tone bend there with an appropriately thin string. The guitar for reference here:
https://www.haloguitars.com/store/new-halo-10-string-guitar-limited-edition-octavia-10-fanned-fret

So my question is, what are Agile thinking making guitars with insufficient scale lengths like this? Hopefully they aren't just trying to sucker in uneducated buyers, since up to 8 strings the scales are just fine after all.

 

[trem licking]

They are offering options to a niche market, i doubt the uneducated/beginners are buying 9 and 10 strings... Let alone an 8 string. 28" can and will work for 10 strings on down, although could be a compromise depending on your preferences. Keep in mind too that players who use these instruments might not be tuning traditionally as well, so the scale length may be less important anyways. Someone needs to crank out these oddball guitars, and agile is the one

 

[CanserDYI]

Yeah gonna agree with above, I'd be willing to bet people buying 10 string guitars aren't tuning traditionally and probably doing some sort of reentrant tuning, drone tuning, or Chapman stick style tuning. I'm sure there is some "djent g0d" kid playing them in full course tunings but it's probably less common than you'd think.

 

[Xfing]

Well I know I'd probably have a full course tuning myself, as I do on my Septor. Then again, I think 9 strings is the sweet spot and more are decidedly unnecessary, except for like you said - reentrant tunings.

But it also kinda sucks that you're restricted to pretty much custom models if you want any semblance of a cleverly devised multiscale for 9 stringers (and most likely 10s too), as 30 inches are kind of a necessity IMO. Then again, haven't tried a 28'' yet so I might not have a whole lot of comparison here

 

[bostjan]

Where else are you going to buy a weird ten string monstrosity for under a thousand bucks?!

I think I'm the original "you should go long scale" guy on this forum, so, of course, I'd personally prefer an eight with a 30" scale on the low end to a nine or ten with a 28" maximum length, but at this price, whynot?

 

[Xfing]

Where else are you going to buy a weird ten string monstrosity for under a thousand bucks?!

I think I'm the original "you should go long scale" guy on this forum, so, of course, I'd personally prefer an eight with a 30" scale on the low end to a nine or ten with a 28" maximum length, but at this price, whynot?

Well, the point is Agile have been known to make guitars with 30'' scales, in fact I have one myself. I understand that headless guitars are meant to be light and handy, but reducing the scale seems like a surefire way to compromise playability.

 

[bostjan]

Well, the point is Agile have been known to make guitars with 30'' scales, in fact I have one myself. I understand that headless guitars are meant to be light and handy, but reducing the scale seems like a surefire way to compromise playability.

Maybe let Kurt know what you want. Pre-covid, they were pretty receptive to their customer's requests. I think things might be difficult now for reasons outside of their control, but, ultimately, they make what they believe people want, and they'll only know what people tell them.

 

[ElRay]

... Keep in mind too that players who use these instruments might not be tuning traditionally as well ...

Yeah gonna agree with above, I'd be willing to bet people buying 10 string guitars aren't tuning traditionally ...

Just as a point of info: My 92528 is tuned in all M3rds (A1b-C2-E2-A2b-C3-E3-A3b-C4-E4)

 

[Hollowway]

Yeah, Kurt is super responsive. My guess is that if he didn’t make one at 30” scale length, it’s because they weren’t selling as much as the 28.5”. But who knows.

I will say, though, that a longer scale length has musical benefits (intonation, etc) but not necessarily string thickness benefits. I have a 32-30” 10 string, and I found I needed a MUCH higher tension on the 32” string than I would have expected. The longer scale length results in way more dropping and floppiness. Bass strings are higher tension not because there’s some music reason. It’s because they’re just unusable at normal guitar tension. And that’s because of the substantially longer scale length. So you have two competing issues- longer scale length allows you to have a thinner string to get to the same tension. But, longer scale length requires a higher tension to be usable. So for me, I think 30” is probably as far as I’d want to go, even for G#0.

 

[bostjan]

There are two competing concepts with the material of the string. One is tension, that is, how much force does the tuner have to apply to the string to get it to pitch. The other is stiffness, which is how much force is required to move the string (for example plucking). Thinner strings have far less stiffness, so they begin to feel saggy and floppy at longer lengths even if the tension is the same as a shorter thicker string. I think it's not so much about getting the least amount of stiffness, but rather finding the "Goldilocks zone" where strings aren't so stiff that they feel weird or sound muddy, but aren't lacking stiffness so badly that they feel like spaghetti or cause tuning problems.

As you tune lower and lower, that perfect zone of stiffness shrinks significantly, and eventually it simply becomes unachievable to have all three: ideal stiffness, ideal tension, and ideal ergonomics.

 

[Hollowway]

There are two competing concepts with the material of the string. One is tension, that is, how much force does the tuner have to apply to the string to get it to pitch. The other is stiffness, which is how much force is required to move the string (for example plucking). Thinner strings have far less stiffness, so they begin to feel saggy and floppy at longer lengths even if the tension is the same as a shorter thicker string. I think it's not so much about getting the least amount of stiffness, but rather finding the "Goldilocks zone" where strings aren't so stiff that they feel weird or sound muddy, but aren't lacking stiffness so badly that they feel like spaghetti or cause tuning problems.

As you tune lower and lower, that perfect zone of stiffness shrinks significantly, and eventually it simply becomes unachievable to have all three: ideal stiffness, ideal tension, and ideal ergonomics.

Yeah, and I’ve wanted to find someone who knows enough about physics to be able to write a program for a little applet with a graph that we could play with scale length on one axis, and string diameter on the other (or as the variable(, and try to find that Goldilocks zone. Like, if I like the feel of a .72 at 27”, what scale length would I need to like the feel of a .110 and vice versa.

 

[spudmunkey]

Yeah, and I’ve wanted to find someone who knows enough about physics to be able to write a program for a little applet with a graph that we could play with scale length on one axis, and string diameter on the other (or as the variable(, and try to find that Goldilocks zone. Like, if I like the feel of a .72 at 27”, what scale length would I need to like the feel of a .110 and vice versa.

Would you also have to factor in the strings' core, since two strings of the same gauge can have different tension?

 

[Hollowway]

Would you also have to factor in the strings' core, since two strings of the same gauge can have different tension?

Yeah. I mean, there are probably a few different things to factor in. But it's math, so it's possible to do. I'd just like it for myself, because I could stop experimenting. As it is, I don't know what the "ideal" scale length for me is for super low tunings.

 

[Chris Bowsman]

One thing that goofs that up is how the pick feels on the thicker string. It can be the perfect tension and sound good, but chugging on a 90 or 72 feels way off.

 

[Xfing]

I will say, though, that a longer scale length has musical benefits (intonation, etc) but not necessarily string thickness benefits. I have a 32-30” 10 string, and I found I needed a MUCH higher tension on the 32” string than I would have expected. The longer scale length results in way more dropping and floppiness. Bass strings are higher tension not because there’s some music reason. It’s because they’re just unusable at normal guitar tension. And that’s because of the substantially longer scale length. So you have two competing issues- longer scale length allows you to have a thinner string to get to the same tension. But, longer scale length requires a higher tension to be usable. So for me, I think 30” is probably as far as I’d want to go, even for G#0.

I thought it was the other way around, that the longer the scale, the lower you can tune before the strings get floppy. Otherwise there'd be 25,5'' 9 string guitars, wouldn't there?

Anyway, what I'm interested in the most is stiffness I guess. The string I have currently, a 0.90 is definitely too floppy - it definitely has a very wide vibration, as when using an online tuner the strum is never on pitch, the string then settles into the pitch eventually. But it is close to impossible to alternate pick it fast, as it simply doesn't produce enough resistance against the pick. I think things would be better with something more along the lines of 0.100 to 0.110 but guess I'd have to go Kalium for that. My highest string is currently a 0.009 and it's definitely a bit too stiff, can't even do a half tone bend without fearing it might break. 0.08 would definitely improve this I feel, but then again I kinda did this to myself by buying a non-multiscale 30'' guitar. It's not unplayable by any means, but it'd be nice if I could take the guitar into a shop and find a perfect set of gauges for myself. Online tension calculators aren't very helpful in my experience, as those don't really take into account the stiffness of the string.

 

[Hollowway]

I thought it was the other way around, that the longer the scale, the lower you can tune before the strings get floppy. Otherwise there'd be 25,5'' 9 string guitars, wouldn't there?

Yes, but only to an extent. If you tried to tune a bass with the same tension you use on a guitar you'd have as floppy mess. In non-scientific terms, a longer string requires higher tension to feel the same as a shorter string at the same tension. I'm not sure if stiffness, or some other term is the appropriate one to use here, though. And there could well be 9 string 25.5" guitars. But the inharmonicity and intonation issues will probably prevent a lot of people from wanting one. That being said, I have a 25.5" 8 string, and it's just fine. I wish I had considered that scale length before.

 

[CanserDYI]

After a certain scale length, I'm no scientist, the strings need a much much much higher tension to be able to ring true. Hence why guitar tunings tend to stay in the 16-22 pound range versus a bass that tend to be around 35-45 pounds per string, but a bass string is still very bendable, versus a guitar string at that weight would be almost unplayable.

 

[Xfing]

The calc says a .90w string tuned to C#1 has only 16.9 pounds of tension, which doesn't translate to nearly the same level of stiffness as the other strings, even the 8th. But to be fair, the tension for the other strings tends to be around 20-22. Guess I really need to try a .100 or .110. And it'd be awesome if I could get my hands on a 0.07 for the high E, that way it'd be fully bendable to probably over two steps without worries.

 

[bostjan]

The calc says a .90w string tuned to C#1 has only 16.9 pounds of tension, which doesn't translate to nearly the same level of stiffness as the other strings, even the 8th. But to be fair, the tension for the other strings tends to be around 20-22. Guess I really need to try a .100 or .110. And it'd be awesome if I could get my hands on a 0.07 for the high E, that way it'd be fully bendable to probably over two steps without worries.

D'Addario makes an .007" high E. I use them all of the time for my high A4.

 

[ElRay]

D'Addario makes an .007" high E. I use them all of the time for my high A4.

At what scale length? How long do they last?