meddlingfool wrote:
Chris,
Probably better high than low for my purposes...
Dave,
I think after sleeping on it, I understand how that chart works. However, if I'm doing the calculation right (which I very well might not be) I get a higher number for a calculated string than is published on the package of the actual string. I suppose that's better than the opposite for my needs., and what Chris was saying.
I think the simplest route would be to tally the tension published on each string set and go with that, and just ignore the fact that the switch from 25.5" they calculate from will diminish slightly when switched to the planned 25" scale.
Or perhaps I could go 25.5 divided by 25.5 to get .98, meaning it would only be 98% of the tension. Thereby at that level of closeness, may as well just use what it says on the string packs and forget the scale length change.
Well, that was easy...
Probably better high than low for my purposes...
Dave,
I think after sleeping on it, I understand how that chart works. However, if I'm doing the calculation right (which I very well might not be) I get a higher number for a calculated string than is published on the package of the actual string. I suppose that's better than the opposite for my needs., and what Chris was saying.
I think the simplest route would be to tally the tension published on each string set and go with that, and just ignore the fact that the switch from 25.5" they calculate from will diminish slightly when switched to the planned 25" scale.
Or perhaps I could go 25.5 divided by 25.5 to get .98, meaning it would only be 98% of the tension. Thereby at that level of closeness, may as well just use what it says on the string packs and forget the scale length change.
Well, that was easy...
Or failing all of that pm me your e-mail address and I'll send you a spreadsheet I made with all of the string mass and note frequencies in it that you can use - simples.
