Official Luthiers Forum!

Hi folks. I was just wondering if anyone has had any experience with changing the wound G string to an unwound string. I'm designing an acoustic and trying to make it a lead insturment, eg. full tone up the fretboard, compound fretboard, unique bracing to highlight treble, etc. I also thought of changing the G to unwound to enhance string bending. Of coarse the saddle will need differnt intonation, but are there any other issues I should consider. Thanks guys. I love it here.

A wound string will have a smaller core surrounded by the wrap wire. It will have less tension, thus be easier to bend, than an unwound string.

The only reason you see unwound 3rd strings on electrics is because of the ultra light string gauges. Run those on an acoustic, and you'll have little tone...

I believe Ken Ham uses an unwound G

Who's Ken Ham?

Even Google doesn't know him...

Sorry It should be Ken Hamm Ken Hamm
Also known as the Grandfather of Northern Blues, A couple of Juno awards including Best Roots & Traditional CD and a stack of nominations, nominated three years running as Best Acoustic Blues Guitarist by North America's "Guitar Player" magazine (never one) and a couple of finger style runner ups. Funny how the guy has earned a lot of awards over the years but is ussually runner up or just nominated so no one has heard of him. And of course winning a juno award means so much to a person's carrere. In other words he is well known in the Canadian roots and blues sceen but outside of that...

[QUOTE=Mario] A wound string will have a smaller core surrounded by the wrap wire. It will have less tension, thus be easier to bend, than an unwound string.
[/QUOTE]
That's true if all things are equal. That is, if he used a .024" plain string, which is unlikely.

The downside of using an unwound third on an acoustic is tone. The thicker plain strings get, the deader they sound. They don't give the lively overtones you get from wound strings. If you use a thinner plain string for the third, it just won't have the juice to drive the top.

I am just thinking, that if what you want is a blues sound, with easier note bending, perhaps trying a shorter scale instrument is a good option.

_________________
"Building guitars looks hard, but it's actually much harder than it looks." Tom Buck

Thanks for the input guys. I was thinking of trying a .017 or .018 unwound for the G in a 10-42 set. But to sacrifice any tone or volume for having the feel of a smooth string on the frets is too great a price. Anyone play an acoustic with an unwound G?

I use regular acoustic lights on my personal guitars and bend wound (.024") G-strings a whole step all day, the two unwound strings B(.016") & E(.012") will easily bend a step and a half.
Your right, the sacrifice in tone is too great.John How39003.598587963

_________________
Tickle your guitar daily, and it'll tickle you back.

I would think that 10's would be pretty light for an acoustic. I hope your git is pretty lightly built so that those strings can drive the top.

On Ken Hamm, he plays a lot of his music with a slide. Don't know how much difference that would make though. When he was here earlier this year he played mostly on his national steel guitar while his Martin sat idle. I didn't notice the strings...note to self...PAY MORE ATTENTION! His honey, Heather, just took delivery of a hand built guitar from one of my buddy's on Vancouver Island, Steve Heizer. Lutz topped of course .

Shane

_________________
Canada

Dern nab double post slow cumputer getting things up man o man o man!Shane Neifer39003.7000115741

_________________
Canada

of trying a .017 or .018 unwound for the G

Uh, that's a B string <bg>

Yup, you'd lose all manner of tone with a set that light, no matter how lightly built the guitar is.