Update all SCGC string tensions are here. Medium Tension Strings

Hi Walter,

That’s an interesting question, let me sure I understand it. You are looking for the total tension of all the strings combined?

Direct from the Mother Ship!

The medium tension strings have a total tension of 163 lbs.

Hey this works pretty well for responses

i think that number is for 25.4 inch scale.  but it’s been a while since i looked it up.

OK, Nice work Big Mon…..Now how about Total Tensions for the DADGAD and 12 string sets.

Well, Here ya go, all of the SCGC string tensions

Standard Low-Tension
155.9 lbs

Standard Mid-Tension
163 lbs

DADGAD Low-Tension
152.92 lbs

DADGAD Mid-Tension
164.27 lbs

Baritone Low-Tension
170.50 lbs

Baritone Mid-Tension
201.50 lbs

12-string
258.39 lbs

You the big kauna .

Thank you. That 12 string tension I whay I tune the 12er down a full step.

I think the tensions that SC has published need some adjustments.  And here is why.

First, the plain strings:

— For the mid-tension set, SC shows the tension of the .013 1st string as 22.5 lbs.  This is a solid string, so the only difference in tension between the SC string and other brand solid strings is going to be the density/linear weight of the material.  D’Addario shows 27.42  and GHS 28.0.  Adjusted for the difference in scale length (25.375 vs 25.5), almost exactly 1%,  D’A would be 27.1 and GHS 27.7.  So let’s call the SC spec too low by about 5 lbs.

— SC shows the tension of the .0165 2nd string as 24.0 lbs.  This is a solid string, so the only difference in tension between the SC string and other brand solid string is going to be the weight of the material.   For a .017 D’Addario shows 26.31 and GHS 27.7.  Adjusted for the difference in scale length (25.375 vs 25.5) and for the difference between .0165 and .017, D’A would be 24.5  and GHS 25.8.  So let’s call the SC spec too low by about 0.5 lbs.

So the two plain strings are too low by about 5.5 lbs total, which would make the SC 163 lbs into 168.5 lbs.

Second, the 4th string:

— SC shows the .033 4th string of the mid-tension set as 28.5 lbs.  At the same time, it shows the .032 4th string of the low-tension set at 30.5 lbs. — smaller string, but higher tension.  And while gauge doesn’t determine tension for wound strings, why would the low-tension set have a higher-tension 4th string than the mid-tension set?  And the 28.5 spec for the mid-tension 4th string is exactly the same as the spec for the 3rd string.  Maybe a copy error?

I’ve used the mid-tension strings on my TR Pro, and the overall tension works pretty well.  The guitar sounds a bit constricted with a regular .013-.056 set, particularly on the 3rd and 4th strings.

From the specs and from the feel of the strings, I’d put the overall total tension of SC mid-tension strings about half-way between a conventional PB light .012-.054 and medium .013-.056.  Maybe put the Vegas over-under line at 170 lbs.!

Hope this adds some information on the topic.

i’m with Alex (and always have been every time this question rears its head)… i wouldn’t bet my life on the numbers.  too many inconsitencies in the explantions over the years, even on the UNwound strings, as Alex has pointed out in the past.  it’s like asking John Pearse where their strings are made – maybe a picture of the factory – something fishy about their reluctance to defend their claims.  JOh Pearse: Maybe a factory tour like D’add gives?:)  i do like the SCGC mid-tensions a lot, since the overall tension is lower than other makers’ “mediums.”  they work well for how lightly SCGC is made.  (Frank Ford called the Tony Pro a hot rod.:)

as i suspected, the whole “parabolic” nomenclature is just a name they gave it.  RH most recently said in the podcast “it looked like a parabola” to us, when he was asked my question.  they talk about “the science” over and over.  but “looked like parabola” (presumably because it was “curved”) is hardly a scientific or mathematical explanation.  curved also is a catenary, hyperbola, circle.  it’s just marketing, as far as i can figure – like EQ.  (the whole EQ thing has never been explained other than to use the EQ word over and over.  it’s only frustrating to me because being a mathematician and engineer i’m curious.  words mean things.  “back in 2015 i thought “oh, parabolic tension, how did you do that, what axactly is parabolic?  that’s neat.  but then, dead end.:) i always thought they could have avoided all MY (its all about me, after all, as you can tell by now:)) confusion by giving the strings a name like optimized tension or custom-tuned, or something.  BOTTOM LINE, though, i LOVE the strings.  i only use them on mey Santa Cruzes though. D’Add is my go to on other maker’s instruments.

for some reason, when i edited out the 3 trypos i found, they didn’t take.  apologies, i was trying to be careful for the reader’s sake:)