robin loops wrote:I just noticed the humor in the title of this thread...
"Scale length and neck width versus hand size"
Makes it sound as if the two are somehow at odds with each other... With the guitar being one of instruments that presents the most ergonomic problems, that is so true!
I suppose in many ways it's US Versus THE GUITAR
robin loops wrote:I agree about the pinky thumb correlation not being a perfect approach. In my case this wouldn't work at all because I have relatively short thumbs in relation to my finger length... Stretches are done with the first through fourth fingers while the thumb sits behind the neck. Thumb length may come into play when considering neck thickness (With my little thumbs, a thinner profiled neck is more comfortable) but short thumbs won't necessarily limit someone with longer fingers from making stretches needed on a longer scale guitar.
As for other factors: I have found a 560 scale guitar with a slightly narrower nut and lower action, easier to play than a 550 with standard nut width and higher action. So aside from some of the factors Andrei mentions I would say that a 'perfect' equation would also include other characteristics of the guitar. So while formulas may serve as a good starting point, nothing can substitute experimentation by sampling different guitars. Maybe someone should make a device like you use in the shoe store to size the feet, patent it, and make a fortune.
As far as ergonomics of the guitar, perhaps I should have said 'ergonomic issues for the hands', (rather than assuming that would be understood considering the post is about hand size). Either way, whether it does or doesn't present more ergonomic issues, this thread still has a funny title.
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Google [Bot] and 5 guests