dbertels - Posted - 09/24/2011:  19:32:46

I recently tuned my cheap 'backup' banjo down a Fourth (in the John Hartford style) and now find myself hesitating going back to my 'good' standard tuned banjo. The sound is so much fuller and seems to suit my style better. Now I'm investigating all kinds of aspects regarding low tuned banjos and have come up with the following:



1 - I can adapt the string gauges quite well so that the overall tension on the banjo will remain (see dirkbertels.net/music/banjo.php#chap_02), however I can envision that the space between string and fretboard may need to increase slightly.



2 - John Hartford advocates using a 24 fret banjo for low-tuned banjos. As I understand from the Deering website (deeringbanjos.com/john-hartfor...-5-string), the length between the nut and bridge will remain the same (26 1/4") - and from John Hartford's videos I get that the bridge is positioned more to the middle, contributing to the fuller sound that I'm after.



Given these facts, apart from the benefit of having a full octave at your disposal in the upper register (which is not insignificant), would it contribute to the tone of the low-tuned banjo?. I would think that it only would make a difference if the strings were longer? As it is now, the extra frets are added to the bridge-end, not the nut-end.

gmo - Posted - 09/24/2011:  21:16:50

I have been thinking these same things and have been using an open "E" tuning on one of my banjos to try and get at some of John Hartford's songs. I also wondered about the problem of string length and I believe he (Hartford) was primarily interested in accentuating the bass response by having the bridge moved closer to the center of the head while gaining the extra octave with the 24 fret banjo. I think he made up for the string length with heavier strings . I know my banjo tuned down would probably do better if I went to at least a medium set. I currently use J.D. Crowe lights 9 1/2's) and they are a bit twangy to say the least. Nice to know I'm not alone in pondering this.
George

Helix - Posted - 09/25/2011:  04:34:38

It's another way of using a 'longneck', the extra frets are added at the heel.

I have a suspicion the 11" rim was used in banjo orchestras for just such a purpose, to bring the bridge closer to the middle of the head. Thus the 11" mandolin banjos.

Ks_5-picker - Posted - 09/25/2011:  05:37:54

I've got an old Gibson style one tuned down to E with a regular 22 fret neck on it......can't imagine how the extra two frets would help the tone,though you would be able to get a couple higher chords. The Hartford string guages are 12-14-20w-24w-12........some sets use an 11 on the 5th string. The w means that both the third and fourth are wound.....I think having..This the wound string on the 3rd really ups the "growl factor" as well. This old banjo is a lot of fun,and like you,it can revive a banjo that just sits in the case in it's present form. I got the strings from Elderly,but Tom Mirasola has put together a custom set for me as well.

dbertels - Posted - 09/25/2011:  17:29:12

Didn't realise this forum was so active - great to see ... I understand now (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are 2 types of 24 fret banjos, those whose extra frets are added at the nut end (the Hartford Eb banjo), and those whose extra frets are added at the bridge end (the Pete Seeger banjo). The latter type requires that the strings are longer as well - I suppose they would suit best for lower tuned banjos ...

uncle.fogey - Posted - 09/25/2011:  18:12:00

Here’s some info about adding frets to a banjo.



First off, the “John Hartford” banjo has 24 frets and a 26 -1/4”  scale, which puts the bridge closer to the middle of the head for a “tubbier” sound - some like it tubby.  If you look at the earlier John Hartford woodie banjos, the bridge was in a more normal place.

This is what the new scale looks like:



The26 1/4” scale wouldn’t help a bit with lower tuning or slack strings, in fact, it would be worse.  If you were going to y tune the banjo lower, you’d want a longer scale, not a shorter one.



When Vega invented the tubaphone ring, long ago, they made a special effort to spell it  “tu-ba-phone”. because they didn’t want anybody to pronounce it with a “tub” sound - nobody wanted that, in fact,  their 10 7/8“ pots, move the bridge back towards the tailpiece a little.



The fascination with tubby sounding banjos can be attributed (I think) to listening to old recordings, like Alan Lomax ones and thinking that’s what those banjos actually souned like back in that era, as if all those guys had specially constructed banjos with scales that moved the bridge closer ot the middle,  hence the interest in the tubby sound.  Almost all modern 12” banjos have the bridge near the middle.



The reason the modern banjo has zeroed in on an 11” pot with a 26 3/8” to 27” scale is because that’s what places the bridge at the “sweet spot” on the head.  Those guys at Gibson, Paramount, B&D, Vega etc, weren’t dummies, and they  were not listening to badly recorded songs as their paradigm of sound.

OK, I’ve had my editorial, thanks for reading it.



The classic banjo has an 11”head a scale in the range of 26 3/8” (Gibson) and 27” (Vega).



 The placement of the bridge  on the head changes the sound, but cannot be adjusted other than by changing the scale length relative to the head diameter - an oversimplification would be that the closer to the middle of the head, the more “tubby” the sound.



NOW- adding two frets:

It matters whether the two frets are at the top (peghead) end of the fingerboard, or the bottom (pot) end.

If you add frets to the top end, you create a “longneck” and you can play lower and lower (how low can you go?) without ruining the sound of the banjo or making the strings exessively slack.



The first one Pete did, which was executed by the great John D’Angelico in the 40s, added 2 frets to the top of a Vega tubaphone, which looked like this - a 30.35” scale with 24 frets:





THEN, Pete added another fret so he could play in E, and his longneck looked like this - a 32” scale with 25 frets, the standard longneck today:





The thing these have in common is that they have the bridge in the normal 7/11 position. adding more frets to the top end of the fingerboard does NOT alter the bridge position, it just  changes the scale length.



If you  add frets at the BOTTOM, pot end of the fingerboard, then the bridge position changes, you have more, and more narrowly spaced frets.



Here is a picture of 2 frets added to the bottom end of a standard scale, giving you a 27” scale and 24 frets the bridge is a lot closer to the center of the banjo now.





If you start by placing the bridge in the center and calculate a 24 fret neck, you wind up with something like this - 23.75” scale and 24 frets - this would sound very tubby and have slack strings.  It might also be hard to fret because the fret spacings would get narrow up the neck.



 

TXhookey - Posted - 09/25/2011:  19:14:23

Nicely explained. 

dbertels - Posted - 09/27/2011:  23:41:46

Thanks very much for putting in all this effort uncle Fogey - it answers all my questions. The first 24 Fret image, the one with a 30.35" scale seems to be the best solution for a banjo tuned down a fourth - at least regarding sound - just a bit worried if it still will be comfortable to play when the action around the first frets get busy. Wish I could try one out, but don't know anyone here that has one like that (I live in Tasmania).
From the images it also seems the case that the fifth string only starts at the 7th fret for this banjo? That would throw a few spanners in the works!

After all this, just using a standard 22 fret Vegas with heavier gauged strings is probably the safest way to go.

I am also considering building one myself (from beautiful native timber we are lucky enough to still have here) in which case I probably will make one like the one mentioned but with the 5th string starting at the 5th fret.