Ideal body size for re-entrant GCEA tuning? ​

pizzawillcome

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2019
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Is there an "ideal" ukulele body size that can be considered optimal for re-entrant GCEA tuning?

Having played the soprano, concert, and tenor ukuleles over the years and experimented different tunings, I have settled with the tenor scale and re-entrant GCEA tuning. However, recently I went down the rabbit hole of learning about instrument's air resonance and tuning after reading Southcoast's and Kawika's websites. Since then I can't stop wondering if the tenor ukulele body size is optimized for re-entrant GCEA tuning, and if not, what size is.

The concern is that tenor ukulele bodies usually have air resonance frequencies around F#3 to Ab3, good if the tuning has the lowest note within a few semitones above G3, but possibly not for optimal tone production in re-entrant GCEA tuning? I don't know if this concern is truly relevant because so many different factors determine whether an instrument sounds good. But if it is relevant, then to counter the problem, one option would be to tune down the strings, and another option would be to play a smaller-body instrument. I tried both.

For the first option, I tuned my tenor down to re-entrant F-Bb-D-G like what was discussed in a previous thread, and felt the ukulele did seem to resonate well, probably better than when it was in re-entrant GCEA. However, after a while I really missed the GCEA sound and feel, so I tuned back up to GCEA. I have tried this more than one time, and each time I gravitated back to GCEA. This helped me to confirm that my ideal ukulele is not an instrument that sounds fantastic when tuned lower than re-entrant GCEA, but an instrument that sounds fantastic and is at its best when tuned to re-entrant GCEA.

For the second option, I tried long neck concerts from KoAloha and Kamaka. Even though these instruments sound great because they are well-built, I did not perceive the sounds to be resonating better than a tenor body KoAloha or Kamaka in re-entrant GCEA turning. I certainly did not feel "hey this instrument fits the re-entrant GCEA better than tenor".

I then tried reading anything I can find related to air resonance, such as coupling of the soundboard frequency and the back frequency, body depth, sound hole size, etc, but only became even more confused. At this point I am getting the feeling I am possibly not thinking about this question in the right way. Any guidance/opinion will be greatly appreciated!
 
Is there an "ideal" ukulele body size that can be considered optimal for re-entrant GCEA tuning?

Having played the soprano, concert, and tenor ukuleles over the years and experimented different tunings, I have settled with the tenor scale and re-entrant GCEA tuning. However, recently I went down the rabbit hole of learning about instrument's air resonance and tuning after reading Southcoast's and Kawika's websites. Since then I can't stop wondering if the tenor ukulele body size is optimized for re-entrant GCEA tuning, and if not, what size is.

The concern is that tenor ukulele bodies usually have air resonance frequencies around F#3 to Ab3, good if the tuning has the lowest note within a few semitones above G3, but possibly not for optimal tone production in re-entrant GCEA tuning? I don't know if this concern is truly relevant because so many different factors determine whether an instrument sounds good. But if it is relevant, then to counter the problem, one option would be to tune down the strings, and another option would be to play a smaller-body instrument. I tried both.

For the first option, I tuned my tenor down to re-entrant F-Bb-D-G like what was discussed in a previous thread, and felt the ukulele did seem to resonate well, probably better than when it was in re-entrant GCEA. However, after a while I really missed the GCEA sound and feel, so I tuned back up to GCEA. I have tried this more than one time, and each time I gravitated back to GCEA. This helped me to confirm that my ideal ukulele is not an instrument that sounds fantastic when tuned lower than re-entrant GCEA, but an instrument that sounds fantastic and is at its best when tuned to re-entrant GCEA.

For the second option, I tried long neck concerts from KoAloha and Kamaka. Even though these instruments sound great because they are well-built, I did not perceive the sounds to be resonating better than a tenor body KoAloha or Kamaka in re-entrant GCEA turning. I certainly did not feel "hey this instrument fits the re-entrant GCEA better than tenor".

I then tried reading anything I can find related to air resonance, such as coupling of the soundboard frequency and the back frequency, body depth, sound hole size, etc, but only became even more confused. At this point I am getting the feeling I am possibly not thinking about this question in the right way. Any guidance/opinion will be greatly appreciated!

You are overthinking it a bit. The Tenor down through the Soprano all function well with re-entrant the standard tuning. Once you get the top moving, the instrument will perform optimally. On my 1935 Gibson L-12 archtop, I use very heavy strings with with a 15g on the high e and a 18g on the b string, because the top doesn't resonate as well with lighter gauge strings. That is not as much of a concern on my Gretsch 6120, because the pickup does the projecting. They share the same depth and scale length, but one is fully acoustic and the other has some help. On my ukuleles, I use the set that is most comfortable for me to play (nylon) as well as getting the top to resonate for maximum projection. Choose strings that provide the required tension for the tuning and the scale length.
 
I think your own experience of gravitating back to your GCEA-tuned tenor after trying different sizes and tunings answers your question.

There may be valid engineering-based arguments for pairing one size with a particular tuning, but human perception of sound is subjective and varies from individual to individual. Furthermore, many professionals play re-entrant tuned tenors in the key of C, so that size & tuning must produce good results.
 
I've found that all the sizes do well tuned gCEA. Even banjoukes do just fine, no matter what size.
BTW, you can type gCEA, and ukulele players know you refer to re-entrant tuning, so you don't have to type the word re-entrant every time.
We use GCEA for linear tuning.
I used to know a guy from Ukulele Kids Club that played his bari tuned GCEA. I told him I was worried that is was too much tension for the neck, but he didn't seem to care. It sounded great!
 
Interesting thread, thank you for starting it.

SandChannels answer about the top vibrating is something to consider. What is optimal is not exactly the same though.

We must consider the vibration frequencies of the top, not just the fundamental that is related somehow to the volume of the box and size of the top. If the top is even desirable to be excited that way.

My way of layman thinking is, it all depends. I am also sure that a laminate top size and solid top size are different, considering the same shape etc. But the thickness is only one factor. So many. We most know that size matters in sound. But can we really say that some scale size associated with some body size is superior regarding sound?
 
I don't know why, but I've always thought the sweet spot for gCEA uke is the concert. I've also recently noticed my tenors seem to do very well in Bb and some, but not all of my sopranos sound very nice in D.

In the past, I felt tenors suffered from diminishing returns in gCEA... What I mean is that I noticed a great improvement in tone in a concert as compared to a soprano, but not between a tenor and a concert. But to my ear, my tenors do seem to come more alive in Bb.
 
This is a fascinating thread. I need to take some time to digest the science but it gets my attention as it's relevant to the discussion about wolf notes/dead notes. I've purchased and returned ukes costing upwards of 2K because of wolf notes that I ultimately couldn't work around. I begin to wonder if I'm expecting too much from a factory instrument, even a high end one.
 
I don’t think there is an ideal size, but there are ideal builds for each size.

Since the 4th g string is a step lower than the 1st string A, any ukulele this at is built so the A string sounds good will probably sound equally good with the re-entrant g 4th string. Acoustic guitars cover nearly the same scale as a ukulele in the upper range, I don’t buy into an ideal size based on frequency.

Run the numbers theoretically for the ideal size and guess what? Luthiers, expecially high end, will build tenors. It is pretty simple. The cost to build a concert is pretty close to the same cost to build a tenor, especially labor, but the price for the concert will be lower. If there was an ideal size, that size would cost more. Now a luthier can select different woods/bracing/thicknesses that can enhance linear or re-entrant; or concert or tenor to acheive a desired result.

Interesting topic, but it is probably chasing the wind.

John
 
If I remember when Dirk from Southcoast was alive and contributing here, I believe he said Concert for traditional re-entrant tuning. He advocated re-entrant Bb for tenors. I tend to agree based on my experience. I'd also say most sopranos sound better/ feel better 'up' a step to re-entrant D.
Having said that, they all "work", so do whatever you like!
 
If I remember when Dirk from Southcoast was alive and contributing here, I believe he said Concert for traditional re-entrant tuning. He advocated re-entrant Bb for tenors. I tend to agree based on my experience. I'd also say most sopranos sound better/ feel better 'up' a step to re-entrant D.
Having said that, they all "work", so do whatever you like!

To my mind that pretty much sums the situation up.

As for D tuning I’ve always wondered what tuning the original Uke used when it first arrived on Hawaii? The Luthiers involved doubtless optimised small size (for transport), material efficiency and tuning. Ukes have, I think, changed over the years and grown in both size and variety. I would suspect that a small body Soprano was better in D but a larger body one is, I find, fine enough in C tuning.
Edit. I believe that the original Sopranos had a slightly shorter scale (near 13”) than today’s instruments and slightly smaller bodies, looking at a 13” Soprano scale it takes about a 3/4 of an inch extension to flatten a string by a semi tone. The early method books (say 1920’s) were for D tuning. It seems that Sopranos have grown about 5/8” on scale length and body width.

Personally I prefer the Soprano scale (when near 14” in length) and wish that there were more readily available Soprano scale Ukes with body widths of 7 inch and ideally more - the best Soprano compromise I’ve been able to find is a near 7 inch wide laminate Pineapple.
 
Last edited:
Here is an interesting phenomenon... I have a tenor that has always been too bright when tuned to gCEA. I tune it to Bb and it sounds so much better; nice and full. I capo on the second fret back to gCEA and it sounds better, and not as bright, than when tuned to the standard gCEA and played at the nut.

I use heavier strings when tuned to Bb and when capoed at the second the string tension is the same. This has led me to believe that there is an optimum tuning/string tension/strings for every uke. I also wonder if it is more important to base it on the frequency floor and not the ceiling.

John
 
subscribed, this seems like a very interesting thread
o.png
 
Fascinating topic, for sure. I come at this from the perspective of a mountain dulcimer player. Dulcimers come in a wide range of body sizes (and shapes) and scale lengths (29+ inches all the way down to 22 inches) that all tune to the standard DAd or DAA. The common wisdom is that size and scale length affect tone -- particularly sustain -- but are not nearly as important to the sound of the instrument as other factors such as string gauge, tonewoods, and most importantly the luthier's design and execution.

I've been under the impression that if an instrument has, say, a 23" scale, and is intended to be tuned to a particular tuning, then it's the luthier/designer's job to make it sound good. If the instrument sounds unquestionably better in a different tuning, that's a fail. Put different strings on it, or tell buyers it's not designed for standard tuning.

That said, some players prefer the sound of tuning up or down a few steps on certain instruments. That's personal preference for a slightly mellower or brighter sound. Not something you'd expect everybody to agree on. Nobody would claim there's one "ideal" size for a DAd-tuned dulcimer.

Now, what does this mean for ukuleles? Is it possible to design a tenor that sounds at its best in re-entrant GCEA? I would certainly think so, but then I am no expert and I look forward to learning more here.
 
I can't help but ask what do you think the instruments you have tried are missing in their sound. Where are they lacking? What don't you like about them?

Is there an optimal design shape. Theoretically, maybe. You will have to take into account the bracing, the curves (Sides, top and back), materials used, (don't forget about the figuring in the wood grain and any imperfections, thickness, angles of the joins, neck attachment, sound hole(s), etc. That's just the body. Then add the neck, fret wires, bridge, headstock, tuners, nut & saddle, strap?, pickups & electronics—and critically the strings.

Then how you hold it, how you strike the strings, angle of attack, plus the setup and action.

And it will all change with the temperature and humidity.

I imagine that with fluid dynamics the stiffness coefficients of various materials and the aid of a super computer you could find shapes that theoretically work better to move the air and others. You could probably eliminate some that just don't work very well. Is wider & shallower better than narrower and deeper or equal bouts vs different widths? The variables are mind boggling.

Or, you can just try a bunch of ukes and find the types that sound best to you.

Thought-provoking thread.
 
Well, gCEA started out on the concert scale, so I guess that is the optimal size. ;)

I don’t want this to sound negative, ‘cause it’s not intended to be, but please would you add to your comment with some supporting data/references.

Whilst regardless of size we predominantly play in C now I wonder if, when they were first designed and made, the different sizes were intended for different tunings. Things evolve over time and it can be very helpful to understand what has happened in the past.

Edit. Thank you for your most helpful response directly below.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there was a degree of commercial pragmatism involved. Ukes typically appear to be flexible enough to work acceptably in tunings within a whole pitch (interval) of their indicated ideal so there’s logic to it.
 
Last edited:
I don’t want this to sound negative, ‘cause it’s not intended to be, but please would you add to your comment with some supporting data/references.

Whilst regardless of size we predominantly play in C now I wonder if, when they were first designed and made, the different sizes were intended for different tunings. Things evolve over time and it can be very helpful to understand what has happened in the past.

Certainly, Ukulele Handbook by AlexRichter (Mel Bay) 2004.
Soprano = D or Eb tuning = A D F# B or Bb E G C
Concert = C tuning = G C E A
Tenor = A or Bb tuning = E A C# F# or F Bb D G
Baritone = D G B E

I well remember the soprano being in D tuning before all ukes were tuned to g C E A - I believe it was a commercial decision to make the soprano, concert, & tenor be in C tuning.
 
I have not experienced significant wolf note on instruments I own, but would be interested in hearing the phenomenon.
I read here about a luthier enlarging the sound hole to raise air resonance frequency and thus resolved a wolf note issue on a newly built guitar.

Still learning how to post correctly on this forum. This is in response to etudes' comment about wolf note.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom