Why the 594?

Torvald

New Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2023
Messages
180
Just wondering why they came up with this scale length. It's .0594 inches longer than the 24.5 that they used on the 245's. If you divide that between 22 frets it's about 43 thousands of an inch difference per fret space and in actuality would even be less because the fretboard is only about 2/3 of the scale length. Was Paul Smith just trying to get a little closer to the Gibson scale but still do his own thing? I'm sure someone will say that they play and sound different, but it's hard to imagine that such a tiny difference being noticeable.
 
Some would say it's noticeable. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and the 245. The reason for the accuracy is that the LP was never exactly 24.5 inches. This is Paul's conclusion as to where it actually was/is. It's a subtle reference to the LP, like the Silver Sky is a subtle reference to a Strat.
 
Was Paul Smith just trying to get a little closer to the Gibson scale but still do his own thing?
No, Paul was actually hitting the ol' traditional Gibson scale EXACTLY. Yes, Gibson typically specifies their scale as "24.75 in.," but that's on the low-E string, and--according to Paul himself--that's incorrect as you should be measuring your scale as 2 x the distance from the nut to 12th fret (OR simply measure the high-E, I think[?]). If one were to properly measure a Gibson guitar you'd find it to be 24.594-in. scale length.

So, while those earlier 24.5-in. scale PRS guitars were very very close themselves to the true Gibson , the newer 24.594-in. scale guitars are dead-on.
 
No, Paul was actually hitting the ol' traditional Gibson scale EXACTLY. Yes, Gibson typically specifies their scale as "24.75 in.," but that's on the low-E string, and--according to Paul himself--that's incorrect as you should be measuring your scale as 2 x the distance from the nut to 12th fret (OR simply measure the high-E, I think[?]). If one were to properly measure a Gibson guitar you'd find it to be 24.594-in. scale length.

So, while those earlier 24.5-in. scale PRS guitars were very very close themselves to the true Gibson , the newer 24.594-in. scale guitars are dead-on.
I don’t know, but I like it. Just brought home a McCarty 594 DC. I have only played it in the store but it might be my favorite neck ever.
 
No, Paul was actually hitting the ol' traditional Gibson scale EXACTLY. Yes, Gibson typically specifies their scale as "24.75 in.," but that's on the low-E string, and--according to Paul himself--that's incorrect as you should be measuring your scale as 2 x the distance from the nut to 12th fret (OR simply measure the high-E, I think[?]). If one were to properly measure a Gibson guitar you'd find it to be 24.594-in. scale length.

So, while those earlier 24.5-in. scale PRS guitars were very very close themselves to the true Gibson , the newer 24.594-in. scale guitars are dead-on.
Interesting, and a very good reason! I didn't know that the Gibsons were not really 24.75.
 
24.594 inches = *650 mm*. THAT's the reason for the difference. It's what was originally spec'd on certain vintage-era Gibsons, and so it pays homage to that. The way the neck carve augments the scale length is pure genius. It's literally the best guitar ever designed. It's *perfect* in the hands. And it ROCKS.
 
24.594 inches = *650 mm*. THAT's the reason for the difference. It's what was originally spec'd on certain vintage-era Gibsons, and so it pays homage to that. The way the neck carve augments the scale length is pure genius. It's literally the best guitar ever designed. It's *perfect* in the hands. And it ROCKS.
Sorry, but not exactly:

24.594 in x 25.4 = 624.6876 mm
650mm / 25.4 = 25.5905511811 in
 
IIRC correctly they actually measured some burst-era LPs. Thought it was in a video somewhere... anyone got the time for a rabbit-hole trip?

^^ This exactly. Hardly a random #. Paul wasn't shy in wanting to re-create those old bursts in a modern wrapping. I'll give him credit. I didn't like the idea of the 594 because I prefer when companies look forward but 594s sure sound sweet, especially the double cuts. On my radar for future purchase.
 
IIRC correctly they actually measured some burst-era LPs. Thought it was in a video somewhere... anyone got the time for a rabbit-hole trip?

IIRC, and I rarely do, 24.594 was what they measured for LP that Paul really liked so he went with that. I seem to remember in the same video that they found that LP's tended to be nominally closer 24.625 with a fair amount of variance with the actual scale length even though they published 24.75 as the scale length. Its not uncommon for manufacturers to "round" their nominal published dimensions relative to actual.
 
Because Les Paul dudes chase burst specs like a kitten chases a laser pointer.
Guilty as charged, but after comparing a 59 reissue Les Paul to a 594 McCarty SE, the major difference between the two (besides the LP being almost 2 pounds heavier) is a smoother sound with the McCarty. The Les Paul has that classic rock sound and is more in your face, which is great when you want or need it. The McC is probably more versatile and modern sounding. I decided I needed both!
 
24.594 inches = *650 mm*. THAT's the reason for the difference.
Incidentally, 650 mm is arguably the standard scale length for classical guitar, so if you want to really talk vintage….
Sorry, but not exactly:

24.594 in x 25.4 = 624.6876 mm
650mm / 25.4 = 25.5905511811 in
Indeed. While I agree many acoustic guitars have a scale length of "about" 25.5", the LP design, and the 594 that, uh, emulates it, is the other side of the 25" mark. A strat (and the Silver Sky, accordingly) has a scale length of nominally 25.5".

I have two 594s, both SH: a DC and a SC. They play absolutely divinely, IMHO. The neck carve probably a bigger feel factor than the scale length.

Which reminds me: at some point, maybe 10 years ago, or maybe about the time I got my first PRS (nine years ago, now), I learned that guitars had different scale lengths. I had, up until that day, assumed all "regular" guitars had the same scale length. ("I was today years old when I found out that...").

I owned a Les Paul and a Strat at the time (amongst others), and had never noticed. Yeah, I knew basses were different, but had no clue that guitars, electric and acoustic, had varying scale lengths.

That's perhaps a big part of why I'm scale-length agnostic. They all seem OK to me.
 
Back
Top