Re: Direction to turn tuning knobs
\o/ Billy
"MS" <m...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:11115326...@news-1.nethere.net...
> I've noticed that some guitars are tuned with the tuning knobs going in
the
> opposite direction (to tighten the strings) for strings 4,5,6, than the
> direction to tighten the strings for strings 1,2,3.
>
> Is there any real reason to do this, other than custom and tradition? (It
> seems simpler to tighten all the strings by turning the knobs in the same
> direction.)
>
>
Tony Meloche
> I've noticed that some guitars are tuned with the tuning knobs going in the
> opposite direction (to tighten the strings) for strings 4,5,6, than the
> direction to tighten the strings for strings 1,2,3.
>
> Is there any real reason to do this, other than custom and tradition? (It
> seems simpler to tighten all the strings by turning the knobs in the same
> direction.)
>
>
My guess is that to have a standard "three and three" headstock with
all the keys turned the same way would require engineering left and
right "threaded" keys. For E,A,D - you are turning right to left. In
you mind, follow the D key over the top of the headstock and back down
to G, b and e. You're still turning the same direction (if you were
standing on the other side of the headstock, too, that is!). Saves a
lot of money in tooling up, initial cost for the guitar, and replacing
heads later on.
Adn please notice that I backspaced out the other five groups you
cross-posted this to. Please do NOT cross-post to alt.guitar.beginner, OK?
The Old Guy
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Ed Maier
> I've noticed that some guitars are tuned with the tuning knobs going in the
> opposite direction (to tighten the strings) for strings 4,5,6, than the
> direction to tighten the strings for strings 1,2,3.
>
> Is there any real reason to do this, other than custom and tradition? (It
> seems simpler to tighten all the strings by turning the knobs in the same
> direction.)
>
>
That would require worm gears with opposite helix angles.
Much more efficient to make them all with the same helix
direction.
Ed Maier
Leon Handy
logical to have them all going the same way!? I guess you can change it if
you want to though.
MS
Tightened them all in the same direction, the obvious way to do it, simpler
for tuning, IMO.
However, I'm wondering if I'm wrong in doing so--whether there might be a
real reason to tighten strings 4,5,6 in the opposite direction of strings
1,2,3.
If anyone knows about this, the reasoning behind the opposite direction
tuning, please post here about it,
"Leon Handy" <leon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1q95c$jt9$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
MS
Tony Done
On most (see below) guitars I've seen, the tuners all wind the same way eg
all clockwise when viewed from the button. On a 3+3 flat headstock this puts
all the strings facing inwards towards the middle, or outwards towards the
the edges of the headstock if you wind all the tuners the same direction. Or
"all over" or "all under" on a slotted headstock. The effect is really
obvious when using a string winder on a flathead to rapidly unwind strings.
I always do it right handed, holding the guitar upright in the left. For the
treble strings the guitar faces towards me, and for the bass strings away
from me, but I always wind in the same direction.
Flat headstocks are generally designed so that the angle from the nut is
reasonable when the string are wound to the inside of the posts. An
exception is flamenco guitars with wooden violin-style tuning pegs, where
the two outside strings are often wound to the outside of the pegs to
maintain a reasonable angle from the nut. My kona has to be done the same
way, due to the design of the headstock. It makes tuning tricky after a few
beers.
Tony D
"Matt McNabb" <matthe...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:S660e.14$Hj...@fe37.usenetserver.com...
>
> "John Rethorst" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:nobody-B40C06....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> In article <11115362...@news-1.nethere.net>, "MS" <m...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> > Actually, that is what I have usually done, when I put on new strings.
>> > Tightened them all in the same direction, the obvious way to do it,
> simpler
>> > for tuning, IMO.
>> >
>> > However, I'm wondering if I'm wrong in doing so--whether there might be
> a
>> > real reason to tighten strings 4,5,6 in the opposite direction of
> strings
>> > 1,2,3.
>> >
>> > If anyone knows about this, the reasoning behind the opposite direction
>> > tuning, please post here about it,
>>
>> The angle at which strings leave the nut on the headstock side seems to
> matter
>> to tone, although I don't know why. The angle, which IIRC is about nine
> degrees
>> on a Hauser, is part of the instrument's complete spec.
>>
>> This angle assumes that you roll the string over the top of the barrel.
>> If
> you
>> install strings so that you can tighten all in the same direction, one
> half of
>> the strings would need to be rolled over the bottom of the barrel.
>
> You guys are confusing me. I roll my all six strings over the barrell and
> the tuners all turn the same direction. If you're looking at the front of
> the headstock then you turn the button clockwise to raise the pitch. I've
> never seen tuners that work otherwise.
>
>> Also, depending on headstock construction, the string with the barrel
> closest to
>> the nut (1st or 6th depending on how you do it) might scrape against the
> wood,
>> making accurate tuning difficult.
>>
>> Anyone know why the string angle matters to tone?
>
> Someone once told me that the strings have to break over the nut at a
> certain angle to create the proper tension which promotes sustain and
> tuning
> stability.
>
>> --
>> John Rethorst
>> jrethorst at post dot com
>
>
>
...ms...
as possible to minimise friction at the nut. ie strings are wound on the
side to line up with the string guides in the nut. This only affects guitars
with machine heads on either side of the headstock eg gibson.
Marty...
"MS" <m...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:11115326...@news-1.nethere.net...
Matt McNabb
"John Rethorst" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:nobody-B40C06....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <11115362...@news-1.nethere.net>, "MS" <m...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>
> > Tightened them all in the same direction, the obvious way to do it,
simpler
> > for tuning, IMO.
> >
> > However, I'm wondering if I'm wrong in doing so--whether there might be
a
> > real reason to tighten strings 4,5,6 in the opposite direction of
strings
> > 1,2,3.
> >
> > If anyone knows about this, the reasoning behind the opposite direction
> > tuning, please post here about it,
>
Lumpy
> However, I'm wondering if I'm wrong
> in doing so--whether there
> might be a real reason to tighten
> strings 4,5,6 in the opposite
> direction of strings 1,2,3.
NO NO NO! Whatever you do, DON'T reverse the
direction on 4-5-6. If you do you will cause
a previously equalized and balanced several
hundred lbs of tension to shift from
one side of the neck to the other. That
will cause all your major chords to become
augmented. Playing long, held out notes
will suddenly sound like you're playing
a pedal steel as they bend sharp without
warning. And most important, the
added torque on the guitar will pull your
fretting arm, shoulder and head toward
the floor. If you play for too long
without a break in that situation, your
head will eventually hit the stage and
could cause serious injury.
The majority of all guitar playing related
accidents occur while playing guitar.
Be careful!
Lumpy
--
In Colorado One Night in May
http://www.lumpymusic.com
MS
"...ms..." <mar...@abc.com.au> wrote in message
news:S670e.8489$C7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I was always told that you want the string hitting the nut as
perpendicular
> as possible to minimise friction at the nut. ie strings are wound on the
> side to line up with the string guides in the nut. This only affects
guitars
> with machine heads on either side of the headstock eg gibson.
> Marty...
Are you saying that there is a rationale for the opposite direction of
tuning the upper and lower strings, but only on guitars in which the tuning
knobs stick out from the sides of the guitar? If the tuning knobs stick out
from the back of the guitar (gears on the sides, but the knobs stick out
backwards), there is no purpose in the reverse direction tuning?
Rob Duncan
Im getting a kick out of the replies your question generated.
Rob
Steve Freides
news:nobody-B40C06....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <11115362...@news-1.nethere.net>, "MS" <m...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> strings.
>> Tightened them all in the same direction, the obvious way to do it,
>> simpler
>> for tuning, IMO.
>>
>> However, I'm wondering if I'm wrong in doing so--whether there might
>> be a
>> real reason to tighten strings 4,5,6 in the opposite direction of
>> strings
>> 1,2,3.
>>
>> If anyone knows about this, the reasoning behind the opposite
>> direction
>> tuning, please post here about it,
>
> to matter
> to tone, although I don't know why. The angle, which IIRC is about
> nine degrees
> on a Hauser, is part of the instrument's complete spec.
>
> This angle assumes that you roll the string over the top of the
> barrel. If you
> install strings so that you can tighten all in the same direction, one
> half of
> the strings would need to be rolled over the bottom of the barrel.
>
> closest to
> the nut (1st or 6th depending on how you do it) might scrape against
> the wood,
> making accurate tuning difficult.
>
> Anyone know why the string angle matters to tone?
Just guessing here, but if the angle is too shallow, the effect would be
similar to insufficient finger pressure behind a fret bar.
If the angle is too steep, it might tend to deform the string as it
passed over the nut. I think the idea is the cause the string to stop
vibrating at the nut in a clean manner, but I can't imagine the
stringing over or under would put one outside the acceptable range.
-S-
don hindenach
wrote:
I actually have a ten foot pole, so I backed up fourteen feet . . . . .
--
-don hindenach-
donh at audiosys dot com
MS
"Rob Duncan" <robd...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:8cOdnSrFBf_...@gbronline.com...
> Im getting a kick out of the replies your question generated.
>
>
> Rob
Well, besides getting a kick out of other's replies, what is your reply to
the question?
Stratomaster
The guitar type with the most custom or tradition would be the classical
guitar, going back centuries. On a classical, all tuners turn in the
same direction. The same is true on "pre-war" Martins with slotted
headstocks. Having turners on opposite sides turning in opposite
directions is more recent.
Stratomaster
If you think about it, the tuners are only turning in the opposite
direction on the surface. They actually utilize the same twisting
motion of the hand. Your hand simply flips upsidedown going from one
side to the other. The only guitars that are truly reversed are old
flaminco guitars with violin type tuners.
Al
> I've noticed that some guitars are tuned with the tuning knobs going
> in the opposite direction (to tighten the strings) for strings 4,5,6,
> than the direction to tighten the strings for strings 1,2,3.
Correct. 3 per side tuners work that way. If you've got a 6-per-side
guitar, well ... ;-)
> Is there any real reason to do this, other than custom and tradition?
Both of the above, and it means that tuner manufacturers don't have to make
left handed threads.
Al.
Ed Maier
Absolutely correct. The OP questioned the seemingly different
directions as viewed from the headstock surface. When viewed
from the *button*, turning the button CCW tightens the strings
on most, if not all, enclosed tuners. They could be made to
work such that when the top of the hand moved away from the
guitar body as viewed from the nut, all the strings on both
sides of the headstock would tighten. This would require that
the worm gear and pinion for the G, B, and E strings' tuners
be cut with an opposite (LH) helix angle direction. This is
easy to do, but not economically smart considering the added
problems of keeping them separated during manufacture.
It's hard for me to talk about gears without my Big Chief
tablet and orange crayola.
Ed Maier
Arlington, TX
.
Misifus
Precisely. On my classical, I turn the knobs in the same
direction on both sides (counter-clockwise), and the drums turn
with the tops moving away from the nut (as they should to pull
the strings straight from the nut). But, if you look at the
machines, they're mirror images of each other. On the bass side
of the headstock, the knob is to the left of the screw. On the
treble side of the headstock the knob is on the right side of the
screw.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:raf_s...@cox.net
http://www.ralphandsue.com
henning wright
My guitars tune all strings in the same direction, On the acoustic the
tuning knobs are 3 on each side. But the gears are the same on each side.
since they are upside down as compared to each other it works out right
without having reverse gearing.
Henning
Rob Duncan
"don hindenach" <bounc...@driveway.splort> wrote in message
news:ZGh26eEmFvyP-pn2-8mBx3ddSM1BW@localhost...
LOL
Rob
Rob Duncan
You were right in your initial question. Custom and tradition. Its simply
a standard. Under-wind your strings. Its not going to hurt anything.
As some other replies noted, its not a hard and fast rule. On some guitars
and stringed instruments they do turn different directions. I think the
basic is this... it would feel odd and counter-intuative to wind the strings
towards the guitar body... to tighten a string. Its simplest to wind all in
the same direction. Up. Left side counter-clockwise, right side clockwise.
Rob
choro-nik
Hey, hey! Wait a moment there. Have you ever tightened normal screws? Yes,
they are all tightened clockwise. How come you claim you wind or tighten in
the same direction but then you say clockwise for one side and
anti-clockwise for the other side? Doesn't make sense.
>
>
> Rob
>
Rob Duncan
"choro-nik" <chor...@tvcom.net> wrote in message
news:3xp0e.127966$y25....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
The same direction, as in winding the pegs away from the guitar body. Not
in reference to left or right rotation of the key. Thats what he meant.
Indeed, if you look at it from a clockwise/counter-clockwise perspective
theyre wound in opposite directions. The barrels are rotated away from the
guitar body. Its just a standard. You dont have to wind your strings that
way. Wind-em anyway you like. Even on a head with tree's. Its not going
to make any difference on any guitar I can think of at the moment. Not even
6 on a side head-stock.
Maybe one of our luthiers is aware of a more esoteric reason? Not having an
acoustic in front of me at the moment the mental gymnastics Im performing
could possibly be wrong, but left and right keys ARE different in their
construction. If one wanted to do as our poster wishes he could buy a set
of 3 keys E, A, D, and install them on the high side I suppose. But Im
unaware of anyone having done that and suspect there would be fitment
problems.
Rob
David Raleigh Arnold
It's not a choice. The strings go over barrels and around the far
side (from the key) of posts. That is how the machines were
designed to work, and you can't expect a good result if they are
used in some other way. Also, if you can see gears you should
apply a gob of grease, key grease, cup grease, or vaseline, to the gears,
if they are not enclosed, every 5 to 10 years. Replacing them is
easy but finding ones that fit can be a bitch. daveA
--
When practicing tech: Don't practice the scale, practice each note.
When practicing music: Don't practice each note, practice the music.
When practicing an etude: Practice the music and each note too.
The only technical exercises for all guitarists worth a lifetime
of practice: "Dynamic Guitar Technique". Nothing else is close.
Free download: http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html
daveA David Raleigh Arnold dra..at..openguitar.com
Steve Freides
> In article <3xp0e.127966$y25....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> "choro-nik" <chor...@tvcom.net> wrote:
>
>> Hey, hey! Wait a moment there. Have you ever tightened normal screws?
>> Yes,
>> they are all tightened clockwise. How come you claim you wind or
>> tighten in
>> the same direction but then you say clockwise for one side and
>> anti-clockwise for the other side? Doesn't make sense.
>
> used to
> turn one way on one side of the car, the other way on the other side.
> Something
> about them being less likely to work loose.
The best example of this I know of comes from the world of bicycles.
Back in the day, the "bottom bracket" on a bicycle (hereafter referred
to as the BB) had "cups" that screwed into threads on the bottom of the
bicycle. The BB is the entire business, axle, bearing, retaining cups,
seals, and the like, that the cranks attach to - you get a bare frame,
you install a BB, you install cranks, you attach pedals to the cranks.
(Yes, not all bicycles work this way, I know, but the majority still
do.)
Besides issues of threading differences, several different versions
existed in terms of normal or "left-handed" threads for each side of the
bicycle. In practice, only those with a reverse thread on one side and
a normal threading on the other stay in place over time.
Pedal holes are threaded reversed on one side of the bike for the same
reason - they tend to work loose if they are not. Why it works this way
is beyond my ability to understand or explain but it certainly does work
this way. You can, e.g., ride a bicycle after having only slightly
tightened the pedals in most cases because the pedaling motion will tend
to tighten, not loosen, them..
I know pedals are reverse threaded on the left (non-drive) side of a
bike, but it's been long enough that I don't remember if the BB is
left-hand threaded on the drive side or the non-drive side - ah, here we
go, a good link for us old pedallers who forget these things - it works
the opposite way on the BB than it does on the pedals:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_bo-z.html#bottom
Steve "ah, but I digress" Freides
Ashby
My flamenco guitar has wooden friction pegs. The low E, A, and D strings are
tuned by turning them clockwise (from the orientation of the player in a
playing position). In other words, the pitch is increased by turning the peg
toward the guitar body. But the reverse is true for the G, B, and high E
strings; they are turned counterclockwise to raise the pitch. It has to be
that way or the strings would rub against the peg shafts of the adjacent
pegs. You can see why in this picture:
http://ashallen.home.comcast.net/hernandez/head.JPG
Ashby
henning wright
> It's not a choice. The strings go over barrels and around the far
> side (from the key) of posts. That is how the machines were
> designed to work, and you can't expect a good result if they are
> used in some other way.
My strings are put on correctly, just as you describe it.
Will aply a dab of grease, as the guitar is 4 years old now it seems about
time.
Henning
Fat Sam
> Actually, that is what I have usually done, when I put on new strings.
> Tightened them all in the same direction, the obvious way to do it, simpler
> for tuning, IMO.
>
> However, I'm wondering if I'm wrong in doing so-
I don't claim to be an expert, but it occurs to me that by doing so, you
could put excessive twisting strain on the headstock, and possibly
damage it....
This is just a theory....I can't even convince myself that this would be
the case, but the fear of it maybe happening would prevent me from
trying it....
Are there any guitar tech's or builders out there that could confirm or
debunk this theory?....
--
www.fixaphoto.co.uk
for photographic restorations
Misifus
The direction of turning the knobs won't affect the tension on
the neck. If the strings are more or less standard guages, and
the tuning is nearly standard tuning, the tension in all of the
strings is nearly the same. Therefore the forces on the neck,
from the low E to the high E are about equal. Thus, no twisting.
That, by the way, is how the guages of the strings came to be
what they are today, to equalize the string tension from the
skinny to the fat.
disclaimer: I know this thread is heavily cross-posted. I have
qualified all of the above; the comparisons are approximate, not
exact.