nylon strings

[WaddyT]

"Glen, it's just not true. A ball-end string exerts exactly the same tension as the equivalent tension tie-end string. Honestly."

Garthman speaks truth!

[Guitar1083]

Originally Posted by eyesore

hi; i'll probably get crucified for asking this;but does anyone make nylon strings with the ball end? thx!

im a jew so i would have to make you eat horseradish.

really tho balls??? its not hard to make the knot

[gip111]

Originally Posted by scottishrogue

Many manufacturers make nylon strings with a ball-end. They are designed for use on a "Folk" guitar with a standard pin style bridge (nice mellow tone). I have converted several steel-string guitars for use with nylon strings.

You didn't specifically ask, but they are not supposed to be used on a classical style guitar with a tie block bridge.

Glen

I'm curious, when you say "converted several steel-string guitars for use with nylon strings"....
Other than filing the nut grooves to allow for the thicker nylons, what other modifications have you done?

[Garthman]

Originally Posted by gip111

I'm curious, when you say "converted several steel-string guitars for use with nylon strings"....
Other than filing the nut grooves to allow for the thicker nylons, what other modifications have you done?

I did this about 10 years ago. Widening the nut slots for the nylon trebles is the main thing (the bass slots should be fine). The other thing you might need to do is slacken off the truss rod a little to allow for the reduced tension of the nylon strings.

Oh, and remember that nylon strings usually have a greater amplitude of vibration than steel ones so if the action of the guitar is low you might get some string buzz - easily solved by shimming the saddle.

[scottishrogue]

Originally Posted by Garthman

Glen, it's just not true. A ball-end string exerts exactly the same tension as the equivalent tension tie-end string. Honestly. I know it's hard for you to believe (and it's so unjust!) but a lot of the so-called guitar "experts" out there that you seem to be quoting are not telling the truth.

Garth, if you wish to use ball-end nylon strings on an expensive classical guitar, it makes no difference to me, but the string tension is not the only factor that must be considered. A "folk" guitar has different bracing, and the soundboard is thicker, which means it requires a higher string tension to drive the top. Classical guitars usually have fan bracing or lattice bracing, and don't require as much string tension as the soundboard is much thinner. The steeper break angle over the saddle created by the ball-end strings creates more downward force on the bridge, causing unnecessary stress on the thinner soundboard. This will eventually cause dipping in front of the bridge, and belly bulge behind the bridge. And this will, over time, cause the bridge to lift, or cracks in the soundboard on either side the bridge. It happens, and I've seen it.

I realize some players use the ball-end strings because they are much easier to install, and have not yet figured out the correct strings for their guitar. Even string manufacturers promote the use of ball-end strings on a classical guitar, but I feel this is a disservice as the overall quality of plain-end strings far exceeds their ball-end equivalent.

And one final thought...if ball-end strings could produce a better sound, logic would tell you that most classical guitarists would be using them, yet...they don't. Anyone using ball-end strings on a classical guitar, is telling the world...I'm lazy & stupid!!! That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Glen

[Garthman]

Originally Posted by scottishrogue

Garth, if you wish to use ball-end nylon strings on an expensive classical guitar, it makes no difference to me, but the string tension is not the only factor that must be considered. A "folk" guitar has different bracing, and the soundboard is thicker, which means it requires a higher string tension to drive the top. Classical guitars usually have fan bracing or lattice bracing, and don't require as much string tension as the soundboard is much thinner. The steeper break angle over the saddle created by the ball-end strings creates more downward force on the bridge, causing unnecessary stress on the thinner soundboard. This will eventually cause dipping in front of the bridge, and belly bulge behind the bridge. And this will, over time, cause the bridge to lift, or cracks in the soundboard on either side the bridge. It happens, and I've seen it.

I realize some players use the ball-end strings because they are much easier to install, and have not yet figured out the correct strings for their guitar. Even string manufacturers promote the use of ball-end strings on a classical guitar, but I feel this is a disservice as the overall quality of plain-end strings far exceeds their ball-end equivalent.

And one final thought...if ball-end strings could produce a better sound, logic would tell you that most classical guitarists would be using them, yet...they don't. Anyone using ball-end strings on a classical guitar, is telling the world...I'm lazy & stupid!!! That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Glen

No, Glenn, sorry but none of this is true. It's the tension exerted by the strings (any strings) over time that causes a guitar top to rise (or the bridge to come off if the glue bond is weak) not the break angle of the strings.

Ball end strings are OK - really, honestly, no fingers crossed. And the quality of ball-end strings is the same as the loop-end ones. Guess what? - the string maker just sticks a ball on the end of the loop-end ones. Yep.

Oh! And did I mention that a ball-end string has exactly the same tension as the equivalent loop-end string?

[Wasper]

You can always do what I did. Buy some bridge beads for your nylon strings. Basically, your own reusable ball-ends for your nylon strings. You attach them off the guitar, then string them up like a regulat ball-end string. No more tying around the block and risks of damaging the top from a slip.

Sounds better, to me, then a traditional tie, is much easier to work with then trying to tie it off and I've had them installed for quite a while with no ill effects.

Traditional? No... Better? My opinion, yes.... Ugly? I think they look fine, but have gotten some..er.. colorful comments, lol.

There are different brands, these are the ones I use: http://www.bridgebonebeads.com/bridgebonebeads.html

Here is a picture of them on my guitar:

[bohemian]

"fossilized" string balls..
yeah that's the ticket.

[scottishrogue]

Garth, I'm sorry my logic has not convinced you, but I did some further searches yesterday, and while opinions are split on this subject, I will continue to install my strings using the "traditional" method recommended by people with far more knowledge and experience than myself.

And, you can use your preferred method, but when your guitar needs repair, I'll be more than happy to suggest how to accomplish that, as well.

Glen

[john bange]

I think the biggest reason to avoid ball end strings is the plastic balls can break on the 3 nylon strings...don't know about the break angle and extra stress. If the string is tied correctly, seems like the angle is the same.
The Martin ball end string balls are very fragile.
I've converted a few steel string guitars to nylon over the years(with varying degrees of success) and I save the brass ends from steel strings and wound nylon/silk sets and tie knots. they don't break.

I tie mine...take about 5 seconds longer the using a ball end and I change often, it's just not a big deal.

[Garthman]

Originally Posted by scottishrogue

Garth, I'm sorry my logic has not convinced you, but I did some further searches yesterday, and while opinions are split on this subject, I will continue to install my strings using the "traditional" method recommended by people with far more knowledge and experience than myself.

And, you can use your preferred method, but when your guitar needs repair, I'll be more than happy to suggest how to accomplish that, as well.

Glen

Oh my preferred method is to tie strings in the traditional manner. My preferred strings, La Bella 850 and 900 series only come in loop end anyway (although I do use the 850B-HT set on my converted dreadnought - using craft beads and knots like John Bange mentions - to lock at the pinned bridge).

However I have used ball-end strings on several guitars that I've set up for friends over the years and in all cases it was to obtain a greater break angle over the saddle because of top lift. My old (c1968) classical is reaching that stage now (and it's always had loop-ends on it - and the bridge is as secure as it was when i bought it all those years ago ) and I shall not hesitate to use ball-ends (La Bella 900 + craft beads) in the near future - it will increase its life by several years.

[scottishrogue]

Originally Posted by Garthman

Oh my preferred method is to tie strings in the traditional manner. My preferred strings, La Bella 850 and 900 series only come in loop end anyway (although I do use the 850B-HT set on my converted dreadnought - using craft beads and knots like John Bange mentions - to lock at the pinned bridge). I shall not hesitate to use ball-ends (La Bella 900 + craft beads) in the near future - it will increase its life by several years.

Garth, I think it was you that suggested I try the La Bella 900 series, and I'm in your debt. I had been using Thomastik-Infeld Classic N Superlona flat wound CF 127s @ $19/set. But the La Bella strings are half the price, and sound better. I have a set of beads, which are much safer to use, but I just didn't like the look.

Glen

[Garthman]

Originally Posted by scottishrogue

Garth, I think it was you that suggested I try the La Bella 900 series, and I'm in your debt. I had been using Thomastik-Infeld Classic N Superlona flat wound CF 127s @ $19/set. But the La Bella strings are half the price, and sound better. . . .

Yes, I remember recommending them. I discovered them several years ago - I do a lot of Leonard Cohen covers and many of his songs involve sliding barre chords (Bm7, Cm, F#m etc etc) so string squeak was sometimes a problem which the strings solve very well. And I agree that they are better than Thomastik - which are silly prices. I also think they are better than Savarez - which are also silly prices. Generally I think La Bella deserve more recognition than they get - their strings are top quality and, after all, they are the world's oldest string maker.

Originally Posted by scottishrogue

. . I have a set of beads, which are much safer to use, but I just didn't like the look. Glen

No, I don't like the look either but I'd rather use beads to get a good break angle than ditch the guitar.

[scottishrogue]

Originally Posted by Garthman

And, after all, they are the world's oldest string maker.

Didn't know that, but I do know they are presently being made in the USA!

Glen

[Garthman]

Originally Posted by scottishrogue

Didn't know that, but I do know they are presently being made in the USA!

Glen

Yep. The business started in Salle, Italy in the 1640's. Two brothers of the family emigrated to the USA in 1913 and continued making strings in New York city. Their factory is now in Newburgh, NY.