Why NOT to lock-wrap strings Martin-style?

[dwasifar]

For lo these many moons, I have been stringing using what a lot of you guys call the "Martin method," wherein you wrap the string backwards around the post and loop it around itself to lock it against itself before winding. Two consecutive luthiers have tried to talk me out of doing it. The second guy especially seems to know his stuff, and his argument was: a) it's been proven that the locking method is no more secure than the regular way, and b) it's a pain to take them off. I have not seen the data proving point a, but let's assume it exists, because he said so and I trust him. Still, the claim is only that lock-wrap is no better; it doesn't claim it's any worse, and if I don't mind the slight extra time to get them off (and by now I'm adept), is there any reason I shouldn't keep doing it?

The only functional difference I see in the two styles is that the conventional way wraps more loops down the post and thereby increases the break angle at the nut just a bit. Does that make a difference?

[Borderdon]

I've been using the so called "Martin method" for several years.
Works for me, and I don't find removing them any tougher.
Don

[raggedymike]

I seriously doubt that the break angle is an issue. Likely it annoys the luthier as it takes time that is magnified for him because he does it many times. If you don't mind the time, it is a non issue for you. Many of us do things because that is the way we have always done it. If you don't find the time issue compelling, then no, there is no reason not to do it.

[Russ C]

It is harder to get them off but no big deal really.
It could be argued that unwound strings will grip better if hooked back - I do it for them but I really don't know the need for it.

Your break angle at the nut will never be an issue except on a Strat or Tele without a string post, and extra winds should you want them are there for the taking anyway.

[Bronzeback]

I'm not a fan. PITA to take strings off and I don't see the advantage. But if you like it, then that's what you should do.

[FwL]

I don't go for any method that wraps.the string over itself. Not only is it unnecessary, it increases the chance for slack to accumulate on the tuning post.

Feel free to.disagree.

.

[Wade Hampton]

I don't think that slightly increasing the break angle will make an audible difference. I also know that the Martin stringing method isn't necessary or more beneficial than any other, in large part because I've been using an entirely different method to string my guitars and other stringed instruments since 1976: the "fishhook method."

As the name implies, what you do is put each string's ball end into its hole in the bridge, press the bridge pin down on top of it, then run the string up past the tuner it's going to attach to. About an inch and a quarter past the tuner post, take needle nose pliers and make a sharp bend in the string, then cut off most of the excess, leaving only a short "fishhook" that you then hook into the tuner post. Keep tension on the string as you crank the tuner up to tension, and you're all set once you bring the string to pitch.

I also stretch in the new string, pressing down at the first fret with my left hand and running the fingers of my right hand up as close as I can get to me left. I listen to how flat it's gotten, tune the string back up to pitch, then stretch the string again. I repeat this another five or six times until the string stops going flat, then move onto the next string that needs to be replaced.

Taylor recommends this method as well, and has made some videos showing how to do it, so it's often called "the Taylor method" these days. Fine by me: I'd never heard of the Taylor Guitar Company when I started using that technique, but folks can call it whatever they like.

The point is that this is a faster and easier way to attach your strings at the tuner posts than the method Martin recommends. And as your repair guy told you, it's much easier to take the old strings off when you've used this method. You're much less likely to stab yourself and draw blood when the strings were put on using this fishhook/Taylor method.

There are a FEW strings where using that technique isn't secure enough. I play mandolin as well as guitar, and the unwound A and E string courses on mandolin won't hold their pitch if you use the fishhook method. (The G and D wound string courses hold their pitch just fine.) Also, the high 5th string on a banjo needs to be tied on, as do the high octave G and D strings on a 12 string guitar.

But on every other string, those attached to the tuner post by the fishhook method hold pitch perfectly. So I can definitely recommend it over the Martin approach, those few exceptions I mentioned noted.

Hope this helps.


Wade Hampton Miller

[AHill]

I use the "Taylor" method. I find it's a lot quicker to string than the Martin method, and I don't have any issues at all with my guitars holding pitch. If you consistently leave about 1.5" past the post before winding, the high E and B strings have plenty of windings to keep the string taut.

[ii Cybershot ii]

The main issue with the Martin method that I experienced was actually getting the locking loop in place. Seems like there's some slack that is unavoidable especially on the lower strings which seemed to annoy me, and bending the heavier strings over was awkward.

When I string my electrics I sometimes use the lock method on the .10 high e as it tends to be a slippery little fella.

But for my acoustics I switched to the "Taylor" method and can change my strings in 5 minutes literally.

[dwasifar]

Regarding the "Taylor method," I do in fact own a Taylor. When I bought it in 2003 I looked at their website and saw Taylor recommended the Martin method, and that's why I still use that today.

So I wrote to Taylor the other day and asked, why do you no longer recommend that method? And the guy who responded said, we have never recommended that method. I sent the guy a link to their own Taylor tip sheet recommending the Martin method, which I found at a cached copy of the 2005 Taylor site at archive.org. He said that goes back a long way and he'll look into it.

[dwasifar]

Originally Posted by Borderdon

I've been using the so called "Martin method" for several years.
Works for me, and I don't find removing them any tougher.

I don't either, now that I know the trick. Just unwind them until you can unhook the string out of the crimp, and then a quick jerk will pull it out.

[ChrisE]

I use the Taylor Method. Even on my Martin.

[ChalkLitIScream]

Originally Posted by dwasifar

The only functional difference I see in the two styles is that the conventional way wraps more loops down the post and thereby increases the break angle at the nut just a bit. Does that make a difference?

This shouldn't necessarily be true. You could get more winds by leaving more slack in the strings. You could use the basic wrap method using less wraps and also end up with a low break angle too.

I used to use the martin way, but now use the basic wrapping method.
The only issue I had was that the string kinking made it more prone to break. That and the fact that it was much harder to put the strings back on(not take them off imo). I'm always adjusting something or cleaning the guitar so the strings so come off.

I stopped doing this years ago. I had read that this practice creates a weak spot in the string, and it occurred to me that on the rare occasions when I had broken a string, it was exactly at this point. That was enough for me, and I switched to the over/under method, which I still use today.

[Neon Soul]

I don't like the bending back and doubling round of the Martin method.

Seemed unnecessary to me.

To lock the strings I string up my guitars similar to the Taylor method, but with one wrap above and the rest below to lock the string in place.

I also leave extra string length and have quite a few winds to increase string break angle over the nut.