The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Classical

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 03-03-2019, 11:54 PM
lar lar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: san diego
Posts: 219
Default Simple Stringing Method

There is a similar thread on the steel-string guitar site that is quite interesting, so I'd thought I'd start this thread for nylon strings. I like simple, so this is what I do:

At the bridge, I use these: https://www.stringsbymail.com/diamon...ack-16282.html

At the headstock, I just started using this tying method:
https://twitter.com/GoharGuitar/stat...83550638862336
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-04-2019, 05:52 AM
AndreF AndreF is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 753
Default

Quote:
At the headstock, I just started using this tying method:
https://twitter.com/GoharGuitar/stat...83550638862336
I use that method. That's what I've been doing for years. I agree that it works well. I used to leave way too much slack at the headstock to wind. There is no need for that, and may even slow down the breaking-in stretching process.

Quote:
I like simple, so this is what I do:

At the bridge, I use these: https://www.stringsbymail.com/diamon...ack-16282.html
That one I don't get. I also like "simple".
The string needs to be tied at the bridge in any case. Why introduce an additional element into the tying procedure that you have to purchase?
Personally I think the easiest/simplest way to tie at the bridge is using a 12 hole bridge. They're becoming more popular I think, because of that.
__________________
Best regards,
Andre
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gitfiddlemann
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-04-2019, 02:39 PM
chistrummer chistrummer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,399
Default

The headstock method is clever but I don't care for those bridge diamonds.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-04-2019, 04:56 PM
hesson11 hesson11 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 866
Default

At the headstock, there's no need for all those wraps on the wound strings. Just "pinch" the loose end of the string once under the part of the string leading toward the nut. Those windings on the strings themselves will keep the string in place.
-Bob
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-09-2019, 08:36 AM
Krash58 Krash58 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 57
Default No real tying.

Its a lot easier than tying to the tie block. You do run the end under one loop to cinch it ! You also dont have the loop going under the string pulling up, relieving pressure on the saddle and there are no loops across the top of the tie block. Just watched a video of a twelve hole bridge being strung. Very similar to this system, with the exception being the twelve hole bridge has a loop over the tie block ! Convenient if you dont have twelve holes !
https://www.rosetteguitarproducts.com/new-page

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreF View Post
I use that method. That's what I've been doing for years. I agree that it works well. I used to leave way too much slack at the headstock to wind. There is no need for that, and may even slow down the breaking-in stretching process.


That one I don't get. I also like "simple".
The string needs to be tied at the bridge in any case. Why introduce an additional element into the tying procedure that you have to purchase?
Personally I think the easiest/simplest way to tie at the bridge is using a 12 hole bridge. They're becoming more popular I think, because of that.

Last edited by Krash58; 03-09-2019 at 10:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-09-2019, 12:06 PM
AndreF AndreF is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krash58 View Post
Its a lot easier than tying to the tie block.
https://www.rosetteguitarproducts.com/new-page
It must be the minimalist in me, but I just don't see how the additional piece makes it any easier or more desirable than just using the conventional method.
It's more like a fancy ball end to a string, i.e. it does spare looping the string over the block, but you still need to fasten the string to it in similar fashion to the regular tie method.
I just like to keep things as simple as possible, especially since the bridge is designed to have the string tie to it directly, even with a 6 hole bridge.
It just seems like a superfluous part, with no real added benefit.

But hey, just a personal preference. I'm not knocking it if it works for you and others that find it useful.
__________________
Best regards,
Andre
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gitfiddlemann
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-09-2019, 03:16 PM
bellgamin bellgamin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 88
Default

Thanks for this thread. I ordered the beads because I don't know if I like something, or not, unless I first try it. Decision without testing is often philosophical moreso than objective.

I tried the headstock tying method. I like it waaay better than my prior by-guess & by-golly method. By the way, I detest slot heads. Am I the only one?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-09-2019, 03:35 PM
philjs philjs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
Posts: 1,758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bellgamin View Post
By the way, I detest slot heads. Am I the only one?
No.........!

Phil
__________________
One Size Does Not Fit All

Asturias: '17 GS Custom (Euro spruce/mahogany) Crosby: '10 FSE (redwood/black walnut),
'10 Bouzar (spruce/curly maple), '12 JE Baritone Multiscale (redwood/black walnut), '19 Cittar (Lutz spruce/figured mango)
Furch: '17 S22CMc (cedar/mahogany) Larrivée: '89 J-09 (spruce/rosewood) Lowden: '10 O23c (cedar/Claro walnut)


Solo or Trio
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-09-2019, 05:11 PM
Krash58 Krash58 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 57
Default Take a closer look

I dont think you are looking at the design and how it works closely enough to understand the benefits !

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreF View Post
It must be the minimalist in me, but I just don't see how the additional piece makes it any easier or more desirable than just using the conventional method.
It's more like a fancy ball end to a string, i.e. it does spare looping the string over the block, but you still need to fasten the string to it in similar fashion to the regular tie method.
I just like to keep things as simple as possible, especially since the bridge is designed to have the string tie to it directly, even with a 6 hole bridge.
It just seems like a superfluous part, with no real added benefit.

But hey, just a personal preference. I'm not knocking it if it works for you and others that find it useful.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-09-2019, 06:18 PM
LadysSolo LadysSolo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 434
Default

I LOVE the look of slotheads, they are a little harder to restring, but oh well - you take the good with the bad....
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-09-2019, 08:28 PM
lpa53 lpa53 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Flat Rock, NC
Posts: 1,452
Default

I use the newest version of the bridge beads, too. I converted my guitar's bridge to be a 12-hole, but after trying that and the beads both, find the beads more slip-resistant.

I've never seen this headstock tie method and will definitely give it a try. It's the second one I've seen that says to pull out most of the slack but his method appears to provide a better way than the other I've seen to keep the slack tight while winding.

Also interesting was the video maker's positioning of the tuner. I've been trying to find a good spot for it that doesn't interfere with tuning, the stings themselves, or joust for space with a capo at the headstock. I may give this location try, too.
__________________
1967 Aria Classical
1974 Guild D50
2009 Kenny Hill New World Player Classical
2009 Hoffman SJ
2011 Hoffman SJ 12

https://paulashley.weebly.com/
https://www.youtube.com/c/PaulAshley
https://www.reverbnation.com/paulashley
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-10-2019, 12:29 AM
lar lar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: san diego
Posts: 219
Default

I use the string beads simply because it takes less time, significantly so, and less frustration.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-10-2019, 10:55 AM
cdkrugjr cdkrugjr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 109
Default

Have to say I've never found tying off at the bridge especially challenging, much less than the figure-8 needed for beads.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-13-2019, 06:03 PM
jkilgour2000's Avatar
jkilgour2000 jkilgour2000 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 288
Default

Cool thread! Lots of useful info here, because I’m lazy - I use ball end strings, but at the headstock I always struggle
__________________
Martin: OM-42, J-40, 00-28
Taylor: 312ce, 818e, GS Mini
Yamaha: 335, FS800
Fender: 1999 Strat, 1994 P-Bass
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-14-2019, 05:28 AM
DownUpDave DownUpDave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Pickering ON, Canada
Posts: 551
Default

I like the headstock method, that is how I have been doing it but with a bit more slack. I don't use the beads and never will. Nothing against them but I enjoy tying onto the bridge, it is traditional and therapeutic. Makes me feel like a boy scout again
__________________
Taylor 512e 12 fret,
Martin 000-15M,
Eastman E100-LTD, 12 fret
Larrivee L-01
Taylor GS Mini walnut
Cordoba C10 crossover
Cordoba Cadete
Ukuleles....way too many to list
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Classical

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=