Why NOT to lock-wrap strings Martin-style?

[brianmay]

Originally Posted by dneal

Neither is "still talking about this".

Fair point but neither is getting a life . . .

[Oldguy64]

You'll find as many answers as guitar players.
My variation on the Taylor method is that I go one wrap over the trying end, and two under.
Once the slack is taken up, I cut off the excess.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by dwasifar

Can't practice without stringing the guitar.

When you're right, you're right,

[brencat]

Originally Posted by dwasifar

How do you like those Sunbeams? I find that they're easier to play than most other strings at the same gauge. They seem, I dunno, flexier. Hella jangly for the first three days or so, though. I wouldn't put a new set on right before a gig.

My luthier is not lacking in opinions and not shy about sharing them. He hates the Martin wrap and he dislikes the DR strings. I value his opinion, but I want a full range of opinions, hence this thread for research.

I use the DR Sunbeams on my Santa Cruzes. Yes, they are a little easier on the fingers, but it's the brilliance and sustain that I love the most. Don't like them as much on my D-18 or J-45, however. You have to let the guitar pick the strings.

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by ChrisE

I use the Taylor Method. Even on my Martin.

Me, too - that's how I string my Martin D-18.

Somehow, I've eluded the Martin Guitar Police so far. Nobody's kicked the door in yet....


whm

[dneal]

Originally Posted by brianmay

Fair point but neither is getting a life . . .

The irony is delicious...

[DHart]

I like the "Eastman" method. In fact, I may even try to see if it works well on my OM-28V! Please, nobody tell Martin about this!!!

[dwasifar]

Originally Posted by DHart

I like the "Eastman" method. In fact, I may even try to see if it works well on my OM-28V! Please, nobody tell Martin about this!!!

I get the distinct feeling that a joke just sailed over my head.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Photojeep

Before I found this forum, well actually before Al Gore invented he Internet, no one taught me how to re-string my guitar so I just sort of made it up as I went.

My first method was to just wind the string around the peg a couple times, being careful to keep them below the hole, then inserting the end into the hole and pulling hard to get rid of as much slack as possible then tighten to pitch. No over/under stuff, just wind it around and insert. The number of winds varied based on how hard it was to get the silly things to cooperate (low E and A were the hardest.)

About 30 years later I saw a youtube video on the internet that showed how this professional luthier did it and I needed to do the over/under (Martin?) method. I switched to that method and even had my luthier express his opinion that I had strung up my guitar "properly."

Then several members of this forum extolled the virtues of the Taylor method, I watched the famous Taylor method video and started using that method. My only problem with this one is that I need to have a pair of wire cutters in my guitar case for the odd time I have to replace a string away from home.

I recently told my nephew about the Taylor method but mistakenly told him that all strings should be cut 2 pegs past the one being strung rather than one as Taylor says. My nephew said it worked very well for him but his high E was a bit uncooperative and required more time than the rest.

For me the moral of the story is that no matter the method, they all seem to work just fine...

Do what works for you!
PJ

This (your first method), is exactly what I have been doing for nearly 50 years . It's quick, neat, tuning is stable and strings don't break because they aren't being stressed by the sharp edge of the post hole. The 'stress' point is now where the string leaves the post, at a tangent. When I was a kid and knew nothing else I did the 'through the hole first' thing but suffered too many broken plain strings because I only had my FG180 and I played a lot of slide, which involved tuning/de-tuning=metal fatigue.

[Hoyt]

Originally Posted by vindibona1

. . . . . My luthier doesn't use a wrap, but actually pulls the strings taut, wraps them around the posts, then tucks the end into the hole and trims. Seems to work well. . . . . . [mic drop ]

I've been doing that for years.

Much faster and provides the number of wraps you want without overlapping. I've had some guitars where you could really tell the difference if there was not enough "break angle" at the nut. More wraps help that.

I've tried the so-called Martin method, but it takes longer putting them on and taking them off. I'm OCD about clean strings and change them often. Don't like wasting time away from playing either. But that's me. I get how others like to do it differently.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by DHart

I like the "Eastman" method. In fact, I may even try to see if it works well on my OM-28V! Please, nobody tell Martin about this!!!

Just as good but only uses half the string?

[Howard Emerson]

Originally Posted by 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

Hi Wade,
Jimmy D'Aquisto showed me the wrap-over-itself method back around 1967 or so, and I've done it ever since.

You do know that strings don't actually stretch, but that what you're hearing when they go flat is the tuning post lash being tightened, and the ball-end wedging at the bridge pin occurring. To a lesser extent there's also the residual friction at the nut slot & the saddle crossing.

When the metal on a string actually stretches it has broken down the molecular structure, and is on the road to failure.

Regards,
Howard
http://howardemerson.com/product/the-wall-talks

[Mr Fixit eh]

Originally Posted by vindibona1

My luthier doesn't use a wrap, but actually pulls the strings taut, wraps them around the posts, then tucks the end into the hole and trims. Seems to work well.

I've tried the 'Martin' way. It appealed to me because it LOOKS more mechanically robust. I've since abandoned the method because it didn't give me any practically better results.

I've tried the 'Taylor' way. If you have an electric string winder, it makes a lot of sense and is the ultimate in ease. I don't have an electric winder, so the above quoted technique gives the end result of the Taylor method but more efficiently and more quickly (unless you have the magic string winder).

Ultimately, they all work - it's about what you like best.

STeve

[mercy]

Ive been using the Martin method so long its automatic. I dont have much trouble getting the string out of the post as I cut the old loose string down by the 3rd fret then pull the string out the cut end which is smooth not crimped.
I have never, in all these years, had a string break at the tuning post. Doing it differently would require learning something new which seems unnecessary and besides I use round cord strings so Im hesitant to use a different method. I do have a battery string winder which I like very much. Todd Yates made some good statements. Put the ball and pin in, pull the string up, push it through and grab it at the next tuning post. Pull the string down to the correct post, wrap, wind up some, pull the excess up, lay the cutter on the post and cut. Looks good and is tidy.

[dwasifar]

I never thought this would generate so much discussion.

I'd sum up the negative replies into three categories:

1) It increases the risk of breakage.
2) It's hard (or dangerous) to remove.
3) It's extra trouble for no benefit.

#1 is not an issue for me. I must not play as aggressively as I think, because it's gotta be 20 years or more since I've broken a string on any guitar. I'm not saying this proves there is no increased risk of breakage; there may well be, but I'm clearly below the threshold that would reveal it.

I understand why people cite #2. Before I figured out how to remove them easily, I got a couple of finger pokes. But they CAN be removed safely if you know how to do it, so #2 is no longer an issue for me either.

That leaves #3. This one is hard to argue with. Why take the extra time if you don't have to? It doesn't take me any more time or trouble to put the strings on that way; in fact it probably takes me a tad less time because fewer windings are needed. But I'm sure I'm taking more time to remove them.

So my conclusion is: I'm going to keep using the Martin method for round core strings, but I'll switch to the over-under method recommended by my luthier with hex cores, at least for a while, just to see.