I just don't like changing guitar strings.

SteveF

ICBM said:

SteveF said:

This has intrigued me. I always assume I’m doing it ‘right’ and never had any issues. It I find myself wondering about this post and whether I’ll find out I’ve done it ‘wrong’ all these years! 

off to the search I go

edit - didn’t find it. Oh well, ignorance is bliss!  

I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s “right” and that by implication all other methods are “wrong”... but I do think it’s the best method, because it’s the quickest, most secure and most tuning-stable I know of.


Fit the string at the bridge/tailpiece, and pull it tight to the machinehead post. Bend it sharply on your thumbnail about 1/4” (6mm) past the post.

Set the hole in the post so it’s pointing across the width of the headstock. Poke the string through from the middle of the headstock up to the bend.

Take the loose end of the string round the far side of the post (away from the bridge), and pull it up tightly under the main part of the string. Wind on and tune up, stretching the string as you go.

The string should come up to pitch within one full turn of the post. Make sure it goes under the bend in the string as it goes past. Cut off the excess as close to the post as you can.

That’s it.

Ah, that’s pretty much what I do although i have a fair bit more string before the bend (about an inch, probably a bit less on the E and A strings) and therefore more winds on the post. Would you say that this was too much/unnecessary then? 

TINMAN82

I’ve stuck to this technique since finding Stefan Grossmans free video:

https://go.platformpurple.com/shop/1018

I think it’s more or less as @ICBM described above. Works for most acoustics and Gibson style hole in the post designs. 

He advocates a double lock on the thinner strings but I’ve always been lazy and gotten away with the same on all strings.

Fender vintage style “string down the hole” and locking tuners are easier I agree.

One thing I don’t think has been mentioned is potential effect on fret life. I’ve heard Tommy Emmanuel say that old, dirty strings wear the frets out quicker

ICBM

SteveF said:

Ah, that’s pretty much what I do although i have a fair bit more string before the bend (about an inch, probably a bit less on the E and A strings) and therefore more winds on the post. Would you say that this was too much/unnecessary then? 

Yes, apart from on the G string on Fender-type headstocks with no second string tree, where you usually need it to go a bit further down the post.

Otherwise you want the minimum amount of wrap, to get the maximum tuning stability - less than one turn on the post if you can.

TINMAN82 said:

I’ve stuck to this technique since finding Stefan Grossmans free video:

https://go.platformpurple.com/shop/1018

I think it’s more or less as @ICBM described above. Works for most acoustics and Gibson style hole in the post designs. 

He advocates a double lock on the thinner strings but I’ve always been lazy and gotten away with the same on all strings.

I don't think that's at all necessary, and makes the string much harder to remove.

TINMAN82 said:

Fender vintage style “string down the hole” and locking tuners are easier I agree.

There's a great trick with these too, to stop the thinner plain string slipping out of the post holes, which the E and sometimes the B often do.

Poke the string down the hole as normal, but then take it a half-turn round the post the *wrong* way, then run it back across the slot, then wind on as normal. The string should look like an 's' when you look down on the top of the post.

TINMAN82 said:

One thing I don’t think has been mentioned is potential effect on fret life. I’ve heard Tommy Emmanuel say that old, dirty strings wear the frets out quicker

Yes they do, and dirty/corroded frets also wear faster. Even if you like the sound of old strings, keep them and your guitar clean.

Rox

I only change strings if one breaks...

Consequently, I have a 1970s MIJ bass bought at a Boot Sale in 1989 that has the same strings on it to this day.  Who knows how long they’d been on it before.  It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that they’re the original strings.

My Burny LP in my avatar has the same strings on it since I bought it about 7 years ago.  I love the sound and am dreading the inevitable day a string breaks...

Voxman

ICBM said:

SteveF said:

Ah, that’s pretty much what I do although i have a fair bit more string before the bend (about an inch, probably a bit less on the E and A strings) and therefore more winds on the post. Would you say that this was too much/unnecessary then? 

Yes, apart from on the G string on Fender-type headstocks with no second string tree, where you usually need it to go a bit further down the post.

Otherwise you want the minimum amount of wrap, to get the maximum tuning stability - less than one turn on the post if you can.

It's interesting that there are so many different opinions on how best to string a guitar. I've always followed Clapton's approach of three string winds round the post.  I've been playing for well over 45 years and it's always worked for me.  That's not to say I'm not open to experimenting with other approaches but I'm still not exactly sure with what you're doing and how you avoid creating a knot in the string.  Is there a clear video on YouTube as to how you do this...if not, any chance you might be able to do one?

richh

Can somebody please post the link to where @ICBM explains his method for re-stringing?  Thanks!

vonLayzonfon

richh said:

Can somebody please post the link to where @ICBM explains his method for re-stringing?  Thanks!

It's quoted in Steve's post, 5 posts before yours.

Oh, and I have no qualms about restringing. I can do a Floyd, including a quick fingerboard spruce, in about 15 minutes. I also quite enjoy the brightness of new strings. 

richh

Thanks, sorry missed that!

I got spoiled using locking tuners for years when I was gigging.  I've now got some guitars where I have to go 'old skool' and find myself struggling to recall the best way to do a proper old fashioned restring.  Before that I found the Fender tuners very easy, but am now playing a Gibson archtop...

Funkfingers

SNAKEBITE said:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned restringing a Bigsby, they're really hard.

(Only joking, I just wanted to get that in for @ICBM

scarry67 said:

Try a string change on a Rickenbacker 12 string ... 

 
... with the "R" tailpiece. 

ICBM

Funkfingers said:

scarry67 said:

Try a string change on a Rickenbacker 12 string ...

... with the "R" tailpiece. 

Likewise, not that hard if you do it the right way. The real problem is if you need to change all 12 at once really, then you have to load the tailpiece in the right order - which is the wrong order for the easiest stringing at the headstock - or it tends to pull over to one side and tries to fall off the bracket.

If you're doing all 12, start with the two at the far ends of the slots - the low G and octave D - that will keep the tailpiece centred. Then the Es in the slots, then the A and B. Then do the ones on the vertical posts as you would on any Gibson, Es first, then A and B, and finally D and G.

Blueingreen

A local guitar shop offers to string your guitar free of charge if you buy the strings from them.

Nice gesture, and I hope it helps build goodwill for them, really nice people.

But even as someone who hates changing strings I still think it's a lot less faff than taking your guitar to a shop and getting them to do it for you.

TINMAN82

Not sure I follow the logic of why fewer turns on the post = improved tuning stability. Clearly, too many and the string will bunch but I’ve always aimed for 2 or 3 turns and it seems fine. Without a locking tuner I’d have thought less than one turn might be more prone to slipping 

ICBM

TINMAN82 said:

Not sure I follow the logic of why fewer turns on the post = improved tuning stability.

Because it stops any possibility of the coil of string moving on the post.

TINMAN82 said:

Without a locking tuner I’d have thought less than one turn might be more prone to slipping 

Not if the loose end is locked under the string so it can’t.

That’s the whole point of this method and why extra wraps are unnecessary.

TINMAN82

ICBM said:

TINMAN82 said:

Not sure I follow the logic of why fewer turns on the post = improved tuning stability.

Because it stops any possibility of the coil of string moving on the post.

TINMAN82 said:

Without a locking tuner I’d have thought less than one turn might be more prone to slipping 

Not if the loose end is locked under the string so it can’t.

That’s the whole point of this method and why extra wraps are unnecessary.

I’m not disagreeing, this could be exactly right. But if you’re locking the string with the loose end (the “half hitch” as per Stefan Grossman's video earlier) then I can’t see how extra wraps/coils would move below it. If anything, to my mind it seems a short coil below the lock would either be redundant (so no harm done) or physically bolster the lock above it. Anyway, interesting stuff.

Philly_Q

Bellycaster said:

For re-stringing I use this Gary Brawer technique on all my non locking "hole through post" Guitars, 3+3, 6 in a Line, doesn't matter, it works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sAQcAlAeKU

Nothing to do with actually changing strings, but something he mentioned in that clip proved very useful - about a kink in a string causing fret buzz.

I thought my new Gibson had a high - or low - fret because there was a weird buzzing dead note on the D string at the 20th fret.  I couldn't see anything wrong but I was thinking god, their quality control really is bad, I'm going to have to pay for a bloody fret dress on a new guitar.

Never crossed my mind it might be the string itself, but lo and behold, there it was, a kink right over the 20th fret.  Problem solved.

thegummy

Philly_Q said:

Bellycaster said:

For re-stringing I use this Gary Brawer technique on all my non locking "hole through post" Guitars, 3+3, 6 in a Line, doesn't matter, it works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sAQcAlAeKU

Nothing to do with actually changing strings, but something he mentioned in that clip proved very useful - about a kink in a string causing fret buzz.

I thought my new Gibson had a high - or low - fret because there was a weird buzzing dead note on the D string at the 20th fret.  I couldn't see anything wrong but I was thinking god, their quality control really is bad, I'm going to have to pay for a bloody fret dress on a new guitar.

Never crossed my mind it might be the string itself, but lo and behold, there it was, a kink right over the 20th fret.  Problem solved.

I think their fret leveling is actually an area they excel in

ICBM

thegummy said:

I think their fret leveling is actually an area they excel in

Shame their crowning and polishing isn't!

Philly_Q

ICBM said:

thegummy said:

I think their fret leveling is actually an area they excel in

Shame their crowning and polishing isn't!

They're not bad on this particular guitar, much better than usual, so I was surprised by the buzzy fret.  The finish still isn't great though.

thegummy

ICBM said:

thegummy said:

I think their fret leveling is actually an area they excel in

Shame their crowning and polishing isn't!

People who are in to crowning and polishing buy PRS's anyway.

LordOxygen

Rocker said:

 that post ICBM

Got a link to that please?