Over or under tuning pegs?

[Tom Gorr]

In the quest to cover off every nuance..trivia...and minutia related to the instrument... does anyone out there wrap their strings under the tuning peg to increase the string angle bearing on the keyhead...particularly on the long stretches past the nut to the tuner.

Also...how does your wrap approach improve things?

[Rich Peterson]

I think the machines are designed to bear the tension with the string going under. So the tuners might last longer that way.

[James Jacoby]

I always thought it was supposed to improve the sustain. -Jake-

[Tom Gorr]

As it turns out... Im glad to have asked. Every guitar Ive owned..all used...came with overslung strings so just thought it was just an optional practise.

[Jim Smith]

I've never seen anyone that winds their strings under the tuning pegs (on purpose)! As for the wrap, I put one wind towards the tip of the peg, then cross over to help lock it into place, and wind the rest on the inside towards the base.

[John Bresler R.I.P.]

I agree with Jim and have never seen a steel with strings wrapped under the peg. They always go over the top.

[Darrell Birtcher]

This is right place for minutiae! I might have to try that next time I restring. Some guitars have an annoying string resonance up there, especially the 5th and 6th strings. Shortening the string in the keyhead area may change that and might help. Might make it worse. We'll see.

[John Scanlon]

I have never seen that, either. I think I'd have a hard time getting used to turning the tuning pegs the opposite way for a while. Also, since the nuts are rolling nuts, indicating string movement is normal, I would think that increasing friction / tension via string angle would be undesirable. Of course, the difference in angle would be tiny and may not make a huge difference. Just hazarding a guess.

[Bob Knight]

I have seen 2 guitars strung like that in 50+ years, they were strung by beginning players. There may be an advantage to it, but there are a lot of pros that play and build these beasts and I believe they would have been onto this a long time before now.

Bob

[Jerry Overstreet]

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopi ... ht=strings
Tom, here's a link to a forum poll I did some time back. I got some critical remarks from some players, but some reasonable comments from knowledgeable people like Doug Earnest. Thanks Doug.

Perhaps you find it helpful.

[chris ivey]

having to wind your tuners backward would be a deal breaker for me. that and everybody laughing at me.

[Jon Light (deceased)]

I have a 10 string guitar that has 6th string rattle at the nut due to inadequate down-pressure (with a plain string--I've never tried a wound string on it. String 7 is fine). Going under the post on this one string fixes the problem. I totally hate that this one string tunes backwards. If I played this guitar more I'd look for a better fix.
I certainly don't want a steeper break on strings 1, 2, 9, 10 by going under the post on all strings.

[John Booth]

I don't know much about winding them under, but I always wind them in spring fashion from the tip to the inside.
I feel that the peg is stronger on the inside and takes less torque that way.

[Ernie Renn]

When turning the tuning peg and string tension I went with the "righty tighty-lefty loosy" thing... Righty being clockwise and loosy being counterclockwise. If you run the string under the shaft it would be backwards...

[Charlie McDonald]

I would sure try a wound 6th string.
The mass will change the vibration, probably toward more slowly.

Having one different could change things while tuning in a loud or confusing place.
John Scanlon's guess sounds right to me:

since the nuts are rolling nuts, indicating string movement is normal, I would think that increasing friction / tension via string angle would be undesirable.
Of course, the difference in angle would be tiny and may not make a huge difference.

The stresses on the singing length of string and the non-singing length behind the nut should and will equalize.
Having the string under the post may inhibit that; also just a guess.

[Wayne Quinn]

For what its worth, I think I have to agree with John Scanlon . I think under your going to change string tone . as well as extra down pressure on the rollers. my 2 cents worth.

[Donny Hinson]

I'm with Chris and Ernie, winding the tuners backwards to tighten the strings would drive me bonkers! Not as bonkers as the acoustic players who don't cut off their strings, but make big coils at the tuning head, but bonkers nevertheless.

[Tom Gorr]

You guys kill me...play the most difficult musical contraption imaginable and a backwards tuner has ya worried. Most give up when they figure out what LKR means.

[Charlie McDonald]

LKR? You mean LNR?

When you can't play 'Behind The Bridge' on your guitar, you have to play behind the nut.

Fine pianos have cloth woven through the non-singing lengths of strings to keep them quiet.
Other pianos, it appears more for show, keeping up with the Steinways.
The down-bearing of piano strings can't be changed. Where there is the possibility of change,
people will mess with things.

You say LKR, I say L>.
See? it even looks like a knee.
You say alphanumerical, I say graphic.
Weave that into your strings.
The question is, will it change your tune?

[Lane Gray]

If I had to wind them under (such as inadequate pressure on the roller), I'd swap 5 and 6 (on a ten, 6 and 7 on a 12), so that I'd still turn the key clockwise for tighter, and anticlockwise for looser.

[John Billings]

Seems like the string angle to the roller would be really drastic on strings 1 and 10, And not much fun to change.

[Fred Thompson]

Like toilet paper, they should be over the top...

[John Billings]

"Like toilet paper, they should be over the top... "

Unless you're a womyn with cats!

[Don Griffiths]

Was just going to ask this myself after re-stringing a few days ago. I wound them over. Was also going to ask the minimum number of wraps around the tuner per string. I'll start another thread for this.