> Any slack present in the string winding can cause the string to go out of tune easily if you loosen the string to the correct tension.

You can get around that by using harmonics. Because you play harmonics without pushing all the way down, you can achieve a more precise tune.

The strongest harmonic is achieved when you gently place your finger on the string directly over the metal fret. A harmonic can only be achieved when you do not press the string all the way down into the fret.

The harmonic on the 7th fret of one string is the same note as the harmonic on the 5th fret on the next higher string. This is true for all consecutive string pairs other than (G, B).

You can tune using these pairs of harmonics to tune more precisely than pressing all the way down.

You will need to tune the (G, B) pair without harmonics.

You're correct but I think you are addressing a different problem. He was mentioning the issue specifically about differences in tension from turning the peg clockwise versus counter clockwise.

If you tune downard tonaly, so from an F# and you want an F, the string will more easily fall out of tune. I am not sure what causes this, some interplay between the friction of the peg and the final resting position of the string on the nut being different depending on the direction maybe. By tuning down perhaps you end up relying on some of the friction from the nut which goes away quickly as the string settles to an equal tension on either side of the nut.

I have noticed it's not as much of an issue on carbon nuts or well made nylon/bone nuts.

While the 7th fret harmonic / 5th fret harmonic will get you close, they are off by a little bit. Good explanation here: http://www.schrof.net/guitar/articles/harmonics.html

> You can get around that by using harmonics. Because you play harmonics without pushing all the way down, you can achieve a more precise tune.

The big problem with trying to tune a guitar that way is that you're tuning a guitar so it's in tune when you don't press the strings, but then when you actually play it you do press down the strings. Strings 5 and 6 should be tuned slightly flat relative to the first four, the exact amount depends on your play style, but if you don't tune them a bit flat then they'll sound sharp when you're playing. If you haven't tried this yourself you might guess that it's subtle effect, but depending on your play style it can be huge.

The other problem is that the harmonics are actually 2 cents off of an equal tempered fifth, and if you tune six strings that way you'll end up 10 cents off. Your octaves will sound wrong.

> The big problem with trying to tune a guitar that way is that you're tuning a guitar so it's in tune when you don't press the strings, but then when you actually play it you do press down the strings.

When you press the strings, they will all press equally, playing a correct relative tune.

I have never been able to consistently tune a guitar using harmonics. It was always a fun trick when I was first learning to play, but it was never quite right and now that I'm older it is far more difficult to hear subtle differences between harmonics.

It's been quite a while since I tuned a guitar this way, but isn't the trick with using harmonics that you listen for clearly audible "beats" when it gets in the ballpark? Once there are no more audible"beats" you're in tune.

Hearing loss has no impact on this - unless it's really, really bad, of course.

That would definitely get you close, but the range that the "beats" are not audible is a wide range and in my experience hearing loss had affected my ability to detect their absence.

Tune the B string with the harmonic over the 7th fret of the low E string.

An additional tip: tune all the strings to the A string, not to each other. If you tune the B to the high E and then the G to the B, and so on, then each small mistake throws the rest of the strings off by increasing amounts.

It's good to be aware of this if tuning by harmonics:

http://www.schrof.net/guitar/articles/harmonics.html

Very good point. In my experience, it's still worth doing even with good locking tuners. Slack around the post is only part of the equation, the string can also bind at the nut. Especially on guitars without straight string pull.

You can also achieve the same stability with regular tuners. You don't need more than a wrap or two around the post if you lock the string under itself.

I agree, and it's such a cheap upgrade that I'm surprised they're not standard on all guitars.

For a really decent set of el-chepo locking tuners, I highly recommend these:

https://www.guitarfetish.com/Gotoh-Style-Chrome-Locking-Tune...

Cheap locking tuners are inferior to quality non-locking tuners. I would pick a good set of non-locking over cheap locking tuners any day, unless I absolutely needed to do dive bomb tremolo swings.

Also, you can usually solve tuning problems by replacing the bridge and nut with something hard and smooth like Graphtech TUSQ (they call them "self-lubricating", whatever that means).

That's not to say locking tuners are bad, it's just that I don't have problems with tuning on any of my guitars that have decent nuts and decent tuners. I even used to play my Schecter (old 1990 California model Super Strat) without the Floyd Rose nut locks in place because I wanted to be able to switch back and forth between alternate tunings without the hex wrench. No problems with tuning, at all.

I agree with your comment about quality hardware. I don't have fancy locking tuners, I only have a vintage Fender Telecaster with old-school Kluson "split shaft" tuners where the end of the string is bent and inserted into the shaft. Once you get used to properly stringing the guitar (it helps if you change strings often), it's not hard to avoid string slippage or going out of tune. The trick is to have enough winds around the post and for the windings to wrap progressively lower on the post until the string leaves the post lower than the nut.

Here's a great video on stringing up Klusons: https://youtu.be/GqYrXh4D6wI

Split-shaft (safety post) Klusons are my favorite tuners, if they're maintained correctly. A little dab of sewing machine oil in the gears can quickly loosen up stiff Klusons.

I'm always stabbing myself on sharp string ends sticking out of tuners. Safety posts really reduce the bleeding in my life.

A self lubricating nut has a lower friction than other nut materials (usually plastic or bone). It'd be more accurate to call it a no-lubrication-needed nut but I guess that doesn't roll off the tongue as easily.

It's my experience that locking tuners do help with tuning stability but I've also seen plenty of guitars stable enough without them.

Even if they don't help a guitar with tuning stability, they definitely speed up the string changing process which is worth it for me.

edit: I've just noticed that the link in the parent comment is for "gotoh style" tuners, not tuners made by Gotoh, and I have to say I agree with you about the low quality of cheap tuners. That said, a good set of locking tuners should only cost you $50-$70. Not a bad price.

Yeah, the way Gotoh locking tuners work on string changes is great. And, Gotoh parts are top notch. Their high end bridges are beautiful chunky things (I have a G&L bass and guitar because I love a big ol' chunky bridge).

So, sure, it's nice to have more convenient string changes. But, I don't want cheap tuners, no matter what. It's one of the big things that tells me immediately whether the guitar I'm playing is cheap or expensive. I used to think Klusons looked cheap and old, when I was a kid, but I have grown fond of them after so long playing. It's what's on both of my really expensive guitars (came from the factory that way), and I've never felt the need to change them because they've worked great for decades.

That said, if you've got a cheap-ish guitar and want to improve it, tuners, nut, and bridge are where I'd start (after getting a proper setup, and getting the frets in shape, of course). Also, while I'm ranting about the onion on my belt...bone is a poor choice for nut/bridge material. It has wildly inconsistent density and hardness, and just plain isn't as good as modern materials (and we can note that many of the very best and most expensive guitars today, like PRS, do not use bone).

I am a huge fan of G&L basses. I recently sold a fretless L1000 that was one of the best basses I have ever played because I stopped playing bass and started focusing on guitar. Haven't gotten a chance to play a G&L guitar yet.

Depending on the specific guitar I'd also look into swapping the pickups. That usually gives the best sound improvement but does nothing for the playability. Luckily, the playability of a lot of cheap guitars today is very, very good.

I agree that bone is a terrible material. It's only still used for historic reasons, I think. Guitar players are a notoriously superstitious bunch and often times dont necessarily want the best when they can instead have what we thought was the best in the 70s.

Agreed. I've been amazed at how good cheap guitars have gotten in the past ~10 years or so. Fender is making incredibly great cheap guitars. Even their Chinese made stuff is good. Yamaha, too. Probably others, as well, but I've had hands on both of those in recent months and been really impressed.

The quality improvements that come from heavily automating the process are hard to overstate. CNC machines, and improved metal fabrication methods, have revolutionized guitar making. They're still putting cheap hardware and electronics on the low end stuff, and it shows in the longevity, tuning stability and some other areas, but as you note they mostly play really great right off of the rack.

They're still using cheap-ish wood that doesn't age very well, also. Fret sprout and various sorts of warping is, as I understand it, still much more common on cheap guitars. My 29 year old Schecter has never had a setup or adjustment, and still plays beautifully (frets are a little worn and could probably use a touch up, but still very little buzz). The G&L L2000 bass I have is 31 years old and has maybe had a couple of turns of its truss rod in the time I've owned it. I dunno about any other setup or adjustments in its life as I've only owned it for about half of its life. But, I get the impression that cheap guitars are needing attention within a year or two, mostly because the wood is fresher when they build them and so they aren't as stable.

My G&L ASAT guitar is actually a Tribute, so it's one of the cheapish ones made in Indonesia. It's in need of attention already (quite a bit of fret buzz even without really low action), and it's only a few years old, so it seems to bear out my theory. It's not a "cheap" guitar, and it's not poorly made, but it's not an expensive guitar, either, and I'm guessing the wood was aged/dried for a much shorter period than my American G&L or the Schecter. The only other American-made instrument I have is a Gibson J-45, and it's holding up very well, too, but it's much newer...a 2008, I think.

I'm a big fan of those Kluson tuning machines that were on the early Fenders. In terms of design it's a case of "they got it pretty much right the first time." It's superior design and simplicity (split shaft). They are easy to use once you get used to stringing them up, and I've found they don't go out of tune. They are small, light, streamlined, and the oval grips are aesthetically pleasing from an industrial design perspective, particularly when set off against the Telecaster or Stratocaster headstock.

Yep, the vintage stamped steel Kluson style tuners really are my favorites. I don't think you can improve on the simplicity of them or the neatness of having the string end tucked inside the tuner. And, yes, they're the right size...they don't look as fancy as a lot of other tuners, but I think they look right. They've also proven to be stupidly reliable. You can find 50 year old Klusons that still work well.

Even my Gibson J-45 has them; it hasn't always been common for Gibsons to use Klusons, and while the stuff Gibson usually uses is also fine, I prefer the Kluson style. They're aesthetically pleasing in a functional, not showy, way.

I wish they would, it's the first thing I do to new guitars along with installing strap locks and a slightly thicker set of strings.

I usually use the Fender branded ones because I'm usually putting them in Fender guitars. I've heard good things about Gotoh, Schaller, Planet Waves, Hipshot, and Grover. I'm pretty sure the Fenders are actually just rebrands of one of those manufacturers.

edit: For anyone curious, it seems that Fender American Deluxe's used to come with them and the new American Elite series that replaced the Deluxe's still come with them. I guess they want to keep it as a differentiating feature for their most expensive "modern" guitars. None of their reissue vintage styled guitars come with them, I suppose for authenticity.

You can even buy a $12,000 private stock PRS and it won't come with locking tuners.

edit 2: I've now noticed that the tuners you link to are "Gotoh style" tuners and not actually made by Gotoh. I don't think I would use any tuners made by a name brand I'm not familiar with, locking or not, because they tend to be noticeably lower quality than the bigger brands. There are exceptions, of course.

I believed this for the longest time, and honestly, I never ran into this problem once I had a guitar with decent tuners and started buying very good strings.

Grover tuners for the win though. I never used locking tuners, so no opinion on them. I'm good enough changing strings that one turn of the tuning peg is all I need.

The "tune slightly flat" technique gets people 90% of the way there, which is usually enough. The remaining 10% is really subtle, like most subjects.

This is like "the earth is a sphere", which is mostly right but if you want to be less wrong you have to dive deep.

So...

The instant after a string is plucked, it begins to lose energy. The loss of energy shows up in amplitude (obvious, because the note gradually gets quieter), but also frequency. This is less noticeable, but for heavy strings with low tension (think down-tuned sludge metal) it can be pronounced.

The reason for this is that a vibrating string is constantly bending back and forth. Tension pulls it toward its lowest-energy position in the center. A familiar demonstration of tension is bending a fretted note to increase its pitch. But the same thing happens to a lesser degree whenever the string vibrates. Displace the string left or right and its tension increases.

Strings you consider "better" might exhibit less of this effect. But that depends on both your playing style (how hard do you strike the strings?) and your idea of what a better string is.

"It depends on technique, tension, and string mass" gets you to 95%.

For conventional electric guitars with magnetic pickups, there's an additional force slowing down the string: the magnets in the pickup. These are weird. For one thing, unlike tension, it's not distributed throughout the length of the string, but focused at 1 or a few (for multiple pickups or humbuckers) points. If you imagine the vibrating string as a weight-on-a-string-pendulum, then the effect of the magnetic pickup is like a small mass attached partway up the string. It interferes with the pure sinusoidal motion and gives it a little wobble.

On most guitars, the effect is not noticeable. But some pickups have very strong magnets, or some guitars put them very close to the strings. Then it can be noticed, and guitarists call the effect "wolf tones" and generally they don't like it.

This gets you to 98%.

My point is there's a lot going on. And while a certain brand of strings and/or tuners may work for you, someone else may have an entirely different experience. I get kind of frustrated with the whole guitar "gear" marketing being heavy on hype and light on data, so sorry if I come across as lecturing. My frustration isn't with you, but the context.

>For conventional electric guitars with magnetic pickups, there's an additional force slowing down the string: the magnets in the pickup.

That's interesting, I never even thought about that. So theoretically, if you remove one of your pickups, you should get a slightly better tone, and longer sustain, right?

Personally, I never use the middle pickups on my guitar, and actually wonder what they're for. I only use the neck and bridge pickups. I've noticed a lot of newer guitars simply eliminate the middle pickups.

Technically: less magnetic force gives you more sustain, but practically speaking it's probably too small of a difference to notice.[0]

The middle pickup in a Strat-style guitar is often "reverse wound, reverse polarity" which, when combined with one of the other pickups, provides some hum cancellation.

If the neck+middle or bridge+middle combo is in parallel (most are) you'll get a slightly more hollow/nasal tone compared to the neck or bridge pickup alone. The jargon for this is "quack" as in "it has a lot of quack".

If the combo is in series, that's essentially a traditional humbucker (albeit with the 2 coils spaced farther apart than usual). It'll be louder and have more midrange. 2 single coils wired in series like a humbucker can often be too mid-heavy and start to sound "muddy" or "lacking in definition". Real humbuckers can get away with using smaller magnets (ballpark: half the size of single coil magnets) and their close physical spacing means the signals going into each coil are nearly identical, so adding them in series just makes it louder, without making it "muddy".

Often, players who don't use the middle pickup will keep it there but use the height adjustment screws to lower it deep into the pickguard, farther away from the strings. In my opinion, the most practical benefit of this is your pick doesn't bump into it, but there are probably very subtle tonal effects going on.

[0]: Whenever you have "electric guitar" and "subtle difference" together, I demand blind testing before believing anyone else's claims. I trust my own ears, but I know myself well enough that my eyes will fool them.

My intuition is that removing a pickup would not reduce sustain. The magnets are pulling slightly on the strings, which would increase sustain, but not enough to be noticeable.

It really comes down to the wood of your guitar. You can feel the vibration of the guitar when you play, and the difference between one with a lot of sustain vs one without is pretty noticeable.

The pickups and amp, and gain levels also make a difference. The pickups on my guitar are extremely sensitive, so any little touch is quite loud through my amp.

Right. I just think there's a lot of saw tales and, after some exploration, I'm not convinced.

Another odd one is over tune new strings to get stretch, which often gets turned to don't put new strings on a guitar the same day as a show.

Well, call me a rebel, but I don't stretch my strings and I will go one stage 30 minutes after putting on new strings.

These are fine rules of thumb, I suppose, but as you are saying, a lot of nuance is involved.

The only thing I'll flat out disagree on is that old strings sound better... No just no.

The effect of string stretching is pretty easy to verify. After putting on a new set, tune them to pitch and the stretch each one side to side and away from the fretboard a few inches. They will all be at least a quarter step flat afterwards, usually more. Tune them to pitch again and restretch and they will be less flat.

I'm not sure stretching matters for the long term tuning stability of the strings but definitely has an effect on the immediate tuning stability. Players who don't bend much and fret/strum lightly might not need the added stability but I like it.

Also, I've only ever heard the old strings sound better thing about flatwound strings, particularly on bass guitars, in which case it's true as long as "good sound" to you means a serious lack of treble.

"Well, call me a rebel, but I don't stretch my strings and I will go one stage 30 minutes after putting on new strings"

Which would probably work.

Back in the day I would break strings on stage. Yes, stretching strings helps a lot in that case.

Of course you can only do so much of it before the rest of the band has milked the specially rehearsed for just this occasion "intermission music”, but it really does help.

If the string is sharp, sometimes you can just pull on it and the strings tuning will become flatter, sometimes exactly what you want.

This is true. I usually stretch my strings after putting new ones on to try to minimize the effect of stretching, though. Helps stay in tune when you bend a lot. Remove old strings, put new strings on, tune new strings up to pitch, stretch them by pulling them a few inches off the fretboard and moving them side to side like you're doing a bend, marvel at how flat your just-tuned strings now are, and then retune to pitch.

For maximum tuning stability, I also put locking tuners on my guitars and lubricate all of the parts where the string touches. This includes the nut, the saddle, and any string trees.

I use a humorous product called Big Bends Nut Sauce but I've heard graphite from a pencil works as well.

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Bends-Nutsauce-Guitar-Lubricant/d...

Vaseline applied to the nut grooves in very, very small amounts with a toothpick also works well.

I prefer safety post tuners. You can get accurate ones for cheap and string changes are super fast and easy. Usually enough winding to make for stable tuning.

I’ve found slightly over-tightening most locking tuners will break the string. Not a frequent occurrence for me, but frequent enough to bug me. Usually happens when I’m in a rush.

That's cool, I didnt know they made this style tuner for guitars. They're pretty standard on basses and I've always preferred them to standard guitar tuners.

Thanks! That is a great tip about tuning a string slightly flat first.