This is the method we should have been taught from the beginning. You sir are brilliant!!! Thank you. I don't understand the resistance & negativity by some in the comment section. The fact that you don't have to worry about poking your finger or even worse a child getting scratched or poking themselves on your guitar should be incentive enough for everyone to adopt YOUR new & improved technic of tying strings. However may I request that you call this new method the Pokey NOT!!! 🙏
Great idea and easy to implement. I especially like that the string ends are facing down and mostly covered. I’m going to do this on every string change from now on. Thanks! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I see the argument for tying under, although I won't be changing from my regular method since I have never had any problem poking my fingers with the usual Nashville tie. Also, I see no point in multiple wraps. I do understand that the idea is to get more break angle, but honestly you don't need that on an acoustic with the standard headstock angle, and the multiple wraps just increase the potential for inaccurate tuning, as the string travels over the wraps. Finally, most round core strings recommend you don't cut till the string is up to tension. Great to see the luthier's knot getting some exposure, though. It gets lots of underserved bad press on You tube (including from luthiers), but I've never had a problem with it since I learnt it over 50 years ago. Tuning is very stable, string breaks at the peg are very rare because the string is traveling over a rounded surface (the string itself, of course), and the oft-repeated suggestion that it's difficult to get the strings on and off is a myth IMO and experience. Thanks a lot.
If you don't have a problem with your current method, no need to change! But, when you DO... Sometimes, you think a guitar won't hold tune, but really, it's the break angle over the nut, and/or how the tuners are holding the strings. And then you give this a try, and you might save a guitar you might otherwise write-off.
I wish I’d been shown how to do this 30 years ago. It would’ve saved me a lot of time and pain with the seemingly endless tuning of my guitar on stage but especially as a street musician. And those stabbing ends going into my fingers were annoying & painful. Thanks.
Nice I'm going to try this. Thank you! At the beginning you said that the wound strings should come past about an inch. Is it the same length for the non-wound strings?
I still use technique recommended by Taylor guitar or Elixir string which is basically the same on both of them. You can find them on RU-vid. This is good, but I don't want anything to go under the string wound, except right to the post metal, so I get exactly tuner post ratio as it is supposed to be. This method changes the ratio of tuner...
I don't like how the string winds down over the excess string. This can cause thinner strings to incur too much stress where it crosses over the excess string. I've had several used guitars that were wound with the string overlapping the excess like this and the B or E strings have snapped right where it overlapped the other string. One of those was an acoustic guitar and the other two were electrics. When I come around the post I go under the string and bend it over the top so that the string winds down onto the post only, not over another piece of string. You'll only do it the way shown here until you have some strings break at the overlapping point.
Another issue I see is an uneven radius on the tuning peg, especially on the thicker strings. Could make accurate tuning difficult, especially if the takeoff point is at the wrap-over.
There is a lot of controversy on these types of knots, but in thousands of string changes, never once has a string broken over the excess end. We all use our guitars live and haven't had issues with tuning or etc. It works for us, but you don't have to use it.
Why didn't I think of that? That's a excellent modification of the luthier's knot. I'm going to do this from now on. As for the criticism you received in the coments: What that person forgets is that the vast majority of us are not guitar techs and don't have to quickly change broken strings. I venture to guess that most of is rarely have broken strings while performing professionally and most of us change all our strings every couple months or so and there's no reason to be in a hurry then. So using the luthier's knot or this modification of it is of no consequence and it provides a little added insurance to prevent string slippage. And that person might consider that Martin recommends the luthier's knot as do others in the know. If I was a guitar tech and had to changes broken strings quicky for a guitarist I wouldn't like the luthier's knot either but I'm not a guitar tech and I don't have to change broken strings quickly. On top of that, I may get one broken string per year if that so I see no reason to not use the lithier's knot or this excellent modification of it
Overlapping the string makes a weak point more prone to break. Wind the first half turn over top of the tag end and the rest of the turns under the tag end. That will lock the string without bending or weakening it.
Is that a Hamer special junior ? I've got a special jr Korina wood its a great guitar made in Indonesia same factory that PRS used for years I changed the p90 it came with to a wooftone meaner p90 love this thing cheers !
Not necessary, and you need to ask the guitar techs what they think about the luthier's knot. They hate it because they are often difficult to remove when a string breaks. I have been playing for more than 50 years and have never seen the need for the luthiers knot - except maybe for uke's and classical guitars. I have never had a string slip if you wind it on the peg carefully.
Only lazy techs hate them. They just want to rip off the string in a hurry. I’ve been working on guitars, including teaching at a well known Luthiery School, since the early 70s. There is much value in the tuning stability gained from the luthiers knot. Well worth the extra few seconds it takes to remove them.
@@TwangThang57 Not lazy techs at all. Pro touring techs who need to be able to remove strings very quickly without fuss. Also tuning stability is achieved by correct stringing and stretching, not mythical luthiers knots.
That is a neat way to set strings but it creates a ball where post contact is eliminated. It’s a variation of “over-under” where the string sticks out.
It's a variation on the luthier's knot, not the over-under. The 'ball' doesn't affect things downstream. Do a free body diagram, and you'll see everyone else is wrong.
Yup! If you can't give the string a tuck and yank down, you certainly shouldn't be a tech. It's no more difficult than normal if you're good with your hands.
This is something that has shown to be true on a spectrum analyzer, but isn't always audibly perceptible, depending on many other factors. But, less than two winds will always lead to tuning issues, especially on the plain strings.
Interesting. I am not a proponent of the Luthier knot - I have never found any benefit to it over a standard over/under wrap and it just takes longer. I like the method you showed for one primary reason - it buries the sharp end of the string where you cut off the excess and avoids the pokes in the finger that every guitarist has experienced. While it does add a step or two to the restring process, it at least has a practical benefit which the Luthier knot really doesn't have.
It doesn't actually take longer if you are used to it. It literally takes the same amount of time on and off. But, it does take some practice to get there.
It's not improved, it's just a shortened technique. Luthiers have been using that wrap around when tying classical strings, just horizontally. This method just cuts it short & lets it hold by its own tension without knotting it. I guess that works fine. It's just as good as two or three other methods
I see only one inconvenience to this: on a les paul-like guitar we should aim at winding the D and G strings upwards, in order to minimize the break angle at the nut (better tuning stability). Can we maybe lock upwards, instead of downwards, on these strings?
No... You've got it completely backwards. Can't count how many customers have said they had issues with their D and G strings on their Les Pauls, only to find they never stretched their strings out enough because the strings were slipping on the string posts. It's crazy.
If I break a string on one of my guitars I have sometimes saved the price of a new set by knotting the remaining section of the string, which I've left uncut for this eventuality. I'm not mean, just not so rich as a lot of guys on the internet.
You're just making string changes much harder than necessary. The string will lock just fine when there are enough wraps to keep tension on the part of the string going through the hole.
@@xustrings I feel ya on the "special cases" scenarios, could definitely be a lifesaver if you got a peg issue going on. I meant in general this wouldn't be absolutely necessary, but again, I like the neatness.
When you're changed strings on 20K+ guitars, you'll see that it is in fact necessary on some guitars. Not most, but some. For others, it's a nice touch.
I've only had a few tens of guitars, and never ever experienced any tuning issues while never used such ridiculous way of winding strings.... maybe that's because I never had a cheap crappy guitar???
Do you know if you wind the string 1/2 turn around the post is it almost it possible to pull it back out. So is you do 2 to 3 wraps it will not slip, EVER! I have been a guitar tech for 47 yrs and I never use locking tuners or the so called luthier knot. Locking tuners were invented to make string changes on stage super fast. Nothing else. NEVER ALLOW THE STRING TO OVERLAP ITSELF LIKE THIS HERE VIDEO AS IT WILL ALMOST ALWAYS CAUSE SLIPS.
This is completely unnecessary, I've never had a sting slip in 43 years of playing on any guitar I've owned. Also, with that string tucked in like that will make your tuning machine a cam which is not something I want.
Do not do this. Even if you play in different tunings, this is completely unnecessary with steel strings and a pain in the a*s if you change strings often (which you should).
This is so unnecessary. Strings hold on perfectly well on their own without any kind of 'mythical luthiers knot' . That even includes nylon strings. Also ask any touring guitar tech what they think of these methods. They absolutely hate them as they make quick string changes more difficult than need be.
Interesting! But you can’t teach this old dog any new tricks. Been changing acoustic and electric guitars for over 50 years and will probably continue to use my old standard method which works fine!
@@xustrings No I won't. 40+ years of playing. Les Paul, Tele & acoustic. Never used a knot, never had any issues with tuning. The amount of pull needed to overcome the friction from the wraps around the post exceeds what the strings can handle. I.e. they'll snap before they'll slip. Can't argue with physics.
You can't and that 's why you're wrong! Les Pauls, Teles and acoustics only make up a portion of the guitar market. You get guitars where a wrap isn't enough. Still have much to learn!
@@xustrings With Classical and Jazz it's even less of an issue. Only guitars that really benefit from it are the ones that have locking tuners. Again, no need for knots.
It takes a little practice, but after a few guitars, it literally takes the same amount of time as just stringing it through the peg with no knot at all. Daniel can have the strings off, clean and condition the fretboard, have new strings on and stretch them three times each, all under 7 minutes.
