Do Waverly tuners also SOUND great . . . ?

[MikeEdgerton]

Damn, the grammar police have my every move covered.

[mandopixie]

Originally Posted by Jim Broyles

The first one is.

I concur.

[TEE]

http://www.danlashbrook.com/guitar-info.htm

I don't know the man or have ever used his services but I know a lot do.

Hey Mike- I believe you started it.

[Jim Broyles]

Originally Posted by sunburst

Lashbrook!?

John, here's what he said:

Tuning Machines

High End
High end tuners will tune better, hold tune better, sound better and weigh less. I use Waverly tuners. Ivoroid or Ebony buttons...The heavier the tuning machine the less sound gets down the neck back to the guitar. In effect, the weight of the tuning machines absorb string energy.

Now, if your chart is correct, which I am sure is the case, he has just made a contradictory statement in his assessment of tuners, has he not?

[mandopixie]

Originally Posted by Kevin Briggs

I still say that inanimate objects don't possess things. It's get down to philosophy though. Is it the "mandolin's" tone? Is the mandolin consciously producing tone? My view you need consciousness to be capable of possession.

I wonder if we should start a 'grammar' thread. As for inanimate objects and possession, I don't see it as philosophy. The car's engine, the company's policy, etc. are widely accepted short-form use of 'the engine of the car', and the policy of the company', which nobody actually uses. I'm willing to bet my MF-5 that most folks reading this use phrases like, "there's three of them", or another little gem, "as far as" without actually completing the sentence with "is/are concerned" or even "goes". Language is a living thing, and thus constantly evolving (Personally I see it devolving), but the Grammar Police must remain diligent!
Grammar-tennis in a new thread, anyone?

[Kevin Briggs]

Originally Posted by Tom Smart

I'm typing this on my computer's keyboard. The computer isn't conscious it has a keyboard, even though I keep reminding it that it does.

I can't think of any noun in English that can't be made into a possessive. Maybe someone else can.

Grammar describes how people actually communicate, and has nothing to do with philosophy.

I'm sure all of the rhetoricians who lived, breathed, and excreted the all things related to written communication fro the past 2500 would disagree. It's all about communication, as you say. In addition, I think you need to reconsider your idea regarding what your computer "possesses." Your "computer" needs a keyboard so you can make it do things.

It's true though, we can get away with using a possessive with any noun. I simply argue that we shouldn't. It's more accurate to say, "My keyboard."

There, I said it, and now I'm done. I'm going to go puke, and it's all my fault.

[TEE]

Jim, From what I understand Lashbrook modifies the tuners a great deal also. I believe he shortens the post and may do something different to the bushings. He also has some you tube videos about his services.

I am sure Sunburst was being facetious about Lashbrook, I imagine he knows all about his modifications.

[Tom Smart]

"Possessive" has a specific meaning in grammar that has nothing to do with consciousness, philosophy, or rhetoric.

Would you say "my engine that's in my car," because that's more accurate, in preference to "my car's engine"? Even looking at it philosophically rather than grammatically, I would argue that the engine is more properly regarded as an attribute of the car that you possess, rather than its own discrete possession.

"...my mandolin's Waverlys's overall quality" is perfectly acceptable according to most style guides in the U.S. Both apostrophes are absolutely required. It's true that the second "s" is often left off (Waverlys') as mandopixie suggests, and as a writer that's probably what I'd do since the alternative is so awkward. However, "Waverlys's is standard, odd as it seems.

They really are great tuners. I have no idea if they affect tone.

[mandopixie]

Originally Posted by TEE

Jim, From what I understand Lashbrook modifies the tuners a great deal also. I believe he shortens the post and may do something different to the bushings. He also has some you tube videos about his services.

I am sure Sunburst was being facetious about Lashbrook, I imagine he knows all about his modifications.

Waverly mandolin tuners are very heavy indeed. The sheer volume of metal used in the plate when combined with the securing nuts is massive.

[Jim Broyles]

Originally Posted by Kevin Briggs

I'm sure all of the rhetoricians who lived, breathed, and excreted the all things related to written communication fro the past 2500 would disagree. It's all about communication, as you say. In addition, I think you need to reconsider your idea regarding what your computer "possesses." Your "computer" needs a keyboard so you can make it do things.

It's true though, we can get away with using a possessive with any noun. I simply argue that we shouldn't. It's more accurate to say, "My keyboard."

There, I said it, and now I'm done. I'm going to go puke, and it's all my fault.

Consistency dictates that if computer cannot be conscious, it cannot need. We need the keyboard; the computer, which can't own it, surely cannot need it. Come on Kev, surely you don't say, "I have great sustain from my mandolin." You, I would wager, say something like, "My Weber has great sustain." It has it. How else would you write about its having it except in the possessive? Maybe it can't own it, but it surely has it.

[mandopixie]

Originally Posted by Tom Smart

..However, "Waverlys's is standard, odd as it seems..

I doubt that many of us would actually say, "Waverlys's", enunciating both of the esses!

[mandopixie]

Originally Posted by Jim Broyles

.. You, I would wager, say something like, "My Weber has great sustain." It has it. How else would you write about its having it except in the possessive? Maybe it can't own it, but it surely has it.

Very good, Jim. Maybe it only has it when he (and only he) is playing it?!

[Jim Broyles]

Originally Posted by mandopixie

I doubt that many of us would actually say, "Waverlys's", enunciating both of the esses!

Naw, I don't think so:

Plural Possessives
© Beverly Schmitt 1997-2002, all rights reserved
Plural Noun Definition: When a noun means more than one, it is said to be
plural.
Examples: boys, girls, books, churches
Possessive Case Definition: When a noun shows ownership or possession
Rule #1
When the plural ends in s, only the apostrophe is added.
Examples: boys = boys' coat Jesus’ disciples
Mr. Furness = Mr. Furness' car
Odysseus = Odysseus' travels
princess = princess' tiara
Rule #2
When the plural does not end in s, only the apostrophe and the s is added.
Examples: oxen = oxen's

[MikeEdgerton]

I'm thinking that grammar threads are now entering the same category as theory threads and I know I started it, I hate myself for it.

[sunburst]

Originally Posted by TEE

I am sure Sunburst was being facetious about Lashbrook, I imagine he knows all about his modifications.

I am, if fact, familiar with Lashbrook, his controversial "ideas", and his charging guitar owners exorbitant amounts of money to second guess the builders of their guitars by making modifications and removing peripheral bits of mass in highly visible areas with no science to back up his claims of superior sound. I believe this might be the first time I've seen his name mentioned here on the Mandolin Cafe, though.

(Wait 'til the grammar police get ahold of that run on sentence! )

[Kevin Briggs]

Originally Posted by MikeEdgerton

I'm thinking that grammar threads are now entering the same category as theory threads and I know I started it, I hate myself for it.

Mike,

It's not all your fault. It's at least equally mine as well. This thread is incredible though, because it's really like three threads in one: Grammar, Lashbrook, and tuners, lol.

Everyone, I'm sorry for getting so carried away on the grammar. I have a definite view on the topic, but it doesn't have much to do with tuners! I love the Cafe and my mando brethren.

[MikeEdgerton]

Originally Posted by sunburst

I am, if fact, familiar with Lashbrook, his controversial "ideas", and his charging guitar owners exorbitant amounts of money to second guess the builders of their guitars by making modifications and removing peripheral bits of mass in highly visible areas with no science to back up his claims of superior sound. I believe this might be the first time I've seen his name mentioned here on the Mandolin Cafe, though...

Don't sugarcoat it John, tell us how you really feel

[Dave Cohen]

I hope that you will forgive my grammer, as I am a mere science weenie, and not higly skilled in the communication arts (with the possible exception of science speak and science writing).

I find it amazing that so many people are so absolutely sure that Waverly tuners are so much more massive than other common brands of 29/32" spacing tuners. The last set of Waverly mandolin tuners that I measured had a mass of about 158 grams. Schaller and Grover tuners that I have measured have had masses upwards of 150 grams. Iirc, the last set of Schallers I measured had a mass of about 155 grams. The Grover tuners that I put on the latest slot-head classical A mandolin also had a mass of about 155 grams. Do any of you honestly think that a <2% difference in mass makes a significant difference in tone quality and /or sustain?

Sustain is influenced by three things. One is internal losses in the string itself, much more prominent in nylon and gut strings than in steel strings. A second is viscous damping, due to the motion of the string through the air. Viscous damping is more significant in metal strings, even though they are more dense. The internal damping of metal strings is much less than that of nylon or gut strings. The third mecanism of losses turns out to be overwhelmingly more important in mandolins than either of the first two. It is the loss of energy from the string to motions of the mandolin body. It turns out that the decay times of mandolin strings vs frequency goes wildly up and down with their proximity to the peak frequencies of the various body modes. One other thing about sustain: It depends on the direction in which the string is plucked, i.e. parallel to the surface of the instrument top plate vs perpendicular to it. Also, that may change during the note due to "polarization", i.e., a combination of directions of the string motion. Put simply, you can make bigger changes in "sustain" by change the way you attack the note than you would be able to hear with a <2% change in the mass of the tuners.

None of this is meant to demean Waverly tuners, or any other brand for that matter.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[Dale Ludewig]

You know if we went back to the OP on this a as route headed toward California, I'd say we're approaching Toronto.

[Dale Ludewig]

Sorry Dave. We were posting at the same time. And by the way, I agree with what you just said.

[lenf12]

Originally Posted by pops1

I have found that there is a difference between closed back and open back tuners in the sound of a guitar. The heavier the tuner, the more mass the brighter the sound. Should bee the same with a mandolin, if your mando needs more highs use more mass you want a warmer sound use less. It's subtle, but it is definitely there.

That's been my experience as well. I have a 1956 Gibson F-12 that came with Kluson enclosed tuners. The sound was bright and thin (for a variety of reasons) and not very loud. Swapping the Klusons out for a set of Gotoh open back tuners definitely increased the volume and deepened/darkened the tone. It has since had major surgery performed by Randy Wood and it is a much more satisfying instrument to play and to hear from the front.

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

[mandopixie]

I'm not saying anything one way or the other on the mass-vs-tone/volume argument. I'm just posting the Stew-Mac specs that they claim for the open-face sandwich..er..open gear F-tuners they sell:

$500 Waverly 6.14 oz (nickel) 10.78 oz (silver) 10.72 oz (gold)
$600 Loar spaced 10.44 oz (silver) 10.53 oz (gold)
$53-$60 Grover 5.54 oz
$63-$73 Golden Age 5.95-6.02 oz
$55-$75 Schaller 5.79 oz

add $16.75 cheapest s/h( to my house)

For the princely sum of $500, would most buyers/players choose silver and gold over nickel?

[Dave Cohen]

Those 10+ ouce figures are haywire. The Waverly tuners I mentioned above at 158 grams were gold. I have also installed silver Loar-spaced Waverly tuners within the last year. I weighed them too. They were about 160 grams.

To convert grams to ounces, multiply the ounces by 28.35. You will see that the >10 oz figures which you gave above will correspond to not much less than 300 grams! A 300 gram set of tuners would make you feel like you were holding a lead headstock. In fact, in order to have a mass of 300 grams, a set of tuners would have to be made of something even denser than lead. Iron, steel, copper, and brass all have densities in the 8-9 g/cm3 range. Lead has a density of 11.4 g/cm3 - not enough to get you up to the 300 gram range.

Btw, the Waverly tuners are plated, not solid gold or silver. Solid precious metal tuners would set you back a lot more than $600, and would be too soft for hard use. So while gold does have a density of 19.5 grams/cm3, you ain't dealing with solid gold tuners.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[Man of Wax]

Originally Posted by Jim Broyles

Naw, I don't think so:

I would just like to point out that this breakdown is flawed. None of those, except "boys," is a plural noun. The possessive of "princess" is "princess's." The possessive of "princesses," on the other hand, is "princesses.'"According to Chicago style, in a few cases, singular nouns ending in 's' do not require apostrophes. These are: Jesus, Moses, and classical names ending in an 's' pronounced as a 'z' (NOT Odysseus', which would properly be Odysseus's—and in case anyone is ready to pounce, that split infinitives thing is hogwash), e.g., Alcibiades or Sophocles. There may be a few other exceptions that I'm forgetting.

As to whether an inanimate object can be rendered possessive, I understand the argument that there can be no such thing as possession by an inanimate object, but this is an increasingly old-fashioned critique that contemporary style guides (almost?) never argue for. And you could argue that inanimate objects do posses at least one thing, namely existence. Kant said existence is a universal predicate and, hence, can't be possessed as such. But that doesn't make him right.

Awesome thread.

(This post contains no mandolin content.)

[mandopixie]

Yes, Dave. Of course you are correct in noting that they're precious metal plated. Solid gold or silver would be about as much use as chocolate gears! According to Stew-Mac, their metric weight is indeed 305.61 grams and 303.91 grams for the silver and gold plated respectively. The nickel ones weigh in (comparatively featherlight in comparison) at a mere 174.07 grams. I don't recall where, but I know I have seen them with lots of holes drilled in the back-plate specifically to reduce the mass.
Maybe someone should correct the specs. for these tuners on the Stew-Mac site?