rubner tuners

[mariongee]

Can anyone tell me how Rubner tuners compare to others in quality and feel? Thanks for any information.

[Mike Arakelian]

I have Rubner tuners on my new Jacobson Black Tie and love them. They are, first of all, the best looking tuners I've laid eyes on. They're very smooth and hold tune very well. I can't compare them to either Waverly or Alessi as I've never had those tuners on an instrument. The Rubners cost considerably less than Waverly or Alessi, and only marginally more than something like the Grover 309's. Given the opportunity, I would definitely use Rubners on another instrument.

[Ron McMillan]

I have no personal experience of them yet, but I know of a couple of fine instrument makers who have high praise for the Rubners, and that would be recommendation enough for me.

[renoyd]

I had troubles with several other well known brands, especially ones with black knobs for some reason. I tried a set of Rubners and they are very smooth - they have bearing discs. Very well made and great looking. As Mike points out, they don't cost much more than the other good brands, though you can spend a few more bucks for the yet fancier models in the line. I hear that the much more expensive Waverlys are not always what they are blown up to be. For anyone considering Rubners, I recommend just doing it, you will be most pleased. NFI, just a fan.

[almeriastrings]

I have installed a few sets.. on classical guitar and on mandolin, and they are very nice tuners. Incredibly good value (I get them in Spain at really low prices, and they are popular with many classic guitar makers here). Price to performance ratio is just excellent. Personally, I think the Waverley's are just a bit nicer, but at several times the price. In Europe, Waverley's are now really pricey...

The ones I fitted were for an A-style. These.. They cost €112 which is roughly $120 US. I liked them better than recent Schaller's I've used, for sure. The Waverely equivalents cost 4X that price by the time you pay shipping and import duties, and from a practical perspective, there is hardly anything in it. Both great tuners.

[peter.coombe]

I can only echo what has already been said. Smooth tuners if you opt for the Teflon bearings option, and not too expensive. Quality is consistently good, and there is a wide range of options, including Ebony or Rosewood knobs, different levels of engraving etc. Not the same quality of Waverly, but they are not at Waverly prices. Best way to get them is direct from the factory in batches, and they custom make them for you.

[John Kelly]

I concur with the above comments. I have used several sets on mandolins and octaves and have found them good tuners and great value for money. Not so easy to get in the UK, I find.

[GarY Nava]

Thanks for posting all these comments, I've been thinking about Rubners for awhile too............
Cheers Gary

[George R. Lane]

When I looked at their website they only show tuners for A models. Do they make them to fit an F model?

[Marty Jacobson]

They do make an F model variant, but they're reworking the design slightly to incorporate the Teflon bearings and more traditional shaft sleeves. I recommended they consider making them in 29/32" spacing and worm-under while they're at it, which should make them a drop-in replacement on most F models. Then they'd be fielding a very attractive alternative to Wav's at 1/3-1/2 the cost.
I'll be receiving the first two production units soon, which I ordered to retrofit a customer's instrument and for another project I'm working on. I will report here on how they are.
NFI on my part. The US distributor is Kent George at rubnertuners.com

[John Morton]

I would prefer that tuners for such a short scale have a higher gear ratio. I installed some Rubners (15:1) and they seemed touchy. Waverlys are 16:1, but the 18:1 Grover Rotomatics on my guitar are great.

[mariongee]

Thanks so much everyone. I really liked the looks of their tuning machines and hoped the quality would be as good as the looks. I believe I'm sold.

[JEStanek]

I also have Rubners on my Spira mandolin. They look great and perfrom very well. They aren't super pricey ones either.

Jamie

[Nathan Kellstadt]

Does anyone know if I can swap out a pair of Waverlys for these without any re-drilling?

[Marty Jacobson]

Does anyone know if I can swap out a pair of Waverlys for these without any re-drilling?

Not currently. They're currently 23mm spacing. It's only a .02mm difference (but over 3 intervals that's .06mm, which does make the fit tight in some cases - sometimes you get lucky and it's fine). It's easily accounted for by re-reaming the holes. But it's still more work than just dropping them in, and it's not reversible. I recommended they consider making them in 29/32" spacing and they are working on that.

[Nathan Kellstadt]

Thanks Marty.

[Pete Jenner]

Not currently. They're currently 23mm spacing. It's only a .02mm difference (but over 3 intervals that's , so it's easily accounted for by re-reaming the holes. But it's still more work than just dropping them in, and it's not reversible. I recommended they consider making them in 29/32" spacing and they are working on that.

Hmmm... I didn't realise that. It explains a few things.

[Marty Jacobson]

Hmmm... I didn't realise that. It explains a few things.

It's a tiny difference, so sometimes you get lucky and a drop-in replacement works. I've done drop-in replacements on Golden Age tuning machines. But I have not had luck doing drop-in replacements on vintage instruments, a re-reaming to give the bushings a little breathing room is necessary.

[Pete Jenner]

Yes it's a tiny difference but the Rubner tolerances between the ferrule and post are very close. On both sets I've installed, I've had the inboard e string post bind. It's fixable and I have no idea why that particular post (just luck I suppose).

[mariongee]

You know,
I would have thought the law of averages would at least give one comment from someone unhappy with them. I was predisposednto settle for an 85% approval to try them. I dont ever remember a product I've used with a 100% approval rating. I wonder if they sell stock in their company.

[bernabe]

You know,
I would have thought the law of averages would at least give one comment from someone unhappy with them. I was predisposednto settle for an 85% approval to try them. I dont ever remember a product I've used with a 100% approval rating.

Ive definitely been interested in trying these but until they make 29/32 spacing, Im just not going down that road.. even on new builds. I might be wrong, but Id say Im probably in the majority on that, especially if Rubner may possibly change to 29/32 in the near future. Im just thinking of possible issues down the road when its replacement time or upgrade time and 23mm isn't available anymore.

[Dave Cohen]

Something is being missed here. 29/32" is 0.9063", except that both the 29 and the 32 have only two significant digits. Technically, that would limit one to reporting the quotient as 0.91". So, let's stretch it a bit. Assume that one can estimate an additional digit for both numerator and denominator. That is legitimate on decimal scales, but may be pushing it a bit on a fractional scale. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that one can estimate an additional digit anyway. That would mean that one can report the quotient of 29/32" as 0.906". Now, using a 4 significant digit conversion factor of 25.40 mm/in, 23.00 mm comes out to be 0.9055". Except that 23.00 mm is not explicitly stated. Again, if I assume for the sake of argument that it is 23.0 mm, that can legitimately be stated as 0.906". Imagine that.

Now, again for the sake of argument, if one assumes that the 29 and the 32 are integers (i.e., that they are not the products of measurement, even though they actually are), then you can report the quotient to as many digits as you like. So we will put it back at 0.9063". The difference between that and 23.00 mm converted to inches (using four significant digits for each) is 0.0008" Since there are four posts, which is three ~0.906" intervals, multiply that 0.0008" by three to get the center-to-center distance between the outermost posts, and you have 0.0023" (via calculator). more legitimately stated as 0.002" Is anyone trying to tell me that two thousandths of an inch will make it impossible to interchange the tuners with maybe (or maybe not) a minor nudge of a reamer? I don't believe that. Furthermore, it has not been my experience. I have used the Rubner tuners, as well as Grovers, for some slot-head mandolin family instruments. Drilled 'em the same way, and the fit was good.

What makes this all the more questionable is that, Iirc, the Schaller tuners with 29/32" spacing were actually made by their manufacturers to 23.0 mm spacing.

[Marty Jacobson]

If you want to drill your tuning machines with a .91" spacing, go for it and let us know how it works out.

No machinist would ever say that since a 1/8" drill bit is only called out to a single significant figure that using a .1" drill bit would be appropriate.

.002" is absolutely enough to make a difference, anyone who's ever done serious machining knows that. It's the difference between a pin being 2-ton press fit and being a slip fit.

As I stated above, sometimes things (unavoidable imprecision in the boring and reaming process) will work out so the tolerance stacks in your favor, sometimes not. But the less we have to mess around with the better, particularly when it comes to drop-in replacements in vintage instruments when we might not want to pull out the reamer if we don't have to.

[Jim Adwell]

That small difference between 23mm and 29/32" is multiplied by 3 from the first post to the last one. The cumulative difference is .05625", which is enough to be troublesome, IMO.

[bernabe]

The manufacturer apparently acknowledges this fit issue ..whatever it formulates to. I trust both Dave's and Marty's results with installation, however, its only the problematic experiences with standard fit that matters to me when breaking out the bank card.