Varying ratio machine gears for mandolin.

[V70416]

Hope this has not been beat to death before. Tried to research.

Does the idea of varying the gear ratio for the different gauges of strings,especially
on a short-scale instrument like the mandolin make sense to you?

Why is the G string gear ratio the same as the E string's?

I know Elon Musk could do it(and make it look vintage);but,why isn't this a good idea?

They have them for guitars.

[multidon]

Personally, I think it’s an ill advised idea, even on guitars. I think you are referring to Ratio brand tuning machines. The theory behind them is that one revolution of the tuner knob will result in the same pitch change regardless of the string gauge. But to achieve this the gear ratio varies from a low of 12:1 (low E) to a high of 39:1 (high E). The two biggest flaws of their thinking are one, they would only work for one certain string set. Go up or down in gauge on any one of them to customize your set and that ruins the whole scheme. And two, it makes installing string more difficult. The higher the gear ratio, the more turns it takes to install the string. I cannot even imagine what it would be like to install a new high E on that 39:1 machine. Even with a string winder! I like 14 or 16 to 1 machines, a good compromise between tuning accuracy and installation ease. The whole one turn for one note consistency thing really doesn’t serve any purpose that I can see, except it might come in handy for a guitarist who uses a lot of different alternate tunings. But in that case, I hope he’s a professional who can pay a tech to do his string changes for him! This would not be an advantage for a mandolin p,Ayer, who seldom if ever uses an alternate tuning. There is no such animal for mandolin, AFAIK.

[sblock]

On the other hand, if you were REALLY interested in using modern engineering to address this issue, a nice solution would be to have a tuning machine that features both a "coarse" and "fine" adjustment, selected with tiny switch (say, by pulling back a little bit on the tuner knob, much as you do when you pull out on the stem to set the time on a wristwatch). You'd use the coarse tuner adjustment (with the tuner button pulled "out") to change out the strings and tune them up to pitch the first time. Thereafter, you'd press the tuner button back in, activating the fine tuner adjustment. Coarse would be around 10:1, give or take. Fine would be around 40:1, give or take.

Gee, maybe I should patent that idea?

[mandroid]

BITD, Harmony produced a 24:1 tuner, but owing to tradition in peg hole spacing
the round gear was no larger than the current 16:1

So , the teeth were thin and many, so tended to break off ,
Now, if the round gear were brought out to, say a 3/4" diameter ,

rather than only 1/2", then the broader tooth would last 50 + years,
and the knob would turn further for every microtone of pitch change,
with that lower gear ratio tuner..

String changes would, of course, require a crank winder..

but tradition wins..




...

[JonDoug]

At least post-string change, I'd love to have a higher ratio for my A & E strings than the standard--I don't think they'd necessarily have be proportional across the fretboard. I do use light strings (EJ73s), which are a bit cranky to keep the unwound strings in tune, so maybe I'm an outlier.

[Mandoplumb]

In my opinion this is a solution looking for a problem. I've been changing strings and tuning mandolins and guitars for close to 50 years without even thinking of difference ratio for different strings. In fact the last 40 years I've locked the strings on the tuner so I only need about 3/4 of a turn to bring it up to pitch and I just turn each tuner the amount needed to get it in tune.YMMV

[MikeEdgerton]

BITD, Harmony produced a 24:1 tuner, but owing to tradition in peg hole spacing
the round gear was no larger than the current 16:1

So , the teeth were thin and many, so tended to break off ,
Now, if the round gear were brought out to, say a 3/4" diameter ,

rather than only 1/2", then the broader tooth would last 50 + years,
and the knob would turn further for every microtone of pitch change,
with that lower gear ratio tuner..

String changes would, of course, require a crank winder..

but tradition wins..




...

That and you twisted them for hours tuning up. They were actually made by Grover.

[mandroid]

Guess Grover is now located in TW.

[AndyV]

What about something like the fine tuners on violin tailpieces?

Not that I see a problem or hardship that needs dealing with.

[V70416]

For me it seems that just breathing on the G-string tuner knob makes too big a difference in the pitch.
Back it off re-tune,back it off...etc.
That is what got me thinking about these variable ratio-geared machines.

F-style Waverly mandolin tuning machines are about $570;and,they must be selling a heap of them.
Recently I had to wait for the new batch to become available to get a set for my old "Monroe"
Gibson. (It's 25 years old already!)

Just wishing for evolutionary changes in what is currently "state-of-the-art". If we are complacent
about living with things that possibly could be better, nothing will get better.

As difficult as it is to keep a mandolin in tune,it should be,somehow,easier,to get them
back in tune.

[MikeEdgerton]

...Just wishing for evolutionary changes in what is currently "state-of-the-art". If we are complacent
about living with things that possibly could be better, nothing will get better...

Here's the problem. In the mandolin world there is a holy grail. It's a mandolin built in the early to mid 20's and signed by a guy named Lloyd Loar. If you're a mandolin player chances are that is what you're striving to own or get as close to as possible. There are exceptions but that's pretty much the market in a nutshell. How do you advance when the thing you are striving for is a 1920's vintage instrument? Many builders will tell you how much they love zero frets. because that F5 that Monroe bought in a barber shop didn't have one most folks (myself included) don't want one on their fretboard. Waverly tuners are pieces of art but they went to great length to make them look the part of a vintage tuner. James tailpieces are great but they look like they are a vintage piece so that they fit in with this idea we have of what a mandolin should look like. Gibson spent some time and apparently some other people's money on a a self tuning guitar a few years back. I haven't seen many. It's hard to sell an electric that doesn't look like a Strat, Tele, Les Paul and a few others. I'm not saying things can never change but I will say that as long as our instrument lust is based on vintage ideals and designs you won't see huge changes in things like tuning methods.

The electronic tuner is probably the single largest advancement in instrument tuning I've seen in my lifetime. It's also become the single biggest tuning problem for many of my friends. In the old days they might not have realized they were slightly out of tune. Now days they can see it and it becomes an obsession to get between the lines.

Wishing for a fine tuning system for your mandolin isn't bad but if nobody is going to adopt it you're pretty much going nowhere.

[AndyV]

Again, I don't see a need for this, but that's me. I have to admit I don't play so well, and don't play with others so I'm not off of someone else's pitch.

Mike, you're so right on with your observation about people obsessing over the tuner display. As far as guitars having to look like particular iconic models, I also agree, but look at all the variants -and (attempts at ? improvements)- in the hardware over the years.

I'd forgotten about the automated tuners. If we're trying to always improve/advance, surely variable gears is a step back from this, no?

[mandroid]

Aye there's the rub.. The market wants tradition , the look of that Grail F5 even when all they have is $599 .