Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 56 of 56

Thread: Alternative mandolin tuners - Waverly are not the only solution

  1. #51

    Default Re: Alternative mandolin tuners - Waverly are not the only soluti

    HoGo, I'd like to hear more about how you processed your tuners using an electric drill and rubbing compound; my Eastman's tuners should be easier to turn than they are. I would guess you removed the buttons before clamping each tuner shaft into the drill chuck - or did you clamp the part that holds the string into the chuck?

    Thanks for any extra details on this procedure.

  2. #52

    Default Re: Alternative mandolin tuners - Waverly are not the only soluti

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Mando View Post
    I tried to make the 24:1 ratio argument here years ago and got shot down, for some reason. Nobody seems to like 'em. Logic would dictate the higher the ratio, the more precise the ability to tune. Of course, it takes longer to crank 'em up to pitch, so that might be an issue for some........

    And, just lack of available choices, in general.......
    Well....If I jump up in scale, on my upright basses I have one with vintage 4:1 tuners and a modern one with very expensive 50:1; 'can't stand using the 50:1 but I am very happy with the 4:1 as a daily driver.....

  3. #53
    Adrian Minarovic
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Banska Bystrica, Slovakia, Europe
    Posts
    2,312

    Default Re: Alternative mandolin tuners - Waverly are not the only soluti

    Quote Originally Posted by Tate Ferguson View Post
    HoGo, I'd like to hear more about how you processed your tuners using an electric drill and rubbing compound; my Eastman's tuners should be easier to turn than they are. I would guess you removed the buttons before clamping each tuner shaft into the drill chuck - or did you clamp the part that holds the string into the chuck?

    Thanks for any extra details on this procedure.
    No need to remove buttons. Thre is an extension for electric screwdrivers for turning tuners (like this: https://www.stewmac.com/Luthier_Tool...ingwinder.html)
    The stewmac one looks little weak, made entirely of plastic but there are better ones with metal shaft.
    I don't have this so I had to look around and found thick walled rubber tube 5" long approx 12mm OD that fit right over the buttons and I on the other end I pulled it over 10mm (or so) nut socket held in handdrill. This way I didn't have to care about damage to tuners or exact alignment of drill and tuners.
    I would first suggest checking the holes in headstock first. If your tuners turn free when removed from headstock then thay are not bad and it's the mounting that is not good.
    Adrian

  4. #54

    Default Re: Alternative mandolin tuners - Waverly are not the only soluti

    Thank you for this!

  5. #55

    Default Re: Alternative mandolin tuners - Waverly are not the only soluti

    I have a Kentucky KM-675. Do the Rubners slip right in or would I have to do some drilling and/or modifications to make them fit?

  6. #56
    Registered User sblock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Redwood City, CA
    Posts
    1,916

    Default Re: Alternative mandolin tuners - Waverly are not the only soluti

    Quote Originally Posted by mandroid View Post
    You down shift to go up a hill..
    As a Mechanic, I'd call 24:1 , a lower gear ratio, not a higher... than say, 16:1..
    1/24th is smaller than 1/16th
    ...
    No, sorry, but you seem to have it exactly backwards!

    This is a matter of both perspective and convention:

    1) First off, the "tuner ratio" is generally quoted as "N:1", where N = {14, 16, 18, 24, etc.}, and not as "1:N." Thus, many mandolin tuners are listed as 16:1, 14:1, or 18:1 . They are not 1:16, 1:14, or 1:18.

    2) Second, a ratio of x:y means exactly the same thing as the fraction, x/y. Therefore, a tuner ratio of 16:1 is the same as a fraction of 16/1. That means 16 turns of the tuner knob produce 1 turn of the tuner post.

    3) It therefore follows that a HIGH gear ratio means exactly the same thing as a LARGE gear fraction. For example, 16:1 (= 16/1) is larger than 14:1 (= 14/1), and 24:1 (= 24/1) is larger than 18:1 (= 18/1).

    I suspect that your mistake comes from writing the ratio in reverse order in the first place. It might also come from the holding "wrong" perspective on the mechanics! The proper ratio to use is turns of the knob to turns of the post, not the other way around. That is, the torque is being applied to turn the tuner knob. If you look at any gear train from the opposite end, the gear ratio is obviously reversed, and the fraction becomes the reciprocal.

    Anyway, 18:1 is considered to be higher -- not lower! -- than 14:1.

    As for cars, shifting into a "higher gear" refers to shifting the gear lever to a position labeled with a higher number, for example, going from 1st gear to 3rd gear. And shifting to a lower gear means the opposite of that. This is about the way that gear lever positions happen to be numbered on the transmission of a car (R, and 1 through 5 on a 5-speed transmission, for example). This has nothing whatsoever to do with the gear ratio (engine turns : wheel turns)! It so happens that a lower-numbered transmission lever position (say, 1st gear) has a higher gear ratio than a higher-numbered gear lever position (say, 3rd gear). So when we say "shift into a lower gear," we mean to move the lever to a lower-numbered gear lever position. We do NOT mean to use a lower gear ratio! You seem to have these two very different things mixed up.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •