| Author |
Topic: Hysterisis? |
Frank Parish
From:
Nashville,Tn. USA
|
Posted 14 Jul 2012 9:06 am |
|
| I haven't seen this topic come up for a while but I don't lurk on here like I used to either. I changed my strings on the Carter last May 28 and have played a lot of gigs with it since that time. I did use the Derby a couple of times too but I didn't write it down but from now on I'm writing the days when I change the strings on which guitar and which one I use on each date. So I was hearing that tinny kind of sitarish sound last night on my 4th string. I used to see stuff on here about something called hysterisis so is this the same thing? That string gets a lot of work and will do some weird things on some older guitars. I've never really had any issues with this guitar so I just changed that string this morning and it seems to be fine. I thought I'd just throw this out here for discussion. I think writing it down when you change your strings and which guitar you take out to gigs is a lot better way of keeping track then just waiting for them to go dead. |
|
|
 |
Michael Maddex
From:
Northern New Mexico, USA
|
Posted 14 Jul 2012 10:42 am
|
|
I write the date that I changed the strings on the empty package and put it in the case. I've been doing that with steels, resos and other guitars for years now. I had the idea on my own, but I'm sure lots of players do it. HTH.
_________________
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert." -- Arthur C. Clarke |
|
|
|
Earnest Bovine
From:
Los Angeles CA USA
|
Posted 14 Jul 2012 10:57 am Re: Hysterisis?
|
|
| Frank Parish wrote: |
| tinny kind of sitarish sound last night on my 4th string. I used to see stuff on here about something called hysterisis so is this the same thing? |
Your problem was evidently just a bad string. It might even have been dirt under the string at the changer so it is always worth loosening the string and cleaning there before you put on a new string. It can also be caused by flat spots or grooves worn into on the changer where the string rests, which are harder to fix.
Hysteresis is something else, namely lag between cause and effect. On pedal guitar it usually refers to lag between tension changes on the right side of the nut (immediate as you mash or release pedal) vs left side of the nut (lags due to roller friction and stiffness of the string which must straighten the bent part and bend the straight part which takes time). During the time lag, the pitch of the vibrating string temporarily overshoots the goal. |
|
|
|
Frank Parish
From:
Nashville,Tn. USA
|
Posted 14 Jul 2012 11:55 am
|
|
| It was a long time ago when I read about hysterisis and the string clearly was worn or just bad. I found some spots on it at the changer that were pretty questionable. Ever time I change strings I clean the changer fingers and rub just a tad of oil on with my finger to give it enough to lube the string but not enough to run down in the bottom part of the finger. I've seen where somebody here said you should always put a drop of lube at the changer on each string and at the roller and if you do you're going to get a lot more lube on there than you will need. Doing good now. |
|
|
|
Ron Pruter
From:
Arizona, USA
|
Posted 14 Jul 2012 2:47 pm
|
|
String grooves in the changer can make some noise issues. I use to think that these grooves were made in changers, mostly from wear, but now I'm covinced most come from standing the guitar upside down where half the weight of the guitar pushes on the strings at the changer, cutting the grooves over time. I now always support the guitars on the edges, like most good cases do. Ron
_________________
Emmons SKH Le Grande, '73 Fender P/J bass, Tick tack bass, Regal high strung, USA Nashville 112. |
|
|
|
Frank Parish
From:
Nashville,Tn. USA
|
Posted 14 Jul 2012 3:08 pm
|
|
| Ron look at where the strings rest when the guitar is set upright like you're playing it. It looks like the wraps on the string at the changer can cause wear on the changer fingers. |
|
|
|
Mike Cass
|
Posted 15 Jul 2012 10:05 am
|
|
| Bud Carter told me that hysterisis is mainly caused by the changer itself. His thought was that a changer in perfect working order should come back sharp from the lower. He explained that in order to overcome this frustrating reality he designed the Carter changer to come back flat from a lower, thus allievating the problem. Smart fella that Bud! |
|
|
|
Earnest Bovine
From:
Los Angeles CA USA
|
Posted 15 Jul 2012 10:24 am
|
|
| Mike Cass wrote: |
| he designed the Carter changer to come back flat from a lower, thus allievating the problem. |
I believe the problem is not caused by the changer, but it can be fixed there, just as cabinet drop is not caused by the changer but can be fixed by the Emmons counterforce. The fix would work, assuming that the under-return gradually gives way to a full return at the same rate that the tension equalizes across the roller bridge; in other words over a few seconds. This is the principle of the adjustable O-rings found on Franklin and some others. |
|
|
|
Mike Cass
|
Posted 20 Jul 2012 3:03 am
|
|
| while I dont profess to be a student of physics, common sense would seem to dictate that designing features into a changer mechanism which will overcome said problem would be superior to depending on a small piece of rubber that over time will lose its tensile strength and thus become untrustworthy in its application. Youy cant argue with the results found in the Carter guitars which btw do not detune, and that feat is not accomplished at the changer. Again, I like Bud's idea. |
|
|
|
Kevin Hatton
From:
Buffalo, N.Y.
|
Posted 20 Jul 2012 5:18 am
|
|
| I got hysterisis when I saw my air conditioning bill this month. Whewwwwww! |
|
|
|
Curt Langston
|
Posted 20 Jul 2012 7:57 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| while I dont profess to be a student of physics, common sense would seem to dictate that designing features into a changer mechanism which will overcome said problem would be superior to depending on a small piece of rubber that over time will lose its tensile strength and thus become untrustworthy in its application. Youy cant argue with the results found in the Carter guitars which btw do not detune, and that feat is not accomplished at the changer. Again, I like Bud's idea. |
That is true Mike. Do you you know why the Carter returns to pitch, while many other guitars do not?
I'll tell you. It is because of their Low Profile neck. With the neck set lower into the guitar, there is less angle of bending of the strings at the roller nut. And since there is less bend, the strings do not meet nearly as much resistance and are more free to return to their original position.
The drag of the strings on some guitars with a sharper bend (caused by a higher neck) at the nut will cause a drag on the strings, and therefore hindering true return.
The lower the neck on a guitar, the less drag, or frictional resistance the strings will have to work against. Of course if the neck was too low, then the problem would be nut buzz from the lack of pressure exerted on the nut due to the much less(or very little)angle. |
|
|
|
Mike Cass
|
Posted 21 Jul 2012 8:13 pm
|
|
I originally believed the same thing before he gave me his explanation which I posted above, but I repeat: the Hon. Mr. Carter told me verbatim that string hysterisis had been addressed in the aforemetion changer design, and that cabinet drop/detuning was addressed by the low profile neck. I suggest you call him from here on out for any clarification. Besides, my ears arent what they used to be so perhaps I heard him wrong.
sincerely,
MC |
|
|
|
Frank Parish
From:
Nashville,Tn. USA
|
Posted 22 Jul 2012 4:05 am
|
|
| I've played the Carters the last seven years and they are as true as you can get for coming back to pitch. I've been looking at the Jackson guitars from there website and they seem to have a low profile neck as well. I'd have to see one up close and see just how it tunes to get a better feel for it but they appear to be some great guitars. |
|
|
|
