Contreras wrote:Simplicity is good when it comes to this, IMHO. I have never had a slippage like this, and it only takes a couple of minutes.
Also I think it's a mistake to involve another string when tying one down, Laudie ... unless I'm seeing it wrong, you'd need to undo the G to change the B (etc)
You are absolutely right, I have to loosen the G to remove the tail of the B, and loosen the B to change the E. I didn't say this was a smart way to do it he he! I just was trying to get a nice looking result. I know this is anal-retentive, but I was trying to get the same effect that good buddy Mark gets at the local music store.
Start with 6E one loop and tuck the tail under the loop of A, etc. So it goes 6 to 5 to 4, then 1 to 2 to 3, and then loosen 4 enough to tuck the tail of 3 under it and then re-tighten 4
I have to admit Rojaro's and Souldier's tie jobs look clean and simple and undoubtedly took a lot less time. I don't know if I will ever tie it the same way again, but it didn't require any tools (at least it doesn't if you get the tails the right length to start. Changing strings for me isn't an issue as I usually change them as a whole set. Unless one breaks early on. Believe me when I say every other tie job I've done has been butt ugly. My tie jobs were world famous for looking like a gorilla with a second grade education did them. Knew just enough to know that the string needed changed and that's all.
Also. The strings just don't seem to want to wear out. I want to try something that sounds better on it but these strings just want to last ( they have sounded equally as unsatisfying as when they were 4 days old