Restringing a 12

MLBob

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
721
Location
SW Ohio
Had occasion to change strings on my JF 30-12 yesterday, and was pretty sure I remembered that all the lower octave strings had been inserted into the front row of bridge pins. Actually, the staggering of the pins from front (closest to saddle) to back row made that the logical choice. Anyway, I took a gander at the Martin string change video for 12's, and was surprised to hear the guy changing strings say: " The lower octave strings go to the rear." Upon stopping the video and looking closely, I could see that the pins on the Martin he was re-stringing were offset opposite what the ones on my Guild are, and definitely would have affected where they usually contacted the saddle had I followed what he was saying. My back row of pins is offset toward the top of the lower bout while the back row on the Martin was offset to the pickguard side (bottom) of the lower bout.

I later read an review of a Martin D-12 35 50th anniversary 12 string that made this statement : "And, missed at first, the strings are reversed at the bridge pins from the old Martin 12-strings. The strings with the lower pitch are anchored in the front row holes, nearer the saddle. The octave strings are delegated to the back row. This is the opposite configuration from that found on Martin 12-strings from the 1960s and later." One thing I noted about the Martin D-12 35 being referenced was that the bridge pins were offset in the same direction as my JF 30's.

Anyway, I strung it up with all the lower octave strings anchored in front; and, of course, aligned everything properly at the nut slots and tuning pegs. Sounds great, but just wondering if anyone has noticed any variations in front & back row pin alignment with different models of 12 string guitars - or even in 12 strings by the same manufacturer?
 

The Guilds of Grot

Enlightened Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
9,547
Reaction score
4,716
Location
New Jersey Shore
Guild Total
117
If you're locating the octave strings above the lower pitched strings I don't see how you can have a choice. The way the bridge holes are offset dictate what goes where.
 

MLBob

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
721
Location
SW Ohio
If you're locating the octave strings above the lower pitched strings I don't see how you can have a choice. The way the bridge holes are offset dictate what goes where.


Exactly. I just found it strange that when trying to google information on how to properly restring a twelve based on the offset of the two rows, there's absolutely no mention of what the offset should dictate. In fact, I found only one reference (a question in the Acoustic Guitar Forum in 2017), and no one replied to it.

In addition, it seems that Guild has the right idea, as Guild's choice of how the pins are oriented might make for a better break angle at the bridge for heavier string vs. lighter.
However, I also notice that the bridge pin orientation on the Doyle Dykes Signature 12's run
s in the same direction as all Guild 12 strings. I'm assuming there's only an adjustment for low E and A as to where the slots in the nut have been cut, so would it be necessary to put the reversed lower octave strings (low E & A) to the rear row of pins?. Comment from anyone who owns a Guild Dykes Signature 12 ?

Bob
 
Last edited:

Cougar

Enlightened Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
5,319
Reaction score
3,014
Location
North Idaho
Guild Total
5
....In addition, it seems that Guild has the right idea, as Guild's choice of how the pins are oriented might make for a better break angle at the bridge for heavier string vs. lighter.
However, I also notice that the bridge pin orientation on the Doyle Dykes Signature 12's runs in the same direction as all Guild 12 strings.

On a down strum on my JF30-12, I hit the higher octave E, then the low E, then the higher octave A, then the low A, etc. I'm no expert, but I think that's more standard than the way Dykes does it.

It's an interesting question whether it makes much difference if the low E gets the sharper break angle instead of the higher octave E....
 

The Guilds of Grot

Enlightened Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
9,547
Reaction score
4,716
Location
New Jersey Shore
Guild Total
117
On a down strum on my JF30-12, I hit the higher octave E, then the low E, then the higher octave A, then the low A, etc. I'm no expert, but I think that's more standard than the way Dykes does it.

It's an interesting question whether it makes much difference if the low E gets the sharper break angle instead of the higher octave E....

Rickenbacker 12's are somewhat famous for having the octave strings below the low strings. It's what gives them their "chime". I believe this is what Doyle was going for.
 

MLBob

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
721
Location
SW Ohio
As per a statement on Doyle's website in 2014: "[FONT=&quot]The new Signature 12 string guitar is beautiful and sounds absolutely amazing! The playability is unsurpassed by any 12 string and with the smaller body, it’s easy to hold and is very focused for finger-style solo guitar as well as the wonderful full chords while strumming. Love this guitar! [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The two As and Es are also switched around to get a fuller sound while finger picking (the thumb picks downwards) as well as with the chording of the left hand as the two bass strings are easy to have one accidentally muted. With the bass on the top side the smaller or octave bass notes get muted first so the guitar actually has more bass while playing which gives a fuller sound which is very important to me."[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 

MLBob

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
721
Location
SW Ohio
On a down strum on my JF30-12, I hit the higher octave E, then the low E, then the higher octave A, then the low A, etc. I'm no expert, but I think that's more standard than the way Dykes does it.
.

Same here. No doubt that's the standard. Just wondered if people were aware that that particular Guild 12 string was designed to be set up the way Dykes likes his. I seem to remember a thread here on LTG where someone pointed that out in connection to a listing for one of the Dykes 12 strings on E-Bay.

Bob
 
Last edited:

idealassets

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
1
Location
Northern Michigan
On a down strum on my JF30-12, I hit the higher octave E, then the low E, then the higher octave A, then the low A, etc. I'm no expert, but I think that's more standard than the way Dykes does it.

It's an interesting question whether it makes much difference if the low E gets the sharper break angle instead of the higher octave E....
I started playing 12 string on my F512 and yes, you do strike the higher octave strings first on the downstoke, which always sounds right to me.

HOWEVER: Since I am also fond of the Rickenbacker 12 string sound, I observed right off the bat the it is the exact opposite on my Ric 360-12. Additionally all the tutorials I have followed show to always re-string your Ric in this fashion- with the lower octave string struck first on the downstroke strum.

Both these guitars sound great to me as being played with the suggested factory setups. I also don't notice very much difference between the two variations in stringing. The Doyle Dykes signature 12 string is also strung identical to the Ric with the lower Octave farthest from the soundhole. Doyle's setup is supposed to be designed "to be a better setup for the piezo pickup to catch his fast finger picking the best". -If anyone has seen Doyle play live they might attest that this fast finger picking is definitely what Doyle is noted for.

Now back to that Ric 12 string: the following players seemed to think it was "normal" with the "upside-down" factory stringing, George Harrison, Paul Kantner, Roger McGuinn, Mike Campbell (Tom Petty) & others. By the way the Guild 12 string necks are thick and wide, the Ric 12 string necks are thin and narrow- no problem, I never paid that much attention to that aspect either.

I would have never have thought about any of this until I read through this post.

EDIT: Oh sorry- Kurt was onto the Ric 12 string positions in his post ahead of mine.
 
Last edited:

Rayk

Enlightened Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2015
Messages
5,769
Reaction score
1,173
Interesting I would the think Doyle 12’s to be standard orientatio just from a consumer point of veiw but I really don’t know . Doyle mentioned loosing bass on the low with the Octave in front so he switched them but I can’t remember the A string too but hey what floats your boat ;)

I will never pay anyone to string my guitars but you can pay me to do yours 😁
 

steve488

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
400
Reaction score
168
Location
Arizona desert
Guild Total
2
Perhaps my being the "unejimaceted type" (SP) in that I never had any lessons nor any friends with a 12 string (until after my acquisition), but I never thought twice about whether the octave strings should be before or after the prime string. Then again I tend to change the strings one at a time rather than strip them all off at once and have done it that way since 1970.
SO ........ (Warning - potential veer coming!)

From my (sometimes limited) engineering mind the string tension, truss rod tension (or compression?) and body parts form a mechanical system adjusted to a specific set. Stripping all the strings at once would seem to me to shift the stresses on the neck and body of the guitar drastically by unloading one side of the system, and also add some additional odd stresses as the new strings went on one at a time (perhaps minimized by not tuning to concert pitch immediately as each string was added).

Any thoughts on this? Have I been committing a major "error" for almost 50 years?
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,457
Reaction score
7,113
Location
Central Massachusetts
Steve, you haven't been making any error, but you should be able to take the strings off of any properly built guitar. I do it all the time on all my 12s. No different than a 6 string, really.

You might cause a problem and break something if you just cut them all off at the same time, with, say, a wire cutter, but I would strongly advise against that. I'm talking about unwinding them one at a time, and then winding them when you restring.
 

F312

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
958
Perhaps my being the "unejimaceted type" (SP) in that I never had any lessons nor any friends with a 12 string (until after my acquisition), but I never thought twice about whether the octave strings should be before or after the prime string. Then again I tend to change the strings one at a time rather than strip them all off at once and have done it that way since 1970.
SO ........ (Warning - potential veer coming!)

From my (sometimes limited) engineering mind the string tension, truss rod tension (or compression?) and body parts form a mechanical system adjusted to a specific set. Stripping all the strings at once would seem to me to shift the stresses on the neck and body of the guitar drastically by unloading one side of the system, and also add some additional odd stresses as the new strings went on one at a time (perhaps minimized by not tuning to concert pitch immediately as each string was added).

Any thoughts on this? Have I been committing a major "error" for almost 50 years?

I always read (back 40 -50 years ago) to change the strings one at a time but see less of that theory now however I do take them all off at a very slow and even pace.

Ralph
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
Steve, you haven't been making any error, but you should be able to take the strings off of any properly built guitar. I do it all the time on all my 12s. No different than a 6 string, really.

I on the other hand change one string at a time. It has everything to do with operator error. I once took all stings off, got confused as to which way things were wound, installed a set and then the tuners all worked backwards. Since then I change one at a time because I don't have to find a picture or a video showing me which way the winds go.
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,457
Reaction score
7,113
Location
Central Massachusetts
Fro, that's an excellent point. It's easy to make a mistake. I've put on the wrong strings once or twice, and cut them so that I ended up having to discard them.

That said, I don't like to clean the guitar, especially the fretboard, with the strings on it. I mean you can slack them a lot and make it possible to push them all off the board and clean it, but I prefer to take 'em off.
 

Grassdog

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
550
Reaction score
118
Location
Cincinnati, OH
I on the other hand change one string at a time. It has everything to do with operator error. I once took all stings off, got confused as to which way things were wound, installed a set and then the tuners all worked backwards. Since then I change one at a time because I don't have to find a picture or a video showing me which way the winds go.

+1 for the changing them one at a time. It's just a preference thing. This way I can tune each string up to pitch without a tuner (using the pitch of the old strings). Also it helps in putting the bridge pins back in the same slot each time.
 
Top