New bass strings, some dead

[John Formsma]

Paul,

It's late tonight, I'm tired, etc. ....So if this doesn't make any
sense whatsoever, please overlook it, and I'll fix it in the morning.
<g>

Arledge said in his class that traditional string making methods
require a twist in the string during installation.  Tradtional methods
create a twist in the core as the copper is wound onto the core. When
the copper is cut and crimped onto the core, the wire will "untwist."
Hence, the need to put a twist back in the wire.

If I'm remembering correctly, it has something to do with the tension
at which the core was during winding in relation to the copper that is
wound on it at that tension. That twist has to be restored for proper
tone.

Arledge's method of winding involves his special machine that keeps
the core untwisted, and at the proper tension during winding.
Therefore, the core wire is not under any twisting tension during the
winding of the copper (as in traditional methods).  Hence, it doesn't
twisting since it never was twisted to begin with.

Hope this makes sense.  All I can think of now is that stupid song
from the ... well, it was before my time so I'm not sure which decade
it was from....  "Come on baby, let's do the twist..." <G>

JF


On 8/3/07, PAULREVENKOJONES <paulrevenkojones at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Terry and John:
>
> I'm curious why it is so important to string makers that they each and every
> one over time has said that their particular strings don't need a twist in
> them, when in fact in each and every case in my experience, a single full
> twist has improved the sound of the string from it's untwisted condition.
> Actually, I don't wonder at all, of course. James Arledge, Danny at GC, and
> a few others, are really terrific scale guys and high-end, consistent string
> makers. What's the big deal with a twist? It only makes sense to me to do so
> unless there is a provable reason not to. What would that be? Does James
> read this list? Could he chime in here? Do you guys know?
>
> Paul
>