Changing from Klusons to Grovers adds about 4 ounces. You could try putting a capo on your headstock that weighs 4 oz. (tape on some washers if necessary) and see if you hear a difference. Depending on many factors, adding weight to the headstock may not have the effect you are looking for.I read this with interest, because I have done the opposite - put Kluson (Tone Pros version) on LPs that had either Schallers or Grovers. (though many years ago I would fit Grovers as an improvement, but then that was mainly due to the fact they were better, smoother tuners with a better gear ratio)
Never thought much of the sound difference since in recent years I did it mainly for cosmetic reasons. But I do recall reading an article in TQR (Tone Quest Report) that said the best examples of vintage LPs they had tried (57, 58, 59) all weighed between 8,5 and 9 lbs AND they all had Grovers on them. So there seems to be some consensus about your observations being correct.
Hmmm - now I'm wondering if I should order some Grover sets again. The quest never ends
To dampen anything you need to ABSORB energy. Adding mass does NOT absorb energyThen how does adding mass shift the resonant frequency?
But adding mass is only part of the equation. Less say that you added that mass affixing it with a rubbery glue that doesn't harden rock solid. Whenever the headstock moved there would be relative motion between the headstock and the weight and some of that energy would be absorbed by the glue and turned into heat.You could try putting a capo on your headstock that weighs 4 oz. (tape on some washers if necessary) and see if you hear a difference.
Running into a fly with my car absorbs very little energy (small mass), running into a brick wall absorbs a lot of energy (large mass).To dampen anything you need to ABSORB energy. Adding mass does NOT absorb energy
Not if you don't have enough energy to overcome the higher mass. In the case of infinite energy, a non infinite mass can be overcome. In the case of a guitar certain frequencies will not have enough energy to overcome that extra mass, so the mass is effectively damping that frequency.Essentially what it amounts to is that when you apply the same force to a larger mass (The headstock with more massive tuners) it will accelerate more slowly. But once you get that mass moving, it continues to move until acted upon by an outside force, in this case the spring tension of all of the strings, the neck, and body combined, which store the energy until the motion stops and then the direction changes and that stored energy accelerates the headstock in the opposite direction.
I agree with this, that the material choice will have a great effect on resonant frequency. Thinning a headstock will have an effect as will as adding carbon fiber rods or plates (low mass but very rigid).The wood of the guitar is the least elastic material and will do most of the dampening (aka: energy absorbing) of the sound.
Agreed, like thich polyester finishes.But adding mass is only part of the equation. Less say that you added that mass affixing it with a rubbery glue that doesn't harden rock solid. Whenever the headstock moved there would be relative motion between the headstock and the weight and some of that energy would be absorbed by the glue and turned into heat.
Agreed, but as a test it can tell you if it is worthwhile to pursue changing to heavier tuners. Just keep adding weight till you hear a difference or the headstock breaks.A capo is NOT solidly affixed to the headstock and there would be relative motion between the headstock and the capo which would cause some energy loss in addition to some shift in resonant frequency.
Agreed, careful consideration of where you increase or decrease the mass can allow you to tune the guitars response.It's not just the fundamental resonant frequency that you need to be concerned with. Adding mass to any part of the guitar will affect the way the harmonics travel through the guitar. It's not unlike adding mass to a portion of the string by touching it when you pluck the string to obtain a harmonic of the natural resonant frequency of the string.
if you Increase the mass of the string you'd have to increase string tension in order to maintain pitch. This would drive the guitar harder and it may be able to overcome the mass that is damping that frequency. For people who use heavier gauge strings adding a small weight to the headstock may not be effective.If you added mass to the middle of the string, it would reduce the distance that the string traveled in the middle. But then midway between the middle and each end of the string, the string would be moving at maximum distance at twice the resonant frequency of the string.
I agree, so I encourage people to experiment. Sometimes things that have little effect in reality have a large effect psychologically. And that is OK.The question isn't whether or not this effect happens. It is only how audible the effect is and how much ability a person has to notice the difference. Some people are tone deaf and can't hear subtle changes in tuning that make the rest of us cringe. Likewise, some people won't notice subtle differences in tone. What may be a huge difference to me might not be very noticeable to the next person.
The vibration energy from the strings will try to vibrate the entire guitar. Areas that are very stiff or heavy (high mass) will not vibrate as easily as areas that are flexible or light. When a part of the guitar is vibrating it is absorbing energy from the strings. This is part of what makes certain guitars sound the way they do.So the tuner itself has more mass, so that's the material that's transferring the tone from the strings to the headstock. It's not that the headstock itself has more mass, it's more that the "medium" of transfer of the frequencies from the strings get to the body better because the "mechanism" of transfer (tuner mass itself) is what's dong it.
This is a completely erroneous analogy. Your fly-car analogy is talking about the energy already in the masses. Scott A Novack is talking energy going into the mass. I think it's possible there's some misunderstanding of terms.Running into a fly with my car absorbs very little energy (small mass), running into a brick wall absorbs a lot of energy (large mass).
A larger mass will require more energy to accelerate (move) it to a given velocity. But it will move. Even a baby could move the mass of a car, to a very small speed if there is no friction. For example, in space. Or if a fly hit a car, in space, the car would move a very small amount due to this. Both conservation of energy and momentum are at play.Not if you don't have enough energy to overcome the higher mass. In the case of infinite energy, a non infinite mass can be overcome. In the case of a guitar certain frequencies will not have enough energy to overcome that extra mass, so the mass is effectively damping that frequency.
I think that semantics may be the issue here. In this case the semantics are important.I think that we agree on most things, but weather adding mass is damping or not is an argument that i'd have to consult a physics professor on. I'm thinking that much of this may be semantics.
I agree with this one. But in the case of tuners I do think that some people are also better able to hear the differences between them, and some people find the differences more important than others.Sometimes things that have little effect in reality have a large effect psychologically. And that is OK.
The first shock aborbers were not hydraulic and were in fact purely resistive, with one material rubbing against anotherLet's look at car suspension dampers. They don't work by friction! (well, they can, and certainly friction will be involved depending on the design, within the fluid itself, etc).
But they don't convert all the springs movement into heat! Ha!
They change the resonance of the system!
I think that semantics may be the issue here. In this case the semantics are important.
1 technical: A reduction in the amplitude of an oscillation as a result of energy being drained from the system to overcome frictional or other resistive forces.
1.1A mechanism for bringing about damping.
1.2A method of bringing about a reduction in oscillatory peaks in an electric current or voltage using an energy-absorbing or resistance circuit.
An oscillation is damped when the amplitude and mechanical energy of a system gradually decreases to zero as a result of dissipative forces.(air resistance, friction, internal forces)
Amplitude and frequency will be reduced during damping.
Damping is the process whereby energy is taken from the oscillating system.
When there is damping, amplitude decrease and period increase.
The important point is that damping requires the removal of energy from a resonant system. Ultimately the removed mechanical or electrical energy is converted into heat.
Mass loading does NOT remove energy from a system. It may shift the resonant frequency, or may reduce the amplitude of the fundamental resonant frequency and transfer that energy into higher frequency harmonics, but the total amount of mechanical energy is conserved.
Back to my original claims. Changing the mass or a tuner WILL affect the tonal balance to some degree, whether or not it is noticed by most people.
A tuner that is firmly attached to the headstock will reduce the amount of energy lost. A tuner that is NOT firmly attached to the headstock WILL cause a loss of mechanical energy and result in less sustain, whether it is noticeable to most people or not.
I agree with this one. But in the case of tuners I do think that some people are also better able to hear the differences between them, and some people find the differences more important than others.