psw

Well..it's as good a proposal as any. Remember that the Fetzer/Ruby was just someone taking two run off groove 'designs' and mashing them together (G-Mike) without any peer review...and so it became the standard. The noisy cricket is the same thing, jack ormans buffer into a generic data sheet LM386 amp. In my earlier experiments before all that, I was messing with the CHAmp and PreCHamp kits which did much the same thing (although the CHamp...Cheap and Handy Amplifier...used the full high gain specs from the data sheet that this lacks for more stability). The main purpose of the buffer stage is to prevent loading as the LM386 is not designed to take the signals of a straight guitar, and certainly not to have the signals split between the sustainers amp and the guitar amp without degrading both. In earlier work of mine I was using a guitar with a very low powered SC in the bridge of a strat so felt I needed a little more "boost" of a pre-amp over a straight buffer...for a long time I was giving a huge amount of gain into the chip...but really, all I was doing was adding distortion into the mix and have backed right off of that kind of thing for years now. The Fetzer has a little gain, but I am not sure that this is really necessary for most people...if you have an HB in the bridge it probably is plenty of power to work with a buffer like this...a good driver should be sufficient to work fine. There has been a lot of negativity about the LM386, especially in recent times, and derogatory remarks about my supporting the thing. Really, it is a 'standard' for this kind of application and has been for a long time. It is a simple device, but that means it is easy to tweak to our purposes and get creative with the design process of circuits should people wish to. It's still used in the E-bow for instance...it does the job. So, simple, cheap, indestructible, adaptable, works...good enough for me. What I don't like about the fetzer/ruby is the need to bias the transistor with a trim pot, and i suspect this is where some people come unstuck. I don't like the space it takes to do this and the potential for things to go wrong, and the point of the fetzer design anyway (to mimic a valve stage) for this application...so I have never used it...plus the transistor is not common in this country and many others. But the basic idea is sound and this too can work, it really isn't that much different from this. The other thing though is a few mods...the sustainer when working properly puts out a fairly extreme signal. A constant, usually increasing signal...not like the signal that many modern amp chips are designed to deal with. Music tends to stop and start and is has all kinds of his and lows in frequencies and volume...the kind of signal these sustainers things put out can often overheat an amp, you can feel the heat in an LM386, in many chips, the thing simply turns off to protect itself!!! Still, I have never blown an LM386 in all the time I've used them, even soldering them in backwards and applying power supplies to them, or taking them in and out of scrapped circuits So...if you look at the data sheet for high gain applications, the gain set pins between 1 & 8 could benefit from a capacitor (10uF say) with the gain set trim pot (before or after it) for stability...a couple of cents worth, so I'd put it in. The output cap of 220uF is to give a certain amount of bass response. Of course how much you'd like is dependent on the kind of speaker you have. The kind of "tone control" in the noisy cricket is much like that of a guitar...it simply cuts highs. However, the problem many have is poor high string response, or over active bass strings going nuts. A little tweaking of these things can make a big difference in response. So...I tend to use a 100Uf instead of the 220uF on most guitars and this tends to balance things out. I do get a harmonic response on the lower end of the guitar, but I rather like this "mix" of sounds and can control this with a little less drive...or one could I suppose switch in different caps or other circuit tweaks for different effects. As I recall, Al was asking about drivers with adjustable poles and such, others have sought complete hex coils...and there is some merit in these strategies, but not as much as some of these simple circuit tweaks that one would make with an amp design if you could hear it and seems generally to be avoided as the first point of call in addressing these kinds of issues. There are simply not the gains that people imagine by moving magnetic poles up and down for response when they are so close together and interacting. You mention battery consumption...and many seem to be resorting to remote powering of these things. If you use these things continuously for long periods at a time, they are not great with batteries...they are amplifiers often running hard for what they are. Col is looking at ways to make the driver more efficient, and so the system more efficient and that will help a little. But really, they can last a long time with normal use. The beauty of most of these DIY systems, and certainly all of mine, is that the guitar works fine without a battery at all...not so the commercial systems that require the pre-amps and such. My DIY sustainers only use power when the device is on, again, saving a lot of power potentially over the commercial units...so I don't change my battery for months at a time generally. I use an LED indicator which drains a bit of power, but then, it dims when the battery is overworking to show it's potential power...I find it useful, but certainly not necessary. So, the Noisy cricket is a bit of a mash up of the old LM386 and the JO buffer thing....not entirely original or "designed". I was surprised that people didn't by now create more adventurous and less plagiarist solutions for this particular project over all this time. An example there would be Col's remarkable circuit. My early things were essentially tweaking the gains setting resistors and filters in the old pre-champ and other designs and starting out with a complete LM386 data sheet circuit for maximum stability and tweaking the output cap for response. I did try all kinds of alternative chips, and they are out there...but many failed from overheating, not living up to the hopes and claims in this application and generally being hard to get and expensive (not the best for a DIY criteria). I have used opamp preamps with success as FF has done in the most basic form...I found that a discrete circuit with something basic is good enough, cheaper and smaller. I have used higher quality components and SMD's to reduce size say in the tele's circuit...i felt that this was an important thing in line with my 'low mod' criteria. These newer circuits do have a bit of a nod to the AGC thing, but nothing as complex or elegant as Col produced. Generally a filtered and decoupled feedback switch to turn off the signal if it gets too hot letting the string sustain by itself. But, I also have a different "drive" control that never goes to zero and a trim pot to adjust the maximum gain the guitar can take before squealing. The reality though is that this thing switches so fast that it is defeated at high gains and runs as a straight amp, not unlike this proposal, the F/R or any other amp circuit you might choose. So...a noisy cricket, a F/R, FF's op-amp with a different chip...it is all much of a muchness with the basic premise of the normal DIY designs developed in this forum. That is that a sophisticated phase compensated circuit as you will find in the commercial sustainers about, is not really necessary with an appropriate driver design. That's why so much emphasis is put into the driver in this project and that there are things that work well with this premise, and there are some things that might work ok with a circuit that compensates for another's quirks...the kind of things that McSeem and others have proposed. My feeling is, and I have done a lot of work with hex driver and such, is that there is a cycle of diminished returns you can get into. If you want the strings to be sustained, or generate harmonics...well a simple design can do this in a very small package, easily adaptable and with small simple circuits like this surprisingly well. The idea that you can make individual string drivers is all well and good, if you make one, yes you can use different wires and such and run a lot of power into them, I certainly was captivated with this. But then, if you put them side by side they will necessarily interact and take more power and certainly more complex circuitry, perhaps six amps and then of course, a hex signal....the question I ask myself then, is what are the returns for such a complex system. Proposals to house such a thing outside the guitar creates significant problems...a multicore lead for a start, but also...anything attached to the driver, such as the leads....is effectively an extension of the driver coil and will be giving off EMI and lowering efficiency and causing problems. More power to compensate will only increase the EMI and the problems. So, for me at least, things that get this complex or require this much mods really don't seem to hold the promise that many theorize for them...once you start making the things, you soon discover all kinds of drawbacks, even if you can get them to work. And I had all kinds of schemes to overcome them...just adding more complexity...like switching the drive sequentially between each driver so that only one of the six would be operating at any given time....it becomes a little bit of a madness after a while, when the simple works so well. This even applies to the OP's question...adjustable poles...or just make a driver that will work for all strings and adjust the amp to suit the response you are after...far more effective! Separate poles effectively become as one...when bending a string with a pickup you don't really hear a "drop out" between them and my drivers seem to be fine (though no longer hex which is a different thing) with a normal pickup configuration...I just found for custom and compact stand alone drivers, the blade is easier to build, more compact and reliable...and cheaper! Anyway...just a few thoughts at 5am in the morning... edit for spaces deleteded...grrr....

Hmmm...not bad, it has a buffer and an LM386 with a zobel on the tail end. I'd still be trying a 100uF output cap instead of the 220uF (C8) and the switching would likely need to be redesigned for multi pickup guitars. You might delete the 'tone control" and add a 10Uf cap between pins 1 and 8 in series with the "gain pot" to protect against internal isolation. Not sure that the tone would do a lot, might want to leave that out along with the cap (C5) as it is much like a guitars tone anyway. Otherwise, not a bad find...no gain in the preamp so best with a decently strong bridge pickup as the source signal.

That looks good...but I'd like to see some testing and more pre-planning...there are quite a few assumptions and you are working a fair way ahead of things with some undisclosed stuff...a piezo as well, phase switches and such.... Reminds me of this... psw's nightmare strat You don't know the meaning of birds nest . Even with a plan and all the materials plus tested components...this guitar is still waiting to be finished up... I think it is important to get the guitar into a playable condition and start testing things. With multiple pickup guitars and multi-powered systems like piezos, there can be a whole lot of problems and difficult to troubleshoot these things. There generally are a lot of compromises that need to be made with custom switching systems and may even be going into uncharted waters. Generally I have taken the approach with multi-pickup guitars to switch out the entire selector hot and ground and all that are connected to it and then reconnect the bridge pickup when the sustainer and power is switched on. Some custom switching can interfere with the simplicity of things. Anyway...before the guitar turns into a birds nest, introduce each system at a time, perhaps not even drilling or placing switches till you are sure that things work. Don't even get to carried away with pickup covers. Generally you need the sustainer driver as close as possible to the strings...adding a cover does prevent this and sustainiac and fernandes can't do it. I have used SC's with covers, but the poles do stick through...it may well work ok with plastic covers...but a different plan may be required. For instance, two sc next to each other can look like an HB and mount in a similar way...you can cut of the dogg ears and mount them both on a plate and mount as per the original HB as a single unit. Otherwise, nothing yet that can't work. I'm looking forward to seeing the circuit built and the driver tested. You might want to test the system on a different guitar that's all wired up...just take a line from the HB and hold the driver above the strings up the neck. Also, good idea to test the circuit with a small 8ohm speaker to ensure it is working as an amp and reasonably quiet and clean...with a driver of course you should hear nothing, so it is good to know the thing works!

I had a set given me for the acoustic once...i got a second at first impressed, but no longer. There is a coating that makes them last longer, but the coating itself is subject o wear and mine started shredding around the frets. Yes, you are grounding you...the turns in the tuning posts will make some contact as will the ball ends but the strings themselves will be insulated...so the bridge and tuners will be grounded. No real mystery. However, an interesting design fault. And, the cost of these things, probably better to just change strings more often. I wonder if bass players have this problem with cloth wound strings?

Ok...excellent plan... Having the guitar working, with an eye to the sustainer thing and able to test the thing on the working guitar helps a lot and the best way to proceed Potentially you could fit the sustainer in the neck and another single coil or compact HB beside it like sustainiac advocate. If you were to make a single coil pickup driver, you could even put another single coil beside it potentially...plenty of options. Room to build HB style drivers like FF and Col use down the track as well...so all good! Just remember with these extra pickups on the guitar you will need something like a 4pdt switch to take them out of circuit when the sustainer is on. You can test the device though holding the driver far away from the pickups generally...

I got a thing for yellow Still...my guitar is blue...I do have a yellow one in the works though I kind of like the normal finish on these things, I think they are a bit textured like the LSR and so could take paint. Maybe get some model paint for instance...if in a hurry, nail varnish can often be effective...it works on nails for a start and can be fixed in a jiffy if chips...comes with it's own brush. I would be extremely careful with keeping the rollers and slots clear...use PVC tape on it to see if it really is the look you want...the nut matches the frets. I would also just paint the one you have and already modified successfully for the thicker strings. Bronze strings were never meant for electric guitar...it can work (people put mag pickups into acoustics) but the pickups only sense the cores of the strings, not the non-magnetic outer wrappings. Jeff beck has used these nuts for years on his signature strats and is certainly not known for super light strings. How think his bass strings are I don't know. The newer LSR's I use with 10-46 no problem...but an unwound third. Most probably consider this a medium gauge these days, especially on the longer scale of a strat. But perhaps the wound third and bronze strings are your signature sound. My guitars, particularly the tele I play these days, people might have trouble with. The action is higher than most would like it and the strings pretty tight....but that's what I need for the kind of rhythm guitar I play which is the bread and butter. It certainly isn't a fast guitar, but light strings and low action just won't get the sound and feel I need. With lead playing, it makes you work and that is not always a bad thing...horses for courses! I use the kind of strings you use on my acoustic I guess...10-52 I think with a wound third. Bending the G string accurately in standard tuning is a tricky and dangerous business (you can break them) so I avoid that kind of thing. If you want that bendability you might consider lightening up a touch. Not sure what these "official sites" are, but I have no problems with 10's...it has been for years the standard gauge and I doubt anyone would make a product that prohibits the use of such strings. They might string them up in the factory with super lights, but real players tend to go heavier. Which reminds me, if you do change gauges, you will need to redo the intonation of course. Oh...I don't know if the LSR's come in black, but mine have always come with a black plasitc adaptor to replace these older style wilkonsons. good luck with it.

This Thread is for sustainer sounds..if you ahve a working successful sustainer, this thread is a place to link to sound files. There are many threads here at PG that cover peoples projects...the reference section covers a tutorial and there is a pictorial there also of one of my drivers being wound to demo that process. My telecaster for instance has it's own thread with plenty of pics. There is also the huge Sustainer thread itself at the top of the electronic section and many ongoing and old threads. There is quite a bit of content off PG as well that can be useful. Some are guarded about some circuits...some of mine are because of potential commercialization. However, workable circuits like the Fetzer/Ruby proposed by G-Mike have been successful and mods to bring it up to the specs I use have been posted. Col has shown an fantastic circuit in detail with 4 modes and many innovations...and there are others floating around. However, the crucial part is still the driver, it's construction and a successful installation...this takes quite a bit of understanding about the project. It is always best to test these things outside of the guitar before any modification or installation is contemplated. It is not a hard project, but assumptions can be fatal to success. Anyway...questions about the sustainer can be asked in the electronics section, preferably in a thread for you project. Thank you

Common, it's a shitty thick wire that you can buy in Radioshak. You need at least 36AWG, but never 30! So it goes... Umm..what does that mean? 36AWG is about 0.13mm...such wire is completely unsuitable for the design described, and yes it has been tested and discussed many times. Please do not muddy things with advice until you have a proven working design. The wire is that gauge (0.2mm) for a reason, it is not "shitty" but the appropriate gauge to generate the EMF required and make a coil proven to work in this format with this kind of circuitry. Wires of all gauges were tested by me in the design process...many have tried others and in different designs. Interestingly, the last year people have been advocating for thicker, not thinner wire for these things. My specs apply to this design and have been proven over and again. Deviations have repeatedly caused problems. You may have appropriate results with such wire on a single string driver, but it is certainly not appropriate for a driver of this dimension and type. You will hardly get many turns for a start with wire that thin on a coil of 8 ohms on a pickup bobbin...and so it goes!

Oh no....the sustainer driver will not work in the middle like that...way too close to the source/bridge pickup...or are you just adding a middle pickup as on a strat? It helps to know the complete project to give advice as middle position sustainers ahve been an ongoing and not achieved goal for quite a while...certainly it will not work with the simple design...but the last I tried was a single coil siz, dual coil and heavily magnetically shielded and all i could do to stop EMI...even did another bi-lateral design...but still not satisfactory. I did also get enough of a tast to know that I was not that keen of the results that might come of it. On a twin HB guitar, if might be best to adapt a HB or install an compact HB or SC next to your driver up in the neck position... For switching on multi pickup guitars...I use a 4pdt but if you get to adventurous with the wiring of the standard guitar, it can be tricky. I have one that I will be getting back into...an HSS strat with lots of fancy wiring and the wafer coil driver pickup design...but I have put it aside because of the complexity of getting this kind of switching right. With multiple pickup guitars, you tend to need to completely disconnect both ends of all pickups, switch in the bridge and turn on the circuit. The easiest way is to take out the whole selector. It is likely possible with a real super switch (4p5t) to have the sustainer on in one of the positions as a discrete option...then perhaps a push pull for the harmonic switch on one of the pots. A lot of people also liked the idea of a set and forget internal trim pot arrangement...with the basic circuits this can be the best way to go perhaps...I certainly favoured it for quite a while. ... I'm not sure where you are thinking with this, but an awlful lot of this kind of thing has been discussed and tried...for quite a while I hoped for a 'sustainer box' that sat behind the bridge with everything inside but the driver...so extremely low mod...and there were prototypes made. Conceivably you can make the driver and circuit into an HB cavity. My tele has the circuit under the HB in the bridge and even fitted the battery and controls into a completely unmodified tele cavity...perhaps the smallest of any guitar....but it was tight. You may be underestimating the amount of mods required...but for sure it is kind of a neat idea. I had plans drawn up for a driver so small as to fit into an HB pickup ring!!! These things do tend to stretch the DIY component of the project and the design stuff...plus once that far, you would need to be looking at something a little more sophisticated than a F/R. Still, this does tend to be the nature of the project. I always advise to build things and test them before modifying any guitar though. Generally you want a working guitar, hook up the driver and circuit, hold the driver above the fretboard well away from all pickups...and be sure that it works...a good installation is important but only possible if the thing works anyway. Trouble shooting on a complete installation is a nightmare, especially if not done these things before...I still test mine before going too far...you can never be too sure. But otherwise, as I said previously, the driver plans look very good...from those switches, you should be fine...my original with two toggles was the easiest to operate in many ways and with the basic circuit rarely if ever used the intensity control. My tele circuit is a little different so that control has a slightly different function and is invaluable...but with basic stuff, you can get by without it. I may of course not quite got the jist of what you are attempting, so forget that if the SC in the middle is a pickup and not a driver...that pickup will still need to be dealt with in the installation...very much like a strat and I ahve a wiring diagram somewhere that can handle it!

microphonics would be NIL! The sustainiac driver sounds really quite good as a single coil...nothing super special but certainly doesn't sound "cheap" for what it is...I was surprised. Who knows, with that kind of format you might have something really cool sounding and useful. For me and my purposes, I have avoided the need for active electronics...but that is my choice of course... Very well said, it is very personal...many of my things may not be that repeatable by others, but something that works functionally the same and maybe looks better is entirely possible. A few people have made single string drivers. My first was on page two and worked amazingly well...with a tiny neo-mag on a 10cm coil bobbin-ed in paper and a ferrite bead as a core...about 4mm deep. However, getting six of them right next to each other, side by side...there is going to be interaction and all kinds of quirky effects as anyone who has tried it discovers...be prepared for the unexpected (and to have theories dashed) It is interesting to see FF's hex driver, I ahd not known about that...in part because clearly it is well made and the kind of thing many envision...the one that is in the guitar is in fact a more conventional format. It is not then that people don't think of or try such things, it is because perhaps that a more standard format can work surprisingly well with less effort and disadvantageous quirks...and there are some major hurdles iwth such schemes that have yet to be, or perhaps are near impossible to solved. Nice work FF and good statements...

Hey Conner...looks like a winner project and you seem to have the arts and crafty side of things down that many come unstuck on for making a driver. Quicte a few have been made with this kind of construction and it has shown to be the best chance for success. Here is one made by Banika, the developer of DIY Layout Creator that might give you some inspirations... http://diy-fever.com/misc/diy-sustainer/ You may be familiar with him from the Aron's DIY stompbox forums. So, I've found that 3mm space to wind the bobbin is plenty of room to wind to the 8ohm resistance you are shooting for. The magnets in the old pickup will be perfect so you have all you need for the bobbin and the magnets to make something that looks professional. copy the process in this tutorial...pictoral of sustainer driver winding...and you could have the job finished in half an hour. The key is to be prepared...You do need to pot the thing well, I used PVA or white wood glue as this is water based, safe, easy to clean, and reversible (should you want to strip it off and wind a new one on the same bobbin and magnets. I'd avoid superglue and other suggestions. Although it does not set solid like epoxy, it has it's advantages and will adequately dampen any internal vibration that might occur. On your particular bobbin...I would be winding tape over the poles in the winding space...this will help stray wires not get pushed between the magnet poles, protect them more against corrosion, etc and keep the glue potting in the wires and not pushed into the centre of the structure. I'd also block the bottom a bit more solidly...perhaps some cardboard spacers. The reason is that there is a lot of pressure in a well wound coil and this will deflect the spacing bobbin you have made if not secure...glue is typically not enough. See in the pictorial I had to use clamps and such to hole everything in place on that one due to thin bobbins and a lot of pressure. Again, I was prepared for it in advance and everything was cool. Also, have the multimeter and wire stripping things handy, paper towels for the glue, have PVC tape all ready (I cut some in 3mm strips ready to bind the driver tight when finished winding). Get some Popsicle sticks or something ready to push in the sides which tend to bulge and perhaps something to clamp the sides in while it sets at the end. For extra "bling" points...indicator LED's can be mounted between the magent poles should you desire...perhaps leave that for a future mod once successful. The F/R can do with some mods. I've posted them a few times. I personally like the sound and had best balance on most guitars by using a 100uF output cap. Also, a 10uF in series between pins 1-8 of the LM386 helps stabilize potential oscillation in the circuit. I also have used a 10uF from 7 to ground instead of the small cap shown. These are the main mods, if wanting an indicator LED you might want to add the resistor to power it onto the board as well. I have not used the F/R...generally though I've seen circuits like this use a 10K pot for the "volume" and most would use this as the "intensity" control. The "gain" can simply be a 1K trimmer and adjusted to suit the guitar and overall effect desired. I trim my circuits to just below the squealing point' so that I have the widest dynamic range. For the installation...I have shown 4pdt toggle switch wiring for multi pickup guitars. If there is only a bridge pickup, you only need to turn the power on with any switch. The harmonic switch is a dpdt phase switch to reverse the driver wires to the driver. This could be accomplished with a push pull pot or a basic toggle. Your guitar seems ideal for space...fairly big and accessible for the battery and circuit and controls I'd say in there. Access to the battery is important, but that looks like it should be fine. ... So, it looks like you are all set and definitely on the right track. Hopefully you will be able to demonstrate that with a little care and attention to detail it can work out well and be an inspiration to others. This project can get you hooked, but getting something that works in a basic design can really help before going off on 'tangents' however valid. You will get to see why this works and maybe reach for something better. With stompbox experience you may improve circuitry, you may choose to do a more elaborate driver, may wish to do some kind of pickup and driver combo...one cool thing is that if you have a working driver, you could just replace the circuit say, or a working circuit, just the driver...so experiment in a modular fashion. There is no "can't" but there are limitations to what can be done. Building something that works will certaibnly help as too often people start with their own ideas to find that they hit some of these walls or start blaming the instrument of the design rather than seeing why some things really don't work so well. Looking forward to seeing your progress...looks like a winner!

If you break the formula with different gauge wire, and you don't get the expected results form the standard design, expect to be asked why. That other site had plenty of the correct size for less. These things can matter...it is like building a circuit, say it calls for 1K ohm...but you can get 1ohm easier...would you expect that to work in the same way? With the wire and coil design you are making a critical part of this project...this wire gauge was tested with this kind of driver type to provide the appropriate resonance and inductance and qualities to work on all strings. You would likely get some response, might even work...but except for winding sustainer coils, what else would you need the stuff for? So, from past experience with these things and many threads on the subject...including Mike-G's tutorial which used the wrong gauge and had trouble with the high strings, I personally think the tried and proven method is best. What was wrong with the last link, at least it specified the standard used in mm's so you know what you are getting for cheaper as I recall. If it doesn't work you will of course be immediately told to try and do it to the formula and see if that works. You have not mentioned circuits either...so if ordering things online...you should probably start that thread and be sure that you have the components to update the F/R and other things. As I say, have a plan, have it checked...then order

Well...are you making a standard kind of basic sustainer? If so, most have found the easiest to block up the bottom of a single coil pickups stripped of wire...especially if this is the kind of pickup being replaced. Still need glue potting, but at least the bobbin and mounting and magnets are taken care of. Any cheap pickup will do, but the wire will have to be stripped out of it...maybe a local shop might give you one that's damaged. There should be stuff about this around, there is a tutorial somewhere of sorts and the DIY layout creator site...

Likely the problem is not with the circuit by the sounds of it. Some typical installation problems...have you ensured that the neck pickup is entirely disconnected or removed and any other coils. Exactly what you have done, driver and circuit details would help...pictures are a must with the language problem. But, most unlikely that it is the circuit with the symptoms described.

ah! im so dumb! so like this wire? clicky click and dont worry, i plan to be making more than one! Thanks Rip Ah...see...if you look at the size chart...0.2mm wire is actually 32 gauge wire from that supplier...and comes in a better sized roll it would seem than 30 gauge, which is not 0.2mm. See the pitfalls! Now, again....all these things can happen with choices of core or design of things...this wire for instance is based on my designs typically, though many have used it. However, there is nothing "magical" about this wire as some have suggested over the years...it creates the right kind of coil for my designs, if you plan on deviating from that, well...that's a completely different story and potentially wire gauge! I'd suggest being completely open with your plans materials and circuitry and create a thread to keep it all together before and during proceeding with things to avoid disappointment. It really isn't hard though with due care and preparation and following the suggested method...don't go out on a limb with different potting methods and such and then wonder why it doesn't work. If you are interested in further experiment, I'd suggest making something that is known to work to the letter, before deviating at all. The easiest one would be to build it out of a blocked single coil bobbin and magnet structure for instance and many have been made without problems with this format. It should be noted that on my driver tutorial, the exact same thing was made the week before without the pickup and fully tested with circuit, guitar and everything before reproduced on top of the pickup itself. That original stand alone design really has stood the test of time. The original which was made of cardboard still works...the almost identical thing developed into the sustainer I now use on my tele...if you are not familiar with that version, you might want to see this thread... blueteleful telecaster project However, i would not attempt this kind of bobbin-less epoxy construction till you have a lot of experience. The essential elements are identical though, the 3mm steel core was even cut from the same piece!

Being in australia, and not knowing where you are. What you are looking for is "enameled" insulated wire, sometimes called "magnet wire"... Someone else may be able to give you a pointer as to a supplier online perhaps. You don't need a huge roll of the stuff, but you should get enough to make a few till you get it right. Also, be very careful with the gauge thing, "american standard gauge" is different from others and things can get confused. That's why I talk in terms of 0.2mm for my designs typically...so an actual measurable size, rather than a confusing "standard". Is 30 gauge 0.2mm, I really can't say...it may not be say in asia where the wire was made, or europe where it was distributed from...you see the problem? Also, if attempting this, be sure that you really understand the necessary steps and important components. Things like potting in glue and measuring the coil resistance and such are crucial. The potting seems to be where so many come unstuck for some reason. Also, the bobbins and core materials and such, if varying from known working designs, best to start a thread with all your project ideas outlined plus pictures of progress before you do things. And...I always advise and generally even do with known working designs and circuits...test everything. SO, test that the circuit works as a decent amp without problems with a speaker...test the system holding the driver over the strings away from all pickups...test and test again... Do all this before getting to far ahead with things like installation or planning switches and such. Again, time and time again people get too far ahead of themselves with these things. Quite a few people have successfully completed this project without problems, but so many seem to report errors that are clearly not those of the design or the guitar. It is not so hard a project, but it draws on many skills...circuit making, guitar wiring, troubleshooting, bobbin construction, material selection...and a bit of practice and so failings in things like winding drivers. There are no "short cuts" either in much of this...not potting a coil will doom it for instance, having a circuit that is noisy or faulty or unstable will never work, thinking you can get by without a buffer, or substituting or adding parts in the hope that things will work is hardly likely to succeed. Also note that there are many versions of these things...be sure that you have compatible ideas and are up to date. The F/R circuit was proposed many years ago, has shown some validity for the application, is not ideal however and many mods to stabilize it and improve it have been posted. Otherwise, good luck...see the tutorials on winding drivers and the sustainer project generally and make sure that you are up to speed on all this before you start out...it can be a very tricky thing for some...so beware, but good luck

In the post above I indicated that this was exactly the kind of way my hex drivers worked...although not with so many coils but with balanced magnetic fields. A mono sustainer will attempt to drive all the strings simultaneously. The lower ones or the resonant ones will often win out over time. The thing is that if all the coils or magnets are linked by their interaction with one another, there are limitations to what you expect from these things. Combine them with the quirks as both FF and I describe and you are not getting more, but restrictions to performance. These thins will become clear with experimentation... So...yes, the effect is much as you describe in some of my work, I am not aware of others that have tried this path...moog, maybe...but still a big maybe I suspect. I think you will find the "metal sticks" are the bobbin tops of each coil. Also, getting an optimum drive force and action in such a small space for each string may well be a problem. I had to find a way to make such things without winding coils at all to get these things so small... There is an incredible amount of information now available again on all of these things really... This kind of stuff must be pretty early in the main thread as I found these pics on my earliest page in my photobucket account. You can see them dated around 2004... In fact, this is the first pic loaded into the account... which is much like the kind of thing you are describing. I did build these kinds of things btw, and that is where the work really is, where the rubber hits the road. Speculating won't get the answers you seek about the possibility or practicality of such ideas. I can only explain what I have tried and some of the failings in them, but if committed to the concept, the only way forward really is to try them for yourself!

Oh...it's not a criticism not to have a neck pickup. Very few of the sustainer people seem to have a problem with this set up...for me, the sustainer is an addition to the instrument and loosing the neck pickup or having to use a particular or active pickup breaks my criteria for success. Similar with hex pickups and such...really once you start modifying the guitar and signal to this degree, i'd be considering a different interface and technology. That driver looks again, extremely neat FF. My drivers have never really been used as a pickup...they will "pickup" but they would need a lot of preamping to bring it up to spec and not sure that I'd get a good sound (compared to a good passive pickup...though sustainiacs can sound fine) out of them. My suggestion over theorizing to deeply or postulating about what might be required or work is to build some stuff, even crude experiments that will prove your hypothesis. I think that there is enough evidence about to show that you may be a little misguided on some aspects, and not entirely clear about some of the problems you will be encountering in such an endeavor. I don't recall seeing that Hex driver thing FF...again very neat. The 'problems' you describe existed for me as well...but then I got really tricky with these 2D concepts and such...and really, all you introduce is more quirks...and the whole thing interacts with each other anyway. You will find plenty in normal sustainers in reaching the goals you seem to be looking towards, I'd suggest making something like me or col of FF or some of the others that have succeeded as a starting point. Of course people have looked towards hex things, but few have continued to pursue it and those that have did not find the rewards you might expect. The goals are still not clear either...is there something you expect from such an expensive complicated system that a conventional sustainer wouldn't produce? Otherwise, it seems you have not yet hit the search button and seen that for the last year the main thread had disappeared and almost every thread has been closed down in recent time. As a result also, you have missed out on all the kinds of variations and discussions on the subject that have already taken place and even experimented with. Before delving in too deep, perhaps it would be worth while digging into this vast amount of material for some answers, and finding some of your own through experimenting and reporting back. All this is really largely speculation with moving goal posts, the tail end of the thread, some deleted, went heavily into such proposals with the end result something a virtual copy of what had come before. All the same discussions about digital processing to compensate and 'natural vibration' theories and such were hashed till the thread imploded, and most subsequent ones as well. It has come up time and again over the years as well, but nothing so far has come of it for all the work and talk that has transpired. Largely I feel, because these discussions never are fulfilled by actual work being conducted and almost everything based on supposition and assumptions. Such plans are enormous, they have to be taken in smaller steps...but the thing that has often been lacking is taking those small steps to the point of demonstrating conclusively anything much. But in the end, these things will sound as you choose to make them sound. There are limitations to what you can make a metal string do in the real world...and once you introduce digital stuff (not midi, but modeling and processing even) there is so much more you can do. If you read some of the early stuff and the hex era, you can see that I too felt that there was some potential that was perhaps more than physically possible...building things, setting real goals, working to them, that's what kept me on track. Oh...and plenty on D class amps...a lot of amps are not really designed or suited to this application. That there are caps or basic blocks of amps can be an advantage in tweaking these things anyway. The signal from a guitar string in feedback loop should not be underestimated compared to music for which these things re designed. A constantly sustained string outs out a heap of constant signal at a high level, noise and distortion do matter to a degree...any processing, especially digital conversions is going to introduce phase lag...the more complex, the more things that need to be compensated for. The reality is that many modern chips are not designed for such signals and will simply go into hibernation to protect themselves. Sure, there are alternatives, many have been discussed and explored...but don't be fooled by specs or assumptions about how these things will work in practice. I still use the old LM386 (I have my own criteria to work from) but tried many others and potentially "better" circuits that have failed on other grounds. Some have advocated chips, despite having discovered the same problems that I encountered with them...overheating and shut down, but instead have chosen to ignore these major faults. The reality is that you do not want a lot of power...more power generally leads to more problems. This is particularly true with hex systems. More power will out out more EMI and interactions between drivers...less power of course helps. So, the direction and goals of say Col are extremely admirable and of benefit to the ambitions of someone like yourself McS. A 40% increase in efficiency would be an amazing boon to anyone interested in this technology. For some it will simply be battery consumption...for others it will be the technical advantage of clean headroom...for people with loft ambitions, it will be crucial to something like a hex design, or better polyphonic drive, or whatever the succinct ambitions turn out to be. For the work, goals and ambitions of myself, I'd have to be able to find a means to exploit such advances should they happen, in line with and compared to what I can already do with the more basic forms and simple approaches. I suspect it would be a tall order for me. That said though...I still have an interest and possibly even some things in mind post this move that starts today. The idea of a tapping instrument that has it's strings activated by a sustainer really appeals...to do this really well...a more polyphonic multi amped driver likely is the way to go...but then, I wouldn't be trying to force it all into a un-modded telecaster control cavity like the last one!

Far too much power there....you clearly have some major problems with the circuits you have tried and this is likely to continue...perhaps you could find someone with more experience in these things to get it going properly. If you put 20 watts into the thing you will not only get hummming, but quite likely melt the driver. The reality seems to be that it has some major problems and I don't think the logical conclusion is that the guitar is cursed. Not sure what "power glue" is. If it is "super glue" I would avoid it completely. Same with fast epoxies. The wood glue method was recommended by me and extensively tested as being safe, easy, reversible and effective. Even though it won't set "solid" like a proper epoxy coil (which is specialized, thin, slow acting stuff and expensive) and be self supporting...the wood glue method will gap fill and set enough to be very effective as a damping material if the instructions are followed. That means, pushing the sides in occasionally so that the coil has minimum gaps, and that the whole thing is taped tight, clamped and given a long time to "set". Otherwise, I think the main problem is that your circuit seems to be having trouble even with a speaker...so it is not going to work with the higher demands of a sustainer. The mods suggested, caps to stabilize a LM386 circuit, the lower output cap and such will work. For testing purposes, most stomp boxes have an active buffer...any boss box will have one even when off...and this can be used as a buffer to an LM386 circuit. AC powered sustainers are a very bad idea IMHO. You have to realize that a coil of wire with 20 watts into it is effectively a bar radiator = heater...see the first post of the sustainer thread...these things can get seriously hot, just before they literally melt! So...it's not the guitar...post some pics and some real details. I don't know what the buffer FF offered was, so I can't comment...but any number of things may have gone or are wrong with your circuit and potentially the newer driver is ok, it just isn't getting an appropriate signal. This kind of "it doesn't work" posts are exactly the things that others latch on to and then suggest that the design is at fault. This clearly isn't the case, but it has come up a lot lately, over at another forum as well, and it seems to stem a lot from simply not following the design or bad workmanship to an overwhelming degree. The best thing is to completely show exactly what you are doing...the driver, the guitar, the circuit and the diagrams you are following. Don't think that the guitar is cursed or fall for the more power will fix all ills approach, it only ever makes things worse!

Piezoelectric saddles are a good way to go, ghost systems have really good reports. These things cost and it isn't just a pickup either. The benefits of the ghost thing also is you are gettiing a top line electro-acoustic sound also. What is it that you want to do with it? Other alternatives are things like a roland GK pickup controller...these seem to come up second hand, they are magnetic hex pickups like a strip that fit just in front of the bridge. You may need a midi interface of course and there can be all kinds of latency issues. Making these things seem to be pretty much out of the question, so I'd abandon looking at that avenue personally. For much less of course you could get a keyboard to input midi data and generally a more practical and reliable method. Non-response generally means there is no answer to questions like these and not quite enough detail....especially when it just comes down to a price without details of the guitar you want it on, or how you plan to use the things...

I'm not sure about that...but one wonders why? for far less hassle than you can make a sustainer you could just put a mute on the bridge like the old fender jazz and/or jags used to have...quite simple. For bonus points...have you ever bent a paperclip so that it just touches the string a little in front of the bridge saddle just right...a very convincing sitar effect. My old guitar teacher did a TV add once and showed us how he got the sound he used...threaded tin foil between the strings near the bridge for an faux banjo effect. All of these strategies are easier and get better results than a reversed sustainer could do. There is of course technique...the exact same thing can be produced with damping with palm, fretted fingers and spare picking hand fingers. These things are honed to a high degree with great slide players, but are fairly crucial for sustainer or just very loud guitar playing. With practice you can get a damped muted like sound with no mods at all! on an "effect box" application...I bought but have yet to make it, some kit called a "twanger" or something. Basically, has a half wave rectified preamp (so you only get the top or bottom of the wave through)...not quite damping, but it does produce a sound a little reminiscent of a resonator guitar in a pedal. Occasionally I have produced the effect with some experimental drivers, but more unwanted fluke than design. In general, reversing the polarity creates the harmonic effect. If power is not a consideration, a really strong pull on the strings by magnetic force would likely cause something like this effect and likely how moog do it with a hex driver and pickups...but I am very wary of moog claims. I have yet to find anyone that has played one, the clips are all hype, and there appears to be a lot unsaid about real performance. There is no technical data available so it is impossible at this stage to know...but I do suspect that the "mute" thing largely is a product of a magnetic dampening action for that "banjo" like effect. I am led to believe that in one mode, possibly the more effective mode, the hex drivers work effectively as one and so very similar to conventional sustainer performance. But as I say, haven't seen one and at the cost of the things, likely never will!

I used multiple magnet arrays in the Hex drivers to do essentially the kind of thing you are suggesting there...but there are some very unwanted side effects of this...alignment is crucial and bending strings unless it is mounted at the bridge is going to make these things worse. These are the reasons I put aside these things because a long with driver interaction anyway, the devices were complex to make, a little expensive and had too many unexpected problems. Instead of multiple coils though, I used multiple magnet arrays exploiting the properties of rare earth magnets, but not pointing them at the strings and creating this so called "balanced field". The "coil" then only had to upset the 'balance' between permanent magnets to achieve just such a more 'natural' drive motion. However, these ideas I used to obsess about early on...but once you make these things, hear the effect, see the problems and the expense and frustration building them...you realize that the expected bonuses are not there. They do not sound more musical or anything in reality. ... Col, me and others put up a lot of designs way back with notions similar to what Col is pursuing now. The resource is again open to see a lot of this stuff, for those that really want to get into these things. I certainly liked the idea and tried to do this with the Hex things...but alas...happy to hand it over. Yes, I do. I'd assumed that they would be calibrated differently in that way. Everyone has different approaches and this could well be a way forward. I already suspect that some of my devices are more efficient in many practical ways than the commercial units...things like battery consumption for instance and the amount of power these SC are capable of delivering to the string if wanted. I'm still not convinced for the need for dual coils...but there may be worthwhile aspects. I did notice a drop in bending strings between the two coils, but it isn't that bad...nothing like the sensitive and quirky hex drivers which have those effects on every string! One of the last new designs I tried working on was a bilateral compact driver with internal magnets on a cheap telecaster...again, following the mid driver thing...ease of installation, choice of pickups, etc... It wasn't a huge success I must say, but the design was a little compromised by the space requirements and ambitious in it's scope. It worked enough for me to discover that I didn't like it though!!! The use of internal ceramic magnets in the core, as you earlier pointed out possibly compromised the design too much anyway...bad choice though Tim/onelastgoodbye made one that seemed to be good in a conventional SC format...had a big influence on my designs and approaches to construction. The only thing that might tempt me back into dual coil drivers might be wafer coils on an HB pickup conversion...but that would be a long way off if ever. I still have the feeling that you don't necessarily have to go the different wire gauges and such, more could be done with a stereo amp with different tonal outputs optimized for the string sets perhaps...that was more the way I would probably have proceeded, but then perhaps I wouldn't have got the efficiency you are shooting for. Just as a note to my work, I almost always used a 100uF output cap on a LM386 circuit. One of the beauties of these simple circuits is what you can play around with so easily. ... This is very much how the aborted Gibson bridge pickup system worked, might want to dig around the patents. Not as "good" as one might have hoped for 'on paper' I suspect. No offense, but this sounds like an absolute nightmare!!! Also, while if may "seem" to be a problem, in practice you will find that it is not...at least with most conventional driver schemes. Remember, I tend to use a single 3mm steel core across all strings or 5mm alnico poles and I do not have the "problems" you are suggesting. The reality is that there should not be dead or hyperactive spots...the drive even with a core this small works over a wider area than a single point in the string, so it is not that effected by nodes and antinodes. One might consider in this regard that when reversing the device, you generate harmonics, not stop the string as you might expect... The idea that you need a tremendous number of coils seems naive to me. Now, Col I can see is working towards more efficiency...these are real tangible goals that would provide benefits. More efficiency means less power required, less power, less EMI problems, less battery drain, cleaner headroom. The difference I sense is that many approach this thing with a sense of there being a "perfect" sustainer" or a "natural order of things" in relation to string vibration that must be preserved. This, even in the face of modeling and effects that are there to create musical effect that a good sustainer may well create organically by it's particular application, design or intention. The end result is more and more complexity that brings more problems and in the end, is it actually better, if so, how? The fact is that a very low mod, small cheap and effective device can be created that can sustain a string, control in that envelope and decay, as well as create harmonics and controlled feedback. Will you gain more from a complex system of coils and such. When working in these areas it can be easy to get lost in things if the goals are not clearly stated. So, I have often asked and know from the past that Col has such goals and that they make sense. I personally feel that in general, such a system would in some ways contravene my goals these things, so am not so keen for myself. I'd find it hard to make an effective system with dual coils or significant changes in design to work in as compact and versatile format as the kinds of things I have developed. I have had problems with such designs in the past and find them far more tricky to make and develop. So, I'd personally have to see efficiencies of the proposed 40% to take them seriously for myself and my own goals. Bear in mind though, that I insist on low mods and no compromise of the instrument...I need that neck pickup and the guitar to completely function as it had. Now, if such a device is so big as to take up the space of the neck pickup...as the commercial units all do...then that alone would compromise things too much. Lets face it, if I am getting days and even months of occasional use of the device and not compromising the guitar in any other way...even remarkably more efficient power consumption (and the commercial units do not achieve this even with their D-class amps and such) would be less convincing when the only cost is a few more battery changes. This may in some ways explain a part of my "attitude" in recent times. A lot of proposals seem to lack stated goals, are based on suppositions of problems that are not borne out in practice, are extremely complex and in large part unproven. I realized that I was doing this myself with the Hex devices, regardless of how "clever" they really had become. If such devices as Hex systems are really that "better" what are the costs and promises they really hold? Is it a more polyphonic response perhaps that is dreamed of here? But, to really work you are going to have to have true hex pickups, perhaps not be able to use mag pickups at all...well, there is the Variax...but there are digital ways of achieving all this and more without such a device at all...since the guitar is already modeled completely...has to make you wonder. There is a use for it, if it is accepted that such a device may have a character of it's own...but then that makes something of a nonsense of the "pure vibration" notions that keep getting thrown about. The electronics and power required to run such things is already enough to put most people off alone. People just don't want a battery in a guitar, they certainly don't want to ahve to plug it into a wall socket without significant benefits. The Variax sought to provide so much, that people would take that on board...but it has not scratched the acceptance of conventional electric guitars in the market for all that. I personally see a lot to offer in this kind of technology, especially in the right hands...but then If I were that way inclined, I'd be looking at digital solutions rather than electromagnetic mechanical things like a sustainer which are extremely primitive in comparison no matter how far they are developed. ... Just some thoughts...best to actually make some scratch devices of some of these ideas rather than debate them, and experience the problems and potential solutions you can come up with. But first, I think that a clear statement of goals and criteria are set out without assumptions of how successful devices can work. The reality is that many goals may already have been achieved. I can see where Col is heading for instance, my goals have always been explicitly stated...not sure why FF needed to go the dual coil route and more power on that kind of single pickup guitar to get that effect, but it looks neat. I actually suspect that the dual coil bigger sustainer 'sound' a little different and may need slightly different circuit tweaking for best results. Col is more of an expert in that regard as my work has been more of a comparative nature. ... I think the resonance frequencies of coils and devices are as crucial as the inductance and efficiency angles, so good to see it mentioned. I did try and measure mine but again, it is a tricky process. ... As there is still an apparent interest in these things and general discussion. I am considering being more active in sustainerland myself after the house move I am doing this weekend. I have even been considering a new format and perhaps new home for such things if people are interested. While 'the island' isn't the most electronics friendly as far as supply, I may well reactivate things like my circuitry and wafer coils for instance. I have at least one guitar in the works which addresses controls and shows the effectiveness of the wafer coil design (that is fully tested) and on a different kind of guitar to something like the Tele. In discussions elsewhere, a number of other ideas of interest have also emerged. For instance, an electromagnetic version of a tapping instrument somewhat like "the stick" is formulating as well as a fretless that has been in the works for some time. If plans for recording and performance in the new year pan out a bit, such instruments and applications of the electromagnetic excitation of strings and more elaborate approaches may well be on the cards in my neck of the woods. I have to say that the choice of user name of McSeem is a little unseemly in the context of the last year...is that the best you could come up with to join sustainer discussions? Each to their own of course, but for me it colors my responses with unneeded caution, especially in view of the ambitions you are stating. Otherwise, although long, a lot of this kind of things was discussed in the Hex era in the early part of the thread, very difficult to repeat it after all these years

All good... Are those easy lock the two hole thingies? I used to string up like this without the two holes, but staggered heights are good. On my tele and my strat (both squiers) I switched to real fender locking staggered schallers i think they are (have the fender F on the bak of the wheel) and have been very impressed. I bought a set though for my new LP project but that will have a locking nut so tuner quality isn't important, but then it has a khaler on it so fine tuners are not a problem. That tele has also a khaler so, it needs the locking tuners and LSR but has remarkable tuning stability. Really, if you don't go nuts with a trem, even a standard strat can be set up to work fine. I thought that the style you have may still be available as Jeff Beck used them long over they were superseded by the newer LSRs and may still do. My strat has a normal nut and stays in tune well with a standard trem. Not keen on floyds at all and way to much hassle, wouldn't really suit your heavy gauge strings either I suspect. ... Good for you for picking a string set that makes the sound you want. Bronze wound strings are a bit weird with magnetic pickups (the bronze wrap is not magnetic) but if they make the sound you like. I have a mag pickup I used to put in an old acoustic with a similar set and it made the best blues sound...glad you reminded me...I might have a use for that combo in the near future. I have some sets of 10-52's that I wanted to switch too...unwound third though and nickel, but they simply wont fit in the kahlers or work properly. I had kind of hoped to put them in the LP perhaps and lower the tuning to D for variety and almost baritone kind of sound. I voice most of my chords in the middle strings d,g,b and like the tonal difference between the wound and unwound strings...but I use a very clean tone and technique...different kind of thing. ... For more pics of my telecaster project...see this thread...Blueteleful Telecaster Project It's the guitar I have been playing now for everything...but I have the feeling I need a change lately and will have to finish some projects. In taking pictures, I have been getting into a bit of photography lately, but the equipment is nothing fancy. This camera was stolen last year so slightly upgraded, but a low end fuji digital. What I found with taking pics and looking at pics is that a little care can go a long way to getting something good. Notice, I laid out a towel on the floor for the guitar to lie on...this gives a good plain background that doesn't distract for the guitar...hides the bad carpet at that house and background stuff that distracts. I used the natural overhead light bulb, sometimes an ordinary desk lamp can be good...then make sure the camera is set to flash suppression. The older fuij had a "baby setting" that stopped the flash and maybe enhanced skin tones. This and the light accounts for that honey tone to the neck...in reality it is still a lot paler. So, not really the camera or the operator, just a little care seems to make all the difference...a flash always seems to wash things out a lot. ... If others are interested in the LSR thing, they are great but it was a little tricky fitting it to the squiers...the necks are ever so slimmer so there is a bit that slightly overhands on either side. They do take a little routing (I used a dremel) and a conventional nut can't replace it, so you want to be sure...for most a graphite nut would be fine. I really like though that they are screwed on and so effectively height adjustable with little shims...easy to get a professional looking and feeling set up with the things if they suit the instrument. I'm surprised that the really low strings don't bind, these things tend to assume a standard to light gauge generally. ... I have gone through periods of inventing things as many here will know. Like minded people might think to collect those ball ends from string changes. They could be useful, especially for little guide wheels for strings. For a nut, you'd have to do something to stop the lighter strings rattling around...for the LP thing though, I had the idea of an elaborate truss rod cover with these wheels on it so the strings would pull straight over the nut and not bind to the sides...bit like roller string trees on their side. I dare say though you could modify the things, mount them in a drill and spin them holding a file to make more of a V groove or something. The LSR though will be better for the right guitar and cheaper and easier in the long run...so, if they work...!!

Yep, I've seen them for sale, was too dubious to buy them. With a conventional guitar roller nuts always need routing forward of the usual nut slot so the mods are permanent...but then I use conventional unwound G strings so it isn't a problem...why do you favour that set, do you tune low? Do you combine these with locking tuners and all? The other thing is that with such a nut you are going to need some kind of downward pressure on a six in line so string trees, possibly damping as well like the new LSR's. Your current set up for your choice of strings is probably as good as you are going to get. For prototyping such things I thought of using string ball ends as the rollers...use some piano wire as the axle through them all...as the headstock on say my LP is splayed out, I considered another set to pull straight across the nut, then feed to the side to each tuner, doubling as a string tree/dampener...but really, far too much work compared to just locking the things down. good luck with what you choose to do, but if the nut is working for you, I'd consider painting the thing for a color change perhaps...there's hardly going to be much wear on the thing. Here's a pic of the LSR on my blueteleful telecaster project... you can see with staggered locking tuners there are no string trees, the grove forward of the balls in the nut is very small...the black bits behind are a kind of foam pad to dampen vibrations behind the nut. This came with a black plastic shelf to adapt this new LSR to the larger format type you have. Realistically, if the rollers work well with a wound D string (as it does) I don't really see a problem with a wound G...but it really doesn't seem to be designed for that. as I say, 10-42 seems to be ideal which happens to be the set I use. Not had any problems with it, but I have heard some suggest wear or loosing those tiny balls...I find that hard to believe with proper care...but you never know!

Now that kind of strategy does have some warrant Col...that would be a far more obvious and productive kind of approach. The Hex thing was going to head into that direction, drivers built to optimize drive for a given string rather than driving it with a hex signal...in large part because of the interaction between drivers that occurs regardless of independent signals. I gather the desire is to get more efficiency? Lower power, cleaner headroom, battery life...that kind of thing?