Using 12string as a 6 string

[lutehole]

Has anyone tried or know if one can safely remove the octave strings to use as a 6string?
Experiences?

[CodeBlueEMT]

 I never have, but look forward to the comments. 

[lutehole]

I never have, but look forward to the comments. 

Does anybody know if it will warp the neck or headstock?

[michaelw]

by taking the octave strings off (& one B & e), there will be
about half the amount of tension on the neck & top (bridge)
(from around 250 lb vs 130 for a typical light gauge 80/20 12 string set vs an extra light set .010 - .047) -
the truss rod will probably need to be adjusted to add neck relief &
there will likely be a significant loss of volume due to the reduced tension

going to light gauge .012 - .053 or heavier strings may  require filing the
nut slots to keep the strings from binding (if they 'ping' when being tuned)

you could try taking the E & A octaves off & one of the e's (9 string) or removing one of
the B's (8 string) to experiment, rather than removing half of the strings right off the bat

[lutehole]

Thanks Michael. That's a very detailed answer. Seems like the nut will be an issue.
Do you know if it will warp the neck or headstock?

[mgap]

There are people that use a 12 as a 6 string with success.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikuLzJmx9QM

[DMZ]

You've answered a question Ive thought about for years!

[Edward]

Has anyone tried or know if one can safely remove the octave strings to use as a 6string?
Experiences?

In my mind, it's a simple question of physics: fewer strings = less tension, readjust the TR to compensate, and play accordingly.  It'll work; and why shouldn't it ...it's a guitar, not the space shuttle.

That said, I'd have to ask what would be the purpose to do so?  Beyond the "it'll work" point, one must ask: is it a good solution?  The top is braced for the extra tension, so nearly halving the tension will most assuredly alter the tone and dynamics.  The neck is beefed up to accomodate the stress, and the fretboard widened for the needed space.  So when there is less physical stress and no need for the extra space, why have it?  Classic case of engineering: build it to spec, overbuild it for durability/longevity; but don't build it to be something that it is not. 

So if this is an academic question, I get it and will chime in.  If one is really asking whether you could do it, the answer is clearly yes.  But should you do it is entirely a different question.  Just IMHO, of course...
But heck, try it: at least it's completely reversible. 

Edward

[egkor]

A friend did this with an old beater 12 string, its now an old beater 6 string. 

I think one other side-effect of a 12-to-6 conversion will be, you will have 6 string with a wider-than-usual (for a 6 string) neck.

-Gary K

[drbob1]

I've done it with a beater. Besides the wide neck, you get some weird string spacing issues (everything is shifted over to the treble side slightly) and you should have the nut recut (the slots will be small and will bind for the generally bigger individual strings in a 6 string set). The heavier strings will make up for some of the lost tension, as will tuning to concert (many of us tune our 12 strings down a semitone or tone and capo). The top is more heavily braced, so the heavier strings you can manage the better the volume you'll get out of it. Given that you take those few issues into consideration, and adjust truss rod there's no reason not to do it. I'm guessing the OP has a 12 string he can't afford to replace but really wants to play 6 string?