Lively vs Dead Cue – Why?

Wolven

Wolven

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was hopping you guys can give me some answers.

Why some cues feel lively and others dead?
How do you make a dead cue lively?

I’m sure you all have noticed that with some cues when putting top or bottom spin, you get a nice spring like action.
While, with some it is virtually impossible the cue ball still goes forward or back but is sluggish.

Is it the weight, construction materials, joint, end mass of the shaft?
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
 
Wolven said:
I was hopping you guys can give me some answers.

Why some cues feel lively and others dead?
How do you make a dead cue lively?

I’m sure you all have noticed that with some cues when putting top or bottom spin, you get a nice spring like action.
While, with some it is virtually impossible the cue ball still goes forward or back but is sluggish.

Is it the weight, construction materials, joint, end mass of the shaft?
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

Woven:

This is a great topic, a great post, and you're going to get a lot of varied answers on it.

The truth is, many variables play into this:

  • shaft construction (which includes tip, ferrule [including the tenon inside], the shaft wood itself, and the joint*)
  • the joint
  • the butt (which includes the joint*, the forearm, core, weight system,etc.)
Notice I include the joint in all three. That's because a lot of the cue's ability to transfer the "feel" of a shot (including the after-effects/vibrations) transfers up the shaft, through the joint, and into the butt of the cue, to where your hand is holding it. If your cue has a wood-to-wood joint, you have probably the closest to a one-piece cue that can be achieved. Any artificial materials between the wood mating surfaces in the joint interfere with the transference of the vibrations from the shaft through to the butt. Stainless steel joints (where all the mating surfaces are stainless steel, and there's no wood-to-wood contact at all) are at the extreme end of the spectrum, and are an example of a "shock governor" -- where little to no shock transference takes place between the shaft and the butt. (Think about it -- stainless steel is exponentially harder and denser than wood, and is roughly analogous to a fish [post-hit vibrations] slamming head-first into the side of the glass fishtank [stainless steel joint].)

Here's the rub -- what some refer to as a "solid hit" may refer to cues with a stainless steel joint, meaning they don't feel the vibrations and resonance sent up the cue. Others -- like myself -- classify those cues as having a "mellow hit" -- meaning, it's like the difference between driving a small economy car over a bumpy road, vs. an old "boat" Cadillac with great shocks over that same bumpy road -- you're going to "feel the road" a lot less in the Cadillac than the small economy car. In this analogy, the Cadillac is the cue with the stainless steel joint, while the small economy car is the wood-to-wood joint.

Obviously, there's a stark difference in cues and cars (and what people prefer in each). So for me, I prefer to a cue to "talk to me." I prefer to feel the resonance of the hit right up through to my grip hand. I prefer a wood-to-wood joint. And obviously, many other variables play into the hit of a cue than just the joint (e.g. the difference between "whippy" and hard rock maple shafts, for example -- which you can tell the difference between regardless of the joint in your cue).

Hope this is helpful,
-Sean
 
More than likely, it's your stroke.

Course then... it may be the tip?... the ferrule material?... capped?... uncapped?... the shaft's taper?... the joint pin?... the joint pin material... the joint material itself?... hell, it could be ANYTHING.

But.... more than likely, it's your stroke.
 
cigardave said:
More than likely, it's your stroke.

Course then... it may be the tip?... the ferrule material?... capped?... uncapped?... the shaft's taper?... the joint pin?... the joint pin material... the joint material itself?... hell, it could be ANYTHING.

But.... more than likely, it's your stroke.
Click to expand...

It isn't the stroke. 2 cues same type of a shaft 314^2, totally different reactions.
 
Could be anything in the cue. I once had a guy send me a VERY popular cue because it was dead. He wanted me to build a shaft for it because he really liked the butt. I built a shaft & the cue was still dead. I did everything I knew to do with tuning that shaft, but it never did play 'alive'. I put the shaft on one of my butts & it played awesome. I took the two original shafts & put them on my butt & they played awesome. There was something wrong in the butt of that cue that killed the energy. There was no buzz, nothing loose, nothing. It was clean & solid, just horrible.

A lot of times you can tune the shaft by mixing/matching ferrules & tips, etc. But the core energy of the cue comes from the butt. That's the foundation of the cue. It'll only play as lively as the butt will allow, no matter how great your stroke is. This is often a major aspect of building cues that's overlooked & misunderstood by builders. They feel that just making it solid & balanced is all that matters because the shaft is the only thing that accounts for playability. Simply untrue. Those builders sometimes build a cue that plays jam up & they don't know why. They just accept it as a fluke. Good builders try to reinvent & understand what happened so they can harness it & make every cue that good.

The shaft is equally important. But not more so.
 
sfleinen said:
Woven:

This is a great topic, a great post, and you're going to get a lot of varied answers on it.

The truth is, many variables play into this:

  • shaft construction (which includes tip, ferrule [including the tenon inside], the shaft wood itself, and the joint*)
  • the joint
  • the butt (which includes the joint*, the forearm, core, weight system,etc.)
Notice I include the joint in all three. That's because a lot of the cue's ability to transfer the "feel" of a shot (including the after-effects/vibrations) transfers up the shaft, through the joint, and into the butt of the cue, to where your hand is holding it. If your cue has a wood-to-wood joint, you have probably the closest to a one-piece cue that can be achieved. Any artificial materials between the wood mating surfaces in the joint interfere with the transference of the vibrations from the shaft through to the butt. Stainless steel joints (where all the mating surfaces are stainless steel, and there's no wood-to-wood contact at all) are at the extreme end of the spectrum, and are an example of a "shock governor" -- where little to no shock transference takes place between the shaft and the butt. (Think about it -- stainless steel is exponentially harder and denser than wood, and is roughly analogous to a fish [post-hit vibrations] slamming head-first into the side of the glass fishtank [stainless steel joint].)

Here's the rub -- what some refer to as a "solid hit" may refer to cues with a stainless steel joint, meaning they don't feel the vibrations and resonance sent up the cue. Others -- like myself -- classify those cues as having a "mellow hit" -- meaning, it's like the difference between driving a small economy car over a bumpy road, vs. an old "boat" Cadillac with great shocks over that same bumpy road -- you're going to "feel the road" a lot less in the Cadillac than the small economy car. In this analogy, the Cadillac is the cue with the stainless steel joint, while the small economy car is the wood-to-wood joint.

Obviously, there's a stark difference in cues and cars (and what people prefer in each). So for me, I prefer to a cue to "talk to me." I prefer to feel the resonance of the hit right up through to my grip hand. I prefer a wood-to-wood joint. And obviously, many other variables play into the hit of a cue than just the joint (e.g. the difference between "whippy" and hard rock maple shafts, for example -- which you can tell the difference between regardless of the joint in your cue).

Hope this is helpful,
-Sean
Click to expand...

I have heard differently, respectfully. For example, Dan Janes of Joss Cues has on his website that joint material bears almost nothing on the hit of the cue.

I asked an extremely well respected cue maker who I have an order with his thoughts on the subject and he basically agreed. I don't want to name the maker because I don't want to misrepresent his opinion, since he obviously knows much more about cue construction than I do and I probably oversimplified what he said to me. This maker prefers a steel joint.

You raise an interesting point though. I play with a steel jointed cue and I feel like it is more lively than my friends phenolic jointed cue. I also love a "loud cue" if that makes any sense.

However, I have also played with steel jointed cues that felt like there was a lead wall between the cue ball and my back hand. So, I definitely have experienced what you are saying.

I don't know why, but "joint material" has always intrigued me. Thanks for the insight though.

EDIT: I can't find it on the JOSS website now, but I promise it used to be up there.
 
Last edited:
Great points guys. I was hoping for an easy answer like add weight to the butt or change the joint to steel.
There is a high degree of technical know how to making a good cue. It is an art really.
I have a bunch of cues and all are different in how alive they are, but there is a point when dead is just too dead.
I find that steel jointed cues play more lively than phenolic but that probably doesn’t hold true for all cues.
 
I understand what Sean is saying, and I for the most part agree. I prefer a steel joint because I feel as if it softens the hit. I think ivory is the stiffest hitting cue for me, followed by wood-to-wood, and then steel. A steel joint feels right. The other two feel too hard for my preference.
 
JusticeNJ said:
I have heard differently, respectfully. For example, Dan Janes of Joss Cues has on his website that joint material bears almost nothing on the hit of the cue.

I asked an extremely well respected cue maker who I have an order with his thoughts on the subject and he basically agreed. I don't want to name the maker because I don't want to misrepresent his opinion, since he obviously knows much more about cue construction than I do and I probably oversimplified what he said to me. This maker prefers a steel joint.

You raise an interesting point though. I play with a steel jointed cue and I feel like it is more lively than my friends phenolic jointed cue. I also love a "loud cue" if that makes any sense.

However, I have also played with steel jointed cues that felt like there was a lead wall between the cue ball and my back hand. So, I definitely have experienced what you are saying.

I don't know why, but "joint material" has always intrigued me. Thanks for the insight though.

EDIT: I can't find it on the JOSS website now, but I promise it used to be up there.
Click to expand...

JusticeNJ:

I know the info you're talking about on the Joss website. It's actually in their FAQ:

http://josscues.com/html/faq.html
(See the fourth question down.)

Joss uses stainless steel joints, because they are, without a doubt, the most durable joints out there. Not much can go wrong with an all-stainless steel joint (i.e. it would be extremely difficult to cross-thread or strip it), and it's the "built-like-a-brick-outhouse" of cue joints.

My point about the feel is strictly limited to what your back hand (grip hand) feels.

What's interesting is that stainless steel cues tend to be described as having a "livelier" hit than, say, phenolic-jointed cues. What I think folks are describing are the side-effects of having such a solid, dense material as stainless steel joining the cue. The side-effect is what I like to refer to as "rebound" -- meaning, the vibrations sent up the shaft rebound off that solid block of stainless steel, down to the tip, and back up again -- like a harmonic. The stainless steel joint joins the shaft and the butt so solidly, that it creates a distinct barrier. An exaggerated analogy might be if you hold the joint end of your shaft as tight as you can in one hand, and use the other hand to flick the tip (i.e. push it to bend it slightly, and then let it go). The shaft will immediately return back to shape with little to no vibrations. Now, mount that shaft to a concrete wall (i.e. the joint end is threaded onto a matching bolt sticking out of the concrete wall), and now flick the tip with your hand. I'll bet that shaft will vibrate like crazy after your hand escapes from the tip -- "fffffdrrrrrrrrrrrr!". Most folks will take this as a "lively" hit, when in actuality, it's the resonance/vibrations bouncing up and down the shaft due to the density of the joint reflecting those vibrations back.

I have a beautiful Joss model #828 with stainless steel joint that I treasure. It's probably the "liveliest" cue (to use other poster's terminology) that I own. And it's interesting in that I can literally see the vibrations bounce up and down the shaft after I hit a ball hard, especially with english (to get that "flick" effect as the tip deflects to the side). However, I don't feel these vibrations in my back hand; I only feel them in my bridge hand, as well as seeing it visually in the shaft. Personally, I want to feel that in my back hand. Others may not (as Brandon mentioned). Again, it's that personal preference thing.

-Sean
 
Last edited:
sfleinen said:
JusticeNJ:

I know the info you're talking about on the Joss website. It's actually in their FAQ:

http://josscues.com/html/faq.html
(See the fourth question down.)

Joss uses stainless steel joints, because they are, without a doubt, the most durable joints out there. Not much can go wrong with an all-stainless steel joint (i.e. it would be extremely difficult to cross-thread or strip it), and it's the "built-like-a-brick-outhouse" of cue joints.

My point about the feel is strictly limited to what your back hand (grip hand) feels.

What's interesting is that stainless steel cues tend to be described as having a "livelier" hit than, say, phenolic-jointed cues. What I think folks are describing are the side-effects of having such a solid, dense material as stainless steel joining the cue. The side-effect is what I like to refer to as "rebound" -- meaning, the vibrations sent up the shaft rebound off that solid block of stainless steel, down to the tip, and back up again -- like a harmonic. The stainless steel joint joins the shaft and the butt so solidly, that it creates a distinct barrier. An exaggerated analogy might be if you hold the joint end of your shaft as tight as you can in one hand, and use the other hand to flick the tip (i.e. push it to bend it slightly, and then let it go). The shaft will immediately return back to shape with little to no vibrations. Now, mount that shaft to a concrete wall (i.e. the joint end is threaded onto a matching bolt sticking out of the concrete wall), and now flick the tip with your hand. I'll bet that shaft will vibrate like crazy after your hand escapes from the tip -- "fffffdrrrrrrrrrrrr!". Most folks will take this as a "lively" hit, when in actuality, it's the resonance/vibrations bouncing up and down the shaft due to the density of the joint.

I have a beautiful Joss model #828 with stainless steel joint that I treasure. It's probably the "liveliest" cue (to use other poster's terminology) that I own. And it's interesting in that I can literally see the vibrations bounce up and down the shaft after I hit a ball hard, especially with english (to get that "flick" effect as the tip deflects to the side). However, I don't feel these vibrations in my back hand; I only feel them in my bridge hand, as well as seeing it visually in the shaft. Personally, I want to feel that in my back hand. Others may not (as Brandon mentioned). Again, it's that personal preference thing.

-Sean
Click to expand...

Hi Sean,

There used to be a quote on the website that explicitly said "Joint material doesn't change the hit." I swear. It used to be in that section I'm pretty sure.

The cue maker I was talking about, actually said to the effect that, while there are slight differences in joint material - he said that SS would actually transfer the most amount of energy to the butt. Thats what I was referring to.

Interesting - I haven't taken a physics course in like 6 years (and I wouldn't be equipped to answer this anyway), but does SS transfer or rebound energy in a way that differs from other material? In other words, maybe one of the physics guys here can answer if a material has a bearing on transfer?

For example take a sheet of Ivory and put two people at either end. Person A bangs the ivory with a hammer, how much vibration does person B feel?

Now take a sheet of stainless steel and repeat. What result?

I am always intrigued by joint material discussions for these very reasons.

Thanks for your comments though, I always gain a new perspective when I read these threads.
 
JusticeNJ said:
For example take a sheet of Ivory and put two people at either end. Person A bangs the ivory with a hammer, how much vibration does person B feel?

Now take a sheet of stainless steel and repeat. What result?
Click to expand...

That would be a good test if the stainless steel was a solid joint. But it's not. The pilot, which is brass, never touches down on the forearm wood inside the joint collar. The vibrations are left to travel through the steel joint into the phenolic collar of the shaft, which is where 'feel' gets lost. With a wood to wood flat faced joint, the shaft wood rests exactly on the forearm wood with nothing between the two. The phenolic (or whatever is there) collars are not interfering with the transfer of vibration from shaft to butt, as like in the steel jointed cue.

The few guys who do really good compression style steel joints have very nice feel, IMO. The shaft wood is left to surround the brass insert and it fits very tight inside of the steel joint, giving a connection of the butt wood to the shaft wood with only the steel as a buffer.
 
JusticeNJ said:
Hi Sean,

There used to be a quote on the website that explicitly said "Joint material doesn't change the hit." I swear. It used to be in that section I'm pretty sure.

The cue maker I was talking about, actually said to the effect that, while there are slight differences in joint material - he said that SS would actually transfer the most amount of energy to the butt. Thats what I was referring to.

Interesting - I haven't taken a physics course in like 6 years (and I wouldn't be equipped to answer this anyway), but does SS transfer or rebound energy in a way that differs from other material? In other words, maybe one of the physics guys here can answer if a material has a bearing on transfer?

For example take a sheet of Ivory and put two people at either end. Person A bangs the ivory with a hammer, how much vibration does person B feel?

Now take a sheet of stainless steel and repeat. What result?

I am always intrigued by joint material discussions for these very reasons.

Thanks for your comments though, I always gain a new perspective when I read these threads.
Click to expand...

JusticeNJ:

Don't worry, I believe you (about the quote on the Joss website, and of what your cuemaker said). I think it's a matter of what they're referring to. If we're talking about *transference of energy*, it's different than transference of vibrations (or resonance). The former implies the object is in motion and suddenly stops, while the latter implies the object was stationary and was suddenly impacted. If you can find the original sources of your info, it'd be much appreciated if you can post it. I myself am very curious.

As for your questions about resonance between various materials, it not only depends on the material, but on the shape of the material as well. For example, take a ball-peen hammer, and hit a length of long steel pipe suspended by a rope. Depending on the length of the pipe, you'll get a resonating musical tone, and you can visually see the pipe vibrating with resonance. Take that same ball-peen hammer, and strike a large sheet of sheet metal also suspended. You'll get a sound like thunder, and you can see the sheet metal "shuddering." Take that same ball-peen hammer, and hit an anvil. You'll merely get a very short "ping!" That anvil is roughly analogous to our stainless steel joint. It's not shaped *at all* to carry vibrations. The more "block-shaped" the material is, the less conducive it is to resonance. That's why your "sheet of material so-and-so" scenarios may not work -- "sheet" is the wrong shape to try to duplicate what happens in a cue.

Keep this in mind as well: the density of materials -- especially when in contact with other materials of a different density -- definitely affects whether vibrations are easily transferred or not. The low frequency resonance of wood is not transferred well through a heavy block of stainless steel mating up against it. The resonant frequencies of wood are much lower than steel. Make a flute out of wood, and you have a flute. Now make the exact same sized flute out of stainless steel (same configuration and dimensions as the wood one), and you now have a pipe whistle.

Hope this helps!
-Sean
 
Just had this changed for me in a bad way. Had a great feeling cue (A Ned Morris), with what I think were Moori or some other similar tip.

Had a new tip put on (Le Pro, took a chance at getting a good one), and the hit feels like I'm using a branch now on that shaft. I think a lot of it is in the tip, and probably the shaft taper and wood. Had a thicker taper in a Arthur cue I played with for a while, and it was a bit more dead feeling than either my Joss or the Ned Morris with a more "pro"-like taper.
 
hang-the-9 said:
Just had this changed for me in a bad way. Had a great feeling cue (A Ned Morris), with what I think were Moori or some other similar tip.

Had a new tip put on (Le Pro, took a chance at getting a good one), and the hit feels like I'm using a branch now on that shaft. I think a lot of it is in the tip, and probably the shaft taper and wood. Had a thicker taper in a Arthur cue I played with for a while, and it was a bit more dead feeling than either my Joss or the Ned Morris with a more "pro"-like taper.
Click to expand...

I also think alot more is in the tip than most players realize....

Mike
 
Last edited:
hang-the-9 said:
Just had this changed for me in a bad way. Had a great feeling cue (A Ned Morris), with what I think were Moori or some other similar tip.

Had a new tip put on (Le Pro, took a chance at getting a good one), and the hit feels like I'm using a branch now on that shaft. I think a lot of it is in the tip, and probably the shaft taper and wood. Had a thicker taper in a Arthur cue I played with for a while, and it was a bit more dead feeling than either my Joss or the Ned Morris with a more "pro"-like taper.
Click to expand...

That is true, concerning the tip. And the shape of the shaft is also definitely true. A conical taper shaft is less likely to be "lively" than, say, a pro taper shaft, precisely because of the shape. The part of the pro taper -- the area from the tip to just before the taper begins -- is roughly analogous to a tuning fork. Once the taper begins, vibrations begin to slow down because the material is getting thicker. In a conical taper shaft, it never has the tuning fork part to begin with, so any resonance you hear is of the wood material itself. (Tuning forks are NEVER conical in shape, except at the handle in certain models -- e.g. the ones you can strike and then stand, on the end of its handle, on a flat surface.)

Good observation!
-Sean
 
I make my cues lively by removing the bumper and pouring in a shot or two of bourbon. :rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1:
But on a serious note my Lucasi with a Cocobolo piloted joint and a triangle tip does not hit quite as solid as my steel jointed ivory fuelle layered tip Pechauer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top