GEAR REVIEW:  DUNLOP PIVOT CAPO vs SHUBB CAPO ROYALE (A “CLINICAL” TESTING)

Introduction:

Dunlop Pivot Capo

In January, 2021, I reviewed two very, very good capos:  Shubb’s Capo Royale and G7th’s Performance ART Capo.  Three years later my quest perfect guitar capo is revived in this review of Dunlop’s Pivot Capo.  Since January, 2021 I have routinely used Shubb’s Capo Royale on my guitars (both six and 12 string models) with great satisfaction.  However, while again haunting Tacoma, Washington’s Ted Brown Music, I noticed the Dunlop Pivot Capo, and assumed it is Dunlop’s take on the adaptable capo.  I quote from the capo’s packaging:

Precise Intonation:  Patented self-centering neck pivot adapts to a variety of neck shapes for even tension and tuning stability.

Easy Adjustment:  Low-resistance gear quickly dials in precise pressure.

Clarity & Sustain:  Notes ring out longer and more clearly thanks to tone-enhancing mass and dense rubber padding.

Optimized Fret Pad:  Accommodates fretboard radius to reduce string buzzing.

Shubb Capo Royale

I offer up Shubb’s Capo Royale claim:

The Shubb Capo is designed to reduce tuning problems.  Its custom material presses the strings just like your fingertip.  Its unique design closes onto the neck just life your hand.  Its pressure is totally adjustable.  The result:  no retuning is necessary.

Similar claims, but will there be similar results?  Given the similarity of the capos’ descriptions and the similarities between the G7th and the Shubb capos mentioned above, I posit that there will be no significance difference in tuning stability between the two capos.  A statistical test will be used to test this hypothesis.

Materials / Methods:

I put the capos to the test on five different guitars using one Snark electronic tuner.  All five guitars were tuned (standard tuning for all but one guitar in open D tuning as noted below) using the Snark tuner.  Each capo was placed on frets 2, 5, and 7 on all five guitars, and all six stings were plucked.  Each guitar was retuned before repositioning each capo at the above mentioned frets.  “Distuning” was noted for each capo at each position (on all six strings) by the number of “minute” increments (flat and/or sharp noted by -1, or +2, for example) from the “12 o’clock” (the in tune) position on the tuner.  Additionally, strings on the acoustics are of identical light gauge (12 – 53) D’Addario Nickel Bronze.  Here are the results in terms of total “distuning minutes” at all three fret positions (again 2, 5, and 7).

Results:

Breedlove Pro Series D25/SRH acoustic dreadnought:

Shubb:  +10 (at fret 2 = +1, fret 5 = +3, fret 7 = +6)

Dunlop:  +3 (at fret 2 = 0, fret 5 = +1, fret 7 = +2)

Faith FG1RE PJE acoustic dreadnought (open D tuning):

Shubb:  +18 (at fret 2 = +1, fret 5 = +4, fret 7 = +13)

Dunlop:  +15 (at fret 2 = +2, fret 5 = +8, fret 7 = + 5)

Rainsong N-JM110N2 (Nashville Series) acoustic jumbo:

Shubb:  +1 (at fret 2 = 0, fret 5 = 0, fret 7 = +1)

Dunlop:  +5 (at fret 2 = +2, fret 5 = +2, fret 7 = +1)

Rainsong BI-JM1000N2 (Black Ice Series) acoustic jumbo: 

Shubb:  +5 (at fret 2 = +1, fret 5 = +1, fret 7 = +3)

Dunlop:  +7 (at fret 2 = +4, fret 5 = +1, fret 7 = +2)

Paul Reed Smith (PRS) SE Starla solid body electric:

Shubb:  +18 (at fret 2 = +1, fret 5 = +7, fret 7 = +10)

Dunlop:  +17 (at fret 2 = +7, fret 5 = +6, fret 7 = +4)

Total “minutes” sharp:

Shubb:  +52

Dunlop:  +47

Discussion and Conclusion:

Equally good capos

Could there be a new champion among capos?  The Dunlop Pivot Capo had 5 fewer sharps in total.  With the above results the difference in count of “minutes sharp” was nearly identical for the Faith dreadnought and the PRS SE Starla.  With the two carbon fiber Rainsong acoustics, the Shubb performed modestly better than the Dunlop, while the Dunlop performed better than the Shubb on the Breedlove acoustic.

With the above data, I want to examine the number of “minutes sharp” at the three capo positions on the four fretboards.  The Shubb Capo Royale performed very well at fret two, but its performance diminished as this capo moved up the fretboard to higher positions.  The Dunlop Pivot Capo also performed better at fret two, but not on the PRS SE.  Its performance at frets 5 and 7 varied, but seemed more consistent, with all five guitars.

I am not a statistical nerd (perhaps I should not venture into such territory), but I ran a Two Sample T-test comparing the above results.  I present the P-value:  P = 0.8262.  For a statistical difference to exist a P-value must be >/= 0.95.  Thus, there is no statistical advantage for either of the capos.  My hypothesis is upheld.

Regarding ease of use the Shubb has the quicker application to the fretboard due to the clamp on bar at the bottom of the capo.  Tension adjustment can be altered as needed given the Shubb’s position on the neck, but it can become stiff as you move up a guitar’s neck.  The Dunlop Pivot Capo’s mechanism of application and release must take place each time with resistance gear release, but is easily and quickly done.

Is there a new capo champion?  Give the above P-value the answer is, “No.”  Both are solid capos, and represent ongoing advancement ins capo design and production.  Both capos would be an asset to any guitarist.

Keep on playing,

Fr Irenaeus