Is Zachary Right?

[Mickguard]

I keep coming back to Zachary Guitars and his design ideas (I'm not debating his attitude here, just his ideas).

I'm getting ready to shape my headstock -- I can go with a traditional drop down, or even an angled neck. But Zachary's headstock idea makes more and more sense to me.

I don't really like the way he executes it -- all those string trees, and obviously you can't hang a guitar with a headstock like that (I have young kids, my guitars have to be hung).

But the idea of maintaining as much of the thickness of the wood as possible past the nut makes a lot of sense to me.

I think the idea would work better as a 6 in line anyway --and I'd use a bar instead of strings trees, like the old Japanese guitars used to have. Except I'd use a slippery material like a trem nut blank.

In fact, since I'm going with a zero nut, I'm thinking I could combine the string guide with this compression bar somehow.

I'm just wondering what you all think about the basic idea of the design.

[rokeros]

I think it kinda makes sense and I know what you're trying to say, but IMHO the Zachary headstock is just plain butt ugly. End of story.

[Mickguard]

I think it kinda makes sense and I know what you're trying to say, but IMHO the Zachary headstock is just plain butt ugly. End of story.

Sure, like I said, I'm not talking about the shape --although I like the look of it, personally. Just doesn't work with wall hangers, that's all, otherwise, I'd go for that.

Here's a shape I like that I think would work well:

(I don't remember where I found this photo, otherwise I would have posted the link).

[Ben]

I think the idea would work better as a 6 in line anyway --and I'd use a bar instead of strings trees, like the old Japanese guitars used to have. Except I'd use a slippery material like a trem nut blank.

What about an inverted roller nut?

In fact, since I'm going with a zero nut, I'm thinking I could combine the string guide with this compression bar somehow.

Would solve that problem too

[Mickguard]

What about an inverted roller nut?

I have a roller nut here --but it looks kind of ugly flipped up side down.

On the other hand, if I could figure out a way to add in channels BELOW the rollers, then I can keep it right side up.

Anyway, my MIJ strat already has two strings trees --so why should adding a third tree be a problem? Might actually look good...

[rokeros]

Heres where you got that picture:

http://www.timtone.com/necks/HSstyles.htm

I searched "elmoheadstock.jpg" in google.

[Mattia]

Honestly, I think Zac is entirely wrongheaded about his headstock approach. Mass is fine, but you've got oodles of mass in a scarfed, angled headstock with a volute. More than on an idiotic straight string pull that requires hold-downs/string trees (Read that as: 'more places where the string can bind and cause tuning irregularities, hurray!) to even function at all. On 6-in-lines, honeslty, Sperzel's staggered post heights are ideal, and minimizing the number of string trees is a Good Thing. I can't see any advantages to doing it his way, short of being too lazy to do it differently (you don't need to either angle or scallop/thin the headstock) or liking the aesthetic effect (and I find it decidedly hideous).

I mean, consider it: ever seen Fenders with busted headstocks? That dropped down design is already strong as hell. Just my 2 cents. Then again, I can't say I see much of anything I admire on Zachary's website in terms of design, ideology or attitude.

[Mickguard]

Heres where you got that picture:

http://www.timtone.com/necks/HSstyles.htm

I searched "elmoheadstock.jpg" in google.

yeah, i searched "elmo headstock" --not the same thing!

[thegarehanman]

While we're at it, I'd just like to point out zachary's approach to mounting tuners. I noticed this last night and was dumbfounded. He mounts his 3x3 tuners backwards. I'm not criticizing it from an aesthetic standpoint, that's not really an issue. What I am concerned about, is the fact that tuners are not designed to be loaded with stress like that. With a correctly mounted tuner, the string pulls the post toward the bridge. The post acts as a lever and the headstock as a fulcrum. What this does is push the gear on the bottom of the post against the worm gear attached to the tuner knob. Now, in zach's scenario, the leverage is still there, but it's working against the tuner. It's pushing the post's gear away from the worm gear. If the tuner holes aren't really, really tight, this could lead to tuning instability. Some guys will even argue that it'll wear the tuner down faster, but I can't say if there's any validity in that.

As for the headstock, I would just go with a fender headstock and graduated height tuners. I think that eliminates the need for string trees, which are probably worse, in general, for a guitar than any strength lost from a drop down headstock.

peace,

russ

[Matt]

Yea I think Zachary is using it as an excuse to make neck manufacture easier.

Althought having one-piece neck and headstock is probably better, Having a tilted headstock in my view will add to sustain and tone not to mention aesthetics.

This is becasue the strings are pulled down on the nut better which contains the vibration in the strings. Also having a tighter bond in my view means that the interaction of the wood and string vibration is stronger, meaning the whole guitar will resonate more and give more depth of tone. -much like having a glued-in/neck thru compared to a bolt on neck joint.

Not to be big headed, but Im pretty sure Im dead right on this.

[Ben]

Zachary guy thinks otherwise...

This flat "Uniplane" headstock is more "alive" in terms of resonance than a tilt-back design: the strings create minimal down-pressure on the nut.

Not so sure of the reasoning behind that

[Matt]

Nah mate I garentee you. although as I said it IS better to have it one piece, It is better to have a tilt. The best option would be to have a one-piece tilted headstock, but this becomes inconvienient when cutting a neck blank as it has to be thicker to accomodate the headstock.

He's just giving a more 'pleasant' excuse to having a tilted headstock, which actually he should do If he's any sort of salesman, so I wouldn't knock him for explain his reasoning as at the end of the day he's gotta sell guitars. And this is just his way of covering up a compromise so he can actually make cash.

However his attitude is a bit Over-the-top to say the least.

Matt

[thegarehanman]

The best option would be to have a one-piece tilted headstock

Matt, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this issue. A scarf jointed angled headstock is significantly stronger than a single piece neck's angled headstock. I seriously doubt you could tell the difference between the two, tonally, in a double blind test.

[Mickguard]

While we're at it, I'd just like to point out zachary's approach to mounting tuners. I noticed this last night and was dumbfounded. He mounts his 3x3 tuners backwards.

I thought he just flips the bottom two, this guides the E strings into place, allows them to travel in a straight line. I suppose it's possible it puts a little stress on the tuners, but apparently he's been doing it for a few years now.

One of the things I admire about Zachary is that many of his design ideas appear to stem from a search for greater simplicity -- if only ease of construction. I like it that he oils his guitars, for example. And I like it that at least some of his guitars are built from found wood and otherwise interesting wood types.

I don't like all of his choices --for one, he uses a really wide neck, as wide as an acoustic, and I'm going precisely in the opposite direction. I like it that he started out by building a Danelectro clone, although I'm not so convinced about his other body styles--although the new tele is pretty cool.

I don't buy all the hype about angle headstocks, sustain, etc, blah blah--whether it's Zachary talking or Matt or Fender or Gibson. Whether the headstock is angled or whether you use string trees or staggered tuners, the end result is the same --downward pressure on the nut in order to keep the strings in their slots.

For what it's worth: like I said, my strat already has two string trees on there. That guitar stays in tune, it's the most stable guitar I have in fact, and that's why I use that when I have to play onstage, even though it's not my favorite. Adding a third string tree is no big deal, especially if it's for the low E and A--probably still unnecessary in a 6 in line.

Anyway, I changed the string trees for Graph Tech trees when I first got the strat. Except the new trees stood up too high off the guitar. Which meant that one night while we were playing the high E string jumped its slot!

Now, here's the thing: I shortened the tree, so there's more downward pressure on those strings. Except, I lost a lot of the former chiminess I had from that guitar. The E and B still ring out, but they're not as chipper as before. Not a big deal when I'm fretting of course.

But granted, the Fender design has worked great for 50 years --the difference in amount of wood left between the Fender and Zachary headstock works out to be about 5 mm thickness, maybe a little less. Not a huge difference.

Still, I think it's necessary to challenge perceived notions from time to time --suppose it IS easier to build a guitar than you think?

My own idea is to lower the tuner holes themselves--by using a thicker headstock. I've been using Grovers, but the maximum thickness to tuner hole is only 15 mm --I think some tuners allow thicker headstocks, like up to 20 mm?

[Pr3Va1L]

Well, I kinda do like the idea of having a headstock like that... Though I'd use a floyd tension bar thingie instead or string trees.

But then again, in what way is it really better than a Thorn?

[GregP]

Hrm. I don't buy it. And taking a risk to go off-topic, this stood out, too:

A computer did not arrive at the shape of this guitar. Instead I used my 22 years of guitar playing experience to determine what feels good and what doesn't; as simple as that.

2 logical fallacies at play there--

1. A computer is a great tool for helping design a balanced guitar, with physical modeling. As long as you are able to use the technology (which of course, he is not), it can be a great asset. No need to make it look like <Bobby Bucher's momma> "computers are the devil!" </Bobby Bucher's momma>

2. What feels good and what doesn't, even taking scientifically quantifiable "balance" out of the equation, is completely subjective and dependent on the person for whom the guitar is designed. Heck, maybe there are even people out there who actually like neck-heavy designs. Not saying I'm one of them, but they might exist!

Greg

[Mattia]

15mm is pretty standard, and I've yet to see any tuners that'll 'handle' 20mm. If you want to gain a mm or so, countersink the things. That'll give you more complicated stuff to do, though, not less.

As for necks...I like 'em wide, what can I say. And the chiminess? From changing string tree height? Colour me highly skeptical, particularly since my most 'chimey' guitar has a pretty steep 15 degree neck angle. Waaay too many other factors affect tone to start dithering about a minute difference in downward pressure (we're talking, what, a fraction of a degree?)

Well, I kinda do like the idea of having a headstock like that... Though I'd use a floyd tension bar thingie instead or string trees.

But then again, in what way is it really better than a Thorn?

It ain't. And on many levels, I feel it's worse (I mean, come ON. Putting stuff like 'tool marks are a sign of craftsmanship' on a website? Seriously? That's just excusing sloppy workmanship on a guitar with a 2500 dollar base price.)

[crafty]

$2500?!

I'll go buy a PRS McCarty, a Parker Fly Mojo, Two Fender EJ Strats, or a Gibson Les Paul Limited for that kind of dough. And I'll get a guitar that doesn't look like it was built out of dumpster wood or scraps from the Home Depot.

Nut job. You can't compete with builders like Perry, LGM, or even Suhr with an ugly "craft fair" guitar at that price point.

[Mickguard]

Well, I kinda do like the idea of having a headstock like that... Though I'd use a floyd tension bar thingie instead or string trees.

But then again, in what way is it really better than a Thorn?

You mean these? Completely different animal.

For me, it's not really a question of better --the question is whether it works or doesn't. I'm assuming it does work, since Zachary's been at this for a few years now.

I like the bar idea, although to me it makes more sense to use a slippery material like graph tech's stuff, or even a roller bar. Right now I'm shaping a bar using a piece I cut off of a kitchen spatula --I'm guessing it uses the same type of teflon composite as Graphtech (although the spatular seems less hard).

[frazzled]

$2500?!

I'll go buy a PRS McCarty, a Parker Fly Mojo, Two Fender EJ Strats, or a Gibson Les Paul Limited for that kind of dough. And I'll get a guitar that doesn't look like it was built out of dumpster wood or scraps from the Home Depot.

Dude... no offence but you're exactly who WOULDN'T want a Zach guitar, nothing wrong with that. I don't know of any other guitar builder who has higher ratings on Harmony Central than Alex. Ya, I'm one of those who agree with what he's doing and the reasons behind why he does it that way. As was mentioned before, alot of what he does is just common sense and logic.

Oh and the two guitars you are talking about don't just LOOK like they were built from Home Depot scraps or rescued from a dumpster, they WERE!

[Ben]

Seems that the Zachary guy is like Marmite...

[Mickguard]

Seems that the Zachary guy is like Marmite...

You mean Vegamite?

As for buying one of his guitars...well, no, I don't like his body designs all that much. But then, I'm not willing to spend that kind of money on ANY guitar, I don't give a rat's ass who built it. They're mostly wood, a few pieces of metal, some wire and couple of magnets after all.

So far I've only come across two luthiers who have made me even start to think about maybe one day reaching for the wallet--Myka and Scott French.

Still, I love the fact that on at least one of Zachary's guitars, the neck shows nail holes. The beauty of imperfection!

[Ben]

You mean Vegamite? cry.gif

I just googled 'vegemite'... looks like it must be the american verison of Marmite...

So I guess thats what I mean!

David Myka's guitars arent even much more expensive than the Zachary ones, and I know which I'd rather own!

EDIT

BTW, whats so upsetting about 'vegemite'/marmite?

Edited June 4, 2006 by Ben

[oz tradie]

all those string trees, and obviously you can't hang a guitar with a headstock like that (I have young kids, my guitars have to be hung).

This may do the job instead.

string post link

[crafty]

$2500?!

I'll go buy a PRS McCarty, a Parker Fly Mojo, Two Fender EJ Strats, or a Gibson Les Paul Limited for that kind of dough. And I'll get a guitar that doesn't look like it was built out of dumpster wood or scraps from the Home Depot.

Dude... no offence but you're exactly who WOULDN'T want a Zach guitar, nothing wrong with that. I don't know of any other guitar builder who has higher ratings on Harmony Central than Alex. Ya, I'm one of those who agree with what he's doing and the reasons behind why he does it that way. As was mentioned before, alot of what he does is just common sense and logic.

Oh and the two guitars you are talking about don't just LOOK like they were built from Home Depot scraps or rescued from a dumpster, they WERE!

Ah, I see, I'm not one of "those" people who are "sophisticated" enough to recognize the value of one of the ugliest, most overpriced guitars on the planet.

The question is, who would want to pay that much for a Zach guitar? I mean, seriously, why on earth would you pay THAT MUCH for a guitar that may have a great design, but looks like a pile 'o junk?

Actually, I think I have this Alex guy figured out:

1. Build a guitar with whatever wood scraps I have laying around or can find.

2. Convince everyone that I'm a boutique builder and my guitars are works of art because they have no durable finish and I couldn't be bothered to sand out the tool marks.

3. Charge a minimum of $2500 for one of my works of art.

4. ???

5. Profit!

Edited June 4, 2006 by crafty