That Klein Headstock

[Mickguard]

So I've been wondering...

Is there any structural reason for using a wider headstock (like a Les Paul)?

Seems to me, a design like the Klein Headstock has the advantage of allowing the strings to remain in a more or less straight line. Which I can only imagine has to be a better way of doing it.

So is there a reason to want your strings to move out at an angle after the nut? Does that help to keep them in the nut slots?

Of course, wider vs narrower is also a question of aesthetics....but I really like the narrow design for my next build.

EDIT: Oops! just realized I posted this in the wrong forum --would one of you omnipotent mods like to move this to the solidbody discussion area, please?

[Setch]

None whatsoever. But they look nice

[Pr3Va1L]

the only advantage is it allows to adjust the truss rod without loosening the strings

[Mattia]

Eh? I can get int between the middle strings on a straigh-pull headstock (think strat) just find without detuning anything, thanks.

[psw]

I really like the Klien headstock but to get it reasonably straight without the strings hitting the previous tuners they have to be very long like that...and to do that without string trees there is an increased angle back on it, more than a LP I believe...so you are not avoiding a scarf joint or anything with the klien...there's even more strain on it due to leverage!

But it is a lovely design...got to come up with a body style to suit and would need to be carefull not to break the thing off!!! ... pete

[Mattia]

I really like the Klien headstock but to get it reasonably straight without the strings hitting the previous tuners they have to be very long like that...and to do that without string trees there is an increased angle back on it, more than a LP I believe...so you are not avoiding a scarf joint or anything with the klien...there's even more strain on it due to leverage!

But it is a lovely design...got to come up with a body style to suit and would need to be carefull not to break the thing off!!! ... pete

Oh, I dunno about 'more leverage'; far as I can tell, the increased headstock angle doesn't greatly affect the tension vector of the strings; after all, with a properly designed head, it's straight, in line with the headstock. How much the vector change is responsible for increased breakage, I couldn't say. Also, it doesn't follow that a longer headstock would need a greater back-angle. Whether it's got 2 or 6 strings, angle can stay the same if you plan it out correctly. It's more fragile because it sticks out more, meaning it's easier to bash it against something and break stuff, methinks...

[Southpa]

Thats one of my favorite basic designs. Not so much the look of the extra length, but what it does for your playing action. I made similar with an arrowhead shape but dished it down, like a strat, rather than angle it. Its one of the easiest "string bending" guitars I've ever played. I've found that strings angled away at the nut (as opposed to straight thru) are more difficult to bend.

[Druss]

I think I'm going to go narrow with my head stock as soon as I come up with a design that fits my body. Thanks for pointing out that you can go skinny and it sounds like it may have it's advantages.

This guy's guitars have a skinny headstock http://www.zacharyguitars.com/Currently_for_Sale.htm

Edited March 2, 2006 by Druss

[Mickguard]

This guy's guitars have a skinny headstock http://www.zacharyguitars.com/Currently_for_Sale.htm

Oh yes! I knew I'd seen another skinny headstock somewhere. I like the Zachary headstock even better.

PSW: I have the body design to go with it, no problem, all will be revealed over the next few weeks, I'm just waiting for it to get warm enough to get to work (unheated workshop )

However, the design of this guitar will work better with little to no headstock angle (the neck won't be angled either). I'll probably combine a slight angle (looks like I can go to 5 or 6 degrees with the wood I want to use) with the drop down idea. No scarf joint, I don't like the way they look.

In order to avoid string trees, however, I'm planning on adding a thin laminate to the back and possible recessing the tuners on the front --this will drop the tuner holes down slightly, adding to the pull. I still have to work that out in Autocad, but I'm thinking I should be able to achieve the same STRING angle as on a normal 3x3 headstock.

The laminate might be overkill --I can also just leave the wood thicker at the headstock. But I'll be using a contrasting wood, for the looks. I'll probably also laminate the front, again for the looks. I'm guessing the laminates will also strengthen the headstock.

I've read some builders claim that the headstock shape and size (and density) can affect the sustain?

[Mattia]

Laminates, front and back, will strengthen any headstock. In fact, back laminates are probably better strength insurance than volutes (but, y'know, I like volutes, so I use volutes and will be adding rear laminates to those, which also makes scarf joints practically invisible), certainly if you're using a 1-piece method (more short grain in the neck).

I don't know if headstock shape can affect sustain, but mass up there can (for giggles, add a smallish metal clamp to your headstock and observe any differences), and I believe flexibility can as well. For electrics, I like my headstocks small, compact. I think they look fine, balanced with regard to the body shape in terms of size and shape. For acoustics, they're larger, for the same reasons. On both kinds of instruments I carve volutes because I feel it stiffens up the headstock/shaft transitional area, and leave the headstocks as thick as possible for any given tuning machine. Don't recess my tuning machines, though, because it makes it a bit of a pain to finish, and isn't worth the gained mm or so.

[psw]

This guy's guitars have a skinny headstock http://www.zacharyguitars.com/Currently_for_Sale.htm

Oh yes! I knew I'd seen another skinny headstock somewhere. I like the Zachary headstock even better.

I was kind of impressed by Zackary's ideas...till I read his text...hmmm (good for a laugh!!!)

Anyway, can't cut and paste pics but have a good look at his headstocks. Two tuners are intentionally mounted upside down, there are roller string trees behind the nut on all strings and there are extreme angles to the tuners of the strings (it is not a straight pull).

On my Strat, one of the things I did was use copper plumbing washers (they are exactly the right size) between the back of the headstock and the tuner. None on the A and E one under the D and G and two under the B and high E. This makes the tuners graduated down adding more string pull like a slighly back angle. I do use one string tree on the high strings as the long length behind the nut on those strings cause unwanted resonances. It is mounted very loose with a slight pressure, just enogh to dampen them, not to provide back pressure. One other benefit is it adds a little mass and more mass on the higher strings that give them a little more smoothness...or so I think. With tremolo use, it is really very good with no hangups dispite a cheap plastic nut!

Although 6 a side, Leo again recognised the straight string pull and no scarf neck creation benefits.

Anyway, will look forward to seeing another idch creation... pete

PS...i just mentioned that klien used an increased back angle on his long headstocks...perhaps it is just a design feature, or maybe his way of addressing a resonance problem (there is usually a acoustic reason). I really like the look of Klien Acoustics...psw

[Mickguard]

Pete, nice idea about the washers, that would achieve pretty much the same thing...easier too.

I can see the advantage of the Klein headstock over Zachary's now, thanks for pointing that out -- the slight extra width on the Klein allows the strings to run straight. If I have to use string trees I will (I'd use Graphtech string trees in that case) but it'd be better if I can avoid them, too much clutter.

I'm still considering trying an open classical style headstock and sending the tuners through the sides (like half of the Rickenbacker 12 string headstock). It'd be a bit more complicated to pull off but that way I wouldn't have any worries at all about string angle, etc.

In that case, I'd use a tapered headstock, so that the strings wouldn't run into each other (or drag against the tuning pegs). I'll have to work up a diagram in Autocad to see if this is feasible --seems to me it might be, but I'll have to calculate everything nicely.

It's not that I'm against an angled headstock, it's just that I have my heart set on sticking with the wood I have here (from the same plank I built the last guitar from). I'm pretty sure it's Ipe...once I've thicknessed it, I'll have about 35 mm to play with --that'd give me a one-piece neck. (I can also turn the wood on its side and laminate two pieces together for a two piece neck, then there are no issues with the angle).

Mattia, I like the look of a volute too...

One thing I definitely like about Zachary's guitars is the way he applies his logo. That's now on my list of 'things to do!'

[psw]

Here's another I saw that might interest you in a similar vein from Mika...

Have a look at the ovation head too...they bring the latter heads in a bit more but top it off with a kind of crown to make it wider agan at the top.

Zakary's has some potential for simplicity, he even used it on some strat style bodies and it didin't look to bad.

Might want to consider asymetric tuner placement to get them closer together without hitting eachother for straight string through. If there is no tremolo, it's less of an issue anyway...though cutting the nut might be a little harder.

I think string trees are really only needed for the very long strings behing the neck...with a fender, because they are all in a line they are long. With the Zackary's the head is not much lower than the actual fretboard.

My string tree on the strat is an old bent metal version but the screw is loosened about 1/8" and just puts a little bit of pressure on them...because it moves with the string with trems there is virtually no friction, it hardly adds any down pressure at all, just enough to kill that odd resonance. Even though the back angle is only slight from these thin washers (1/16" thick-ish) it is enough...with 6 a side the headstock would have to be very long to have trouble I suspect so may not need them at all with the washer trick or some equivilent...btw, can't really see the effect of the washers from the front...someone makes "staggered post" tuners I believe to get this same effect.

pete

[Mickguard]

Add this one to my list of cool skinny headstocks:

Not so sure about the knot at the top. Love the way he mounted the tuners though. How'd he do that --did he add a kind of bracket? Think that would work for a guitar?

Of course, I'm a fan of most of the things Girl Brand does otherwise (he's also one of my biggest inspirations for wanting to build my own). Wish he'd come up with his own body design though.

[soapbarstrat]

You do know his body shape isn't exactly a Tele copy right ? Horn is a little more pointy than traditional Tele and the bass side of the neck pocket isn't exactly traditional Tele either, from what I remember. And his slanted neck pickups.... well if Fender would have done that to the Telecaster, the Tele would have been 20 times more popular all these years.

[Mickguard]

You do know his body shape isn't exactly a Tele copy right ?

Still too close to comfort. But actually he states that he adopted the Telecaster shape (well, I don't think he ever says the word 'telecaster') specifically as part of his comment on the electric guitar --i.e., taking the first true electric guitar design --the Les Paul is, after all, adapted from the archtop shape --and playing around with that. Which I agree is part of the fun.

His pickguard is great too.