Is Zachary Right?

[Mickguard]

It's funny how a thread like this gets so much attension, and a thread that could actually produce some positive or helpful information gets much less.

I honestly started the thread to get opinions on this headstock design as opposed to others -- to me, the headstock makes some sense, but doesn't solve all the problems. Didn't mean to start a flame war, but so it goes.

Maybe it's just the weather?

Actually, the conclusion I've reached from the few on-topic replies (and other continued readings) is that the dropdown headstock probably makes the most sense and can be tweaked (slight angle or staggered tuners) to be just about as good as anyone can ever need. It's relatively easy to build and doesn't require much wood.

I like Zachary's headstock but I don't like the concessions -- the string trees and the tuner compromise--and the fact that the guitar can't be hung from the wall.

I remember seeing one builder's headstock in which he kind of reverses the 6-in-line, or actually, places the high E and B on the treble side in the position the low E and A usually are. In this way he achieves the necessary string tension and keeps all the strings in a nice straight line.

Can't remember who the builder is --maybe marksound knows, he seems to have a photographic memory.

[Dino]

I like Zachary's headstock but I don't like the concessions -- the string trees and the tuner compromise--and the fact that the guitar can't be hung from the wall.

I remember seeing one builder's headstock in which he kind of reverses the 6-in-line, or actually, places the high E and B on the treble side in the position the low E and A usually are. In this way he achieves the necessary string tension and keeps all the strings in a nice straight line.

Can't remember who the builder is --maybe marksound knows, he seems to have a photographic memory.

I don't care for Zachary's headstock either.

I do think it looks kinda cool, but I don't think it's a very practical design.

Headstocks and tuner configurations that offer the straightest line coming off the nut, seem to function better IMO, unless it's a locking nut, in which case it may not matter as much.

Examples would be PRS and even Perry's design.

Edited June 11, 2006 by Dino

[rhoads56]

So far, one of you has stated that he expects to be "compensated"

I love it when people take things out of context...

I stated, for the record, that if anyone wants the findings from my research, they would have to compensate me financially. Thats not, compensated for offering advice, or helping out on the forum, but for a 300+ document, including around 1000 photos, well over 1500 sound bytes, spreadsheets, designs, graphs, etc, and i'll even chuck in a couple special tools, some unique necks, pickups, and a tremolo we made to achieve the results. This research cost me just over $10,000.

I dont mind sharing advice which is reasonably easily found out anyway, or common knowledge (to luthiers lets say), which might help out a newcomer into luthiery. But im not going to tell you which angle of headstock has the best tuning stability vs sustain** vs loudness vs tone* vs cost vs attack vs others, or what metals/truss rods/carbon inlaid under a fretboard increase the sustain** or tone* etc etc, or what the best heel block size is compared to tone* and sustain** etc etc. All the things i found which proved or disproved certain theories id read, or been told about. All the results which have changed the way i build guitars. All the things that have meant my guitars are better than they were 12 months ago.

*(tone being a five way scientific measurement of sound quality, not the subjective tone we all talk about)

**(sustain being note decay over time, not length of note until the string stops ringing)

Floyd Rose/Buzz Feiten/Novax dont offer their ideas free. You license them. GM doesnt share cylinder head port flow designs for maximum efficiency. PRS doesnt share its research and findings from Ted McCarty. The US government doesnt share nuclear technology with Iran. My business competitors dont offer free advice on marketting so i can beat them at their own game.

The regular luthiery advice on the forum comes free. The experience to offer alternative suggestions on the forum comes free. The ability to walk into my workshop without notice, stop me while im trying to make a living, and ask a bunch of questions, then leave with no obligation to buy anything, ever, comes free. Always has. Always will.

So, thats WHY i stated i would need to be compensated. Not for advice, but for scientific findings. Most luthiers wouldnt need it. I love guitars, and want to build the ultimate guitars. Thats enough of a drive for me to contract scientific teams to assist me. Hence, you need to fork out some dollars if you want to share that... its only fair. Im not interested in patenting this findings, although my lawyers tell me im stupid not to. As far as im concerned, its wrong to patent stuff like this. Maybe i need to be more ruthless in this regards.

So, Dino, does that explain it? Are you content with that explanation?

Shall i send you my bank details?

Or, you could just order a couple guitars, like one of my competitors has done.

[MiKro]

I would say something but it would not be PC . LOL:)))

Interesting thread though!

mk

[Mickguard]

Im not interested in patenting this findings, although my lawyers tell me im stupid not to. As far as im concerned, its wrong to patent stuff like this. Maybe i need to be more ruthless in this regards.

As a content provider who depends on other people sharing their information, I'm torn on this one.

On the one hand, I agree that people get patent crazy and some of the patents (and trademarks) that are granted are just plain wrong.

On the other hand, I think information is necessary --so in a way, I'd prefer someone to patent what they know, if they're not in the position to give it away, so that everyone else can share it.

A hard call. But I think if you've put the money into the research, then you should protect yourself. So I agree with your lawyer (not that your stupid, that you should protect yourself) . Unfortunately, there are too many unscrupulous greedy types in the world. That's just reality.

[rhoads56]

To patent ONLY the important findings, which definately hadnt already been patented, the quote was $140,000-160,000

That was for roughly half of the ideas we "discovered", or invented.

IF i had $140,000 to spend on my business, id rather have a CNC... or a bunch of materials to build a couple hundred guitars.... than a bunch of patents.

[Mickguard]

To patent ONLY the important findings, which definately hadnt already been patented, the quote was $140,000-160,000

Nuff said!

[Dino]

Perry,

At first glance, I'd say your guitars are identical to Jacksons, right down to the body shape, headstock, and even the shark inlays. I'm sure there are many differences, but without knowing what they are, all I can say is that was my first reaction.

All I'm trying to say is that maybe you could benifit more from letting people know what sets your guitars apart from the competition, that's all.

In an attempt to get back on topic here, I will say that if given the choice, I would most likely choose one of your guitars over a Zachary. Though the Zachary designs are "unique", I do feel that the builder may have sacrficed some tone and functionaility just for the sake of trying to be "different". Again, that's just my opinion based on what I see but I can't see drilling holes in a solid body electric as being any sort benifit as far as tone, and I think everyone already covered all the disadvantages of the headstock design.

JMO

Edited June 12, 2006 by Dino

[rhoads56]

Perry,

At first glance, I'd say your guitars are identical to Jacksons, right down to the body shape, headstock, and even the shark inlays. I'm sure there are many differences, but without knowing what they are, all I can say is that was my first reaction.

All I'm trying to say is that maybe you could benifit more from letting people know what sets your guitars apart from the competition, that's all.

Thanks for your thoughts, but i build CUSTOM GUITARS. My clients know to tell ME what they want, and i go from there. If that means i made a bunch of Jacksony shaped guitars all in a row, so be it. I can assure you there are many many CUSTOM designs still to be displayed on the website.

PS When did i do a Jackson headstock?

[GregP]

Yeah, more like ESP, really. JK. It's in the "6-inline superstrat headstock" category, but I don't see the big deal with that. There are dozens and dozens of PRS-style headstocks out there now with little more changed than a slightly different shape at the end instead of the simple "crescent scoop" that PRS uses.

Greg

[Drak]

Dude's on crack, but I like him anyway.

[Mickguard]

Dude's on crack, but I like him anyway.

That you, Wod? What you do with Drak?

[Guitarfrenzy]

I've struggled with the same thing Perry is talking about, so I definitely see his point. Sometimes I catch myself thinking, do I give too much information away freely. I've gave away information that I'll see others on the forum talking to others about, but never mention where they got the idea from. It makes you wonder if it's really worth telling everything you figure out, or discover after building guitar after guitar. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy giving information away, and helping others out, and I should never feel I deserve any credit, because most of the time your not going to get it anyway.. lol

If I was going to get into guitar building full time, I would do like Perry and concentrate on building the guitars, and wouldn't come here sharing everything I discovered that might give the competition an edge. Perry's in a different situation that we hobbiest are in, we just do it for the fun of it and it's not business to us. I can completely understand Perry not giving away any good information that could possible be used against his business, that's just common sense. For example, when's the last time you saw Paul Reed Smith on here giving away information to help us out? Never, and you never will either. Why? We'll he doesn't want competition, so why give someone else the tools to compete against his company? Just imagine if Sam Walton when he was alive, gave information to K-Mart, etc. to help their buisness, he wouldn't have ended up with one of the biggest businesses in the world (not saying that's a good thing though.. lol) and the competition could have used his information to get rid of his company before it became so big. Information is everything!!!! So, if Perry feels like giving away some information isn't in the best interest of his business, I respect that.

[Drak]

That you, Wod? What you do with Drak?

He's got a lot of BS on the site, granted, but I like his overall 'if you don't like what I do, stick it up your a__' attitude. Reminds me of me a little.

I don't really like the guitars, although they're not too bad either, but I like his demeanor, and the PRS-bashing section, as well as the idiot page, were quite enjoyable I thought.

Hey, if you're going to try to make money at something, I can't blame anyone for giving it their very best shot, no matter what tactics they try, it's his way of making his own niche, making a name for himself, and controversy always attracts people, (look at Eminem or Michael Jackson) so the PRS stuff (I think) is really just a way to draw attention to himself, a sales tactic, and apparently it's working for him, so hat's off to a good sales tactic I sez.

[marksound]

The stuff Perry is talking about would probably never come into play for most of us. Information, research data, test results, etc. is great and helps the professional produce a more consistent product, but for most of us the lack of experience or inability to put it into practice makes having all that information all but irrelevant and probably overkill. Besides, there is plenty of stuff available free or cheap.

Just an opinion.

[Mickguard]

That you, Wod? What you do with Drak?

He's got a lot of BS on the site, granted, but I like his overall 'if you don't like what I do, stick it up your a__' attitude. Reminds me of me a little.

Oh I thought you meant the dude on crack was Dino

But yeah, after watching that Zachary video, you gotta wonder about people...

[ToneMonkey]

OK then as for Perry's comments - I fully undertand, there are a few threads where people have been on about resonators. And although I am working with a luthier building them at the minute (and I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination) I have stated on these threads that there may well be some information that I just cannot give away. This is mainly to protect his business as there are some special processes that he uses and for me to come on to the internet and tell people how he does things just isn't a good idea. It's taken him all his life to get to this stage and he has worked many many hours thinking and making his instruments better. In a saturated market like guitars then it's those little things that put you ahead of the next bloke.

Saying that though, I have helped where I can and there's loads of information that I'm happy to discuss. If it was information that I derived then I have no problems with telling everyone. There has been a couple of things that I haven't posted but have PM'd to relevant people (like emailing clavin a material that I thought might make awesome inlays - I haven't put it to the public as I want to make a guitar using this stuff and then hopefuly sell it, so I don't want anyone beating me to it).

I think that Perry has added a lot to this forum and if there is some information that he doesn't want to disclose for any reason then fair enough. His information so it's his choice. If there is something that you really need to know, then try to work it out, it how Perry got his knowledge. So what if he's an uppety ozzie that only makes Jacksons

As far as the Zachary info goes I'm staying well and truly on the fence, all I do know is that those heasdstocks look like they were made with wood from the ugly tree.

[GregP]

PRS shares information all the time. We all know exactly how to create a 513 if we want, we just don't have the benefit of custom pickups and printed circuit boards to make it easy. We know why he chose his headstock shape, I'm sure he's talked about his trem, and we know why he chose 25" scale. Each pickups is described in technical detail, and we know why he chose locking tuners on a non-locking trem guitar. Indeed, nobody bothered much with locking tuners until everyone realized that it helped with trem stability even for non-Floyd guitars. It seems obvious now, but once upon a time it was new and PRS was the only company doing it.

So... yeah, PRS shares quite a bit.

But, that's different than what Perry's referring to. His findings involve the specifics. "11.75-degree turned out to be ideal for headstock angle" is specific. "We compared wraparound to TOM to hardtail bridges and found that TOM with string-through produced 5% more sustain on the same guitar" is specific evidence. If I'm not mistaken, it's THAT which Perry is keeping to himself. He'd be happy to recommend to someone, "Use an angled headstock... anywhere between 10 and 13 degrees should be fine," but that doesn't mean he wants to tell us that "11.75 degrees is ideal for this style of guitar" or whatever.

If I'm putting words into your mouth, Perry, I apologize and you can correct me.

Greg

[rhoads56]

Yup, you nailed it. The list we came up with had a heap of "best of" and a heap more "if this, then that" type specifications.

[Dino]

Greg, very well said ... and I agree.

I didn't mean that Perry should be THAT specific with his findings, but rather maybe point out some of the benificial features in general. The headstock was an excellent example Greg.

Perry, I didn't mean anything "bad" by making the comparison to Jackson.

If you'll go back and read what I wrote, I said that I'm sure there are alot of differences.

I just wasn't sure what they were.

That wasn't meant to be interpretted as a "cheap shot".

Nevermind ... it really doesn't matter.

You've made your point.

[Drak]

PS, I'm sick to death of the whole Perry thing.

If you want to keep your beloved little secrets, then keep them and shut up about it already.

[Ben]

PS, I'm sick to death of the whole Perry thing.

If you want to keep your beloved little secrets, then keep them and shut up about it already.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif rolleyes.gif icon_wavey.gif

I'm sure Perry would have gladly 'shut up about it' a long time ago if we werent all so persistant with all our questions and opinions about it.

[rhoads56]

Someone gets it!!

[Drak]

I agree!

Everyone, stop asking Perry about his secrets for chrissakes already!

Having said that, you know Perry was the one who brought it all up in the first place and baited the nice people.

[Ben]

Anyway, I had a thought related to the actual topic of this thread

If you did a classical style tuner arrangement you could make the headstock pretty much as thick as you want, and plus the tuner posts will be at a much lower level and may help increace the break angle at the nut.

Of course the two big slots could weaken it a bit.

Just a thought.