Tune-o-matic Type Installation

[Pmiker]

Hello all...just joined the forum.

I have been playing for many years, mostly classic rock "My Era Stuff"

I have two questions that hopefully some of you guys with more building knowledge can answer.

On a Les Paul type guitar with the stop bridge / tune o matic style, i am assuming the angled neck pocket is needed due to the height the bridge is from the body.

1. Can I use this style and route a shallow recess for the tune o matic, and not have to angle the neck?

2. Will some one explain the theory behind the angled headstock, and options not to have to use one?

Thanks to all very much

Mike

[Rick500]

My current build has a recessed TOM and no neck angle.

I have several guitars built that way; works just fine (and I like having the bridge lower).

[killemall8]

headstock angle plusses

way stronger,

looks much better

no headstock angle

looks so ugly and cheaply done

not as strong.

[ihocky2]

An angled headstock being stronger is not entirely true. A scarf jointed head stock is going to be stronger than a one piece neck because of the grain orientation. And really I think there is a strong argument to be made that a straight headstock can be stronger. You have a continuous, straight grain orientation. And you see less Fender's with snapped headstocks than you do Gibsons.

One of the main benefits of the angled head is that it will allow you to bypass the use of string trees. Than angle head forces the strings to make the bend over the nut, creating enough pressure to keep them securely seated in the nut.

[djhollowman]

One of the main benefits of the angled head is that it will allow you to bypass the use of string trees.

...or indeed staggered-height tuner posts, I believe!

Also, I was always led to believe that having the headstock angled back improved the nut's "break-off" point, (ie the point on the nut where the string leaves the nut and continues to the bridge) by pulling the string down over the back of the nut, and thusly improves the intonation.

One other disadvantage of an angled headstock: the guitar will not lie flat, like in a case or a bag, or even on a flat surface, which could add tension to the headstock itself if you leave the guitar lying down flat resting on its headstock. This is especially true of 7-stringers with 7-in-a-row configurations.

IMHO the angled headstock does look much better however!!

Doesn't this kinda come under the old "Fender vs Gibson" schools of thought??

BTW My current build also has a recessed TOM and no neck pocket angle, and an angled headstock.

DJ

[guitar2005]

On a Les Paul type guitar with the stop bridge / tune o matic style, i am assuming the angled neck pocket is needed due to the height the bridge is from the body.

1. Can I use this style and route a shallow recess for the tune o matic, and not have to angle the neck?

2. Will some one explain the theory behind the angled headstock, and options not to have to use one?

1. Yes. Some prefer a recessed TOM bridge because your picking hand is closer to the bridge. Personally, I find that it makes a more comfortable guitar.

2. The angled headstock applies pressure on the nut whereas with a straight headstock, it is harder to do so without string tees. I prefer the look of an angled headstock with a scarf joint, which in my experience is just as strong as a flat headstock.

[Hector]

headstock angle plusses

way stronger,

looks much better

no headstock angle

looks so ugly and cheaply done

not as strong.

I've done at least 5 repairs in angled headstocks (2 gibsons and 3 acoustics), and not a single one on a fender headstock.

it`s all about grain orientation.

[killemall8]

headstock angle plusses

way stronger,

looks much better

no headstock angle

looks so ugly and cheaply done

not as strong.

I've done at least 5 repairs in angled headstocks (2 gibsons and 3 acoustics), and not a single one on a fender headstock.

it`s all about grain orientation.

but that could also be becuase gibsons have a really steep angle, like 15 degrees i think. if you go too far, then it starts to reverse.

[Woodenspoke]

headstock angle plusses

way stronger,

looks much better

no headstock angle

looks so ugly and cheaply done

not as strong.

I've done at least 5 repairs in angled headstocks (2 gibsons and 3 acoustics), and not a single one on a fender headstock.

it`s all about grain orientation.

Maybe if your customers don't drop their guitars that would help. But why complain it's money in your pocket. If I was doing a non angled neck pocket I would use a different (fender style) bridge. Pus this bridge give you a little more room for adjustments if you happen to be off on your calculations.

My personal preference is a Gibson angled headstock, slight angle on the neck and tune-oh-matic. To me it just looks more expensive than a fender. But I have built both so I am not a fender hater.

[Hector]

Maybe if your customers don't drop their guitars that would help. But why complain it's money in your pocket.

nah, they don`t drop the guitars. It´s always the cleaning lady`s fault. and I´ve heard that story way too many times, with some variations, everybody`s blaming someone else, kids, wife, dogs... lol. go figure.

[ihocky2]

I think the angled head looks a lot nicer, but just based on grain structure and geometry of the head itself, I would think the flat head stock is stronger. Fender is not really known for doing things because it is a better practice, they do things because it is easier to manufacture. Everything on their guitars is designed around mass production. But when a angled headstock falls, the head hits before anything else, making it more likely to break. A flat head is going to hit at the same time as everything else or after, so it has less stress when dropped.

[djhollowman]

It's also more ergonomic to have a guitar which has a neck angle and an angled headstock, because the body and neck kinda "wrap" around your fretting hand arm. In the case of a guitar with no neck angle, as you reach down towards the lower frets you're also reaching slightly further away from your body. If you keep your fretting arm elbow down by your side you'll notice that your forearm wants to move in a circular motion, and guitars with a neck angle feel slightly more in harmony with this arm movement.

With all that said, however, I personally will always prefer to have a lower bridge and no neck angle. It's a trade-off I'm willing to make in order to have lower action. But then again, I'm a leftie who plays right handed, so maybe that makes a difference too!

DJ

[Woodenspoke]

It's also more ergonomic to have a guitar which has a neck angle and an angled headstock, because the body and neck kinda "wrap" around your fretting hand arm. In the case of a guitar with no neck angle, as you reach down towards the lower frets you're also reaching slightly further away from your body. If you keep your fretting arm elbow down by your side you'll notice that your forearm wants to move in a circular motion, and guitars with a neck angle feel slightly more in harmony with this arm movement.

With all that said, however, I personally will always prefer to have a lower bridge and no neck angle. It's a trade-off I'm willing to make in order to have lower action. But then again, I'm a leftie who plays right handed, so maybe that makes a difference too!

DJ

I agree with the wrap around theory I am not sure how a lower bridge can make any difference to the string height or action.

The reason Fender does not angle the headstock is, it's cheaper and less work to carve a straight piece of wood. Probably the same reason to use screws to attach the neck.

[Mickguard]

Yeah, I don't think Gibson uses a scarf-joint, so that's one thick piece of wood you'd need for the neck blank. A big consideration. A lot more work to shape an angled headstock too.

One of Leo Fender's most revolutionary ideas was to adapt guitar design for the modern production line. I imagine he went through a number of prototypes, but he eventually ended up with guitars that work AND have very distinctive sounds. I've come to respect that greatly over the course of learning to build my own.

Personally, I think angled 6-in-line headstocks look dopey. And 3x3 headstocks don't usually look right when they're drop down. 4x2 headstocks look better as drop-downs.

I don't like scarf-joint headstocks, even though I understand they're stronger. But they just look cheap to me, most of the time. Probably because they're featured on too many Asian knockoffs.

That's just my feeling (which changes and evolves a lot-- I used to be a 'Gibson' guy, now I only play Fenders!). You have to decide for yourself what you like. That's why you're building your own guitar, right?

[djhollowman]

It's also more ergonomic to have a guitar which has a neck angle and an angled headstock, because the body and neck kinda "wrap" around your fretting hand arm. In the case of a guitar with no neck angle, as you reach down towards the lower frets you're also reaching slightly further away from your body. If you keep your fretting arm elbow down by your side you'll notice that your forearm wants to move in a circular motion, and guitars with a neck angle feel slightly more in harmony with this arm movement.

With all that said, however, I personally will always prefer to have a lower bridge and no neck angle. It's a trade-off I'm willing to make in order to have lower action. But then again, I'm a leftie who plays right handed, so maybe that makes a difference too!

DJ

I agree with the wrap around theory I am not sure how a lower bridge can make any difference to the string height or action.

The reason Fender does not angle the headstock is, it's cheaper and less work to carve a straight piece of wood. Probably the same reason to use screws to attach the neck.

Well, it's really just a comfort preference I guess! Resting your picking hand on a bridge as high off the guitar top as, say a typical Les Paul-type instrument just doesn't feel as "natural" to me as the same position on Fender-style ones. Just an opinion. I also prefer the way it makes the pickups look, I always think that pickups sticking most of an inch out of the body looks kinda "cheap". Again, just an opinion!

I totally agree with what you say about why Fender make their necks the way they do. And yet, as "cheaply-produced" as those Fenders are, isn't it amazing how many top players believe they are the mutts nuts? Clearly Fender must be doing something right.

DJ

[orgmorg]

On a Les Paul type guitar with the stop bridge / tune o matic style, i am assuming the angled neck pocket is needed due to the height the bridge is from the body.

1. Can I use this style and route a shallow recess for the tune o matic, and not have to angle the neck?

On a flat topped guitar, yes.

A LP has an arched top, so even if you were to recess the bridge, you would still need some neck angle to keep the strings above the top.

[southpaw rocker]

While were discussing the recessed TOM how far in does it need to recessed on a flat top. I'm building a Dinky type gone bad that I want a recessed TOM on. What is the common depth of the recess.

About the headstocks, I think 3+3 should be tilt back. I also agree that inlines do look kinda funny tilted.