RynoTheMagnificent Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Strange but weird customer scenario: my customer owns a shipping store right next to an old luthier. The luthier developed parkinsons/diabetes and cannot finish a lot of half finished projects (never met him, but depressing story- sorry), so he pretty much gives my customer (who never played guitar ever) 5 or six half finished well made instruments- some with partial unknown finishes others with finish but now bridge/ pickup cavities. Its an interesting load of repairwork both fun and verys stressful at the same time. anyway, i have a custom strat unlacquered neck and lacquered/buffed body. I was wondering if i can avoid routing a ledge for a locking nut by just using locking tuners with a bone or graphite nut on the strat neck. sorry for the long intro, but its an interesting load of repairs. thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RynoTheMagnificent Posted April 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 forgot to mention its for a floyd setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 My opinion, and it's not an experienced one, is that if you REALLY don't want to put a locking nut, you'll still get a benefit if you have the lowest possible friction on the nut as per your plan. So, it's not a completely "out there" idea, and you're certainly not the first person to ask that question. But that's as long as you understand that the Floyd system was designed and made to be used with a locking nut. There's more than just the "locking" aspect; it's the fact that the strings are all locked at the same spot and there is NO other real point of friction-- it's clamped at the nut, clamped at the bridge, nothing but equal-lenghted (more or less) string in between. The minute you use locking tuners instead of nut, even with a low friction graph-tech nut, you ARE introducing a point of friction. And there ARE varying amounts of 'excess' string past the nut en route to the tuners. The part of the picture I'm missing is this-- are you stuck using a Floyd? Or is that by choice? If it's not something you're 'stuck' with, why not just get one of the more reliable traditional trems? There's a third option-- get a Kahler-style locking mechanism, which goes on past the nut. Someone more knowledgable than me could give you more details about whether it's feasible (frankly, I don't know for sure) but I'd certainly research that option if I were you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RynoTheMagnificent Posted April 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 I was curious if the locking tuners (allowing no string slack), really decreased the amount of friction, im not too familiar with alot of floyd tampering. I have the matching locking nut to use for the strat-nut pre slotted neck. the guy likes compicated looking hardware, and the guitar has no bridge cavity set for it yet, though the guy went through the whole lacquering process already- yay floyd routing. the only concern on the locking nut platform is if after reaching the proper depth, the nut will hang a bit over the headstock scoop. and yes the customer likes complicated looking gold hardware, which the old luthier guy gave him a ton of. all top name hardware too. I got a nice peterson 450 out of it. thanks for the insight. just gotta figure out the router jig now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 The locking tuners definitely decrease the number of issues at the tuners themselves. The nut is the point of friction to worry about in the "locking tuners + locking bridge" idea. It'd never be quite the same as locking nut. But, this is just one dude's opinion, and not even a particularly experienced one at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RynoTheMagnificent Posted April 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Good common sense to me. I shouldn't try to jerry rig a good floyd system anyway. Thanks again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihocky2 Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 I'm not terribly familiar with the Kahler style, behind the nut locking clamp, but I don't see why it wouldn't still work well. I think Floyd Rose, just tried to eliminate unneccessary parts in his design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanthus Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 With a behind-the-nut clamp, you'd still be able to get the benefits of an Earvana nut too Though I heard someone say that they were going to develop a compensated locking nut soon *shrug* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MescaBug Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 (edited) Locking tuners were not made to replace locking nuts. They prevent string slippage by locking the strings in the posts. But you can't prevent tuners from turning. Problem with Floyd Rose is that if one string is off tune, it throws all the strings off balance. With locking nuts, that can't happen because turning the tuners has no effect on the strings. Locking tuners helps a lot with Strat style tremolo bridge, hardtails etc. But I wouldn't expect a good tuning after a heavy dive bomb with a Floyd Rose and no locking nuts. I also agree with Greg; there is no other point of friction/contact after the nut. For me, that means easier tuning, easier intonation. Some people don't care, but I prefer Floyd Rose equipped guitars for that reason. Edited April 14, 2008 by MescaBug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RynoTheMagnificent Posted April 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 thanks for the good info on locking nut logic, very helpful. ill check out the behind the nut lock. Im just setting up my router to make the locking nut platform now- unless anyone has any jig setup tips, im goin for the gold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 No tips from me-- but I was a bit confused about why you'd check the behind the nut lock if you're going for the gold. It's a one or the other proposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.