Installing A Locking Nut On A Neck Not Designed For One

[toneblind]

From the mind of a 13 year old. My son has challenged me to build a guitar body of his design…

(Sort of a BC Rich Virgo, mirrored vertically)

We’re going to use the neck and electronics from a $20 beat up Washburn BT-2. The new body will be poplar. (We’ll be making a quick mock-up of the body in particle board to see if any design tweaks are necessary.)

As part of the design, my son also wants me to add a tremolo. My original idea was to find a cheap strat style tremolo, but I’ve been told by more than a few persons to go the few extra bucks and pursue a Floyd Rose locking type trem for better tuning stability. Further research has indicated that having a locking nut will provide more benefit than the locking the strings at the bridge.

So for the moment, I am going to try and find a reasonably priced Floyd Rose Licensed Single locking version.

My questions:

Seeing as there are about 10 zillion or so Strat style tremolos currently in use, is it really worth the extra $$ for a Floyd Rose Style (or Kahler, or Wilkinson)?

Can I get away with installing the locking nut on the tuner side of the existing nut? (I realize I may have to mill out some material to make it fit and may also have to file new string grooves in the locking base plate to correct the string angle to the tuners).

Would it be better to remove the existing nut and machine the neck to fit only the locking nut?

Edited February 9, 2009 by toneblind

[NotYou]

Putting something like that behind the existing nut will likely mess up the string angle from the tuners to the nut. I don't know much about locking nuts, personally, though.

Edit: I did a quick internet search and found these pictures. I guess it works, but if you look at the angle of the strings going from the locking mechanism to the nut, they're way too shallow in the first picture. The A string is barely touching it.

This one seems done right, but it's pretty fugly:

I still think you're much better off removing the old one.

There are lots of guys here who know much more than I do about the specifics of locking nuts. I'm sure they'll chime in soon.

Edited February 9, 2009 by NotYou

[Narcissism]

The third picture down is the most right out of all 3 pictures. That bar is what keeps your strings at the correct angle before you tighten the nut. Other than that though, there's still the chance that you're going to have to retune just a smigit after you lock the nut down. So your bridge is going to require fine tuners in order to be tuned correctly after locking the nut down.

As far as the nut placement, You can go either or, but I would prefer to do it the professional way and route out a spot for the nut so it sits flat like a normal nut. I'm not too sure if different nuts will change sound quality, as I've only used graphite and brass nuts. They were on different types of instruments though, so sound difference doesn't really show.

[ihocky2]

The Kahler locking clamps are designed to go behind a standard nut and lock down the strings. The question to ask when contemplating a trem is, "How hard will it be used"? If he is trying to work it like Steve Vai, then yes you want a locking tuner. If it is for more subtle bends and vibratos, then a non-locking is just fine with locking tuners and a properly shaped nut.

[toneblind]

The question to ask when contemplating a trem is, "How hard will it be used"? If he is trying to work it like Steve Vai, then yes you want a locking tuner. If it is for more subtle bends and vibratos, then a non-locking is just fine with locking tuners and a properly shaped nut.

I'd rather plan for the worst trem abuse imaginable and build it as durable as possible. It will no doubt get pounded on.

[ihocky2]

If you are going for locking, and a FR design then go full out for a double locking. The Kahler and the Floyd feel and act differently. I have not played on the Kahlers much, but do intend to. Floyd Rose's are pretty well documented about the subtleties of playing them. Bending is different, palm muting too heavy can through the pitch out, tuning can a problem for some people. I completely removed mine when I got the guitar to change electronics, and restrung it and got it to tune up just fine. But like I said, if you are look at a Floyd Rose style, then get a double locking. If not then look at a Kahler.

[Dadovfor]

On my first build I did what you're proposing.

In my case I removed the existing nut and filed the area level (essentially that was just the 2mm or so on the tuner side of the original nut). That created a surface with just enough 'meat' to screw the locking nut in it's correct place, but a small shim might have made it slightly prettier.

On that build I used a single locking Floyd but on my most recent build I used a double locking Floyd. I'm not the guitar player, my youngest son is, but we both prefer the single locking Floyd.

I'll leave it to others with more knowledge and experience to point out the pros and cons ... but I find stringing and tuning the double locking Floyd to be a lot more fiddly for no discernible benefit.

Sorry about the lack of pictures ... I'm at work and I don't have a specific photo in my photobucket account. But let me know if you need a picture to make sense of this post.

[Bmth Builder]

OT

The upper fret access on your guitar looks like it needs revising

[toneblind]

OT

The upper fret access on your guitar looks like it needs revising

I told my son, "you design it, we'll build it". I've promised to keep my design opinions to myself.

They way it's shown is twice as accessible as my son's original design. We'll be making a particle board mockup this weekend and installing the neck. I'm betting he'll see the need to open up that area too.

[djhollowman]

OT

The upper fret access on your guitar looks like it needs revising

..and cutting it out a bit more there would make it look better too. As a rule, I find exactly-symmetrical body designs don't appeal visually.

I have some experience regarding the locking nut scenario. I have 2 guitars where the locking nut sits behind the nut, one has an angled headstock, the other has a flat headstock. Both work well. But I've also converted a neck by adding a locking nut behind the main nut. One problem I encountered during this method was that unless you have a bar or similar to pull the strings down into line with the original nut (similar to the 3rd photo shown earlier), you end up sharpening the pitch of each string when you attempt the lockdown. Even if your bridge has fine tuners, your string could be out of tune by a greater amount than the travel of the fine tuners can compensate for! Something to think about!

I have also converted another neck by (as mentioned earlier) adding a thin wooden wedge to make a nice flat platform for the locking nut. This method worked perfectly, since the locking nut replaced the original nut at the correct height:

(Obviously it has been cosmetically improved after this photo was taken!! This was just a basic mock-up.)

I think it's worth going down the double locking route myself. If you can successfully set-up a Floyd (or similar) bridge, then that's a skill some folks don't have!!

Hope this helps!

DJ

[toneblind]

Thanks DJ, that picture shows the exact information I needed to see.

As far as altering the design, it's my son's project, I'm just along for the ride (and to see that he doesn't cut off any fingers). Each time he shows me a different iteration of his design and we update the CAD drawings, I go back and nudge the lines just a hair to open up that area as well as expand the overall height.

His first concept:

had the body at about 10" overall height and almost no access to the upper frets. I'm certain once he handles the particleboard mockup with the neck installed, he'll want to open it up some more.

Edited February 10, 2009 by toneblind

[RickBlacker]

(Obviously it has been cosmetically improved after this photo was taken!! This was just a basic mock-up.)

DJ

I know it helps me... By chance do you have any updated pics? VERY interested to see how it turned out.

[djhollowman]

Sure! Now that I look at that particular guitar again, I remember I'd actually removed some of the headstock surface to create a flat area for the nut. I used an offcut of ebony fingerboard to make a platform for the locking nut.

It works perfectly!

These might also help in the discussion about other styles of locking nuts etc:

Here's a pic of the locking nut and Graphtec Strat-style nut fitted as standard to my Westone Spectrum:

As you can see it features a locking nut behind the main nut, on a non-angled headstock.

And here's a pic of a similar arrangement on my BC Rich STIII which has an angled headstock and a plastic main nut:

Hope these help!

DJ

(Ugh! Doesn't camera flash make everything look awful??!!)

[RickBlacker]

Yes it does help. Turned out great!