Cool way of getting a break angle on a non angled headstock

[ShatnersBassoon]

What do you think guys and gals? I’ve seen this before on a lapsteel (and ofcourse on some acoustics, but with a different aesthetic) but it seems a cool idea and would negate having to use string trees. It also looks pretty cool IMO! This is from an instagram channel called Runt Guitars (seems impolite not to credit them!).

[mistermikev]

i will say that looks pretty cool.  might have to try that sometime. 

that said... if you look at how thick that neck is... and if you just took a strat neck and made it that thick and hence made the headstock 3/16" lower than typical... I don't think you would need string trees. 

also, if you use staggered tuning posts on a std strat neck you don't need string trees. 

i think the point here is I also hate string trees... and having alternative options to not needing them is nice, so I appreciate you post.

[Bizman62]

13 minutes ago, mistermikev said:

also, if you use staggered tuning posts on a std strat neck you don't need string trees. 

I have a set of those made by Gotoh. The angle isn't as steep as with a string tree - with the tree the thinnest strings would hit the headstock at the G tuner mark (if that made any sense). Continuing that angle would require the tuner poles to be way below the surface. Oh, and for visualizing, the angle of the A string without a tree is roughly similar to the B-e strings going under a tree.

[mistermikev]

47 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

I have a set of those made by Gotoh. The angle isn't as steep as with a string tree - with the tree the thinnest strings would hit the headstock at the G tuner mark (if that made any sense). Continuing that angle would require the tuner poles to be way below the surface. Oh, and for visualizing, the angle of the A string without a tree is roughly similar to the B-e strings going under a tree.

right, I am aware that the angle isn't nearly as steep... esp since you can put a string tree closer or further towards the nut... but the whole idea is they put enough of an angle on that you don't need string trees -altho it all depends on your geometry as even two 6 in lines might have a dif angle depending on how close to the nut you place the tuner. 

even graph tec string trees - I do not like them.  You can monkey with them to smooth them out and prevent most issues but I'd just as soon rather not have them at all.  it's one more point that has to allow micro movements of the string w/o any resistance to maintain ideal stability.

[Bizman62]

11 hours ago, mistermikev said:

the whole idea is they put enough of an angle on that you don't need string trees

Yepp, that's the idea. And the poles of my Gotoh tuners seem to be much shorter even on the bass side than those of my AmStd Strat.

Then again, out of curiosity I measured the drop both on the Gotoh and an angled 3+3. The high E string is 150 mm from the nut and sits 12 mm lower at the tuner. The 3+3 D and G are 140 mm from the nut and the strings sit 25 mm lower than the nut - and the headstock angle is only about 10 deg which is considered almost too shallow.

 

[mistermikev]

1 hour ago, Bizman62 said:

Yepp, that's the idea. And the poles of my Gotoh tuners seem to be much shorter even on the bass side than those of my AmStd Strat.

Then again, out of curiosity I measured the drop both on the Gotoh and an angled 3+3. The high E string is 150 mm from the nut and sits 12 mm lower at the tuner. The 3+3 D and G are 140 mm from the nut and the strings sit 25 mm lower than the nut - and the headstock angle is only about 10 deg which is considered almost too shallow.

 

on a strat anyway... and as I understand it... the whole idea of the string tree is/was just to keep the strings from popping out of the nut.  On a gibson, afa neck angle, it is my understanding that the original idea was to increase the perceived tension on lower frets.  due to the shorter 24.625" scale length, and 22.5" on a byrdland, they feel pretty loose.  I could totally be wrong about that but I'm almost certain I read it somewhere.  I've read that the early (59) les pauls actually had a 17 degree headstock angle for this reason... and it has been relaxed on most modern gibsons to 14.   long story long... as long as your strings don't pop out of the nut you are probably good.

"8777kllo" is how my cat feels about the whole thing (she jumped on my keyboard).  she is a wise cat so I'm sure if we can figure out what she meant it will be really relevant lol.

[henrim]

13 hours ago, mistermikev said:

"8777kllo" is how my cat feels about the whole thing (she jumped on my keyboard).

I think she just made typo there and meant to write 8.777 kilo. So 8.777 N is the optimal string tension. Please ask what note, frequency and string gauge we are talking about.

Edited December 23, 2022 by henrim

[mistermikev]

9 hours ago, henrim said:

I think she just made typo there and meant to write 8.777 kilo. So 8.777 N is the optimal string tension. Please ask what note, frequency and string gauge we are talking about.

hehe... it is true what they say about Siamese cats... little stinkers!  they do know their string tension tho.