Tuner spacing

[ShatnersBassoon]

Is there any particular functional reason why the tuners on some designs have to be so vertically far away from each other? In the photo below for example, it seams that there is a tonne of space between each tuner. Just thinking because if they were closer together then you would get a stronger break angle for the strings from the nut, and consequently you could get away with a smaller headstock angle. I know that a smaller headstock wouldn’t be aesthetically pleasing to some, but that can’t be the only reason surely? Thanks for any thoughts. 

[Bizman62]

On my few factory built guitars the distance between two tuners varies from 25mm of the 6 in line Strats (or 1") to 35 mm on the 3+3 electric Eko and the acoustic, all measured between the centers of two adjacent tuner knob screws. For my own builds I've been using a PRS style template which seems to follow the 35 mm rule or close enough.

One factor is the size of the knobs. Mine vary from 18 to 24 mm, obviously the smaller the knobs the tighter the tuners can be packed. And obviously some clearance is required so that you don't accidentally nudge the adjacent knobs while tuning. That clearance seems to vary from about 5 mm upwards.

Regarding the string angle from the nut it doesn't change much if the height of the nut is similar to that of the hole of the string post. See illustration:

As can be seen a tall nut will make the strings fall in a fan pattern whilst a shallower nut matching with the tuner holes will have a constant angle. As thinner strings require more windings than thick ones even the thickness of the bass strings doesn't pull the angle steeper. Thus the theory about the break angle being stronger on shorter headstocks requires other design factors to be plausible. A tall nut works similarly to a flat Fendery headstock where the string angle depends on the depth of the fallaway.

Thus in my opinion the size of the headstock alone makes no difference at least regarding string pressure on the nut.

Aesthetics is another thing. To my eyes a small headstock can be nicer than a huge paddle but the first time I saw the 4+2 MusicMan headstock it looked a bit crowded for the size. And headless guitars, they seem to miss something! The straight string pull idea has made me look at headstocks differently as well as learning about neck dive. Those two turn the question to another tangent: Which is more important, functionality or fanciness? Or what are the visually pleasing properties of a tool that definitely looks like it will work flawlessly?

[ShatnersBassoon]

16 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

On my few factory built guitars the distance between two tuners varies from 25mm of the 6 in line Strats (or 1") to 35 mm on the 3+3 electric Eko and the acoustic, all measured between the centers of two adjacent tuner knob screws. For my own builds I've been using a PRS style template which seems to follow the 35 mm rule or close enough.

One factor is the size of the knobs. Mine vary from 18 to 24 mm, obviously the smaller the knobs the tighter the tuners can be packed. And obviously some clearance is required so that you don't accidentally nudge the adjacent knobs while tuning. That clearance seems to vary from about 5 mm upwards.

Regarding the string angle from the nut it doesn't change much if the height of the nut is similar to that of the hole of the string post. See illustration:

As can be seen a tall nut will make the strings fall in a fan pattern whilst a shallower nut matching with the tuner holes will have a constant angle. As thinner strings require more windings than thick ones even the thickness of the bass strings doesn't pull the angle steeper. Thus the theory about the break angle being stronger on shorter headstocks requires other design factors to be plausible. A tall nut works similarly to a flat Fendery headstock where the string angle depends on the depth of the fallaway.

Thus in my opinion the size of the headstock alone makes no difference at least regarding string pressure on the nut.

Aesthetics is another thing. To my eyes a small headstock can be nicer than a huge paddle but the first time I saw the 4+2 MusicMan headstock it looked a bit crowded for the size. And headless guitars, they seem to miss something! The straight string pull idea has made me look at headstocks differently as well as learning about neck dive. Those two turn the question to another tangent: Which is more important, functionality or fanciness? Or what are the visually pleasing properties of a tool that definitely looks like it will work flawlessly?

Thanks so much for the detailed reply Biz! Genuinely useful information there, I will definitely use it!

Quite like headless designs myself, love the look of the Strandbergs. It’s just the price of decent hardware that stops me making more of them. 

[Crusader]

My 2 cents

I'm pretty sure some makers set the distance of the tuners out such that the length of string from peg to nut doesn't match an overtone of the guitar, to avoid 'ring-on' Hard to achieve with a 12-string though!

A couple of my early guitars I put the pegs close together to help the guitar stay in tune but it looks dumb and is hard to tune

[Bizman62]

Haha, that one looks like a gorilla! Eyes close to each other, tall forehead, wide jaw etc.