Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?

[PFDarkside]

Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?

Staggered tuners are really a joke. They essentially solve nothing. They may reduce the height of up to 1-2 mm over regular tuners...depending on how you wind the strings on them (I always wind my strings so they are coming off of the tuner posts as close to the headstock as realistically possible anyways). This extra 2 mm only increases the head tilt by about one degree! Not enough to make any effective difference in breakangle whatsoever.

That was always my non-technical thought as well.

[ItsaBass]

Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?

You have the opposite problem with a reverse headstock: the low strings don't break enough over the nut.

You don't need traditional trees if you use a Floyd Rose style string retainer bar, like this one at Stewart MacDonald: https://www.stewmac.com/Hardware_and...SABEgLDMvD_BwE

They are a P.I.T.A. in their own way, but they are the sure fire way to give yourself enough break over the nut (and near equal break on each string) without using string trees.

What's the beef with string trees, though? They work fine, and aren't unattractive IMO.

[ehdwuld]

Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?

just don't like them

the roller ones work fine

the standard ones squeak when I tune up
just
kinda like the tilt back design

but it would be so much easier to make a flat fender style
If I were to make one myself

[ItsaBass]

Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?

Can't say I have ever experienced a squeaky string tree, on scores of guitars over 30+ years...but if I did, I'd just tune up louder.

[Wattage]

Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?

squeaky string trees? shoot a touch of superlube under them

reverse stocks are the way to go, lows are bigger and clearer, high strings play better and are a little smoother

[Mincer]

Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?

I use Graph Tech string trees, and they work well. But hey, I like staggered tuners, too. Come to think of it, if given the choice, I say no headstocks at all. Problem solved, then.

[ehdwuld]

Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?

squeaky string trees? shoot a touch of superlube under them

reverse stocks are the way to go, lows are bigger and clearer, high strings play better and are a little smoother

This is what I was thinking
The problem with the thin strings is they pop out of the nut when bending
If there is no tree

I would think the thicker strips gs don't get bent as far
And thus wouldn't come out

But if heavy down strumming knocks them out then that's a no go

[Wattage]

Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?

The best I could come up with was some years ago I had USACG make me reverse stock strat necks with tiltback headstocks

It worked

[Jacew]

Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?

I don't think it's necesssary to use string trees as default. Prefer to do it other way around and only use one if needed.

My main strat doesn't have any and that works perfectly. I recall high strings tone improved quite distictively when I removed them.

[Wattage]

Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?

Staggered tuners can make a big difference