Securb
One of Jerry's Kids
Two pages of conflicting information and discourse over one screw. Yep, all is well at the SDUGF.
Do I really need string trees?
- Thread starter Rex_Rocker
- Start date
Two pages of conflicting information and discourse over one screw. Yep, all is well at the SDUGF.
JMP/HBE
Well-known member
You mean "parasitic oscillation".
Rex_Rocker
Well-known member
Well, mine came out alright, LOL.
Rex_Rocker
Well-known member
I always thought it's very aesthetically unpleasing, personally. Especially since you can see the string tension pulling the headstock on the older guitars.
I've always thought a Strat with the same headstock shape, just tilted back would look soooooo much better.
Or a Strat with an Explorer-style headstock looks great too.
But it is what it is. It certainly wouldn't be traditional.
Rex_Rocker
Well-known member
Yeah, I know that was the whole ethos when Fender started.
IMO, that's part of the reason why current Fenders are, on average, better QC'd while still being more affordable than Gibson. Same goes for Squier vs. Epi. Their stuff is easier to manufacture, so they got more budget left to QC their stuff, maybe?
Tradeoffs, I guess.
Last edited:
Mr. B
New member
A guitar needs a string tree if the guitar needs a string tree. As others have said, there has to be a break/angle behind the nut heading down toward the tuners so the string does not sit too lightly in the nut slot and buzz. Several things can affect the string's break angle behind the nut. If you wind the strings further down the tuning post, it might have enough break angle without a string tree. If you use larger strings, each wind will move the string further down the tuning post and give you more break angle than thinner strings. Tuning posts can be different heights as well. I worked on an Epiphone Les Paul once that had such tall locking tuners that even with the angled headstock the strings were buzzing in the nut slots because there was no break angle behind the nut.
As a general rule, I think Strat type guitars are better off with one string tree on the 2 smallest strings, because you can't depend on people paying close attention to string winds around the tuning posts.
As a general rule, I think Strat type guitars are better off with one string tree on the 2 smallest strings, because you can't depend on people paying close attention to string winds around the tuning posts.
The most important decision is which makes the guitar sound and play better.
So, you're saying that we shouldn't pay any attention to your post telling us to only pay attention to one other post?
I don't think it was necessarily to make them cheaper but to make them stronger/more durable. How many stories do you hear of Fender headstocks breaking off? How many do you hear of Gibsons breaking?
I've made both types...there are trade-offs with each. I wouldn't say one is more costly to make than the other. I DO prefer the Fender design for a number of reasons, however.
Getting lucky one time doesn't mean you will again in the future, nor does it mean that it is the "best" way to do it.
Rex_Rocker
Well-known member
Yeah, I wasn't implying I did the right right thing. Just that I got lucky.
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Securb
One of Jerry's Kids
I get all of my information and wisdom from the internet and fortune cookies.
I think both reasons are probably valid. Leo was a notorious screw-counter, and money was always a concern in the design.
marcello252
Well-known member
actually the number of videos on YT about Gibson broken headstocks is pretty huge
