Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?

[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