Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?
- Thread starter ehdwuld
- Start date
PFDarkside
of the Forum
Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?
No, still need them for the longer strings. With a reverse headstock the low strings are at a very low break angle. (Assuming Fender style headstock)
No, still need them for the longer strings. With a reverse headstock the low strings are at a very low break angle. (Assuming Fender style headstock)
Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?
The trees are all about downward angle over the nut. Unless reversing the headstock suddenly reverses the effect of reality or physics, you are still going to have some strings where the back angle over the nut is quite shallow.
These strings will now be the thicker ones, where you often hit hard for chords.
The trees are all about downward angle over the nut. Unless reversing the headstock suddenly reverses the effect of reality or physics, you are still going to have some strings where the back angle over the nut is quite shallow.
These strings will now be the thicker ones, where you often hit hard for chords.
eclecticsynergy
Well-known member
Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?
Staggered tuners may be an option - someone must make a lefty version.
Staggered tuners may be an option - someone must make a lefty version.
hamerfan
Well-known member
Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?
Kluson HAP tuners have an adjustable length afaik.
Kluson HAP tuners have an adjustable length afaik.
Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?
I tried a few strats with the classic headstock angle design but I just can't get a trem to be really, properly stable. So I now moved towards angled strat headstocks. It's just a better way for me. 7 degrees, by the way. Works like a charm. (not a typo: seven degrees).
I tried a few strats with the classic headstock angle design but I just can't get a trem to be really, properly stable. So I now moved towards angled strat headstocks. It's just a better way for me. 7 degrees, by the way. Works like a charm. (not a typo: seven degrees).
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.
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.
Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?
I agree. They were more trouble than worth, so I stopped doing staggered
I agree. They were more trouble than worth, so I stopped doing staggered
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?
With a reverse headstock, I get more sympathetic ring from the mid-lower strings than when the top strings are longer so if I don't use trees, I still have to use those pick wedges to stop the string vibration. However, the string response, bending, sustain, changes in a better more playable way for me. I haven't analyzed why, but I just noticed it played better for me, particularly note bending, finger vibrato, and even ring/sustain of chords.
With a reverse headstock, I get more sympathetic ring from the mid-lower strings than when the top strings are longer so if I don't use trees, I still have to use those pick wedges to stop the string vibration. However, the string response, bending, sustain, changes in a better more playable way for me. I haven't analyzed why, but I just noticed it played better for me, particularly note bending, finger vibrato, and even ring/sustain of chords.
PFDarkside
of the Forum
Re: Does Reverse Headstock make the the string trees unnecessary?
That was always my non-technical thought as well.
That was always my non-technical thought as well.
ItsaBass
New member
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_an...MI6ubt5puq6AIVmx-tBh125QvQEAQYASABEgLDMvD_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.
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_an...MI6ubt5puq6AIVmx-tBh125QvQEAQYASABEgLDMvD_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.
Last edited:
