Locking Nut or...?

[Silence Kid]

Re: Locking Nut or...?

But wrapping the string can allow you either increase or decrease break angle. I wrap the low strings up the post and the low string down the post for all my in-line 6 guitars.

As for the previous comments about roller nuts, why would it fall out of place if the strings were slacked? You still glue it in like a normal nut.

Another thing to consider BriGuy, if you go for the roller nut it's also a good idea to get roller string trees. There should be as little friction as possible between the tuners and the bridge.

Not the nut itself falling out of the guitar; the strings falling out of the nut. An LSR is quite shallow, so there's an opportunity for strings being unable to seat back in the nut. Perhaps a Wilkinson would work somewhat better? Don't those have an integral retaining bar as well? It's been a while since I used one; I know those are troublesome nuts anyway, compared to the LSR.

Your point about wrapping is the point I was trying to make; if you want lesser break angle on the treble strings, locking tuners give you the opportunity to eliminate the wraps. On the flip-side, tuners like Spertzels might not even have enough room for any wraps at all on the post though, and so you'd be losing that "adjustment."

 

[Chistopher]

Re: Locking Nut or...?

I've never had any issues with strings coming out of their slots provided there is sufficient down angle coming from the strings. They usually just pop back into place when I let up.

 

[BriGuy1968]

Re: Locking Nut or...?

So I guess the question may need a little clarification now that some obvious heavy Floyd users have put in their two cents.

By the way, that wasn’t a dig of any kind, but some people use one with a much heavier hand than others. The FR trem was designed to withstand heavy use while still maintaining tuning and the locking nut is an integral part of that.

My question stems from two facts about me as a player:

1) I’m a hardtail guy at heart... I barely touch any of the trems I already have and when I do it’s just for a little “wobble” on a note/chord.

2) I’m also lazy at heart and I always viewed the locking nut as a PIA.

Will I ever get into dive bombs and stuff? Probably not, but if I do it’s not like I’m gonna throw away the locking nut or forget what its purpose is. I can always re-install it.

Can I live with the locking nut? Of course! I just prefer not to.

Why am I working on a guitar that needs a FR when I’ll never use it? Because it’s a fun “rescue” project that started with a beat-up body that already had the rout.

The locking nut vs roller nut and locking tuners is not a deal breaker for me either way... I’m just trying to get a sense of whether my logic is sound or not. If it’s just NOT gonna work then I don’t want to waste my time.



So the question REALLY becomes...

Can I reasonably get away with the roller nut and locking tuners assuming that the trem is used only lightly?

 

[Sirion]

Re: Locking Nut or...?

I would go with a locking nut, because (1) it adds less mass than locking tuners, and (2) it functions perfectly no matter what you do with the bar (strings will pop out of a rolling nut if you depress it enough).

If you want to simplify the locking process, the Edwards nuts are back on the market:



With these, you merely use the clamping mechanism to open and close. It does add more mass, but it removes the needs for Allen keys, and is supposed to detune the strings less than a normal locking nut.

 

[Chistopher]

Re: Locking Nut or...?

Of course. I'm the same way with my Floyd use and the only time I ever make the strings go slack is when I'm practicing on my own and get so frustrated with a piece that 30 seconds of obmoxiousness is warranted to cool off.

The only chance the strings will get stuck in the wrong slot of the nut is if you push down hard enough that the strings won't sound. Even then its rare.

Here's a mans with a standard nut:

 

[Sirion]

Re: Locking Nut or...?

Just saw the last post over mine. The rephrased question is so life denying that it breaks my heart to answer it, but the answer is yes.

 

[BriGuy1968]

Locking Nut or...?

Just saw the last post over mine. The rephrased question is so life denying that it breaks my heart to answer it, but the answer is yes.

lol... sorry! Not trying to break your heart! [emoji12]

I guess in my old age I’ve lost the drive and patience to screw around learning its tricks. [emoji848]

By the way, I go with the locking tuners anyway just because I have them on everything else so the nut’s mass isn’t really a concern for me, but that Edwards nut is quite interesting... hmmm...

 

[BriGuy1968]

Re: Locking Nut or...?

I looked up that Edwards nut. REALLY cool, and it looks like it would work great, but I’m not spending $80 on a nut!

 

[dave74]

Re: Locking Nut or...?

Staying with what you know makes perfect sense so I don't fault anyone for that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,having said that, the locking nuts are anything but a hassle.
Once you tune-up and lock down it makes day-to-day fine-tuning even easier than ever.

 

[Mincer]

Re: Locking Nut or...?

I still say locking tuners and no locking nut. I know several people with Floyds who do use them, but don't use the locking nut, and it is just fine. If you barely ever touch it, then there isn't anything to worry about. I am not a Floyd fan at all- I think it is a crude design that tries to solve problems that shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

[ehdwuld]

Re: Locking Nut or...?

Carvin stopped putting locking nuts on theirs some years ago
Graphite nut and locking tuners being standard, the mechanical nut was unnecessary