Stop Fretting Over Headstock Angles
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- When you apply the math to calculate the downward force of the string at the nut as measured in pounds, the difference between a 10° headstock (3.38lbs) and a 17° headstock (5.70lbs) is only 2.32lbs. That's not enough to lose sleep over.
I asked Rick Turner on a forum years ago,what angle for a 12 string ,he mentioned something ive always remembered. Use just enough break angle on the head stocks to keep the string from buzzing or jumping out of the nut.moderation first. On my double neck he said try 10 degrees for the 12 string.in fact i also used 10 degrees on the six string . He was right there was plenty of downward tention no buzzing. Very true ring tone. Both stay in tune better than my lp with 17 degree headstock Even on the six string. I dont know where gibson got 17 degrees ,maybe engineering or maybe arbitrary,i dont know. Fenders design isnt flaw free either.it is stronger than gibson but string trees cause tuning problems and without string trees you probably will get buzzing.
I now build tilt back headstocks with 10-12 degree break angles. Works for me .
Thanks for your input Chris, it gets us thinking and out of the Gibson/ Fender does it this way ,so i must also mind set.
I was fretting over the angle on a banjo neck. Your video helped me relieve that. Thank you.
Great video!
I love it when people tell me they can tell the difference in headstock angles... or really anything like that.
tonewood etc in electrics
I bet you do. You are so clever.
Larger wound strings need a higher break angle to prevent buzzing. Whereas unwound strings need a lower break angle to stay in tune. Angled headstocks do the opposite of what is needed. Because of the surface area of the G sting in particular, it is important to have the least break angle possible and the thinnest nut possible. This is why Fender is so popular.
That makes sense to me... up until the "feel" part. I got lost toward the end, simply because the feel is very important to me. Can you address that a bit more.
Yes I agree tension between nut and bridge is the same and doesn’t really take much on an electric guitar and we can fake it easily with string trees obviously. I don’t care for locking nut on my Kramer strat very much, but it works for the Floyd rose trem better I suppose. What I do like is it used a full bar string tree through bolted that’s adjusts downward pressure nicely on a smooth polished round surface. I thought to try it with a slotted nut and zero fret some time.
I quite disagree in the conclusion of your analysis.
If we have a nut of an ideal material, then there is no friction forces (in the local direction of the string) added to the string (this is how we'd like the nut to be ideally). This results in a case where the tension of the string is identically the same on both sides of the nut. The only forces transmitted from the nut to the string is local pressures acting perpendicular to the direction of the string. Since the situation is steady, according to newtons second law, the forces should balance. So if we consider the force component in the direction perpendicular to the fretboard, the analysis will show us that the force from the nut onto the string in this direction turns out to be Fs*sin(StringBreakAngle). From Newtons third law we get that the strings push the nut down with an equal size but opposite direction, So this is how much the nut is being pressed "down onto the fretboard".
Fs is the string tension force, which for an ultra light set (9-42) correspond to the force that 36 kilos make. (We can get up to the double of this by switching to heavy 12-52 strings!)
"sin" is the mathematical sinus function
"StringBreakAngle" is the angle-change that the string makes over the nut (if the sinus fuction on yout calculation device works in radians you have to use the string brak angle given in radians, where DegreesInRadians=Degrees*pi/180=Degrees/57 (approx.) )
For an example with numbers I'll use the string force from the ultra light strings, corresponding to 36 kilos and give the results in in F/g, so the corresponding kilo's of mass that would produce the same force in earth's gravity. The results are shown below
StringBreakAngle (degrees) 0 5 10 15
Force/g (in kilos) 0 3.1 6.2 9.3
As long as the string break angles are kept small (below 30 degrees), the sinus function is rather linear, so we can say to a good approximation, that for the ultra light strings considered we'll get 0.6 kilos worth of nut pressure per degree string break angle, and heavy strings approximately the double.
You can test that this is indeed correct by trying to "lift out" the strings off the nut of a guitar. The force is very far from just the weight of the strings. I can send you the force diagram and calculations so you can go through them yourself if you wish.
Thanks for all your great guitar building videos. I apprechiate them a lot!
-Mac
WOW. If I decide to build thermo nuclear weapons, I'll know who to talk to.
This is an interesting video for people who wonder about the physics of various guitar myths, such as the practical difference between 17 and 14 degree backangle on Gibson-style headstocks.
If the maths is correct in MrMacGaunaa's comment - and intuitively I do feel that there should be a relationship between increasing string to tuner angle and increasing downforce on the nut - it's an interesting question as to what is the minimum downforce needed to retain the strings in their slots. (I'm assuming here that the slots are cut in the way we are told is best - i.e., as semicircular channels that are the same depth as the radius of each string, with the string contacting the bottom of the slot only at the front edge of the nut.) I'm willing to bet that it was arrived at by trial and error.
If the only purpose of headstock angle is to improve string retention in the slot, it makes no sense to increase that angle beyond the minimum required. Excessive downward force is not needed, and may start to inhibit string vibration, affecting sustain. Is there any way of calculating that minimum force? It would have to work with the lightest set of strings.
The same should be true of angle behind the bridge.
I agree with MrMac, the force vector at the nut (perpendicular to the fretboard) increases with the angle of the headstock. Here's an example illustration for 5 degrees vs 17 degrees (Gibson): imgur.com/a/Bj4fc The perpendicular force for an A string increases more than 3 times, from 1.7 to 5.7 lbs. Without math, it's easier to understand this effect if we exaggerate and imagine the headstock siting at a 90 degrees from the neck, in which case the force vector at the nut (perpendicular to the fretboard) would be at it's max value, equal to the tension of the string.
Nice work. It's about the distribution. Now you test how much force is needed (based on a half round fretslot) to keep the string in the slot. So you'd know what the minimum is (probably around 3 degrees). Would be a nice piece of work to simulate that with the string vibration until it fails.
Besides a lot of broken necks on the extreme angles, it still has some influence on how the strings feel. When you got a crap-o-matic bridge with a tailpiece and you compare the difference playing bends when you have a steep string angle towards the tailpiece and once when it's less or top wrapped. Huge difference.
On Guitars with vibrato-bridges, more pressure on the nut may hinder sliding through the slots. Strat-style vibratos have their friction and general inertia problems (roller nut and trees help ...or a very well made nut and roller trees). But if you really want to do a lot of whammy work, locking nut and a locking bridge are the best choice and the headstock doesn't matter.
A big angle isn't needed on guitars. Lutes needed a very steep angle for tuning stability cause the nut pressure reduced the force on the friction based pegs. A lot of designs that were taken over to new instruments have no deeper meaning under the new circumstances.
A lot of guitar builders used to make all sorts of stringed instruments...violins, lutes, mandolins.
It's still utter crap that the headstock angle brings the certain les paul sound like a tone polish selling company tries to advertise. They got stuck with their design choice, that's all.
Depending on what the player wants it's mostly for looks. I asked Chris just a while back. Aesthetics are the reason why he ads the angle on his guitars. On Bass it's a whole different thing. The angle can be one of the reason for dead spots. (different frequency range).
Another question are other factors that come with the headstock angle. There can be more string length behind the resting points.
Or if you want a headstock at all.
If you guys listen carefully to what I said in the video, you'll hear me say "almost" at 3:05 and then "change that much" at 3:46. I'm not saying there is absolutely no difference, just not enough to fret about.
Regardless of which headstock angle I choose, I'd be more concerned about string angle from the nut to the tuning peg. It has to be straight - whether 3x3 or 6 in line.
Before you even go there...try to teach everyone that they have to stretch their damn strings. They buy locking tuners and what not and it still hangs on how to change strings.
self trimming locking tuners. love 'em.
ever notice that on slotted heads people wind the string over the top instead of underneath? If you wound it under it would increase downward force but no one does this. Must not be that big of a deal.
This video makes me want to build a solid body electric with a slotted headstock at 0 degrees.
your reasoning regarding tension is incorrect. given that you're tuning the same gauge string to the same pitch on the same scale length, the string tension must be the same regardless of headstock angle. But, when the headstock is angled more, the force on the nut is higher.
What i do agree with, is that more force on the nut won't magically improve your "tone". As ling as there's enough "preload" on the nut that the string won't rattle, you're fine. Too much angle OTOH increases the friction on the nut which can cause some tension to be trapped above the nut, making the tuning slip when the string is played.
So if I were to build a guitar with a 24 fret neck with a scale length of 25.5” the headstock angle wouldn’t affect anything detrimental to my build? Would I just have to equalize that pressure to get in tune? Sorry if that doesn’t make sense I’m still new to all do this! Love your videos!
My magic guitar wouldn't change string tension when headstock angle is increased (or decreased) and it would stay in tune, but I agree that a modest angle can be sufficient to give enough downward force by strings at the nut. I also agree that a large angle looks awkward. Before I saw people do away with their string trees by installing staggered tuning machines (on strat style necks), I wouldn't have thought there would be enough downward force by strings in the nut slot, but it does work, on some guitars anyway. There are some with such a shallow offset cut at top surface of headstock that it would definitely not be enough to simply install staggered tuners.
My fender strat has .35 pounds of tension on the G string at the nut. My jackson with a 17 degree angle has 3.4 pounds of tension on the nut. That is something to lose sleep over. My strat stays in perfect tune for many hours of playing no matter how hard i use the tremolo or bend. The jackson won't survive one bend or one tremolo dive.
I have a old strat and the low E string is touching wood between the nut and tuning machine. Angle to steep maybe? Or does that matter?
But isn't the real problem with headstock angle one of fragility? I really dislike the look of string trees which Fender use because they don't angle the headstock. On the other hand, I really like my headstocks not breaking like Gibson's which break because they're angled and therefore don't need string trees. Not breaking wins for me every time. I suspect Leo Fender felt the same. Gibsons look nicer to me, but I prefer Fender's rugged build.
If Gibson would use a scarf joint and a volute on their necks they wouldn't have the issue of headstocks breaking. It's really more about manufacturing shortcuts than anything else. There's a video here addressing that very issue.
Ah yes, I found it. Thanks.
ruclips.net/video/OrkfN5TcfF8/видео.html
I agree about downward string tension. However I would assume a headstock at 0 degrees would be easier to pop the string out of the nut (sideways) than one with a slight angle applied. I guess you COULD then argue the nut could be improved with a deeper groove. But with so many guitars with 0 degree headstocks you'd have to assume we'd all know any shortcomings by now. Fenders, for example, have a slight angle break from nut to tuner even with a 0 degree headstock. Obviously it works.... One other thought. If you bend a tree branch (rather than stretch it) there's a constant force at work. With an angled headstock maybe a similar type force is pulling the string eventually out of tune if it stretches over time? or at a faster rate than 0 degrees would lengthwise.
Totally agreed! I'm pretty early on the path of being a luthier, but I've realised that the only real benefits of the headstock angle (as far as I've been able to tell) are to ensure that the string angle prevents it from buzzing / vibrating on the wrong side of the nut - and to hold the string down into the slot in the nut! Plus the angle really does look badass (I use 15 degrees when I make an angled headstock, as opposed to a strat-style headstock).
At 0 degrees you would hear a lot of buzzing and a note wouldn't sustain for too long. The more stable a string is in a nut slot the longer sustain you get.
Think of it with a tuner post at both ends, that in that case there is no need for contact to anything until the nut is introduced. It's just to understand what the nut and the angle changes when you add them to the equation.
@@crc9564 They use string trees to get the break angel tho
@@CarlosLauterbach there is a lot of wisdom rite there! So if we measure the angle over the nut to the string tree, what angle do they really have? That is a very good point.
YEAH BUT NOW IF YOU'RE BRINGING A GUITAR TREMOLO INTO THE SITUATION THE CONVERSATION COMPLETELY CHANGES!!!
Yes, it totally does.
Thats what PRS did when developing guitars, just barked up the wrong tree. Safe to say a 10degree $400 PRS SE stays in tune better than a 17degree $3000 Les Paul. Since the sarcasm? A guitar needs to be aesthetically pleasing and functional, and if functionality is sacrificed for aesthetics, you better hope there is a fanboy cult-like following, like Apple or Gibson.
I'm very interested, but not in the position to make identicle guitars with different headstocks just to prove this one way or the other. The Jazz guitar - with floating bridge - is said to react to changes in the height of the saddle. Put it higher - you get more performance. Raising or lowering the saddle is the same as changing the break angle on the headstock. So, logic implies headstock angle does matter. Some Fender users prefer to have no String Tree's, so are they choosing a sound or an aesthetic? I don't know the answer to that. My fear is that we stray into making "electric" guitars with no concern for "acoustic" properties - as in - when they are not plugged into an amp. Everyone knows that you get super electric guitars that sound great not plugged in and you get ones that don't sound so good. Yes, there are a ton of reasons for that. An interesting video - as always.
Those are totally different animals due to the long distance of additional string length behind the bridge (and of course the influence of pressure on the top of the hollow body).
Some wind their strings differently to compensate a little, others use staggered tuners. A lot of people who get rid of string trees just want less friction and more tuning stability when they use the whammy.
If you want acoustic...play an acoustic guitar.
If you play electric...you plug in.
I wonder why there aren't more unplugged concerts with solid body electric guitars when they sound that good...
my friend, i will have to disagree on one thing, headstock angle causes downward force into the nut, and tuning the string into pitch again after changing the angle of this "ideally magical moveable headstock" should not reduce the downward force caused by the angle, you can try this and corroborate this: lets take the other end of the strings in a les paul for example, tailpiece height can be manipulated so if your theory is right heightening the tailpiece to cause a smaller angle on the bridge would make the same downward force to the bridge as having it lower as long as all other variables are kept (string tuning gauge etc) and that is not true in practice, i've had many cases of bridges that lean towards the neck because of this problem, and top wrapping can prevent this by reducing the break angle on the bridge, thus downward force, the same happens in the nut, less tension causes less problems like strings detuning too much with bends on les paul style headstocks, that downward force caused by the angle makes the string get stuck in the nut and causes more tuning instability because of greater friction caused by increased downward force, also this force is what drives the top on acoustic guitars, i'm sure you know that as a luthier, possibly i misunderstood your video but i think i heard you say that if you tune to the same pitch downward force does not change, and that is physically not possible...
Wise words. You are a mine of information
Ayy another lefty
Why do some guitars have offset necks as opposed to one's with angled necks?
Design choices. Nothing special there. Both ways produce exactly the same result, except, offset is there to try and make force distribution more "even" to the fingers. Most can't tell the difference in general terms and you've got to take string gauge into account anyway.
? is it true that the greater the headstock angel the more possible intonation problems you may have due to incased string pressure at the nut ?
One of the main purposes of the nut is to keep the strings aligned. Haven't you ever pulled
the little E string out of the nut by hard picking? String angle and downward force on the nut is what keeps that from happening. Telling people to use any angle head they want is against conventional wisdom.
Define conventional wisdom as it applies to guitars. LOL.
The Les Paul headstock is the worst design ever. Strings never stay in tune thanks to the severe angle of D and G. They notoriously break due to their angle. Design flaw Gibson refuses to fix. Paul Reed Smith fixed that on his guitars, and Music Man guitars don't have this issue. And I believe neither PRS or MM use string trees.
This is completely inaccurate. At zero degrees, the nut has zero downward pressure. As you increase the angle with the same tension, the downward force on the nut increases. This is why angled headstocks will simply not stay in tune. I challenge you to show me a video of a guitar with an angled headstock and heavy use of tremolo and bending that stays in tune. This is why people love straight style Fender headstocks, they are not only stronger, but the stay in tune much better.
how do i exactly change the already existing headstock angle of 11 degree to 14 degree? is that possible?
It's not possible.