High tailpiece and wrong neck angle?

[Golden]

 

And no, how high the tailpiece is is not an indicator of a [bad] neck angle

 

What RCT has done was offer his opinion based on decades of experience. I'm doing the same as well.

 

I know I heard it, not impressed. Does that require another apology for being right?

 

As far as your guitar theres probably not a thing wrong with it. Perhaps the bridge is low and as you say strings not touching etc. I'm not sure Im following your point.

 

 

However here you implicitly agree with my earlier point

 

 

feels that behind-the-bridge harmonics are important

 

If he wants them or not is not of question they exist is the point earlier.

[Golden]

You like being right don't you?

saying derogatory things to other members is not the

way to prove your point. It just makes you look pitiful

 

This is a ad hominem troll post. The truth and clarity is important and I think your pitiful

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

 

Do you actually have a related point be all to happy hear your expertise, the only issue here is you not admitting error, then moving on in progress. Thats the issue which you contend to contribute to?

[pippy]

Purely in the interests of accuracy I have to correct the idiot who wrote;

 

The 17 degree headstock angle was, traditionally, what Gibson used........After the Norlin management took over, however, the angle was reduced because this allowed the use of thinner - and therefore cheaper - neck-blanks. Once the usurpers had been vanquished the 17 degree angle was reinstated...

Whilst it's true that the change in headstock angle from 17 to 14 degrees was introduced in 1965 by the newly-installed President Arnie Berlin (who would give the last three letters of his name to make the 'lin' in Norlin) Norlin, as a company, had not yet been formed. Furthermore as the headstock change was reverted by 1973 I can't pin any blame on Norlin this time.

 

Carry On!

 

Pip.

[Golden]

Purely in the interests of accuracy I have to correct the idiot who wrote;

 

 

Whilst it's true that the change in headstock angle from 17 to 14 degrees was introduced in 1965 by the newly-installed President Arnie Berlin (who would give the last three letters of his name to make the 'lin' in Norlin) Norlin, as a company, had not yet been formed. Furthermore as the headstock change was reverted by 1973 I can't pin any blame on Norlin this time.

 

Carry On!

 

Pip.

 

 

 

 

I can remember way back when Terry McInturff was working with Hamer here and designed the Mirage head break angle at 10 degrees, and then playing one and talking about it with him. The Mirage was 10, as also with PRS -10, and there's no difference in headstock angles between trem and non trem guitars that are otherwise similar with PRS, though as above they also evolved in thinking and application. Heres Terrys thinking....

 

Perhaps it is best to discuss this matter with a general review of some basic facts regarding this particular topic.

 

A. A steeper headstock angle will impart slightly increased string tension as compared to a shallower headstock angle. Increased string tension suggests a slightly different rise-time and overtone series. These are big topics for another time.

 

B. A shallower headstock angle is a prerequisite for any guitar that sports a non-locking vibrato bridge. This is because the steeper headstock pitch forces more string "down-pressure" at the point at which the angle changes...ie, the nut. Any headstock angle that is steeper than 10 degrees (and 10 degrees is pushing the limits!) will cause the strings to "saw to-and-fro" as the bar is used, and the strings will quickly start to bind in the nut slots; they will not return to pitch.

 

C. A steeper headstock angle usually makes for a weaker area on the neck at the point at which the angle changes...again, at the nut area. Many of these necks will be prone to breakage at this point. Proper neck design can minimise this;it's worth mentioning that some of these workarounds can have notable effects upon the guitar's tone if taken to extremes, ie, multiple laminations of the headstock ala Vega White Lady, Alembic, and etc.

 

The above are some facts that can provide a basis for conversation, I hope! :)

 

Within a given scale length, that angle of the headstock and the angle that the strings pass over the saddle will yield differences in perceived string tension.

 

"Perceived" because these angles do not change the amount of tension in pounds/ounces that's needed to crank a given string up to a given note. So in a literal sense they do not change the string tension.

 

However...the perceived string tension gets "looser" as these angles get shallower. Why is this so? :huh

 

The answer lies in what happens when we bend a string (and not as much as when we simply fret the string..a tiny bit). When we bend a string the string has to slide across dual contact points...the nut and the bridge saddle.

 

A steep angle presses the string down more firmly on these contact points, making it take more force to slide them to-and-fro...a shallower angle, visa-versa.....Terry McInturff.

 

[badbluesplayer]

Thats fine, my point still stands and above and earlier, and for sure with the neck angle in regards to bridge height you agree with that also thus disagree with rct? Hes wrong quite simply as confirmed by Gibson and Stew Mac. So much for the expert bs. Oh and hey...

 

 

Oh and if hes wrong on such a elemantary point what makes you think hes right is regards to the next related? Makes no sense

 

 

 

 

I dont see where anyone is upset perhaps you dont know what your talking about as rct above. And my point specifically is where which you oddly allude as if you disagree, so what point would like to discuss exactly? The one where you decide po be a rct attorney? lol

 

Oh lighten up Francis! If you're such a big expert, how come you can't write?

[Golden]

So if you been thinking about the conversation and about other electrics in comparison of the conceptual thinking and in relation to breakage and tone, it has been an on-going conversation and also with other companies thus multi piece 3-5 necks quartersawn various woods for strenght the Volute and so forth, different angles and back and forth with them, neck joints and so forth. One might easily claim the Gibson the most problematic with breakage indeed but for those chasing the tone they will be breaking headstocks too imho and I think thats verifiable we just seem to parade the Gibsons around more as if its some type of trophy defeat. And bending bridge posts etc. We should understand in such a situation with a tuned guitar, the case can merely be dropped over on the floor by bumping it over and a break can and has happened IN the case. Im just saying imho you need to be perhaps more careful with the electric with more presure than suggested?

 

So theres a point here where optimal tone is fragile.

 

 

Also IF you are hitting the back of the bridge and your ST is decked to a steep angle, aside from the clear problem with tension and breakage the bridge/Stop-area now has a completely different tonal response affecting the overall guitar tone. Its not a right or wrong in fact I like it myself. Compare that concept to other companies in theory and you simply find a completely acceptable alternative. This will be MORE of an issue with the neck angle tolerance at its limit with a raised tail tightened down increasing the angle-pressure. imho

[pippy]

...Here's Terry's thinking...

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to re-type the above, Golden.

I'm no physicist nor am I a mechanical engineer, however, so there is one point I'd wished he had expanded on further - to wit;

"A steeper headstock angle will impart slightly increased string tension as compared to a shallower headstock angle. Increased string tension suggests a slightly different rise-time and overtone series."

 

Why?

The tension required to achieve a certain pitch for a given scale length is a constant. This much is pretty fundamental and even I understand the science.

How, then, can an increased headstock angle impart increased tension without altering the pitch?

And why did he choose to use the very non-committal word "suggests"?

 

I'd love to have access to a proper science lab to measure the exact change(s) in tension required to effect a predetermined change in pitch by means of string deflection with several designs of guitar. We might even discover empirical evidence which would lay to rest - once-and-for-all and one-way-or-another - the debate surrounding top-wrapping.

 

Or maybe not.............

 

Pip.

[Golden]

Oh lighten up Francis! If you're such a big expert, how come you can't write?

 

Grammar police is your point? rotfl, I never claimed to be an expect sorry about your confusion, others did? Your telling me to lighten up and post this petty nonsense? What are you bored?

 

 

Listen I dont consider personal attacks relevant points to anything but a personal issue with the poster as I posted. I never claimed to be an expert in fact others have and on the thread. What Im doing is simply conversing on the topic. But you should realize this is all distraction from it in which case I think perhaps you should lighten up, understand that? Im attempting to comprehend the topic.

 

Perhaps the experts here ought to have a little respect which they demand of others espcecially after cleary proposing a incorrect distracting point. As you just did. Now did you want to debate grammer? wow. Course I could just ignore you which would be disrespectful, apparently you have SOMETHING relevant which you have a burning desire to add? Im sorry you feel disrespected for another and feel the the need to disrespect.

 

How about reading the thread and adding to the conversation, perhaps you feel as strongly about a point relevant as you do about the irrelevant distraction.

[Golden]

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to re-type the above, Golden.

I'm no physicist nor am I a mechanical engineer, however, so there is one point I'd wished he had expanded on further - to wit;

"A steeper headstock angle will impart slightly increased string tension as compared to a shallower headstock angle. Increased string tension suggests a slightly different rise-time and overtone series."

 

Why?

The tension required to achieve a certain pitch for a given scale length is a constant. This much is pretty fundamental and even I understand the science.

How, then, can an increased headstock angle impart increased tension without altering the pitch?

And why did he choose to use the very non-committal word "suggests"?

 

I'd love to have access to a proper science lab to measure the exact change(s) in tension required to effect a predetermined change in pitch by means of string deflection with several designs of guitar. We might even discover empirical evidence which would lay to rest - once-and-for-all and one-way-or-another - the debate surrounding top-wrapping.

 

Or maybe not.............

 

Pip.

 

 

He alludes to some of your points here..

 

 

 

Within a given scale length, that angle of the headstock and the angle that the strings pass over the saddle will yield differences in perceived string tension.

 

"Perceived" because these angles do not change the amount of tension in pounds/ounces that's needed to crank a given string up to a given note. So in a literal sense they do not change the string tension.

 

However...the perceived string tension gets "looser" as these angles get shallower. Why is this so?

 

 

Which I agree and assume he has measured the tension. Which would lead to this which is also true as he admits.

 

 

The tension required to achieve a certain pitch for a given scale length is a constant. This much is pretty fundamental and even I understand the science.

 

 

 

Within a given scale length, that angle of the headstock and the angle that the strings pass over the saddle will yield differences in perceived string tension.

 

"Perceived" because these angles do not change the amount of tension in pounds/ounces that's needed to crank a given string up to a given note. So in a literal sense they do not change the string tension.

 

However...the perceived string tension gets "looser" as these angles get shallower. Why is this so?

 

 

When he is imho saying perceived tension be it one believes that or not to be factual its factual that breakage happens with more tension and problems happen with tension such as with Fender without significant break angle at the nut. I dont think there are conflicting theories with the physics just the understanding and measurements in tension-lbs-ounces. Here I get the point but dont feel obligated to one side or the other since I never did the tension measurments but its seems to stand to reason with the breakage and with Fender break angle issues.

[MichaelT]

He alludes to some of your points here..

 

Which I agree and assume he has measured the tension. Which would lead to this which is also true as he admits.

 

When he is imho saying perceived tension be it one believes that or not to be factual its factual that breakage happens with more tension and problems happen with tension such as with Fender without significant break angle at the nut. I dont think there are conflicting theories with the physics just the understanding and measurements in tension-lbs-ounces. Here I get the point but dont feel obligated to one side or the other since I never did the tension measurments but its seems to stand to reason with the breakage and with Fender break angle issues.

 

Just to make sure I'm understanding this debate, the debate is whether or not the angle from the bridge to the tailpiece is supposed to be 17 degrees? Or is that at the nut and neck angle? Or is it supposed to be both?

 

I read an article on: http://www.frudua.com/guitar_strings_tension.htm

 

And, the main takeaway from this seems to be:

 

"CONCLUSION

Actually by reducing the incidence angle over the nut and bridge saddles we will fell a better comfort on the fretboard with bendings and a softer attack at picking.

 

This can be achieved on the nut side by removing the string trees where possible using staggered tuners and on the bridge side by lifting the tailpiece on the Les Paul or by increasing the neck angle and reducing the height of the saddles over the bridge plate on the strat."

 

All that being said, to some people, it just doesn't matter. The strings may be harder to bend or feel harder to bend. I don't fully understand the mechanics or physics of it. Like RCT, I adjust my guitars to where it feels right for me, not caring a whole lot about break angles. My strings don't break, I can bend them a couple steps fairly easily up and down the neck. I get enough sustain, tone, and everything out of a guitar the way mine are, regardless of the angle. I would probably hate to play RCT's guitars and he'd probably hate mine as well but they work for us and that's all that matters, regardless of what Gibson or anyone else says. It wasn't until this week that I actually thought about any of this or discussed it. The science seems to make sense, if it's valid science. It doesn't matter to me at all though. Or maybe I just got lucky and mine are set at the right angles?

 

Badbluesplayer posted this a few years back where this came up before ( http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/78199-common-misconception/) : "

I think it's finally sinking into my head that when the strings can slide thru the nut and over the bridge, then the extra string length makes the string seem really stretchy. It's not just a function of the string between the nut and bridge. And like Larry said, when the break angle over the bridge gets so steep that the string won't slip over the bridge, then the string gets tighter.

 

It's more complicated than I thought.

[pippy]

Well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it but these two statements of Mr. McInturff still appear to be contradicting each other;

"...these angles do not change the amount of tension...that's needed to crank a given string up to a given note. So in a literal sense they do not change the string tension...

...However...the perceived string tension gets "looser" as these angles get shallower..."

 

As one hack playwright (almost) put it;

"A Science Lab! A Science Lab!! My Kingdom for a Science Lab!!!"

 

Pip.

[rct]

...Like RCT, I adjust my guitars to where it feels right for me, not caring a whole lot about break angles. My strings don't break, I can bend them a couple steps fairly easily up and down the neck. I get enough sustain, tone, and everything out of a guitar the way mine are, regardless of the angle. I would probably hate to play RCT's guitars and he'd probably hate mine as well but they work for us and that's all that matters, regardless of what Gibson or anyone else says...

 

It is actually quite remarkable that when you are out and about with other guitar players and the guitars get passed around there isn't a whole lot of difference in how most experienced guitar players like them set up. I've never had anyone hand me back a guitar of mine that they just couldn't play because of break angle or stop bar all the way down, and I've never handed one back to someone else, unable to play it for stop bar or break angle.

 

It isn't the what of it all, it is the why followed by the what happens if.

 

If I set my stop bar down and you set yours up a bit or a lot because you like it, nothing happens to either of us, nobody dies, no records get stopped while we fix them, no gigs get cancelled.

 

If your strings don't touch the back of the bridge and mine do and we trade guitars for the third set, nothing happens. Nobody gets sick, the band doesn't stop, the crowd doesn't file out because now we've got these just messed up guitars here.

 

There isn't anything to it other than people attempting to turn their preferences into rules and science. The preferences themselves are enough, they don't need anything more, just their experience that says Hey, I like it like This. Don't tell others with decades, and a fairly large group here has centuries of experience that what they've done is wrong just because an ad or a web page or a youtube says this is what is right, but then provides no experience to support it or no consequence if it isn't done this way.

 

Again, nobody ever returned a record, cancelled a gig, or got fired from a band because the break angle on their guitar wasn't right, or because they had never paid attention to such a thing. The academics of something are almost always really far removed from the day to day mechanics of a thing.

 

rct

[MichaelT]

It is actually quite remarkable that when you are out and about with other guitar players and the guitars get passed around there isn't a whole lot of difference in how most experienced guitar players like them set up. I've never had anyone hand me back a guitar of mine that they just couldn't play because of break angle or stop bar all the way down, and I've never handed one back to someone else, unable to play it for stop bar or break angle.

 

It isn't the what of it all, it is the why followed by the what happens if.

 

If I set my stop bar down and you set yours up a bit or a lot because you like it, nothing happens to either of us, nobody dies, no records get stopped while we fix them, no gigs get cancelled.

 

If your strings don't touch the back of the bridge and mine do and we trade guitars for the third set, nothing happens. Nobody gets sick, the band doesn't stop, the crowd doesn't file out because now we've got these just messed up guitars here.

 

There isn't anything to it other than people attempting to turn their preferences into rules and science. The preferences themselves are enough, they don't need anything more, just their experience that says Hey, I like it like This. Don't tell others with decades, and a fairly large group here has centuries of experience that what they've done is wrong just because an ad or a web page or a youtube says this is what is right, but then provides no experience to support it or no consequence if it isn't done this way.

 

Again, nobody ever returned a record, cancelled a gig, or got fired from a band because the break angle on their guitar wasn't right, or because they had never paid attention to such a thing. The academics of something are almost always really far removed from the day to day mechanics of a thing.

 

rct

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. In all the time I've been playing with different guitar players, different bands, different studios and playing different guitars, none of that has mattered. Your string height might be higher than I have mine and mine's lower than yours is but I guarantee, we'd be able to play them for a few songs, make good music and not care about angles and exact measurements during that time. If a guitar sounds good and if the guitarist can play it, the other stuff is secondary. Like I said, I've never even thought about this stuff until now, mostly because I played it and didn't care about angles or degrees or any of that.

[rct]

...but I guarantee, we'd be able to play them for a few songs, make good music and not care about angles and exact measurements during that time...

 

Anybody that is thinking about that stuff whilst ballz deep in some good old arena rock should take up golf or something.

 

rct

[MichaelT]

Anybody that is thinking about that stuff whilst ballz deep in some good old arena rock should take up golf or something.

 

rct

 

I got my first guitar in 1977 and this is the first week I've ever thought about angles and tailpieces being all the way down or up, except I think someone else asked that on the forum. I really don't feel like taking up golf, so I'll just play and not worry about that other crap. It's matter so little to me that when I had every single guitar I own out over the weekend and was playing them and cleaning them, I didn't even pay attention. I just played them and thought they sounded pretty good.

[pippy]

...The preferences themselves are enough, they don't need anything more, just their experience that says Hey, I like it like This...

 

Pip.

[Golden]

Its true you can go just play your guitar, however when your not playing you may have questions like the OP? And this may be the first time you thought of any of this since 1977 however thats not true with others obviously.

 

Whats the point just play and dont worry, everyone gets that but the fact remains some simply have questions that actually have answers.

[Golden]

Anybody that is thinking about that stuff whilst ballz deep in some good old arena rock should take up golf or something.

 

rct

 

The operative words being "whilst ballz deep", in whatever kind of music pretty much nonsequitur imho, your not typing and talking whilst balls deeps in anything, in anything at the moment but another attempted point of what? Perhaps you should pay no attention as you have and suggest and when your not playing too.

[MichaelT]

Its true you can go just play your guitar, however when your not playing you may have questions like the OP? And this may be the first time you thought of any of this since 1977 however thats not true with others obviously.

 

Whats the point just play and dont worry, everyone gets that but the fact remains some simply have questions that actually have answers.

 

That's true. I'd welcome an answer or opinion from someone I know has experience. But, after all, we're just usernames on an internet forum and we may or may not know what we're talking about. Maybe we don't even really play. Opinions and answers on a forum are sometimes helpful until people have differing opinions and answers. That's when I'd recommend taking the guitar to someone who works on them for a living and get their opinion and find out the facts. People on the internet certainly don't know who I am or if I can even play.

 

I think the original poster's question was answered though and this thread isn't being very useful any more if people are going to argue (or whatever you call it) over preferences and opinions which may or may not be based on experience and which may or may not be based on fact. I know how I like my guitars and I'd put them up against any other in the world.

[rct]

The operative words being "whilst ballz deep", in whatever kind of music pretty much nonsequitur imho, your not typing and talking whilst balls deeps in anything, in anything at the moment but another attempted point of what? Perhaps you should pay no attention as you have and suggest and when your not playing too.

 

Well I wasn't talking to you Einstein, perhaps it is you that should pay less attention.

 

rct

[Golden]

Well I wasn't talking to you Einstein, perhaps it is you that should pay less attention.

 

rct

 

Doesnt matter who you are talking to I'm talking clearly to you, politely and directly, and yes I noticed the name calling and the indirect passive aggressive behavior I guess since you have nothing else to contribute or discuss thats the expert distinction where you now become more direct to what end? Please dont call me anything other than whats desired. Its childish.

[Golden]

That's true. I'd welcome an answer or opinion from someone I know has experience. But, after all, we're just usernames on an internet forum and we may or may not know what we're talking about. Maybe we don't even really play. Opinions and answers on a forum are sometimes helpful until people have differing opinions and answers. That's when I'd recommend taking the guitar to someone who works on them for a living and get their opinion and find out the facts. People on the internet certainly don't know who I am or if I can even play.

 

I think the original poster's question was answered though and this thread isn't being very useful any more if people are going to argue (or whatever you call it) over preferences and opinions which may or may not be based on experience and which may or may not be based on fact. I know how I like my guitars and I'd put them up against any other in the world.

 

True I agree 100%.

[sbpark]

Wow, so after all the insane back and forth between some members on this thread I came to the conclusion that my guitar is just fine, and some of you guys take this way too seriously! Thanks to those like RCT that gave some helpful and real-world info. Much appreciated!

[MichaelT]

Wow, so after all the insane back and forth between some members on this thread I came to the conclusion that my guitar is just fine, and some of you guys take this way too seriously! Thanks to those like RCT that gave some helpful and real-world info. Much appreciated!

 

Sorry that no one made any popcorn for you in the midst of the intermission, aka all the other stuff. Hope all is well with your guitar and that you get many years of playing out of it.

[rct]

Wow, so after all the insane back and forth between some members on this thread I came to the conclusion that my guitar is just fine, and some of you guys take this way too seriously! Thanks to those like RCT that gave some helpful and real-world info. Much appreciated!

 

I'm just returning the gobs of stuff I get from you acoustic mavens that I read a lot of. Thanks right back!

 

rct