Tuners affecting tone

[ksdaddy]

I've had this '64 SJ since 1984. It had Grover 102's rammed into it when I got it. In '86 I discovered a gold set of Kluson-looking Schallers with screw on bushings and I slapped them in there. I stole them for another guitar. I think I had an old set of Klusons in there at one time but they didn't have any such thing as conversion bushings at that time so it was a little messy. They were pretty ragged out anyway. I've had a couple sets of gold Korean Klusons on there over the years too. The good news is that I had gone back to the original holes that the factory Klusons had....no extra holes anywhere, just the reaming out to 3/8" for the Grovers, which was done long before I got the guitar.

 

It bugs me that the newer gold Klusons look so bold and chintzy on an otherwise nicely aged old Gibson and lately I've pondered putting it back as original as I can, given the reaming. I did buy a set of conversion bushings and they are relic'd enough to be plausible. Originally this guitar would have had individual Klusons with small oval buttons. There's one set on ebay right now for $139, which makes me twitch. I know, I know, pay it and shut up.

 

Not positive though. I'm open I guess, but I'd rather have an OLD set on there so they look right.

 

I read an interview with Jackson Browne a long time ago and he said any time he gets an old Gibson with Grovers, Schallers, or any other big cast body "reamed out" tuners, he has it retrofitted with the originals, or as close as he can get. He claimed it had an impact on the tone, something about the heavier cast bodied tuners dampening the tone somewhat. Not saying it's true, just repeating what I think I read.

 

Thoughts?

 

You can see the newer Klusons are a bit much. If I do go buy some old ratty nickel ones I may need to re-think the truss rod cover I made out of brass back in the 80s. We'll see.

 

 

[OldCowboy]

Looks OK from the front, although that's not what you see when you're playing. Hmmmm.... First off, the rumors I've heard were always that the heavier tuners added to the tone and sustain. Personally, the difference was something I could never hear and I like the look of originals most often. So my preference would be along the lines of yours, I guess. Maybe someone on the forum has a good system to relic the ones you've currently installed. My efforts along that line have usually stripped the gold plating - not a desired result! My '51 J-185 is sporting modern gold Kluson copies due to the deterioration of the original buttons. That I'll remedy in due time, but meanwhile they look awfully new. Finding a set of originals with single rings could be a waiting game; I have a set of double ring originals, but they wouldn't be the correct style for your era. Anyhow, I wish you luck!

[MissouriPicker]

Looks like you polished those tuners....lol.......I suspect Brown has some good insight into this tone/sound stuff. I've never given much thought to the tuners beyond how well they keep the guitar in-tune. It makes sense that the differences in metal could/would have an effect on the tone. Might be similar to the different types of bridge pins that are used.

[stein]

Well, me, I am a firm believer that weight does affect sound, and tone. Heavy tuners will make the guitar sound different than light ones.

 

But I WON'T say that one sounds "better" then the other.

 

As for originals, unless the guitar itself could be made original, I wouldn't choose older original Klusons over the reproductions available now. They work SO much better than those old Klusons.

 

That's one of the reasons it ended up with Grovers in the first place.

[blindboygrunt]

How can the weight of a tuner effect the sound of the guitar ?

I'm not understanding this

[capmaster]

How can the weight of a tuner effect the sound of the guitar ?

I'm not understanding this

Not the entire attack is reflected or unfortunately absorbed by a common nut (locking nuts are far superior in this respect). A certain share of the string attack, in particular of open strings, runs across the nut at the string steel's speed of sound, circa 5800 m/s. Then again a certain share of this attack is reflected by the tuner, the rest is absorbed. We talk mainly attack here since the tonal vibration that will also appear is of much less importance. The latter's speed at standard tuning and typical scales will be between 25 m/s and 110 m/s. All these string excitements happen between nut and tuning capstan as well as between bridge and tailpiece if applicable, and at the latter position fretted notes are also affected.

 

The more mass a tuner has and the tighter it is mounted to the peghead, the more attack energy will be reflected. Attack and sustain of the vibrations between all the string shares outside the scale will contribute to the guitar tone, like it or not. Dampening with felt stripes or non-fretting fingers between fret position and nut may help against the tonal vibrations but not against the impact of string attack. The latter is so fast and hard that every attempt will fail - except for a locking nut, of course.

[62burst]

Yeah. . . What he said.

 

A little experiment for you: get to a quiet place. With guitar in hand, strike an open string, "A" for example. While the note is ringing, clamp your fingers over the top of the headstock as a clip-on tuner would, except do this firmly. Alternate back and forth, clamped and unclamped. Hear a difference in the decay? You have affected the dampening of the vibrations of the string.

 

 

 

And KSDaddy- you can't get enough dust on those tuners.

[ksdaddy]

And KSDaddy- you can't get enough dust on those tuners.

 

I know, right? They must go away. They'd be fine elsewhere. Some guitars beg for added bling but this isn't one of them. In fact it detracts.

 

 

[Buc McMaster]

Some of you that have played electric guitar in the past might remember a device called "Fathead". It was a solid brass plate, about 1/16" thick, cut to the shape and size of popular electric headstock shapes........Les Paul, Strats & Teles, etc. Remove machine heads, place the Fathead and reinstall the machine heads - the Fathead was held in place by the machine heads. The theory was that increasing headstock mass increased sustain and harmonics. Maybe so. I tried one on a Strat and was only convinced it made the guitar head heavy.

[capmaster]

Some of you that have played electric guitar in the past might remember a device called "Fathead". It was a solid brass plate, about 1/16" thick, cut to the shape and size of popular electric headstock shapes........Les Paul, Strats & Teles, etc. Remove machine heads, place the Fathead and reinstall the machine heads - the Fathead was held in place by the machine heads. The theory was that increasing headstock mass increased sustain and harmonics. Maybe so. I tried one on a Strat and was only convinced it made the guitar head heavy.

Though I never tried one, I believe your experience in an instant.

 

Whatever one tries to add mass to the peghead, except for neck-heaviness the effects are hardly predictable. The impact on specific notes as well as on overall tone is too complex for that. The speed of sound within brass is slower than that of maple or mahogany along the grain but faster than across the grain, so interferences between back plate and peghead may foul up the intended effect.

 

By the way, sound passes slightly faster through the truss rod within a guitar neck than along the wood but very much faster than across the wood. This contributes to the fact that also truss rod adjustments affect tone. Unfortunately the only way left for experimenting is changing string gauge.

[ksdaddy]

By the way, sound passes slightly faster through the truss rod within a guitar neck than along the wood but very much faster than across the wood.

 

Makes me wonder how the WWII Gibsons with no truss rod would compare to a similar era models WITH a truss rod.

 

Or if our ears would even notice.

[zombywoof]

Looking at what is the house the tuners range from 1920s Grover Champions, to 1930s clipped plate Grover G-98s, to 1940s double stamped Kluson three on a plate open gear tuners and so on. Other than the Champions which are one step above a friction tuner, they all still work just fine. I tend to keep a stock of 1930s through 1960s tuners in the house so they are available should I need them. I have bought $30 guitars just to get the tuners off of them. As far as sound though, I know some electric players that say it is the truss rod that has a negative impact on sound.

[j45nick]

Though I never tried one, I believe your experience in an instant.

 

Whatever one tries to add mass to the peghead, except for neck-heaviness the effects are hardly predictable. The impact on specific notes as well as on overall tone is too complex for that. The speed of sound within brass is slower than that of maple or mahogany along the grain but faster than across the grain, so interferences between back plate and peghead may foul up the intended effect.

 

By the way, sound passes slightly faster through the truss rod within a guitar neck than along the wood but very much faster than across the wood. This contributes to the fact that also truss rod adjustments affect tone. Unfortunately the only way left for experimenting is changing string gauge.

 

 

You're making my head hurt. Do I have to think about all this stuff when I'm just trying to get the right notes to come out of my guitar?

[jt]

Makes me wonder how the WWII Gibsons with no truss rod would compare to a similar era models WITH a truss rod.

 

Or if our ears would even notice.

I've done the comparison, including on the CD companion to Kalamazoo Gals. Compare the tone of the truss-riddled SJ in the clip to track 1 with the non truss-riddled SJ in clip to track 12.

[E-minor7]

You never know how much dust there is on a guitar till you get a burst'n'black headed Gibson.

 

Apart from that, I'm a big fan of the 1964 Southern J of this thread. It was one of the first square G's I zoomed in on and thus stands as cardinal point regarding my vol 2. Gibson craze.

Pictures of it went in my achieve even before I joined the Forum and I later went as far as copying the brass TR-cover.

 

Yes, the tuners are too shiny - did it need change at all ? And please ! , , , can we hear this funky old lady at some point - a few well slammed chords would be fine. .

 

 

By the way, sound passes slightly faster through the truss rod within a guitar neck than along the wood but very much faster than across the wood. This contributes to the fact that also truss rod adjustments affect tone. Unfortunately the only way left for experimenting is changing string gauge.

I don't get this -

 

and I don't know about tuners affecting sound/sustain. It's one of those topic between measureable fact and mid-air.

 

All I'm sure of is that every luthier or specialist will have strong opinions on the tuners - and will be able to elaborate. Then again they have views on and explanations about it all - like fx the Martin D-45 being more shimmering and bright sounding than a totally similar built D-28 due to the massive abalone linings, , , that kind of stuff.

 

But as said above - it should be pretty easy to measure the headstock weight thing by and A/B recording. For some reason I've never seen such a test.

[rct]

Some of you that have played electric guitar in the past might remember a device called "Fathead". It was a solid brass plate, about 1/16" thick, cut to the shape and size of popular electric headstock shapes........Les Paul, Strats & Teles, etc. Remove machine heads, place the Fathead and reinstall the machine heads - the Fathead was held in place by the machine heads. The theory was that increasing headstock mass increased sustain and harmonics. Maybe so. I tried one on a Strat and was only convinced it made the guitar head heavy.

 

And brass nuts. And a honkin Mighty Mite brass bridge on one of my teles. I'm surprised we didn't use brass pickguards.

 

All for naught.

 

rct

[mountainpicker]

I think I'd have to defer to Jackson's opinion since he owns a gazillion guitars and a lot of them are Gibsons AND he gigs about two hundred some-odd days a year or at least use too. He seems to have a good ear and good taste too judging from record sales. I think JT has seen and even played some of Jackson's Smeckalisters. What kind of tuners did he go for on a newer guitar I wonder?

[ksdaddy]

Here are the tuners I'm contemplating. It's a lot of money but I've paid more for less at times.

 

Old Klusons

[zombywoof]

I do not have any tuners that recent or I would just give them to you - I only have single line three on a plate sealed Klusons.

[ksdaddy]

Thanks. I had a couple ebay windfalls of late so it won't hurt to buy them. I've been on the clean side of that stick more than once so it's about time I get my butt handed to me. Sometimes you're the bug, sometimes you're the windshield.

[E-minor7]

Here are the tuners I'm contemplating. It's a lot of money but I've paid more for less at times.

 

Old Klusons

 

Don't -

 

this guitar needs gold

 

 

 

[capmaster]

You're making my head hurt. Do I have to think about all this stuff when I'm just trying to get the right notes to come out of my guitar?

No. Best thing is to leave the guitar as is and just play. There's no sense in most of the aftermarket parts.

[blindboygrunt]

I get that the string vibrates all the way past the nut and to the tuning posts .

But the mass or weight of different tuning posts , while yes maybe something happens under a microscope , holding a pick different or different gauge of pick will change things noticeably

To be worried about how heavy a tuning peg is , well that's for someone with a lab coat with a pocket full of pens .

 

No way it's anything a guy should be paying attention to unless they're doing a science project , not playing a song

[capmaster]

Until now I left the stock tuners on all of my instruments.

 

However, the stock Grover Rotogrip 502C on three of my Gibsons may have to leave sooner or later but not due to weight. The are the worst tuners I ever encountered - badly misdesigned and poorly manufactured.

[sj200strummer]

Hey there.

There is really some truth in jackson brown words.

Once I changed the stock die cast tuners on my sj200 std to kluson die cast tuners which where lighter.

There was a big difference in Tone (before some ask:same strings!), the big bass was gone! I swapped immediately the tuners back to the original grovers, the familiär tone was back again. From technical point of view this makes sense, by adding more weight to the headstock the resonance is shifted to a lower Frequenz the opposite happens if you reduce the weight.

I could really hear the difference on my sj200 std, it wasnt just nuances.

But the thing what still makes me curious, how does gibson the trick with their vintage models which feature in most cases the vintage klusons which are much lighter compared to modern die cast tuners without loosing the great bass response.