#1
|
|||
|
|||
current thinking on headstock angle?
So, Gibson went back to a 17 degree headstock angle on some guitars anyway (and some people who favor this also say it increases string tension... ), Ken Parker says he uses a 4 degree angle on his six on a side headstock, others suggest 9 to 14 degrees is "normal", I've been using 12 degrees on my archtop necks. Assuming a scarfed head joint, is there any new thinking on the best headstock angle for strength, tuning ease, tone production, or anything else? As I go out to glue up a neck blank and start on a scarf joint tablesaw jig, I wonder what angle I will use? FWIW, I am leaning towards less is better until it isn't better, as a guiding light...
__________________
Brian Evans Around 15 archtops, electrics, resonators, a lap steel, a uke, a mandolin, some I made, some I bought, some kinda showed up and wouldn't leave. Tatamagouche Nova Scotia. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
The string tension at pitch is fixed.
The break angle will change how much downward force is applied between the string and the nut. A greater angle will have a greater downward component. This can be argued to affect tone, sustain, stability.
__________________
Fazool "The wand chooses the wizard, Mr. Potter" 000-15 / GC7 / GA3-12 / SB2-C / SB2-Cp / AVC-11MHx / AC-240 |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Anything over 7* is sufficient for string angle over nut. Differences in angle do have some effect on ease of fretting.
__________________
Waddy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I think that one need look no further than a typical Fender head to see the results of a too shallow (zero) a head angle.
At the other end of the spectrum, if the head angle is too steep, when laid flat on its back on a table, the guitar rests on the end of the head and on the end block area. In my designs, I don't want the end of the head to be one of the points of support. Of course, this has implications for fitting into standard depth cases as well. I'd recommend something in between zero and resting on the head. I like 14 degrees, but use what you like. I think it likely that the angles of earlier makers where based on what they liked and their intended purposes. Earlier lutes, for example, with their almost 90 degree head angles, where made that way to minimize the overall length of the instrument. Fender heads were made that way for efficiency of manufacture and to minimize cost. It didn't have to do with some magic number that is ideal for acoustic purposes, strength or tuning. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I assume we are not giving Fender credit for a headstock design that (almost?) never cracks off. I suspect traditional aesthetics explains its lack of use on acoustic guitars, not tone.
__________________
jf45ir Free DIY Acoustic Guitar IR Generator .wav file, 30 seconds, pickup left, mic right, open position strumming best...send to direct email below I'll send you 100/0, 75/25, 50/50 & 0/100 IR/Bypass IRs IR Demo, read the description too: https://youtu.be/SELEE4yugjE My duo's website and my email... [email protected] Jon Fields |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
That sounds fair to me but 12 works fine and looks about right to me.
__________________
Divots in my fingers Music in my head I wonder what would be If I chose car racing instead. Jim Schofield |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The lack of use of a zero head angle is due to the lack of string break angle over the nut. Fender's solution to that problem is the use of string trees (and/or string rollers), a practical solution that gets the job done, but an inferior one, in my opinion. They also have their truss rod adjustment from the non-head end of the neck, often requiring one to remove the neck to adjust the truss rod, also a less than ideal design. Last edited by charles Tauber; 05-04-2017 at 08:30 AM. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
You will find Fender necks with truss rod adjustment at the head end starting in the 70s (maybe otherwise not their finest era). Seems like Taylor ought to be close to as good as it gets and you still see AGF posts where owners are asking advice about headstock cracks.
I personally would not buy an acoustic with a Fender style headstock because I don't like to the look either! But as an engineer I have a lot of respect for how Leo designed two necks to be cut side by side from a single billet of wood that are relatively indestructible in their final form and still be economical to produce even with some of the more garish Fender headstock designs.
__________________
jf45ir Free DIY Acoustic Guitar IR Generator .wav file, 30 seconds, pickup left, mic right, open position strumming best...send to direct email below I'll send you 100/0, 75/25, 50/50 & 0/100 IR/Bypass IRs IR Demo, read the description too: https://youtu.be/SELEE4yugjE My duo's website and my email... [email protected] Jon Fields |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
My first inspiration was Gibson, so I used 17 degrees. I also used 17 when I started building Martin style guitars. But my most recent Martin style examples are 15, which is what Martin has always used.
Gibson went from 17 degrees to 14 in the late-1960's....presumably to reduce peghead breaks. But Gibson returned to 17 years later. Gibson (and Taylor) would be well advised to abandon the hex nut truss rod adjustment, since it requires a large cutout in a critical area to allow for a socket to be used. The Asians learned long ago that an Allen adjustment nut requires a much smaller cutout, resulting in a stronger neck. Peghead breaks are much rarer on those. Better yet, move the adjustment to the soundhole. If you use tuners with tall string posts, you may find that peghead angles less than 14 will result in a shallow string break angle across the nut. Thin pegheads also can cause the string posts to stick up too far. Though I have only done it a few times, it is possible to reinforce the peghead with a hardwood or carbon fiber spline. I am not a fan of angled spliced headstocks on steel string guitars, unless there is a backstrap overlay as a reinforcement. If you do splice on the headstock, I suggest the Martin bridle joint, or another joint that is similarly reinforced. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed that the Martin bridle joint gives by far the most elegant headstock , with the dart/diamond actually doing something instead of being a decorative extra, but surely it's the headstock veneer overlay (on top) rather than a backstrap (underneath) which gives the necessary reinforcement to a scarf jointed headstock ?
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I've used a backstrap (veneers) on the back of the head on some spliced-head instruments but not on most of them. I've never had one fail with or without the backstrap - it is a large gluing surface. I have the truss rod adjustment at the soundhole, rather than weaken the head. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If the joint is "neck on top of headstock" , then the topmost joint line is in the middle of the headstock, and the lower joint line is in line with the nut, so fitting a backstrap is problematical (unless you did one of these fancy ones which goes halfway up the back of the neck..) If the joint is "headstock on top of neck", then the fretboard provides the necessary reinforcement at the joint line , but history shows that problems can arise over time with this configuration. However, any effective backstrap reinforcement still needs to extend way up the neck to have any effect. Additionally, with this configuration there is an unsightly visible joint line on the back of the neck ... this joint line can be rendered invisible on the alternate configuration by veneering the sides of the headstock up to the nut. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Third picture down is my simplistic scarf tablesaw jig. Steve
__________________
Cole Clark Fat Lady Gretsch Electromatic Martin CEO7 Maton Messiah Taylor 814CE |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I used about 14 degrees or so to begin with, but now am at about 12 or 11 degrees. No need to over do it. Just enough is fine.
__________________
---- Ned Milburn NSDCC Master Artisan Dartmouth, Nova Scotia |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think the backstrap needs to extend more than about 3/4" down the shaft of the neck. The whole idea is to bend the backstrap so that the grain is continuous. That is where the strength comes from.
Older banjos can have very long backstraps, but IMHO, the extra length is decorative, rather than structural. |