Schertler Versus Waverly Tuners on High End Builds

[Simon Fay]

I have never been too impressed with either Schertlers or Waverly tuners. The Schertlers look a bit cheap (same issue with most Gotoh products) and the Waverlys look nice but are often hard to turn. Functionally, I do agree that the Schertlers and Gotoh open back seem better than the Waverlys I have used.

That said, I strongly recommend considering Alessi tuners. Nicolo Alessi is a single man operation and builds a high-end product at a reasonable price. They aren't quite Rodgers or Graf level but they aren't nearly as expensive either. IMO, they are a noticeable step up from the other tuner options mentioned in this thread -- very smooth and very accurate.

[rockabilly69]

Originally Posted by Guitars44me

I have found the Gotoh 510 Mini tuners pretty lightweight and VERY SMOOTH.

And, you can put full size buttons on them if you use the longer screws! Of course the resin or wood buttons save a LOT of weight.

I have had John Kinnard use them on my 3 most recent builds, and I like them a lot.

Back pre Covid, when I had gigs where I could only use one axe, I would often retune from dropped standard to Open D or reverse, mid performance to play slide. Nothing I have used is as comfy as the 510s.

I found Waverlys really difficult!

Thank God the electronic tuner has been invented!! Hahahaha

Cheers

Paul

I have variations of the 510 tuners on 4 of my guitars, three of them the luxury 21:1 version and the other 18:1. I've also had the SG381 16:1 set, and they were great too! And in my lifetime of playing guitars these are the best I've come across. The quality control is outstanding! What's cool is tuning with a strobe tuner, and you can actually see how smooth that they tune, and I've seen slop in any of the sets!

luxury 21:1 version


18:1 version...


I even had the SG301

[Dogma]

I have Waverley open-back tuners on a 15 year old guitar that has been with me for a couple of years. Earlier this year a lot of play developed in one of the tuners, like the gears were not engaging, and I could move (it was completely loose) the tuner button (and shaft) clockwise and counterclockwise maybe 1/8 of a turn or so before it would impact the string tension. Once past that spot, tuning proceeded normally and maintained pitch per usual, but if I had to move back in the opposite direction, I would again reach that loose area. Stewmac sent me a replacement tuner which I never installed because I didn't like the look of one shiny nickel tuner amongst the older ones.

One day I noticed that the problem was completely gone and it hasn't recurred so far. I would be interested to know if anyone else has experienced this and/or what the cause might be? My uneducated guess is that the worm gear has one area where the thread is worn enough that it doesn't engage with the other gear (technical term ) or maybe that both gears are worn to that effect. Once they move past each other the problem ceases to exist. I'm not sure if this adequately explains why it wouldn't have reoccurred.

[jt1]

You folks must be hard on tuners!

I have Waverlys on all of my modern guitars, which makes, uh, 3 guitars with Waverlys (2 Kim Walkers and one that I built in Jay Lichty's workshop). I love the look and have never had a problem with them over the couple of decades I've used them.

But, then, I've never had problems with the original vintage tuners on my 1920s-1940s guitars, either, including seriously thin Klusons on my mid-1940s Banner Gibsons (for which Kluson got a patent for tuners with extremely thin metal parts that would satisfy the War Production Board's limitation on metal content in stringed instruments).

As for those closed-back Gotohs, they wouldn't fit the visual aesthetic of any guitar that I'd want to own.

[SprintBob]

Originally Posted by jt1

You folks must be hard on tuners!

I have Waverlys on all of my modern guitars, which makes, uh, 3 guitars with Waverlys (2 Kim Walkers and one that I built in Jay Lichty's workshop). I love the look and have never had a problem with them over the couple of decades I've used them.

But, then, I've never had problems with the original vintage tuners on my 1920s-1940s guitars, either, including seriously thin Klusons on my mid-1940s Banner Gibsons (for which Kluson got a patent for tuners with extremely thin metal parts that would satisfy the War Production Board's limitation on metal content in stringed instruments).

As for those closed-back Gotohs, they wouldn't fit the visual aesthetic of any guitar that I'd want to own.

And I've never had a failure with Waverly's either (I've got two guitars current with them and had three previous guitars with them also). But I have always found that they feel tight and imprecise compared to guitars I had Gotoh 510's on and my recent experience with the Schertler's on my new Edwinson . Even Taylor's stock open back tuners they use on the slothead guitars operate smoother than the Waverly's (based on my experience owning a 522, 812, and K-22). Bruce's explanation of the problem is spot on and I don't understand why Waverly would not fix it.

Aesthetics are going to be totally subjective. I like the look of the matte black Schertlers and I love the look and feel of the standard curvy tuner buttons of the Gotoh 510's. To me, the curves of those tuners are a compliment to the curves joining the upper and lower bout of our acoustic guitars. Jason Kostal also agrees with that aesthetic. Of course, YMMV!

[Dogma]

Originally Posted by jt1

You folks must be hard on tuners!

I have Waverlys on all of my modern guitars, which makes, uh, 3 guitars with Waverlys (2 Kim Walkers and one that I built in Jay Lichty's workshop). I love the look and have never had a problem with them over the couple of decades I've used them.

But, then, I've never had problems with the original vintage tuners on my 1920s-1940s guitars, either, including seriously thin Klusons on my mid-1940s Banner Gibsons (for which Kluson got a patent for tuners with extremely thin metal parts that would satisfy the War Production Board's limitation on metal content in stringed instruments).

As for those closed-back Gotohs, they wouldn't fit the visual aesthetic of any guitar that I'd want to own.

What's "hard on tuners?"
I have one guitar that I play (usually) daily and often have to tune it a little bit every day or so dep on weather, etc. I don't know what happened to my guitar in the years I didn't own it, but given its condition, I'd say not much. Maybe the Waverleys that have issues are on guitars that get more use? Who knows? It is nice that SM is good about customer service.

[Bruce Sexauer]

You may recall I mentioned the problem with waverly installation as emanating from their bespoke installation tool, a 2 stage drill bit. It makes the ferrule hole concentric with the post hole. The solution to the problem in installation is not so difficult, actually.

The trick is to redrill the 1/4" post hole a couple of sizes larger, 5/16" is more than needed, and then bias the tuner body a bit south, so that the post makes firm contact on the south side of the ferrule. Then drill the screw holes in the newly indicated spot, and screw the body in place. This solves the problem more than 9 times out of 10 with no more messing about required. The reason it works is that the tuner can no longer be pulled out of square to the plate by the string tension, as it is hard against the ferrule already. It is possible to over do this fix, which causes unnecessary backlash.

The Waverly tool works well with the more accurately machined GrandTune, but because the ferrule has a slightly larger outside diameter than the waverly, it is a good idea to slightly relieve the headstock veneer because otherwise it fits so tightly that if you ever want to remove the GrandTune ferrule, pushing it out can pop the veneer off the headstock. A whole 'nuhter can of worms.

Or, try the Gotoh butter bean. It has a different screw spacing, but it looks right to those with vintage sensibilities. I have never once had a less than perfect and effortless installation with them. I have used a dozen sets and no one has ever complained after 10 or 15 years.

[jt1]

Originally Posted by SprintBob

...Aesthetics are going to be totally subjective. ...

Agreed!

I'm just an old guy who likes old guitars and modern, old-looking guitars. Hence my tuner preference.

Plus, I'm apparently gentle with tuning machines!

[justonwo]

Originally Posted by jt1

Agreed!

I'm just an old guy who likes old guitars and modern, old-looking guitars. Hence my tuner preference.

Plus, I'm apparently gentle with tuning machines!

I find the Waves preferable from an aesthetic standpoint, too. I love the look of Alessi, but my experience with them is that they are quite variable. My first set had to be sent back. But the replacements were smooth as silk. Waverly and Alessi are definitely my favorites, visually.

[redir]

Sadly I too have found inconsistencies with Waverly tuners and that includes the classical Sloan as well as their banjo tuners which I use on guitars. I love them and SM will always replace them no questions asked but at what point do you just give up?

[jmat]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

... but as the string comes to tension the gear becomes increasingly tight, often to the point of being completely bound up.

Ah...Makes sense. I have had that problem and have just lived with the issue without thinking too much about it but is is not fun.

[thurston_pie]

Inconsistencies in Waverlys wouldn't bother me except at their price-point. Seriously, this is not rocket science, and I would pay $200 a set for completely dependable 18:1 open backs.

I'm not exactly certain when the marketing-wave finally swept aside closed-back tuners on premium instruments, personally I would never spec them on a custom build.

[SprintBob]

Originally Posted by thurston_pie

Inconsistencies in Waverlys wouldn't bother me except at their price-point. Seriously, this is not rocket science, and I would pay $200 a set for completely dependable 18:1 open backs.

I'm not exactly certain when the marketing-wave finally swept aside closed-back tuners on premium instruments, personally I would never spec them on a custom build.

If vintage “vibe” is going to be important to me on a new build, that vibe will not include balky and tight tuners.

When I got my Froggy H-12 in 2018 (the guitar was built in 2011 and had Waverly’s), I noted the G string tuner felt significantly tighter under tension than the other tuners so I assumed it had an issue. But when I would do a string change and the tuner had no load, it felt fine (no different than the others). So I ordered a new set (as much for a change in appearance) and after installation, I had the same exact symptom of the G string tuner being noticeably tighter than the others (and those are the tuners on the guitar currently). I can only come to the conclusion that maybe the G string tuner has a very slight misalignment in the way the mounting holes were drilled that magnifies the binding issue Bruce pointed out.

Aesthetics are totally subjective to the beholder and personally I’m fine with most closed back modern tuners (i.e. Gotoh) especially if they are smooth, accurate, and reliable. There are single luthiers who use closed back tuners for that reason but I’m sure they will accommodate a customer’s request to use open back tuners.

[nootis]

My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with closed back tuners like Gotoh or Shaller or others. Obviously the highest of the high end builders including Somogyi, Kostal, Matsuda, Olsen, Ryan, etc. use them a lot.

However, a few years ago, I got the itch to try an open back tuner on a commission, and I went with the Schertler. I really, really like them. However I also prefer a more vintage vibe, and for my last commission, I went with Alessi.

Whether it's Alessi or Schertler, I will prefer to stick with an open back tuner if I were to have any future guitars built for me.

With that said, I've never owned a guitar with Waverlies.

[usb_chord]

Waverlys are good enough for me. Maybe somewhat overpriced for how they perform, but "crap"?? That just seems a bit extreme.