Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - Lutherie: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=22
- - - Positioning of pegs in the headstock: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=135185



Message

Mohan -> Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 23 2010 8:44:18)

In the world of electric and steel string acoustic guitars, several manufacturers offset the tuners in order to ensure that the strings pass in a straight line through the nut slots and on to the tuner posts. On classical guitars with machineheads, we ensure that the strings wind either to the left or the right of the hole in the posts in order to keep the strings as straight as possible. And, even on pegheads, we wind the strings in such a way as to keep them as straight as possible...

My question is: why don't luthiers build peghead guitars with the pegs offset inwards, to allow the inner strings to pass in a straight line through the nut?

In fact, the pegs could be offset in such as a way as to allow the strings to not only be kept straight, but that all the strings could be wound on to the pegs in the same direction, thus making tuning much simpler - no more need to remember which pegs need to be turned which way to tighten and loosen the strings...

It would also mean that luthiers could move away from the traditional shaped headstocks and come up with some new designs???

Here is an of example of a headstocks from an acoustic guitar that illustrate what I mean:



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



Mohan -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 23 2010 8:46:20)

...and here is an example of a headstock from an electric guitar (a make many of us are sure to be familiar with):



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



estebanana -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 23 2010 17:49:18)

The reason it's not done is that aside from you, 98.9999999999 percent of classical guitar buyers would have a hypertensive cow and complain bitterly about the design.

The other reason is that three on a plate barrel tuners can really only be utilized in the conventional manner. The steel string post style tuners you show can be located in more positions on the headstock.

With the advent of Pegheads mechanical pegs one could position them in new ways, but sometimes doing something for novelties sake ends up looking odd. If one were to build a guitar which required more than six strings then there would reason to reconfigure the peg position in the headstock according to a function it has to fulfill. The mid range string pegs moved to a more center location on the headstock could help keep the middle strings from jumping the nut slots due to diagonal pull from the edge of the headstock in a conventional placement.

Probably others have more ideas.



Mohan -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 24 2010 7:51:24)

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that you wouldn't be able to apply this to 3-on-a-plate tuners - I have some other thoughts on how it might be possible to straighten the string direction for these type of tuners.

But for wooden and mechanical pegs, there is nothing stopping us but the thought of "breaking with tradition" - I had to chuckle at your "hypertensive cow" comment[:D]

However, if there were enough advantages to offsetting the pegs, then eventually people may become more open to the idea - cf. sound ports - they are now becoming more and more acceptable and accepted...

Advantages to offsetting pegs could/would be:

- as you mentioned, less chance of inner strings jumping out of the nut groove,
especially under heavy rasgueados with open D &/or G strings
- easier tuning because the strings are less likely to catch in the nut groove
- strings returning to their "home" position after string bends (not used often in
flamenco, I know, but it does happen)
- all strings wound in the same direction on the pegs, so less chance of turning the
pegs the wrong way when tuning - this always happens to me
- it might be possible to make the head smaller and so even lighter

And lastly, and this is just my personal belief, the traditional pegheads tend in general to be very plain looking - dare I say it: a little dull? Repositioning the pegs could allow use of new, more interesting, exciting head designs (e.g. the shape used on PRS electric guitars). The acoustic guitar headstock example I showed above uses a wedge shaped contrast strip in the middle to make the offset less optically obvious...

I would be interested to hear how other forum members feel about moving away from the traditional peghead's peg layout - would they buy such a guitar? Do they agree with the advantages that I listed above?



Ted G -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 24 2010 11:30:13)

It's been done:

http://www.classicguitar.com/NEWbellido_lg.html



Jeff Highland -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 24 2010 12:45:13)

That Bellido just looks wrong to me, it seems like the square peg layout has just been imposed on a standard head shape.
It might have looked better if the head was about 25mm shorter and narrower at the end.
The problem with having the E strings to the inside of the peg as you are sugesting Mohan is that you then have to increase the headstock width to maintain straight string pull and with the wider nut on a flamenco as compared to a steel string , that can look a bit bulky and may require a wider neck blank too(or ears)



HemeolaMan -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 25 2010 14:55:29)

Well, I think this actually makes the most sense.

It has been my experience with electrics with reverse headstocks that a string feels more taught when it has a greater distance to travel from nut to post. this is why on one of my 7 strings i need to use a 65 on the low b and the other only needs a 60.

food for thought.

That and a straight pull is the optimal for strings since it will cause less binding in the nut and it is less likely to pop out. it also means there is more downward tension into the nut rather than sideways on the slot



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



jshelton5040 -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 25 2010 15:26:16)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HemeolaMan

Well, I think this actually makes the most sense.

It has been my experience with electrics with reverse headstocks that a string feels more taught when it has a greater distance to travel from nut to post. this is why on one of my 7 strings i need to use a 65 on the low b and the other only needs a 60.

food for thought.

That and a straight pull is the optimal for strings since it will cause less binding in the nut and it is less likely to pop out. it also means there is more downward tension into the nut rather than sideways on the slot


The one on the left is ugly. That's enough for me.



Ted G -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 25 2010 16:28:08)

I don't mind the look so much, if it worked. But I think the pegheads for the D and G strings are too close together, where they would hit each other, or make if very difficult to turn.



HemeolaMan -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 25 2010 16:57:23)

Couldn't agree more [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



HemeolaMan -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 25 2010 17:04:03)

this might solve the middle peg positioning problem.

I figure that they dont necessarily have to be symmetrical. Certainly symmetry is probably more aesthetic than functional



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



Jeff Highland -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 25 2010 19:51:09)

"It has been my experience with electrics with reverse headstocks that a string feels more taught when it has a greater distance to travel from nut to post. this is why on one of my 7 strings i need to use a 65 on the low b and the other only needs a 60."

Unfortunately this is a myth
Extra length beyond the nut will keep the same tension in the string but will make the string very slightly easier to deflect, it is fairly simple physics.



HemeolaMan -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 25 2010 20:33:16)

no sir, you have ignored several very important factors.

tension obviously remains the same. but, there are other things to consider.

after all, if tension were the only factor then changing the break angle at the saddle would change nothing.



Jeff Highland -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 25 2010 21:40:25)

No ignoring other factors, they just happen to work in exactly the opposite manner to what you propose.
When you deflect a string by fretting it or plucking it you actually make it longer.
If the string is capable of moving freely over the nut or saddle then this elongation from deflection is distributed over the total length of the string between post and anchorage at the bridge, not just within the scale length.

If you have additional string beyond the nut or saddle then the elongation from deflection is distributed over a greater length resulting in less strain(elongation divided by original length) and hence an easier feel rather than firmer.

Archtop makers have utilized this principle for years to soften the feel of the bass strings by giving them greater length from saddle to tailpiece.



Mohan -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 26 2010 3:53:57)

Hi Ted,
Thanks for the heads up on the Bellido - it's great to see that this concept already has some level of acceptance, but Manuel didn't go far enough to actually make the string pull straight for the D and G. I was thinking about going completely straight and then going a little further still as I described in my previous posting and then intend to discuss further in my replies to Jeff and Kevin following this reply to you...



Mohan -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 26 2010 4:16:42)

Hi Kevin,
I have an engineering background, so I quite liked the solution and the symmetry of your first suggestion and, all other things being equal, would choose that guitar over the traditional one. But, I was going to say the same thing as Ted about the spacing between the D and G strings, and my suggestion was going to be to stagger the upper and lower pegs as you have done in your second picture, but I was going to suggest a staggered "arrow head" shape pointing away from the nut:

|--------o
|-------------------o
|------------------------------o
|_______________o
|_________o
|___o

making the separation between the pegs more even than you show in your picture. Of course, aesthetic fine tuning would need to be applied to get the optimal spacing and positioning. And, of course, the arrowhead could also be arranged pointing towards the nut...

This arrangement will mean that the direction the strings are wound will be different between the upper and lower sets of pegs, but that's better than the current practice of two different directions on each of the two sets of pegs...

Lots of food for thought.



Mohan -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 26 2010 4:31:32)

Hi Jeff,
Yes, I think trying to keep the direction the strings are wound on of the pegs would mean a rethink of the head-neck joint and the shape of the headstock. I assume that acoustic guitars use a different head-neck joint to the way that flamenco/classical guitar are constructed. It would seem a waste of wood (and money) to make the whole of the neck wider in order to get the extra width on the head. The solution would have to be either as you suggest "wings" or using a different neck head joint where the head is made a complete and separate unit?

However, if we go with Kevin's suggestions, then there should be no need to change the construction method and using the "arrowhead" staggered peg pattern pointing away from the nut, would allow shaping of the head to follow the line of the upper and lower pegs - less wood/less weight. The stagger between the upper and lower pegs would allow an asymmetric shape to the upper and lower edges?



Ron.M -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 26 2010 4:50:21)

quote:

if tension were the only factor then changing the break angle at the saddle would change nothing.


Yes it would, Hem...

Break angle controls the component of force acting DOWNWARDS on the bridge.

Steeper the angle, the greater that force.
Also the greater the tension, the greater that force.
That's just basic mechanics.

There was a big argument on string anchoring length versus tension several months ago.[:D]

http://www.foroflamenco.com/tm.asp?m=118746&appid=&p=&mpage=1&key=tension&tmode=&smode=&s=#118750

cheers,

Ron



jshelton5040 -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Apr. 26 2010 10:08:49)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HemeolaMan

Couldn't agree more [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]


Oh my, I looked at that and almost lost my lunch. That is beyond ugly.



krichards -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Jun. 20 2010 0:36:33)

quote:

My question is: why don't luthiers build peghead guitars with the pegs offset inwards, to allow the inner strings to pass in a straight line through the nut?


Mohan, sorry i missed this thread earlier!

The answer to your question is simple I think. There is nothing wrong with the traditional headstock, It works so there is no urge to change it.

There is no need for the strings to pass straight through the nut. A small angle does not cause the strings to pop out of the slot if the slot is made properly and the extra friction force in the slot makes hardly any difference. So, no need to change it really.

However, I prefer that all three strings turn the same way on each side, so I like this arrangement best

[image][/image]


(Sorry about the poor photography)

Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



aarongreen -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Jun. 20 2010 8:21:59)

Hi Guys,
Imagine my surprise when I looked at this thread and saw my headstock being messed with in the name of alternative peg configurations. I have to say I am grateful for the opportunity to see how other patterns would look without having to do it in real life. Thanks for that and I'll be sticking to my original arrangement. [:D]

aaron



mrMagenta -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Jun. 20 2010 10:16:46)

Hm.. I actually like the symmetrical, straight running variant that makes some of you guys loose your lunch. It looks art deco to me. Perhaps not the right look for a flamenco guitar, but I think it might work, if the other elements of the guitar are fashioned in a similar style.



HemeolaMan -> RE: Positioning of pegs in the headstock (Jun. 20 2010 13:04:59)

Yeah I'm not particular. If it plays well, sounds good and has one more aspect to make it function better I'm not too picky. I wouldn't turn down a good sounding great playing guitar because it had an asymmetrical peg layout.

Hang the sense of it, nuts to tradition.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET