Reverse headstock & different string tension?

[bsteff666]

I just put together a parts guitar with a Warmoth neck that has a reverse Tele headstock & standard nut. I strung up with a standard set of 10's like I always do.

The string tension on the low E,A, & D (the wound strings) is really loose......to the point of fret buzz. I didn't expect this to be the case. Anyone have any experience with this?

I'm thinking a light top/heavy bottom set of strings (.10 to .52 or maybe heavier) will cure the problem. Maybe even a string tree for the low E & A.

I figured the longer string length on the low strings would make some difference, but not this much. Thoughts, anyone?

[txcharvel]

Re: Reverse headstock & different string tension?

I think the string tree help. I think he tension is actually the same, but you're not getting the pressure over the nut that you normally would.

[mm2002]

Re: Reverse headstock & different string tension?

Wouldn't a reverse headstock and a standard (non-locking) nut make the overall string length longer on the lower strings? When tuned to pitch they should actually feel tighter shouldn't they?? Or am I thinking backwards?? [img]/images/graemlins/scratchhead.gif[/img]

[mulder1966]

Re: Reverse headstock & different string tension?

I think that reverse necks do tend to make the tension feel slinky. That is one reason I own mostly reverse heads.

[mm2002]

Re: Reverse headstock & different string tension?

[ QUOTE ]
I think that reverse necks do tend to make the tension feel slinky. That is one reason I own mostly reverse heads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do your guitars have locking nuts?

[txcharvel]

Re: Reverse headstock & different string tension?

The tension has to be the same or it wouldn't be in tune...right [img]/images/graemlins/poke.gif[/img]

I think that the extra string length past the nut is what gives it a slinky feeling. If you had more pressure on the nut the slinky feeling would be less evident.

[delt]

Re: Reverse headstock & different string tension?

+ with a locking nut it doesn't make any difference anyways.

[mulder1966]

Re: Reverse headstock & different string tension?

[ QUOTE ]
Do your guitars have locking nuts?


[/ QUOTE ] All have locking nuts. I know that the scale from bridge to nut is equal on regular or reverse, but it does seem to be more slinky on the reverse heads. I'm sure I am just crazy! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[bsteff666]

Re: Reverse headstock & different string tension?

Prior to this one.....my only guitar with a reverse headstock was a Charvel Model 88. Those have a locking nut, so I never felt any difference in string tension.

As for this one.....there is no locking nut. Yes there are longer string lengths behind the nut on the low strings. I thought I would be able to get away with having no string tree......but that wasn't the case. I added one today. Its much better now. A lot of the buzz has gone away but not all of it. I still feel like the tension is looser on the lower strings. Maybe I'm crazy.

[etaeniura]

Re: Reverse headstock & different string tension?

without the string tree, there is the potential for more of the string to pull through the nut when bending strings, because there is not as much pressure holding those big strings down at the nut. You probably would have more trouble keeping them in tune as well, and would have to bend harder to reach desired pitch. Just my thoughts...

[mulder1966]

Re: Reverse headstock & different string tension?

All of them stay in tune great.

[mm2002]

Re: Reverse headstock & different string tension?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do your guitars have locking nuts?


[/ QUOTE ] All have locking nuts. I know that the scale from bridge to nut is equal on regular or reverse, but it does seem to be more slinky on the reverse heads. I'm sure I am just crazy! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, you're crazy. But hey, as long as we're on tha same page I'm cool with it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]