What do you think would be better, locking tuners with a standard nut, or adding an "after the nut" string lock? Either one of these is technically easier than retrofitting a neck with a Floyd nut. Keep in mind, I don't ues a trem all that much.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
string lock or locking tuners?
Collapse
X
-
Re: string lock or locking tuners?
Locking tuners. No extra tools to worry about like an allen wrench. Plus it's faster to tune a new string as you don't need to use as much.I want to depart this world the same way I arrived; screaming and covered in someone else's blood
The most human thing we can do is comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
My Blog: http://newcenstein.com
-
Re: string lock or locking tuners?
I've got a set of Sperzels in my Hamer Mirage I with a Wilkinson bridge. So I know a little about them. I was just wondering how they hold up to a Floyd. It seems that a lot of Carvins are built with locking tuners instead of a Floyd nut. That's what got me thinking about them.
Comment
-
Re: string lock or locking tuners?
Its really simple bro.
If you just use your bridge for vibrato and slight pitch changes you can get by no problem with locking tuners.
If you like to dive bomb occassionaly and flutter and pull up and sometimes wank away... the only ones that actually stay in tune are the conventional locking trem and locking nut. A neck cut for a lock nut is the best followed by the locknut after the nut. Locking Sperzels with a conventional nut won't do it if you are a wanker.
Comment
-
Re: string lock or locking tuners?
I have locking tuners on my slatq, lots of floyds on other guitars. I would echo the previous post - for light duty the locking tuners are the way to go, I love them on a non-floyed guitar. But if you intend to use the floyd, the locking nut would be my advice.
Comment
Comment