newbie question on reverse headstock

[Guest]

Is the reverse headstock just a cosmetic difference? Or can it actually affect playability?

I've heard that having a shorter high G/B/E strings (like on a Les Paul vs. Fender) makes a difference in string bending. That kind of makes sense (shorter string length requires less tension to sound same note).

[joe web]

Re: newbie question on reverse headstock

not with double locking trems. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
if you don´t have a locknut, i´m not sure.

[Number Of The Priest]

Re: newbie question on reverse headstock

Scale length is the playable part of the string, ie- from the bridge/saddles to the nut only. The longer middle strings on a 3x3 Gibson headstock does not mean that those two strings have longer scale lengths than the shorter E strings on the same headstock. Another example are TOM/string-thru bridges. Sometimes the string holes (ferrules, I think they're called) are staggered in their arrangement, like a Schecter:



Does that mean the strings that extend further behind the bridge have a longer scale length? Nope! [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

The locknut certainly eliminates a lot of stuff about the headstock, like how you wind the strings around the post (whether you start from top-down or bottom-up winding) or how many times you wind the strings around the post.

[Child Of Norther]

Re: newbie question on reverse headstock

My understanding is it just makes it easier to tune cause you dont have to hold your arm above the headstock.

[shreddermon]

Re: newbie question on reverse headstock

It's asthetic. Looks cool.

[atomic charvel guy]

Re: newbie question on reverse headstock

alan,

i was lucky enough to own one of the three original russian subs and it had a reverse pointy.
it had better action than 98% of my other guitars, stratheads included. i wish i still had it. it hurts like a butterknife through the back of my neck to know it's gone forever. a really cool cat has it now, so that helps.
unless it's a reverse pointy, it's pointless [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

[Guest]

Re: newbie question on reverse headstock

Thanks for all the explanations. I did a thought experiment and am convinced that you guys are right.

Say you have 24" of .10 tuned to high E and 26" of .10 tuned to high E. Obviously, the first will be have less tension than the 26" scale. However, if you then "fret" the latter configuration at 24", you would have to lower the tension to continue sounding the high E.

I think this logic is right. Is the implication that shorter scale lengths are easier to bend? Or is to too little to even matter?

[DRH]

Re: newbie question on reverse headstock

I think shorter scale lengths are easier to bend.

You need less string tension on a 24.5 scale neck than on a 25.5 scale neck to get the same note.


DRH

[quadperson]

Re: newbie question on reverse headstock

I think the manufasturers got the idea from people wearing their hats backerds. Not much sense, just different It it easier to tune, and I think they look cool.

[metafaza]

Re: newbie question on reverse headstock

I think I've read somewhere on the forum that tuning those low strings is a little pain in the butt with reversed headstocks. I, somehow, prefer regular headstocks, so I guess we need someone with a reversed headstock on this thread.

[toejam]

Re: newbie question on reverse headstock

My Warrior and Carvin have reversed headstocks, and I've had a Kelly and a couple Dinkies that were reversed. There's no difference in feel or tuning that I can tell. Though, on the Carvin I will sometimes hear some ringing overtones coming from behind the nut when I tune the low E string lower. I just put some foam underneath the strings at the nut to solve this problem. I recall Dimebag Darrell mentioning that problem one time in the studio on a couple of his guitars (and he had a Floyd nut) and he also used foam behind the nut.

There was a big discussion about the reverse vs. standard headstock on the Fender FDP and Carvin boards awhile ago, and some people swear each one has a different feel and sound and will affect tension due to the length of the string over the nut. I personally don't buy it. Of course, I can feel the tension difference in my guitars with 24.75", 25" and 25.5" scales, but that's got nothing to do with the headstock since the string length is only playable from nut to bridge like NOTP mentioned.

[toejam]

Re: newbie question on reverse headstock

Originally posted by metafaza:
I think I've read somewhere on the forum that tuning those low strings is a little pain in the butt with reversed headstocks. I, somehow, prefer regular headstocks, so I guess we need someone with a reversed headstock on this thread.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not a pain in the butt. You just have to turn the peg the other way. I always was used to regular headstocks and didn't want to deal with one reversed, but since I've had a few, it doesn't bother me any more. Same with the 3+3, you just remember 3 go one way, 3 go the other way.

[guitar geek]

Re: newbie question on reverse headstock

there is one difference that actually matters and that is this; if you have a normal headstock the part of the strings above the nut are longer on the higher strings than on the lower strings and with a reversed headstock it is the other way around. For the sounds it doesnt really matter, but if you have a guitar that has no locking nut, but an ordinary nut the difference is this; the reversed headstock has a more stable tuning than the normal one. It is quite easy to understand why: the thin strings don't have much resistance against moving over the nut, because there is not mutch frictionsurface. (don't know how to put it in proper English, sorry, dutchy [img]graemlins/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] ). The thicker strings on the other hand have more contactsurface with the nut, so a larger resistance to moving. If the part of the string is larger, there is more length to compensate for stringstensiondifferences, and with an easymoving string you can imagine that when bending a string, the string slips over the nut and you have a guitar that is off tune. If you reverse that, the strings with the greatest resistance against this having the longest part to compensate and the strings with small resistance (and which also happens to be the string that is being bent most of the times), your guitar has a more stable tuning.

I know, long story, a shitload of bad english, but I hope the point is clear, so Ron, don't bite me [img]graemlins/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

harrald