Locking tuners versus locking nut

JSG

Junior Member
Messages
27
Say you're building a guitar with a Floyd Rose on it.  And say you fling the hell out of that thing.  Dive bombing, flutters, raising harmonics to the sky and all that.  Would you get a locking nut or locking tuners?  Or would you just get a locking nut with regular tuners?  It's overkill and unnecessary to do both, but I just wonder if locking tuners would hold everything in pitch as well as a locking nut would.  Any thoughts?
 
I've never liked the tone of anyone playing with a locked-up guitar as well as I like the tone of some people using conventional rigs. I'm not aware of any exploration of what the sigular effect on tone of a locking nut is, separated out from the effect of a locking bridge. However, if ultimate squealing is crucial, I would defer to the design choices of the people who do it best; i.e., use a locking nut. Surely somebody in the last thirty years has tried a Floyd or Edge bridge without the locking nut, and it certainly hasn't caught on....  :-\

I bend the willies out of the strings on my scalloped-neck, hardtail, non-locked "tele" and you can definitely shape the nut and keep things lubed so that strings catching in the nut is a minimal issue. However, I would guess that an additional "advantage" to a locking nut is that it shortens the length of the overall strings being stretched, thereby making the process even more sensitive to bar movement.  :guitaristgif:
 
I know locking nuts can be a tone killer, but I think I'm gonna have to go with one anyway.  I have several guitars without such things, but this is to be my shredder machine, so I think I'll have to lock her down. 
 
Tone killer? Explain, I don't believe it. If anything it helps prevent strings from buffering through the nut and losing tone and sustain.

Theres to many things to blame poor tone on before you get to the nut..........
 
To be quite honest, I don't KNOW for a fact that locking nuts are tone killers.  But everyone I've mentioned it to at music stores and whatnot always say the same thing.  Granted, these are mostly conventional nut purists who think tremolos are the devil.  It's just a common argument I hear all the time.  The first guy to respond to this said "I've never liked the tone of anyone playing with a locked-up guitar as well as I like the tone of some people using conventional rigs" so there's obviously a difference of opinion on the issue.  I personally haven't noticed much in going back and forth between my SG and guitars with locking nuts.     
 
I don't know about the tone, but Adrian Belew has whammied the living daylights out of a long line of Strats for the last 25+ years without needing locking nuts - first with regular Fender whammys, and since ca. 1983-84 with flatmount Kahlers. So, possibly it depends on the kind of whammy you want: Belew is not a standard issue shredder, but he gets some really weird sounds from his guitars!
 
I listen to a lot of technical shred guitarists, Vai, Satriani, MacAlpine etc. To my ear, there's something odd & sterile about the midrange tone on a locking guitar, somewhere between about 1.6K to 4K. It's more noticeable to me on the cleaner, softer stuff. I think Joe Satriani gets the greatest variety of tones among those locking-whammy guys, but compare the very best of his clean tones on "Surfing with the Alien" or "Crystal Palace" (my favorite of his) to the clean tones from Eric Johnson, Steve Morse, Andy Timmons and other bolt-neck but non-locking guitarists.

Of course tone is a subjective thing, and the Floyd Rose metallicism has enter the culture as perfectly acceptable - I still listen to these guys. However, the use of Floyds & Ibanez Edges & Lo-Pros would be nearly universal if there weren't some downsides to using them, I think - they sure do stay in tune. A lot of great guitarists like Timmons, John Petrucci, and Paul Gilbert have reverted back from using locking whammys, and they cite tone as the reason.
 
I had my preconceptions about the ultrawhammy turned upside down when I saw African singer Tabu Ley years ago. He had 4 guitarists with him, and they all played Ibanez superstrats with locking trems through squeaky clean verb-y amps. Initially, (because I'm a stupid white guy) I assmed that these were cheap guitars they bought in America for the tour that would then be sold off at tour's end. When I got a closer look, there was a lot more than a few weeks' wear on those things. These guys really liked that style of guitar. They liked a lot of metal: big metal bridge, big frets. They didn't even have the whammy bars on. I got to talking to one of them who told me that their style of playing originated out of trying to imitate the thumb harp (kalimba) on guitar. Their goal was a bell-like chime, and the Fenders, Hagstroms, and EKO's (the Swedes and Italians sold a lot of guitars in Africa) that they grew up with were deemed too twangy and thumpy.

So, say what you will about the clean tone on locking trems. There's a whole continent that begs to differ.
 
All great input, my friends.  Very much appreciated.  I'm gonna go with locking it up for the sake of staying in tune and the assurance of keeping my strings in place.  My tone is exactly what I want whether I'm playing my SG or one with a locking nut and tremolo.  That's largely due to my beloved amp, a Pearce G2r built in 1989.  If anyone were to steal that amp I'd have to do a Charles Bronson on 'em. 
 
Speaking of preconceptions turned upside down: Pearce amps are the best solid state guitar amps I've ever heard. I played one for years and loved it.
 
neilium said:
Speaking of preconceptions turned upside down: Pearce amps are the best solid state guitar amps I've ever heard. I played one for years and loved it.

I also use solid state, Tech 21 60Watts w 4x10 combo,  this thing rocks at all volume levels,
 
stubhead said:
I listen to a lot of technical shred guitarists, Vai, Satriani, MacAlpine etc. To my ear, there's something odd & sterile about the midrange tone on a locking guitar, somewhere between about 1.6K to 4K. It's more noticeable to me on the cleaner, softer stuff. I think Joe Satriani gets the greatest variety of tones among those locking-whammy guys, but compare the very best of his clean tones on "Surfing with the Alien" or "Crystal Palace" (my favorite of his) to the clean tones from Eric Johnson, Steve Morse, Andy Timmons and other bolt-neck but non-locking guitarists.

Of course tone is a subjective thing, and the Floyd Rose metallicism has enter the culture as perfectly acceptable - I still listen to these guys. However, the use of Floyds & Ibanez Edges & Lo-Pros would be nearly universal if there weren't some downsides to using them, I think - they sure do stay in tune. A lot of great guitarists like Timmons, John Petrucci, and Paul Gilbert have reverted back from using locking whammys, and they cite tone as the reason.

I wonder if the tone issue among those shredders is more of an amp/pickup thing, that is, settings more conducive to shred rather than what a locking nut does or doesn't do.
 
ildar said:
I wonder if the tone issue among those shredders is more of an amp/pickup thing, that is, settings more conducive to shred rather than what a locking nut does or doesn't do.

+1, especially the eq sounds pretty extreme to me. I prefer a more fluid, Fripp-ish tone with less attack. More warmth and grit, less chunk - or something like that  :)
 
locking nuts lock the line where the strings sit over the neck...same with the floyd saddles....then the tension is set from one point to the other from side to side, so the strings stay in tune when in and out of bombs......the locking tuners use minimal string wrap to ensure the tone doesnt dissipate along the wrapped material....its a technical thing....but its not having anything to do with the function of a locking nut

in fact is a guitar is built right, you can use a kahler without a licking nut, because the strings are not locked down at the bridge
 
I think the Satriani/Vai thing is just not true. When Vai wants a normal strat tone he uses a normal strat.
So does Satch. In fact he has mentioned quite a few times that he uses strats and Les Pauls all the time.

So if you don't like their tone, you just don't, but it's not the locking nut's fault.
 
I had a guitar without floyd and no locking nut, and later changed it into a floyd guitar. if any, the tone got more 'solid' and tighter. NO such thing as 'metallic'.

But I will use ALWAYS locking tuners. changing strings is a breez with them!
 
floyd do not add tone to a guitar

they are tonaly conected with brass poles for the pivot and mostly brass parts, tis adds warmth and aritificial tone and chingy dynamics at bends and solos becasue if adjusted right as you bend the string the back of the floyd goes up and keeps strings in tune rather to push a string out of tune on a hardtail

anways, i like floyds on some guitars....i prefer kahlers for the more tone since its a completely different mechanism and has more options, bases and cams at any metal material, brass, ss, steel, and whatever else they offer...but none the less it has more solid points and the entire bridge and rolers has contact with the frame/base

 
confederatewk said:
floyd do not add tone to a guitar

they are tonaly conected with brass poles for the pivot and mostly brass parts, tis adds warmth and aritificial tone and chingy dynamics at bends and solos becasue if adjusted right as you bend the string the back of the floyd goes up and keeps strings in tune rather to push a string out of tune on a hardtail

anways, i like floyds on some guitars....i prefer kahlers for the more tone since its a completely different mechanism and has more options, bases and cams at any metal material, brass, ss, steel, and whatever else they offer...but none the less it has more solid points and the entire bridge and rolers has contact with the frame/base

that would be true, ofcourse. too bad original floyd rose's are made of (cold rolled) steel...
 
Back
Top