Staggered Tuner Question

[Nightclub Dwight]

I understand that staggered tuners help with the break angle at the nut.  I have them on my telecaster and love that I don't need a string tree.

My question is, why do they bother to stagger them?  Why not just make all the tuner posts low?  I assume it may have something to do with worries that the thicker strings need more room on the post, but on my tele, since there is less than one wrap of the string around any post it seems that there is enough room that all of the posts could be low.

I'm sure Cagey will have some good insight on this as usual.

 

[gauchosilvertone]

You want just ENOUGH break angle, in general.  The issue is friction (or main issue anyway).

Look at your tele and how the neck is scooped out behind the nut.  Visualize a post as low as your high E post, but in the place of your low E post.  Look at the angle that would create- very sharp.  You'd be asking for tuning problems- bend a string, pull slack to the body side of the nut, release the string- maybe not all the slack goes back. 

There may also be something to trying to keep the angle as consistent as possible from string to string for feel-related purposes, but someone else will have to speak to that.

As with many guitar issues, different variables are at odds.  I personally like my angles to be sharper because it creates a clearer tone.  But for example when I drop my Les Paul posts all the way into the body to get that killer tone, I often shred high E and B strings at the nut.  D'oh.  (different issue, just illustrating the compromise bit).

 

[Cagey]

I understand that staggered tuners help with the break angle at the nut.  I have them on my telecaster and love that I don't need a string tree.

You don't need string tree(s) because you have a well-cut nut, not because you have staggered tuners. Most tuners are not staggered. There are a couple brands that do it, and I suspect it's more a marketing gimmick for those who worry about such things rather than any real utility or requirement.

My question is, why do they bother to stagger them?  Why not just make all the tuner posts low?  I assume it may have something to do with worries that the thicker strings need more room on the post, but on my tele, since there is less than one wrap of the string around any post it seems that there is enough room that all of the posts could be low.

As I mentioned, many, if not most, tuners are not staggered.

I'm not going to say string trees or staggered tuners or tilt-back headstocks are useless. They do serve a purpose - to compensate for crummy nuts. Many techs and perhaps even some luthiers simply don't pay enough attention to the geometry of the nut slots, so you end up with tuning and tonal issues. The lack of clarity or that "sitar" sound or strings popping out of slots is almost always due to a poorly cut nut. Spend some quality time there, and none of the rest of that rigmarole is necessary.

And as far as locking tuners go, I consider them the greatest innovation in guitar technology since steel strings. I even put them on guitars that don't have vibrato bridges. The ease of string changes along with the reliability and stability of tuning is just too much to ignore. It's not an incremental improvement, it's huge.

 

[Nightclub Dwight]

Thank you for the information.

I agree with Cagey on the locking tuners.  I've got them on the telecaster, and will use them for any other guitar that I build (or if I need to change out tuners on an existing guitar).  It is just so easy to change strings, and I have never had a bad experience using them. 

 

[rgand]

I also am totally sold on locking tuners for the reasons stated by Cagey. I put them on my recent partscaster and will put them on everything from now on.