Suggestion: A better functional 3x3 headstock design.

[McHale]

From worst to best:

Gibson
Warmoth Vortex
PRS
EVH

I'm not talking about headstock shape necessarily but the angle of the string at the nut.  Ideally strings should pass straight through the nut (at whatever break angle is ideal of the headstock) so they don't bind when doing bends or using the trem.  The G and B strings are notorious for binding on Les Paul style headstocks which can be seen why in the attached pic.  The Vortex seems to be the best 3x3 Warmoth offers as far as string binding at the nut but it doesn't seem a whole lot better than Gibson.  Just bringing them all in a little bit could fix that. 

 

[TBurst Std]

If you do a search, I did an analysis of the deviation from straight comparing the PRS, the Warmoth and Vortex. Probably about 7 years ago. 
While the PRS is 99% of the way there, as I recall the Vortex is 97%. 
Having a Gibson as well, I can vouch that the Vortex is a HUGE difference to the positive.

 

[McHale]

I found it:  https://www.unofficialwarmoth.com/index.php?topic=28669

Nice work.  Some great info in there.  One question, I don't understand where the possible vs desired came from.  I mean, desired makes perfect sense but I don't understand why "possible" can't equal "desired" unless it comes down to not changing the shape of the headstock. 

REGARDLESS, I'd still like to see a 3x3 with perfect string alignment at the nut.  While PRS comes close, it could get better.  And Gibson...  yikes.  They made a reverse V body but didn't think to fix the headstock angle or string alignment on at least ONE model?!  :icon_scratch:

 

[TBurst Std]

The “possible” scenario was me creating my own head stock design using the 3x3 tuners I had on hand and arranging them in a non- staggered arrangement. 

Sort of “the best that could be accomplished” with the tuners I had if I shaped my own headstock and drilled my own holes.

 

[McHale]

Ahhhh.... that makes sense.  I did the same a while back.  Been using Fender headstocks ever since. 

My quest for the ideal 3x3 came about after I bought a really expensive Les Paul and me throwing it out of tune every 10 minutes.  Since learning why it happens, it's made me change my opinions on various guitars. 

Again, thanks for the work that resulted in that thread.  It helped to see the numbers on how good they are using numbers.

 

[Rick]

I'm just spit balling here, but there must be a reason (or combination of reasons) why there are few straight 3x3 by any major manufacturer.  Probably boils down to aesthetics.  I do like Peaveys EVH's though.  But I think it needs a string tree, so there must be something else going on dealing with friction or having enough neck meat to make it work ... or just marketability.

 

[aarontunes]

If you have seen any pics of the Meadowhawk headstock, it is a 3x3 layout with perfectly straight string alignment. Unfortunately that project got postponed due to covid.


We still plan to release the Meadowhawk (and Redshifter), but exactly when is still uncertain. Once they get released the Meadowhawk headstock could conceivably be added to our regular offering, but I would imagine that would be years away at this point.


Covid has really put the kibosh on R&D for a long time.

 

[Rick]

Rare picture ... we'll have to wait years to see the front

 

[TBurst Std]

I'm just spit balling here, but there must be a reason (or combination of reasons) why there are few straight 3x3 by any major manufacturer.  Probably boils down to aesthetics.  I do like Peaveys EVH's though.  But I think it needs a string tree, so there must be something else going on dealing with friction or having enough neck meat to make it work ... or just marketability.

The limitation is the selected tuner. Actually it’s footprint.

So for instance, a Kluson 3x3 tuner footprint. If you place them side by side touching each other, that is still not close enough to have straight pull on your d and g strings.  You can offset them of course.  Now you have to account for their foot print in the other direction, possibly resulting in a long headstock.  ( and potentially ugly). If not using a tilt back head, now add string trees possibly.

Select a tuner with smaller footprint , and more options become available. 

 

[TBurst Std]

If you want to play around designing a headstock, here’s a good starting point.

Grab 2 tuners that you would use.
Grab a guitar or guitar neck were the nut is installed and of the desired width.

Take some calipers and measured the distance from outside edges of the d to g string.

That distance needs to be the distance between the inside spacing of your tuners’ posts.

If you cant get the close enough due to foot print, you need to offset them until you can get those inside post spacing to your desired measurement.  The other 4 are much easier to lay out.

 

[TBurst Std]

Also keep in mind the size of the washers and/or nuts on the top.
Are they small enough I’d diameter that they won’t overlap each other to reach the desired measurement?

Again tuner selection and the resulting footprint is the limiting aspect of straight pull 3x3 arrangements.

 

[Rick]

I hope whoever is in r&d considers hip shots with the ump plate.

 

[TBurst Std]

Having used the UMP plate a couple times it is fairly wide (almost to a Kluson width).  It would require most likely offset to be able to get the inside edges of the d and g posts close enough together for a straight pull. 

I say that, but I just looked at my UMP install on a Vortex headstock. You may be able to get them close enough.  I may check it latter today.