# Reverse Headstock Misconception



## Durero (Jun 6, 2006)

I've noticed a recurring misunderstanding about reverse headstocks coming up on various threads here once in a while. Since there is significant interest in custom guitar design here I think it would be helpful to try and clarify the issue. (I think most here understand clearly so lets try to help those who have mistaken ideas about it.)

I think there are two important points to clarify:

1 - Headstock design has _no_ affect on string tension.

2 - Headstock design _does_ affect the 'feel' or 'bendability' of the strings.


To elaborate:

1 - String tension is only affected by 3 factors: a) pitch (to which we tune the string), b) mass (or to simplify: string gage), and c) scale length (the length of string from bridge point to nut _only_.)

It is important to understand that scale length is only the vibrating segment of the string (bridge to nut). What length of string there is between the nut and the tuning post has absolutely no affect on the tension of the string.

However...

2 - The length of string between the nut and the tuning post _does_ affect the 'feel', 'bendability', or 'stretchyness' of the string. The _shorter_ the length of string between the nut and the post, the _tighter_ the string will feel when bending. The _longer_ the length between nut & post, the _looser_ it will feel.
If you use high action and/or have a very heavy touch (how hard you press when fretting a string) then you may even notice this 'tightness' or 'looseness' when simply fretting a string - especially on the lowest frets close to the nut.

You can prove this to yourself if you have a guitar with inline or reverse inline headstock. Try stringing your highest and lowest strings with the exact same gage strings and tuning them to the exact same pitch. Try playing and doing bends on each string and see which feels tighter.


Therefore, if you want a tighter feel on your low strings - the reason often mistakenly given for choosing a reverse headstock - go for the _minimum_ string length between nut & post for the low strings: regular (inline), 3+4, 4+3, or even better: headless. Edit: add bostjan's excellent point that a locking nut negates the effect of headstock layout and is the equivalent of a headless guitar (feel-wise) when locked. 

Reverse headstocks will actually give you a looser feel on your low strings than the regular inline layout - assuming, of course, the same scale length and string gage.



Having said all this, my opinion is that the effect of headstock layout on string feel is extremely subtle. I think the biggest difference between different headstock designs is the aesthetics. For me, I tend to play with a very light touch and low action so I'd say I am almost completely unaffected by the headstock of any guitar I play (and my favorite design is no headstock at all.)

Hope this is useful. 

Leo


----------



## dpm (Jun 6, 2006)

Leo, you're absolutely correct on all counts


----------



## bostjan (Jun 6, 2006)

Also, I highly doubt it would matter at all if you use a locking nut. (Only saying this because a lot of people here use locking nuts). But then, bending is more difficult on a floating trem because the added pressure of string bends will pull on the bridge and therefore lower the pitch of all the strings.


----------



## Durero (Jun 6, 2006)

bostjan said:


> Also, I highly doubt it would matter at all if you use a locking nut. (Only saying this because a lot of people here use locking nuts).


Great point! As soon as you lock the nut you've got the equivalent of a headless guitar as far as string feel.


(dpm Dan - thanks and btw, when are we gonna see a website from you with massive high-rez galleries of all the gorgeous instruments you've built? Or have I somehow missed it? You should have a link in your sig.  )


----------



## dpm (Jun 6, 2006)

I need to get my shit together with the website. Once I get more instruments built I can put the pics up  I don't want any pre-Oni stuff on there as it's not really relevant.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 6, 2006)

Behind-the-nut bends on the low-strings are definitely easier on reverse headstocks


----------



## XEN (Jun 6, 2006)

D-EJ915 said:


> Behind-the-nut bends...


sounds painful... I think.


----------



## Drew (Jun 6, 2006)

Agreed on all counts, Durero and Bostjan. I'll be willing to entertain theories that a reversed headstock increases string tension only after seeing loads of carefully done scientific research suggesting that some physical attribute I'm failing to account for influences the string tension. Otherwise, everything I know about string tension theory tells me that it's the scale length at a given pitch that effects tension, although longer strings should be easier to flex than shorter ones at a given tension otherwise. 

...which actually suggests that longer scales, while they're at higher tension for a given pitch, also have a little more give to the strings, and thus shouldn't be as hard to play as one might think.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jun 6, 2006)

This info is mostly known by us, I think. But nonetheless, well thought-out and concise on an elemental, simple fact of guitar design.


----------



## eaeolian (Jun 6, 2006)

D-EJ915 said:


> Behind-the-nut bends



Flexibility is definitely an issue here...


----------



## nyck (Jun 6, 2006)

Ah!! I was wondering why my 27" scale 7 string w/ .064 for a low B felt too loose! On my custom 8, I'll take all this info into account


----------



## Durero (Jun 6, 2006)

nyck said:


> Ah!! I was wondering why my 27" scale 7 string w/ .064 for a low B felt too loose! On my custom 8, I'll take all this info into account


Good - exactly the purpose of this thread


----------



## nyck (Jun 6, 2006)

Durero said:


> Good - exactly the purpose of this thread


I was really starting to think it was the Ernie ball brand strings that made them feel so much looser than they should have. Of course the brand has a big impact on the strings as well.


----------



## Rick (Jun 6, 2006)

I just want one because I think it looks cool.


----------



## Mastodon (Jun 6, 2006)

I LOVE learning stuff on this website. Plus e-rep for you.


----------



## dysfctn (Jun 6, 2006)

Thanks alot for that info. I've only played a reverse headstock once, but it had a locking nut. I'll keep all info in mind next time I'm looking for new guitars.


----------



## darren (Jun 6, 2006)

This was covered AGES ago. You should see if you can find our old thread on string tension.

But thanks for the refresher.


----------



## zimbloth (Jun 7, 2006)

Elysian: I told you so


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Jun 11, 2006)

rg7420user said:


> I just want one because I think it looks cool.


 Agreed 100%


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jun 11, 2006)

7 Dying Trees said:


> Agreed 100%


+7


----------



## Rick (Jun 12, 2006)

7 is the magic number here.


----------



## of 2 evils (Jul 13, 2006)

still getting the reverse headstock 

my jackson (6 string...) dkmg tky has a locking nut and a reverse headstock... and oddly enough i keep cranging 'normal' headstocks into amps, walss, etc, i need the reverse headstocks


----------



## jtm45 (Jul 13, 2006)

nyck said:


> Ah!! I was wondering why my 27" scale 7 string w/ .064 for a low B felt too loose! On my custom 8, I'll take all this info into account



I would have thought a .64 on a 27" scale tuned to B would have been quite tense. 
Generally the 'average' gauge people are using on this site seems to be around a .58 tuned to B on a 25.5" scale and given that the longer (27") scale length is supposed to increase tension then i would have though a .64 on a 27" would have more than enough tension(?).

That said,i suppose it varies from instrument to instrument and between different string brands(having different string core thicknesses and all that) etc..

On a different (but related)point i find that with overly(?) high tension it seems like the notes fade quicker but also if the string hasn't got enough tension a similar thing happens (and it's too 'floppy',obviously!).
I suppose this adds to the theory that there is an optimal string gauge for a particular note tuned on a particular scale-length.

A lot of this is supposition and it's down to personal preferance in the end but it seems to make sense (i think?).


----------



## Durero (Jul 13, 2006)

of 2 evils said:


> still getting the reverse headstock
> 
> my jackson (6 string...) dkmg tky has a locking nut and a reverse headstock... and oddly enough i keep cranging 'normal' headstocks into amps, walss, etc, i need the reverse headstocks


That's totally cool - those Jackson cow's are pretty sweet lookin'  

I hope nobody reading my original post thinks I'm trying to discourage anyone from getting a reverse headstock - I think they look cool - and I think getting one because they look cool is totally reasonable. I'm just trying to help get rid of some misunderstandings about how they affect tension & feel (very little). If there was a guitar that I liked which had a reverse headstock I wouldn't hesitate to get it.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 13, 2006)

Well, maybe someone reading the post who was thinking of not getting one because of the mythological feel issue will reconsider and get one now?


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Jul 16, 2006)

I think one of the more important things has been forgotten: For swinging the hair around at high velocity, a reverse head stock makes sure you don't get caught in the tuning pegs as much.

that is all.


----------



## Durero (Jul 16, 2006)

Absolutely!


But wait! What if you're swinging your hair around at high velocity the _other way?!_


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jul 16, 2006)

You mean the guy standing next to the guy with the reverse headstock? lol


----------



## Project2501 (Jul 16, 2006)

Reverse headstocks are better for beating up Donkeys!!


----------



## Jerich (Jul 23, 2006)

wow this thread could have went really wrong but turned out good...I agree with most of the talks here of tensions etc...But reverse headstocks just ((to me)) look cool...I have found even after ordering many custom 7 string baritone guitars that the tension is always a factor sooner or later on the necks of the instruments over a long period of time. The agile Interceptor for one have been lasting longer then even the Ibanez's for me. I tune a full step down ((D))...and it has been like pulling teeth keeping the right tension and tune in. I have a custom 7 being made now that I cannot wait till you all see it...and my new Jerich Model pickups are killer too ........


----------



## metalfiend666 (Jul 24, 2006)

7 Dying Trees said:


> I think one of the more important things has been forgotten: For swinging the hair around at high velocity, a reverse head stock makes sure you don't get caught in the tuning pegs as much.
> 
> that is all.


 
Very important indeed, especially having seen videos of your live playing!


----------



## Durero (Jan 25, 2007)

Found a very interesting article on the same topic here:

http://www.liutaiomottola.com/myth/perception.htm


----------



## noodles (Jan 25, 2007)

^ That was an excellent read, Leo.


----------



## Durero (Jan 25, 2007)

Hey thanks Dave 

I thought the mention of Bob Bennedetto's experiments was interesting - surprising that none of the people he tested could tell the difference between the same strings & pitch on different scale necks, or the difference between having lots of extra string length past the nut/bridge or no extra length.

I think it supports my personal opinion that the headstock layout issue has such a subtle effect on string feel ('compliance' as said in that article) that it's almost negligible.


----------



## noodles (Jan 26, 2007)

Durero said:


> I think it supports my personal opinion that the headstock layout issue has such a subtle effect on string feel ('compliance' as said in that article) that it's almost negligible.



It was nice having a sound, scientific explanation to back up my personal observations on the matter. Personally, I use a .060 B on my Soloist, which feels great. To get a similar feel, I use a .068" B on my KxK, because the reverse headstock makes the string so long.


----------

