Why are acoustics with straight string pull non-existant?

[Fusion01]

I see more and more electrics using this for supposed better tuning stability and less binding at the nut as well as putting less sideways forces on the nut itself. Have acoustic luthiers decided this is a non-factor?

Here are three electric examples of what I'm talking about:



I would think those would be better than this example:



Any thoughts?

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Fusion01

…Any thoughts?

Hi Fusion…

I think if they were actually 'better' in a meaningful way, they would already be being built that way by nearly everyone. After all, we've had fretted instruments with tuning mechanisms being built for at least 500 years.

All designs contain compromises, so the compromise of the current popular system of mounting/aligning tuning pegs via the nut must be taking that into account.

Are you seeing any actual problem issues on your personal instruments from non-aligned (with the slots in the nut) tuning machines?

[Realbluesman]

You might like the headstocks on Seagulls?

[SFCRetired]

I've wondered the same thing since some claim it's better. I guess it's not really better or everyone would be doing it, wouldn't they?

[Fusion01]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi Fusion…

Are you seeing any actual problem issues on your personal instruments from non-aligned (with the slots in the nut) tuning machines?

No, not really seeing any results first-hand, I just was wondering even if it was better with straight pull, if there was a noticeable difference re:tuning stability. Maybe the placebo effect, but it would appear more stable. I do have a Yamaha AES 820 like the one headstock shown, but it also has Sperzel locking tuners so I guess the tuning aspect would be moot on that anyways.

[BFD]

Because the luthiers who everyone is copying didn't build them that way.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Fusion01

No, not really seeing any results first-hand, I just was wondering even if it was better with straight pull, if there was a noticeable difference re:tuning stability. Maybe the placebo effect, but it would appear more stable. I do have a Yamaha AES 820 like the one headstock shown, but it also has Sperzel locking tuners so I guess the tuning aspect would be moot on that anyways.

Hi F-01…

I'm kind of with you on the would there be a noticeable difference aspect.

I doubt it. And since I'm a frequent string bender, those full step bends I do probably will affect tuning more than the alignment of the string with the tuning machine once strings are settled.

[Fusion01]

I did an image search on violins and cellos and they all deviate from straight-pull as well, so I guess if it was an issue those ultra expensive vintage instruments would have been re-designed if there was a better way.

Having said that, I guess I actually like the aesthetics of it, maybe if only for the clean lines of the parallel strings over the nut. Silly I know...

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Fusion01

I did an image search on violins and cellos and they all deviate from straight-pull as well, so I guess if it was an issue those ultra expensive vintage instruments would have been re-designed if there was a better way.

Having said that, I guess I actually like the aesthetics of it, maybe if only for the clean lines of the parallel strings over the nut. Silly I know...

Hi F-01…

The good news is someone will happily build you a guitar that way if you come up with the bucks to finance the venture.

[rick-slo]

I agree that straight pull would be better. I guess tradition and a certain aesthetic point of view are working against its more widespread adoption.

[mc1]

i must say i don't like the aesthetics of the strings on an acoustic, where they practically touch the tuning shaft of another tuner, such as in the picture of the collings.

[Presc]

My Heritage 535 (high-end 335-style guitar) has a straighter pull headstock than a Gibson does, but people always knock the Heritage headstocks for being ugly.

So maybe there's more value in keeping traditional aesthetics than optimizing every little element.

[DanPanther]

The inline strings brings to mind the 500 year old guitars LG mentions. It just looks Renaissance to me.

Dan

[Alan Carruth]

Trevor Gore, in Australia, builds them that way, and advocates doing so in his book. His claim is not so much that the tuning is more stable, but that intonation is better, with less need for compensation. The less friction there is over the nut, the more the back string between the nut and tuner can stretch when you fret the note, and that reduces the need for compensation. Or that's the argument, and he has data to back it up.

Of course, there has to be some break over angle at the nut to define the string length, just as there must be at a saddle. I can't see any reason why you can't accommodate a reasonable string spread at the head without increasing the friction over the nut by careful building. Back when I made a few lutes we learned how to polish up the slots in the nut. You need to on those things: while the string pull looks straight from the top, the head in fact makes nearly a ninety degree angle from the side view, and you need to make the strings run really smoothly over the nut or it would be impossible to tune them at all.

As has been said, if the advantages were all that great everybody would already use that feature. It's not something new, after all; look at Stauffer's guitars, or those of his student, C.F. Martin I, from the early 19th century.

[Aaron Smith]

Questions like the one posed in the OP always remind me of this quote:

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

- Yogi Berra (rest his soul)


To summarize- some things that seem much better by theory don't actually make a practical difference.