Why are acoustics with straight string pull non-existant?

[Long Jon]

I used to think my Fender La Brea was so cool when I first got it.
Mainly because of the obvious superiority, practicality, and sheer rock n roll cred of the Stratocaster headstock design.

When I brought it out to show everyone here, all the other boys laughed at it tho' .... Then they made me get a Martin.

[RustyZombie]

The now discontinued Parker acoustics have straight pull headstocks. The Seagull headstocks are pretty close to straight as well.

As someone already mentioned, there isn't as much need for one on acoustic because of less bending and no vibrato bridges. I do find that they tune smoother, and that is nice if you change tunings fairly often.

Given the choice, I would always go with a straight pull headstock. But there are so many other things that make a larger difference that a lack of one would never be a deal breaker for me.

[SJ VanSandt]

John Osthoff here in the US does it. He also compensates the nut, which apparently is easier to pull off with straight string pull. I haven't played one but I would like to. He posts here on AGF - check out his build threads.

[jseth]

I know that Breedlove comes very close to a straight string pull... one of the reasons for their headstock design, as well as the pinless bridge...

Although I have played a fair number of Breedloves in the past 3 years, I don't own one, so I can't speak to the tuning stability over the long haul...

[Explorer]

Hmm.

My Ovations all use straight-pull headstocks. Since they've been around for 50 years at this point, your use of the word "non-existent" seems to lack perspective.

Seagull is the other obvious example, but there are others.

There are definitely brands which avoid the paddle shape on the headstock, even if the tuning cpmachines aren't straight in line with the strings, like Breedlove.

[Fusion01]

Yeah I forgot about Ovations but then again most of the people on here never mention them either. There might be an argument over whether they are even considered a proper "acoustic" anyways with the plastic bowl back and such. Also the Seagulls aren't exactly straight either. Depending on neck width the outer 2 strings will angle inwards towards the tuning machines. The other 4 strings are "sort of" straight but not exactly either. Take a look.



I suppose you could reverse wind both E strings and that would make it "straighter" than it is in the photos. If I decide to get one of those Peppino model Seagulls, that is most likely the way I would wind the outer 2 strings to make it straighter.

[paulp1960]

Sorry but that Seagull headstock to me just looks so wrong.

[RustyZombie]

Originally Posted by paulp1960

Sorry but that Seagull headstock to me just looks so wrong.

I used to hear the same thing about the tele headstock (and then the strat headstock) way back in the day. Everyone eventually got over it.

[texastrummer]

Bourgeois offers an option for a headstock that provides for a straight string pull. I think they call it their "snakehead" option. I have one with that headstock and I haven't noticed it being any more or less stable than any I have with the "normal" one. Looks different though.

[Explorer]

Originally Posted by Fusion01

Yeah I forgot about Ovations but then again most of the people on here never mention them either. There might be an argument over whether they are even considered a proper "acoustic" anyways with the plastic bowl back and such.

If a guitar can be played acoustically, and is designed for playing acoustically, then there isn't really a way to argue against their being acoustic instruments.

However, it is perfectly acceptable for someone to say they don't like the construction method. That has nothing to do with the instruments being acoustic or not, though.

To argue that they also have a great onboard system, which allows them to work plugged in as well, also doesn't take away from their being acoustic, any more than a Yamaha AC6R with the SRT system is not an acoustic guitar in addition to being able to used plugged in.

[Fusion01]

Explorer you're distracting the purpose of this thread by trying to shift the topic to Ovation guitars and now on board electronics. Perhaps I should have used a disclaimer in the title by saying 98% non-existant.

I did do a search on Ovation guitars and they are sort of straight-pull but not exactly, and even the small search I did I saw different variances where some didn't appear to be straight at all.



This example of an Ovation headstock I would only consider the G string to be a straight line, the others I'd say vary from sort of straight to not very straight.

[H165]

This 30-year old guitar has straighter-than-Martin pull. I never noticed any advantage or disadvantage.

[Howard Klepper]

This has come up a couple of times recently on the fora. The idea that there is some advantage to what is called "straight" string pull comes from thinking 2-dimensionally about a 3-dimensional situation. All guitars need a break angle at the nut. All can have the nut cut so there is a straight path from the point where the string breaks at the fretboard side of the nut to the tuner post (actually the string slot in the nut should be rounded over a bit for better string contact and less friction at the nut's front edge where the string bends, but that is the same regardless of the tuner post location if the nut file is angled properly). If the nut is cut right, neither one is straighter than the other.

Originally Posted by 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.

There is less need for compensation when the string has a greater length between nut and tuner and can slide over the nut. The idea that it should do so better with a pull that is straight when looked at 2-dimensionally (looking straight at the fretboard) is based on the mistaken notion that there is less friction at the nut that way. In fact, the D and G string have less break angle than the others, and greater afterlength, which benefits their in intonation regardless of how the 2-dimensional view lines up--so long as the nut is well cut.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

This has come up a couple of times recently on the fora. The idea that there is some advantage to what is called "straight" string pull comes from thinking 2-dimensionally about a 3-dimensional situation. All guitars need a break angle at the nut. All can have the nut cut so there is a straight path from the point where the string breaks at the fretboard side of the nut to the tuner post (actually the string slot in the nut should be rounded over a bit for better string contact and less friction at the nut's front edge where the string bends, but that is the same regardless of the tuner post location if the nut file is angled properly). If the nut is cut right, neither one is straighter than the other.

There will then be an angle at the junction of the anterior portion of the nut slot and the string, and that increases the likelihood of binding at the nut when changing the pitch. A straight path (in the horizontal dimension) all the way along from peg to nut, to saddle would be preferable.

[harmonics101]

Straight string pull looks weird,

H