Reversed headstock = more string tension? and Jackson DK7-M

[Terminator37]

The reverse Jackson headstock is a smart invention. Since that the thicker strings get a lower, thicker sound, the extra length at the tip helps the strings get to the lower tunings when drop tuning. The same thing works with necks that is longer than 25.5, but the same thing works on the headstock itself. Tension would depend on what gauges is on those types of necks, and the thickness of the neck.

Tell me if I'm wrong anytime, because I'm new to this forum.

Hope this helps though.

 

[Durero]

As others have already posted, headstock layout has no affect on string tension whatsoever.

Here's another old thread covering this topic: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/extended-range-guitars/10364-reverse-headstock-misconception.html

 

[stevexc]

As others have already posted, headstock layout has no affect on string tension whatsoever.

Here's another old thread covering this topic: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/extended-range-guitars/10364-reverse-headstock-misconception.html

No fair cheating and posting your own topic!

Here's another

Both of which reach the same conclusions.

 

[hairychris]

.... and the guitar that the OP talked about is FR equipped. With a locking nut.

 

[Nails In Your Coffin]

Reversed Headstock vs. Standard Headstock. I had this conversation with my builder (Neal Moser). He said it's nothing more than appearance. Considering he's been building some of the finest custom guitars ever built for over 40 years, I'd be inclined to believe him, but that's me. Given his reputation for his instruments, it'd take a whole lot of proof and convincing for me to believe otherwise.

That being said, differences or not, I think a reversed headstock looks pretty damned cool on a lot of guitars, save for Fenders. A reversed Fender headstock just looks silly to me...

 

[Durero]

.... and the guitar that the OP talked about is FR equipped. With a locking nut.

 

[wat]

Tension doesn't change, elasticity does.

 

[wat]

you can look at it as where the nut is as being the effective end point, or the tuning post as the end point. The string still continues in a straight line past the nut so I thought of it as the tuning post.

Having played & owned both reverse & normal headstocks on similar guitars, I really do feel like the reverse headstock does do something for the tension on the low string, others may disagree but hey that is just my opinion.

It affects the elasticity, not the tension. The effective area is from the bridge to the nut.

Even though once you lock the nut nothing affects the string tension, its still the concept of a longer string being tuned to the same pitch increasing the tension before the nut is locked, that has raised my question. Regardless of a locking nut or not, the string is still tuned to the same note before it is locked. My train of thought once I heard this was "hmm, a 27" scale tuned to Drop A with a 10-59 set will feel tighter than a 10-59 on a 25.5" scale tuned to Drop A, because the string is stretched out more. So a reverse headstock will lengthen the string just like a longer scale would, as opposed to a regular headstock, if this is true."

Now I get that everyone is saying that physics proves this is just random blabber from the Jackson guymandude, but if everyone is saying that a longer string doesnt make it tighter, then that blows the whole concept of baritone scale lengths out of the water, doesn't it?

No because the scale of a guitar is from the nut to the bridge. Everything behind the nut has no effect on tension in pounds, but it affects the elasticity of the string because with more string behind the nut, there is more string space to stretch when bending. This is different from actual tension.

 

[stevexc]

It affects the elasticity, not the tension. The effective area is from the bridge to the nut.

To make sure I'm on the right page, elasticity would in practice be the same thing as (or the real name for, rather) "perceived tension", correct?