There are generally two. My question is - are they *really* needed or is it "just cuz..."
Printable View
There are generally two. My question is - are they *really* needed or is it "just cuz..."
put another way... I've got excellent string separation from nut to grover lockers... without the hats... and it looks kinda cool like that - harp-like.
I bought string trees for my tele style but haven't found a need to use them. YMMV.
The one on the top B and E strings is often needed to give a decent break angle over the nut. The need for one on the D and G strings is debatable.
The need really is driven on a per-neck basis by the string break angles achieved without any string trees fitted. There are various factors affecting this including:
1) Difference in height between the fretboard and the headstock.
2) Thickness of the headstock - which affects the amount the tuner posts protrude from the top of the headstock.
3) Height of the tuner post itself and the position of the string hole/slot. The higher the hole/slot, the less break angle you'll probably end up with.
4) How many string winds you put on the tuner and so how high above the headstock the string leaves the tuner post
The last 3 all affect the height of the string as it leaves the post and so achieved string break angle.
You may also need a larger break angle if your nut slots are shallow with respect to the top of the nut (less that a string's depth) to help stop them popping out when bending strings near the nut.
The top E is always the worst case scenario on a 6-string Fender (unless you use a reversed headstock design), simply through the mechanics of the layout.
All necks are different, and if there is only a small height difference between the headstock and the fretboard, then even with the best height adjustable tuner posts that are pulled as low as they will go for the B and top E strings, you may still not get enough downward pressure on the strings at nut to stop them buzzing on open strings.
If there is a big height difference between the headstock and the fretboard and your strings leave the posts say 2mm above the top of the headstock, then you may get sufficient break angle not to need them.
There's also the question of how high above the fretboard the nut slots are cut. The lower the height, the better action you'll get on the guitar and the easier it is to play strings at the first couple of frets. But if you initially set up the guitar when that distance was greater and with a higher action, and decided that you didn't need any string trees, but then cut the slots deeper (or sanded the base of the nut), then you may find that you now need at least one string tree because the angles have all changed.
How the nut slots are cut can also affect any tendency for string buzz/'sitaring' on open strings. Ideally the slots should slope down slightly from the fretboard side of the nut to the headstock. If they are flat, then with a small break angle, the string can sit on the rear (headstock) edge of the slot and not be pulled down enough so that it also sits firmly on the front edge of the slot, and so vibrated against the top of the slot. Angling the slot can help prevent this if you've got low downward string pressure/small string break angle. It will also reduce the overall amount of friction the nut gives, so helps tuning stability.
I've often removed the D/G string tree on my guitars and filled the screw hole in. I normally leave the the B/E string tree in, but will often change its height so that the string angle is similar to the D and G string angles. No need for them to be greater.
Thanks for the thorough response Simon! That all makes a lot of sense.
Simon nailed it, and it's hard to add anything useful to it, but I'll chuck this in...
The unwound G is notorious for above the nut issues (unless the nut is cut properly as Simon laid out) and the wound D is generally not a problem. This is why some aftermarket parts manufacturers have started making "triple string trees" that go over the G,B,E and leave the D au naturel. Another option is using wound G's, but I would dare say that wound G users are a minority.
It's taken me a lot of nuts, but I can cut a G nut slot so I (generally) don't need a tree. Sometimes there's just weird geometry, odd physics or the guitar Gods just won't have it, and you have to put one on there. I now leave it as a last resort though.
On both of my Tele's I found intonation worked better with lower string trees and ended up buying a couple more of the B/E low spacers as it always sounded slightly out of tune all up and down the neck on high strings when using the slightly higher D/G spacers.
Don't ask me why or what the science is behind all of that other than it works and fixed the intonation problems on not one but two guitars that just happen to be Telecaster's. Maybe the the slight increase in string tension could have something to do with it?
You aren't going to raise the string tension of the open string at all, it has to be under the same tension as before in order for the string to be in tune. But you will get more downward force on the nut, which helps to seat the string on the nut better. Apart from that, I have no idea!
Although if you are checking the intonation against the open string, and the open string isn't vibrating correctly, or is vibrating from the rear, rather than the front of the nut slot, then that could account for it; but that's just supposition.
Good points Simon.
Wazza, just curious, do you have 6 or 3 saddle bridges on those teles?
The type of bridge doesn't explain what you experienced regarding the string trees but, I found a clever intonation technique for standard 3 saddle tele bridges that I like to share. It's an article from Jerry Donahue and it works a treat for common tele D/G intonation issues.
Sorry for the slight left turn topic-wise, but here ya go: Jerry Donahue Tele Intonation
Never had any luck with standard 3 saddle bridges, even after trying a few different ones and ended up with 6 saddles on an ashtray style that works well on both Teles.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Compensated saddles on the 3 saddle ones makes a big difference IMO, but I do prefer 6'ers. I'm not a tele purist, so I'm not hung up on the 3 or 6 thing.Quote:
Never had any luck with standard 3 saddle bridges, even after trying a few different ones and ended up with 6 saddles on an ashtray style that works well on both Teles.
I do have a Wilkinson compensated 3 saddle tele bridge in my parts box that I'm sure I will use again one day.
I'm a 3-saddle person. My Emicaster's got straight steel saddles on a Fender ashtray bridge and with a set of D'Addario 0.010"s, and probably by luck, it's intonation is pretty much perfect. I've got compensated saddles on my other two Teles though.
Came across this interesting video on different Tele saddle materials. Also interesting to see in the comments as to how different people's perceptions of the tones were.
http://youtu.be/9GOSVu-NeAQ
Well, we've officially and successfully hijacked Agus's "string tree" thread!!! Sorry Agus!
Thanks for posting that Simon. I've seen a few of his videos and think he does a good job, and seems to remain unbiased.
The brass were overwhelmingly the crowd fave, and mine too btw. Steel was good too, but brass still wins it for me.
That's part of the beauty of the Jerry Donahue method. It's imperfect intonation works (plays) perfectly!Quote:
My Emicaster's got straight steel saddles on a Fender ashtray bridge and with a set of D'Addario 0.010"s, and probably by luck, it's intonation is pretty much perfect.
And FWIW, I have owned one 3-saddle tele that intonated fine with standard barrels. I reckon it's like many things guitar, sometimes it's just an inexplicable "sum of the parts" scenario.
+1 on D'Addario 10's for me too.
I think he's got a bit lazy recently. He used to do full explanations with demos and actually make pickups with different types of wire to show how they affect the sound, but currently he just talks about it with no examples, and I disagree slightly at times with what he says. With no actual demonstrations to back his statements up, he's not as convincing now as he was. He used to stand out from the other YouTubers who just stated their opinion, now he's joined their ranks. I know it takes a lot of time to make a good demo video, especially if you have to make several pickups or swap bridges etc. so he may well be a victim of his own success.Quote:
Originally Posted by McCreed
I must have only seen his earlier work...Quote:
"...so he may well be a victim of his own success.
When I said "I've seen a few of his videos..." that was literal. I've seen maybe 3 (?)
I only came across them a few weeks ago. Subscribed, then unsubscribed.