Wanted: the definitive way of fixing Les Paul tuning issues

ICBM

Jez6345789 said:

I was caught out by the comment from 39.59 about the scale length is the biggest problem to tuning. I don’t have bat ears so probably miss some of it but I was surprised as scale length is seen as such an issue.

That’s because it’s simply wrong.

Danny1969

Jonathanthomas83 said:

Right, had a fuck full, I've flared the nut slot of the G to the best of my noob ability, put nut sauce on it and it's still falling flat after a bit of a play.

Gawd knows what's gonna fix it. 

Is it as simple as using something like an Earvana nut or is the problem completely different to what that nut solves?

It's always going flat ? that sounds more like your not winding it on right or don't stretch it in enough. I found if your wound the string on under tension and then gently pulled it and listened to the pitch until it no longer went flat when you pulled it ... it would generally stay in tune fine for a whole gig

NeilMcG

mrkb said:

Use a “string butler” to realign the strings leaving the nut.... haven’t had any experience of it, but it certainly fixes one of the issues with that design of tuning peg location.

That's an obvious solution done in quite an elegant way that avoids modifying the guitar - I wonder why Gibson have never offered that?

Looking at the strings coming out of the the nut on a LP really jars to an engineer's eye, it's just an awful bit of design.

ICBM

NeilMcG said:

mrkb said:

Use a “string butler” to realign the strings leaving the nut.... haven’t had any experience of it, but it certainly fixes one of the issues with that design of tuning peg location.

That's an obvious solution done in quite an elegant way that avoids modifying the guitar - I wonder why Gibson have never offered that?

Looking at the strings coming out of the the nut on a LP really jars to an engineer's eye, it's just an awful bit of design.

But still infinitely less ugly than a String Butler...

stickyfiddle

NeilMcG said:

mrkb said:

Use a “string butler” to realign the strings leaving the nut.... haven’t had any experience of it, but it certainly fixes one of the issues with that design of tuning peg location.

That's an obvious solution done in quite an elegant way that avoids modifying the guitar - I wonder why Gibson have never offered that?

Looking at the strings coming out of the the nut on a LP really jars to an engineer's eye, it's just an awful bit of design.

Because it helps the straightness at the nut, but add another point of friction further up the headstock, and also looks butt-ugly, AND still won't entirely solve tuning issues if the nut isn't cut well.

NeilMcG

ICBM said:

NeilMcG said:

mrkb said:

Use a “string butler” to realign the strings leaving the nut.... haven’t had any experience of it, but it certainly fixes one of the issues with that design of tuning peg location.

That's an obvious solution done in quite an elegant way that avoids modifying the guitar - I wonder why Gibson have never offered that?

Looking at the strings coming out of the the nut on a LP really jars to an engineer's eye, it's just an awful bit of design.

But still infinitely less ugly than a String Butler...

Bad design is bad design no matter how pretty it is...

Alvin

I might have a solution (or part of it) , an idea i thought about a long time ago . As far as i know they are not made but i wouldn't have thought it to difficult for a machine shop to make up .....
    To get straight string pull over the nut , just make tuners with a longer shaft to the key so they can be moved further into the headstock .  You still keep the Les Paul headstock shape and i think it would look fine .
     Gibson could have done this on a version of the Les Paul (the modern player is it ? ) and still kept the original design on the standard .

Jonathanthomas83

Danny1969 said:

Jonathanthomas83 said:

Right, had a fuck full, I've flared the nut slot of the G to the best of my noob ability, put nut sauce on it and it's still falling flat after a bit of a play.

Gawd knows what's gonna fix it. 

Is it as simple as using something like an Earvana nut or is the problem completely different to what that nut solves?

It's always going flat ? that sounds more like your not winding it on right or don't stretch it in enough. I found if your wound the string on under tension and then gently pulled it and listened to the pitch until it no longer went flat when you pulled it ... it would generally stay in tune fine for a whole gig

Danny, I think you might have nailed it mate. At least for today anyway. I've played it for a good while after acting on your advice and it seems to be staying in tune ok, so far. Thanks for this, wis'd.

...see you all next week when it goes out of tune and I start seething again! ;-)

Jez6345789

@ICBM ;

thanks I can go back to knowing the little I know now. Which besides the normal snags, badly cut nuts, string angle, and the whole guitar tuning is technically a compromise but one that works for, etc etc,  the difference between 25” PRS and a standard Gibson is negligable in terms of being more or less in tune and changing the scale length on a les Paul would do little I could hear.

it was only the fact that I considered Rick his Tech and crew to be far more knowledgable than me.

ICBM

Jez6345789 said:

@ICBM ;

thanks I can go back to knowing the little I know now. Which besides the normal snags, badly cut nuts, string angle, and the whole guitar tuning is technically a compromise but one that works for, etc etc,  the difference between 25” PRS and a standard Gibson is negligable in terms of being more or less in tune and changing the scale length on a les Paul would do little I could hear.

it was only the fact that I considered Rick his Tech and crew to be far more knowledgable than me.

Trust me, changing the scale length by 1/4" makes no difference to how well a guitar plays, or stays, in tune.

The absolute most tuning-stable guitar I've ever used was my 1965 Fender Jaguar, which has a 24" scale as well as loads of other things "wrong" with it according to many so-called experts. It just never went out of tune, even when using the trem.

And the most perfectly intonated guitar I've ever used is my Rickenbacker 660/12 - yes you did read that right, Rickenbacker 12-string . OK this model does have a 12-saddle bridge, but out of curiosity I once checked it on a good tuner and every note, at every fret on every string, was in tune to within 1 cent apart from a couple of the thickest strings at the last fret. And that has a 24-3/4" scale too.

The only thing the scale length *by itself* affects is the string tension. Of course it isn't quite as simple as that in practice because many other things are usually different between guitars with different scale lengths... but not actually due to the scale length.

For example, on a PRS the head angle is lower than on a Gibson, and the string splay angles at the nut are very much less - these will both have a great bearing on the tuning stability. Also, the PRS nut is in a slightly compensated forward-set position which makes them sound more in tune.

Funkfingers

Er, did anyone actually establish the O.P.'s precise model of Gibson? 

Some of the recent variants with the robo-tuning gubbins have a nut made from non-traditional materials. This item can be problematic. It is not particularly well regarded.

Jonathanthomas83

@Funkfingers it's a 2017 standard. No robo tuning, thankfully.

@icbm @WezV Could I ask some advice please (pictures in the link below)...Do you any thoughts on the height of the bridge and tailpiece height? It looks really high compared to what I've seen on other guitars? Does it need fixing? From a looks point of view, I think it looks ugly and would much prefer it closer to the body, but worry how I'd get the strings to maintain a nice action? Also do you think that flare looks ok? I'm getting the G string going less out of tune, but only because I need to give it a good stretch before playing for a length of time.

Here are the pictures for you ...
https://photos.app.goo.gl/M1fPEYCDtrAmJedu1

ICBM

The bridge and tailpiece are really high. Unfortunately, assuming the guitar is set up well and the action isn't ludicrously high - it doesn't look like it - then there's nothing you can do about this... it's just the way it was built, the neck angle is too steep. Modern Gibsons are notorious for this unfortunately - not all are this high, but both the average angle and the variability are much too large.

The nut looks OK now. My experience is that an over-high bridge leads to tuning problems as well though - I'm not totally sure why, since if the tailpiece is also raised then the break angle won't be any sharper than if both were lower, but it's possible the bridge can flex the posts slightly when there's more length sticking up out of the body.

Jonathanthomas83

ICBM said:

The bridge and tailpiece are really high. Unfortunately, assuming the guitar is set up well and the action isn't ludicrously high - it doesn't look like it - then there's nothing you can do about this... it's just the way it was built, the neck angle is too steep. Modern Gibsons are notorious for this unfortunately - not all are this high, but both the average angle and the variability are much too large.

The nut looks OK now. My experience is that an over-high bridge leads to tuning problems as well though - I'm not totally sure why, since if the tailpiece is also raised then the break angle won't be any sharper than if both were lower, but it's possible the bridge can flex the posts slightly when there's more length sticking up out of the body.

Ah man, that's really disappointing. Is the neck angle something a good luthier could fix? Assuming they'd have to touch up any finish problems that will obviously arise from such a procedure. Im gutted about that. Thanks for the quick response @ICBM appreciated

ICBM

Jonathanthomas83 said:

Ah man, that's really disappointing. Is the neck angle something a good luthier could fix? Assuming they'd have to touch up any finish problems that will obviously arise from such a procedure. Im gutted about that. Thanks for the quick response @ICBM appreciated

No, not really. You would have to take the neck joint apart, re-shape the top of the body in that area and refit the neck, then completely refinish probably the whole thing.

Unfortunately there is only one practical solution to this problem...

TimmyO

Things you can sort yourself:

1. Be really honest/critical about how well you restring - how many winds? is it locking back upon itself? 
2. Ditto stretching in
3. Lubricate

Things to get someone experienced to help with:
4. Get the nut re-cut

Jonathanthomas83

Thanks @TimmyO appreciate it,

andy_k

looking at the pics, bridge doesnt look outrageously high, and if it was me--I would put the tailpiece on the deck and top wrap it next time you re string, it changes the tension a bit, for the better, makes it feel a bit slinkier.
I do this on all my LPs, and use EB skinny top-heavy bottom strings--10-52, works a treat for me.
one thing i notice, after i take them out of the case--they are always bang in tune.

Funkfingers

Jonathanthomas83 said:

Looking at this photograph, there appears to be some extraneous material around the D string on the bridge side of the nut. This suggests unfinished nut slot filing work.

If the guitar were mine, I would want to get the G, D and A string nut slots rounded out more on the headstock side.



I have recently had to perform exactly this task on a Bitsacaster with a Jackson/Charvel-style headstock with no string clamp. Yowza! Six crazy slot angles.

Jonathanthomas83

Thanks @Funkfingers :-)