Stays in tune?

donbot

Going by logic alone, as I don't and never will own a Gibson (Les Paul anyway,) I think their 'problem' may lie not just in the head stock angle and splay behind the nut but the fact they have a shorter scale length and thus less tension in the strings.
More tension would be more inclined to overcome any friction in the system. 

Shoot me if I'm wrong but that's my tuppenth worth.

ICBM

donbot said:

Going by logic alone, as I don't and never will own a Gibson (Les Paul anyway,) I think their 'problem' may lie not just in the head stock angle and splay behind the nut but the fact they have a shorter scale length and thus less tension in the strings.
More tension would be more inclined to overcome any friction in the system. 

Shoot me if I'm wrong but that's my tuppenth worth.

Sorry, that's definitely wrong. Scale length has very little to do with it unless you go really short - like under about 20". In fact, my old Fender Jaguar (24" scale, so shorter than a Gibson) was one of the *most* tuning-stable guitars I've ever gigged with.

It's true that kids' 3/4-size guitars don't stay in tune well usually, but that's at least as much to do with the awful soft nut material and crappy bridges they usually have.

donbot

There's a measurable difference in tension. I can also feel the difference in string bends and vibrato. So I don't see how it can be wrong. 

I stand by my statement but no probs if you disagree  

ICBM

donbot said:

There's a measurable difference in tension. I can also feel the difference in string bends and vibrato. So I don't see how it can be wrong.

Of course there's a difference in tension - but in fact the proportional *change* in tension when you bend is the same, for a given pitch change, therefore the return force is proportionately the same.

If it was correct then a Jaguar wouldn't stay in tune as well as a Gibson, and I can guarantee that it does. I almost never had to tune mine.

So much about how scale length affects guitars is a myth and is actually caused by other factors.

guitarfishbay

Scale length doesn’t really impact on holding tuning. It will impact on tension, which in turn will impact on intonation of the played note with stronger dynamics (through the pitch arc).

But in terms of open strings staying in tune there’s esentially no difference between Gibson and Fender scale lengths. PRS standard scale is much closer to a Gibson than a Fender but they typically hold tuning excellently. If scale was a factor Fenders would hold tuning better than PRS but there’s pretty much nothing between them as far as I’m concerned with hardtails. 

donbot

When you take into account the additional friction introduced by splay and tilt behind the nut in the LP design, it most definitely will make a difference. It may not be much but enough not to bring back into tune in the 'right' situation. 

I'm not saying it's the only factor here just that all these points will have an effect.

ICBM

It's the angle at the nut that makes the difference, not the scale length.

If you think it's the tension, try this simple experiment - take a Fender-scale guitar and tune it down to Eb, so it now has slightly lower string tension than a Gibson. Does it stay in tune? Yes. (Assuming it's set up well so it does in normal tuning.)

donbot

It will stay in tune better than an LP for sure. Again, the LP headstock design introduces more friction at the nut so tension is more likely to have an effect. 

NelsonP

On a gibson / epi the string splay, combined with the tilt of the headstock must be what makes most of the difference in tuning stability.

This creates a greater downward and sideways force at the nut and therefore more friction, even with the lower string tension vs say a fender.

And more friction on the nut can't be good for tuning stability as it could lead to uneven tension on either side of the nut.

Unless of course you have essentially infinite friction as is the case with a locking nut/trem.

thegummy

p90fool said:

thegummy said:

See this is exactly what I think could be the case - people whose opinion differs on les Paul's staying in tune just have differing ideas on what in tune is.

So those of us who THINK our Gibsons are just as rock solid as our Telecasters are just not talented enough to notice that we're wrong?

Or it could just be that some people (especially musicians) have zero mechanical sympathy and will never put strings on with any real understanding of what works and why, and that hundred-year-old headstock designs are far more likely to highlight their ineptitude.

My Les Paul stays in tune, by which I mean during an hour long set of jumping around in a sweaty pub and beating it hard enough to knock paint off it I may have to check tuning once or twice. 

My pitch sensitivity is extremely acute, and playing in a twin guitar band often with full chords tuning stability absolutely matters to me ahead of any other guitar feature. 

I didn't say anything about your level of talent at all, I just hypothesised that when one person is saying Gibsons don't stay in tune and another person is saying they do, that they're not using the same criteria of judging what "stay in tune" means.

p90fool

thegummy said:

p90fool said:

thegummy said:

See this is exactly what I think could be the case - people whose opinion differs on les Paul's staying in tune just have differing ideas on what in tune is.

So those of us who THINK our Gibsons are just as rock solid as our Telecasters are just not talented enough to notice that we're wrong?

Or it could just be that some people (especially musicians) have zero mechanical sympathy and will never put strings on with any real understanding of what works and why, and that hundred-year-old headstock designs are far more likely to highlight their ineptitude.

My Les Paul stays in tune, by which I mean during an hour long set of jumping around in a sweaty pub and beating it hard enough to knock paint off it I may have to check tuning once or twice. 

My pitch sensitivity is extremely acute, and playing in a twin guitar band often with full chords tuning stability absolutely matters to me ahead of any other guitar feature. 

I didn't say anything about your level of talent at all, I just hypothesised that when one person is saying Gibsons don't stay in tune and another person is saying they do, that they're not using the same criteria of judging what "stay in tune" means.

Which implies that the ones who say theirs stay in tune have lower expectations than those who don't. 

rlw

Stays in tune was a phrase I used to describe my 2015 LPs.  In my mind, I was saying that they did the basic things you expect of a guitar, rather like a dull car getting you from A to B, or a sink holding water.  It's what they're supposed to do.

thegummy

p90fool said:

thegummy said:

p90fool said:

thegummy said:

See this is exactly what I think could be the case - people whose opinion differs on les Paul's staying in tune just have differing ideas on what in tune is.

So those of us who THINK our Gibsons are just as rock solid as our Telecasters are just not talented enough to notice that we're wrong?

Or it could just be that some people (especially musicians) have zero mechanical sympathy and will never put strings on with any real understanding of what works and why, and that hundred-year-old headstock designs are far more likely to highlight their ineptitude.

My Les Paul stays in tune, by which I mean during an hour long set of jumping around in a sweaty pub and beating it hard enough to knock paint off it I may have to check tuning once or twice. 

My pitch sensitivity is extremely acute, and playing in a twin guitar band often with full chords tuning stability absolutely matters to me ahead of any other guitar feature. 

I didn't say anything about your level of talent at all, I just hypothesised that when one person is saying Gibsons don't stay in tune and another person is saying they do, that they're not using the same criteria of judging what "stay in tune" means.

Which implies that the ones who say theirs stay in tune have lower expectations than those who don't. 

I don't see how you could have taken that as an insult.