Tuning machine alignment

[Michael S. Fields]

How does one align tuning machines on a new build? Are they aligned with the center line of the headstock or the line that runs through the center of the mounting holes? This is for the 3+3 configuration of the Hummingbird I'm working on. Thanks.

Mike Fields

[Joshua Levin-Epstein]

It's a new build (like you said) so you can do what you want but:

If you align wit the center line, it will look sort of like those basses with the machines pointing at the player. I understand the logic, but aesthetically it is questionable.

Hummingbirds, Doves, etc. typically had 3 on a plate Kluson deluxe, where the machines are in line with each other. This looks right to me. I would recommend this type of machine, as they are light, both in weight and appearance.

You could also align individual machines with the curve of the headstock ears. Every time I did this, I had regrets.

[Mark McLean]

Like Joshua said-you can do what you want.  It is always a good idea to draw out the headstock shape and the path that the strings will take in real size on paper.  There are a lot of silly headstock designs (including the standard Martin design IMHO - sorry) that do not give the central strings a clear path that avoids the tuners for the two outside strings.  Another thing that bugs me is when the strings take a large deviation after passing through the nut, so that friction in the nut slot is increased. 

If you want to do it in an authentic Gibson way, here are 4 common versions which have appeared in various models over the years.  In general, the three tuners on each side are in a straight line, but it is a little bit splayed outwards as you go upwards, away from the nut.  In other words, not parallel to the centre of the headstock - the D and G string tuners are a little further apart from each other than the A & B,  or the E & e. Also, although the three tuners are in a straight line, the side of the headstock is curved.  Therefore, the middle ones (A & B strings) are slightly closer to the edge of the headstock than the others.  Most Hummingbird models have individual tuners (not three-on-a-plate) but they are still in a straight line. 

I think that the most sensible design is one where the base of the headstock is wider (might require you to glue on "wings" or "ears) so that the E & e string tuners can be wider apart and don't crowd the other strings as they pass.  Then the overall shape tapers towards the top so that the other tuners are closer to the midline, and all of the strings pull in a (almost) straight line across the nut.  Like in this example by Sergei de Jonge.  But now it is not looking like a Gibson - so what do you want?

Notice that this design has the tuners equally distant from the edge of the headstock, so that their line follows the same curve.  Apparently Joshua doesn't like that - but I do.  When it is your guitar you get to decide!

cheers

Mark

[Joshua Levin-Epstein]

I didn't say I didn't like the machines following the curve, I said every time I did it, I had regrets. A question of execution, not design.

I really like the string path on the de Jonge headstock, though I would describe that as having the opposite machines parallel, though I would like to put a straightedge across the tops before committing to that description.

The headstocks that give me fits are like the D'angelico, where it looks like the bottom mounting screw is on a radius parallel to the side of the headstock. Though I wouldn't turn away one of those because of the tuning machines...

[Andrew]

Why exactly do those ones give you fits? I ask because thats how I do my electrics, if Im understanding your description correctly anyway.

[Mark McLean]

Joshua

I have never noticed that with D'Angelico before.  I generally love the design of those guitars - but the alignment of the tuner pegs is a bit odd!  This photo is copied from http://www.zzounds.com

[Howard Klepper]

I guess you can call that a D'Angelico, but I thought when I was reading that you were talking about guitars built by John D'Angelico.

The tuner locations and rotation in your photo do not appear to be by design.

[Glen Choitz]

Notice this D'angelico is set up differently than the other posted...I like it much better..

[Joshua Levin-Epstein]

My experience is with replacing tuners (not building) and whenever I had to do the D'A style, that middle machine always looked like it was in the wrong place.

Of course, it might have been in the wrong place...

[Andrew]

Ah I see. To be fair, the middle bass tuner on the D'Angelico pictured IS out of whack from the rest.

When I align the tuners on my builds, I eyeball the little plastic washer between the key and the machine so it 'follows' the headstock side looking from the front, then go over them all again and tweak them by tiny amounts as needed for aesthetics. I dont go by the mounting screw location or judge the look from the back, I think that would throw my eye off. Id probly eyeball it similarly to align them perpendicular to centre as well.

[Greg Mirken]

 I have to respectfully disagree with Mark McLean; I think the Martin headstock is quite elegant, actually. A subtle feature that most copies miss is that the tuners are not quite in a line. The 2nd and 5th pegs are offset to the center just a bit, giving all the strings a bit of clearance with the neighboring string posts.

[Howard Klepper]

What I find is that the 1st and 6th are moved about 1/16" closer to the outside of the headstock.

[Ed Minch]

Interesting that on the blond D'Angelico none of the pairs is symmetrical.  Either twisted differently or closer/farther to the edge.  Makes me feel MUCH better about mine.

Ed