software

So why do some of you prefer locking- while others stay with non-locking tuners?
Thanks

i dont see what there isn't to like except for the excess weight on the headstock due to bulkier tuners. I got locking schallers on my strat and i never worry about tuning, it's simply great.

I don't have locking tuners, but the Floyd Rose is kind of the same principle. The only drawbacks I've found is that the guitar sounds brighter and if you play live, you're going to risk going out of tune if a string breaks. Otherwise, they're simply wonderful.

If I had a guitar with a fixed bridge, I'd probably get the locking tuners, though. Pretty good idea, IMO.

Pros:
Locking - Faster, easier string changes, guitar stays in tune better.
Non-locking - Some sort of traditionalist hang-up?

I don't think locking tuners weigh significantly more than non-, plus, if they do, the extra weight is probably good for tone. I've got Schallers, Sperzels, and Gotohs on various guitars. I think Gotoh even makes one that is locking and looks like and is a direct retrofit for vintage Kluson style tuners.

K thanks for your help people...Originally Posted by JacksonMIAThe only drawbacks I've found is that the guitar sounds brighter and if you play live, you're going to risk going out of tune if a string breaks.

Haha when I first read that I thought you were totally stupid unless I got what you mean... I thought like you were saying quot;The only problem is that a string might probably get out of tune if it breaks...quot;

does the guitar really stay in tune better with locking tuners?


Originally Posted by pac112does the guitar really stay in tune better with locking tuners?

It depends on the guitar (bridge/nut construction amp; setup) and what you're doing. Also, some methods of stringing a non-locking tuner give stability near that of locking tuners.


Originally Posted by alecleeIt depends on the guitar (bridge/nut construction amp; setup) and what you're doing. Also, some methods of stringing a non-locking tuner give stability near that of locking tuners.

how about this,which has more tuning stability :

sperzel locking tuners Earvana compensated nut TonePros locking bridge w/stop tailpiece (dream setup)

vs

strat tuners vintage tremolo (setup on current axe)


Originally Posted by pac112how about this,which has more tuning stability :

sperzel locking tuners Earvana compensated nut TonePros locking bridge w/stop tailpiece (dream setup)

vs

strat tuners vintage tremolo (setup on current axe)

Option one, no question. I have that same setup on my Hamer (except the tuners are locking Grovers,) and that thing stays in tune no matter what I do. Still, string binding and improperly installed strings are the main reason for tuning problems, not the tuners themselves. Any decent tuners will keep the string tuned perfectly if the strings are wrapped properly and there is no binding at the nut.

Ryan

I love Sperzel Style locking tuners!!!!! so much so i like them on non-trem guitars like Teles! I also like them on guitars with floyds just for the ease of re-stringing.... I also think in the back of my mind that the way the string is clamped solid in the tuner helps tone a bit too. I could be wrong......

WhoFan

every guitar should have locking tuners...i am guessing other people have that traditionalist hangup..not me, I like to play in tune and change strings in a few mins.

I've never played a guitar with locking tuners, but I'm sure it would be great to have string changes take one second!!


Originally Posted by pac112how about this,which has more tuning stability :

sperzel locking tuners Earvana compensated nut TonePros locking bridge w/stop tailpiece (dream setup)

vs

strat tuners vintage tremolo (setup on current axe)

Well, if the nut is properly cut and the trem is set up correctly, and assuming you've wrapped the strings around the post correctly on the tuning machines, option two can still be pretty damn sturdy. But, the locking tuners provide the same stability, if not a bit better, with less effort/hassle.

I have Sperzels on both of my guitars, and the soon to be third will have them as well. Love 'em.


Originally Posted by MikeRockerPros:
Locking - Faster, easier string changes, guitar stays in tune better.
Non-locking - Some sort of traditionalist hang-up?

I don't think locking tuners weigh significantly much more than non-, plus, if they do, the extra weight is probably good for tone. I've got Schallers, Sperzels, and Gotohs on various guitars. I think Gotoh even makes one that is locking and looks like and is a direct retrofit for vintage Kluson style tuners.

I got locking tuners on a strat and I love em. they havent hurt my tone at all


Originally Posted by rspst14

Still, string binding and improperly installed strings are the main reason for tuning problems, not the tuners themselves. Any decent tuners will keep the string tuned perfectly if the strings are wrapped properly and there is no binding at the nut.

There is much wisdom in this statement.


Originally Posted by pac112how about this,which has more tuning stability :

sperzel locking tuners Earvana compensated nut TonePros locking bridge w/stop tailpiece (dream setup)

vs

strat tuners vintage tremolo (setup on current axe)

Both are adequate for most players if they're set up correctly, which is the crux of the problem.

A poorly set up guitar, no matter how expensive the components are, will be as unstable as any other poorly set up instrument.

A standard set up can be very stable. Aside from the convenience of being able to change strings fast on locking tuners I've found the difference to be negligible when it comes to stability as long as they're set up right.

I've set up alot of guitars over the years....from cheap Squier II's to custom-made Parkers. On all of them equipped with standard tuners I was able to get them to be stable.

The assumption with locking tuners is that slippage happens at the post. As long as your strings aren't wound sloppily they're plenty stable. Even the cheapest tuners are hardened enough to maintain consistent string tension.

The overlooked factor in the equasion is the nut. A poorly cut nut or a nut that doesn't allow for the sting to move easily through it with pressure will cause binding. With binding there's uneven pressure between the two regions of tension (tuner to nut and nut to bridge) and that's how guitars can go out of tune.

I know this will be unpopular but aside from the convenience factor I've always found locking tuners to be wholly unneccesary.

true, both can get you in tune, but locking ones do it faster. Onstage, if I break a string, I'd rather change my string in about 30 seconds.


Originally Posted by Mincertrue, both can get you in tune, but locking ones do it faster. Onstage, if I break a string, I'd rather change my string in about 30 seconds.

And others would argue that you shouldn't be gigging without a backup, which would take ten seconds to plug into rather than submit the audience to 30 seconds of string change.

hehe, i play guitar synth, so i can strum a chord, the guitar synth automatically corrects the tuning, then trigger some bass pedal notes from my feet, and before you know it, the string is changed. the audience has no idea where all that sound is coming from!

Locking tuners? It was worth it enough for me to get my Historic RI Gibson Les Paul Special DC outfitted with them. The chrome Sperzels look absolutely *****in' on it and it makes a huge difference to me. I can play hard without worrying about a guitar going out of tune and I tend to find the gear turn ratios are better with locking. The Gotoh's on my Grosh are great and the Sperzels are great and when I eventually get another guitar, that will have locking tuners as well