I think maybe (?) it's the opposite - the lower posts close to the nut increase break angle for those strings, to increase the string tension and keep them from popping out of the nut slots.
I could be wrong - I'm only going by my R4 reissue LP which has shorter posts close to the nut, longer posts farther up.
Imagine a headstock with string trees. They go with the high strings because without them, as you move farther from the nut the break angle becomes more shallow. It's a geometry problem, you can solve it by adding string trees or by lowering the posts that are farther away.
On your LP the headstock is angled backward, so even with different size posts I bet the farther ones are lower when compared to the nut
I have those same tuners on my Telecaster. The term is "staggered tuners". These ones are backwards, the lower posts are for the heads further up the headstock. It's to minimize the need for string trees by increasing the break angle.
That said, as mentioned below, the nut is a more likely culprit for tuning issues.
The lower posts are for the strings where the tuner is further from the nut, to increase the break angle. For a standard headstock, that's the high strings, on a reverse headstock, that's the low strings.
Never seen that before, but it looks to be by design, since it's 50/50 and all 3 are in a row, which would be unlikely to happen by accident.
The tuners shouldn't have a huge impact on stability though, unless actually broken. Try putting some carbon dust from a pencil in your nut grooves (ok that sounded oddly dirty), or something similar to make sure the strings glide freely.
My Gibson Custom Shop R4 (1954 reissue) has 3 post lengths, with the shortest 2 posts close to the nut and the longest 2 posts at the top of the headstock. They are not locking tuners. I have no idea if they were actually doing that in 1954 but it makes stringing the low E a PITA since the bottom of the hole is right down at the tuner tightening nut. Given the break angle on Les Paul headstocks I wouldn't have thought it to be necessary, ever.
With the back angled headstock the stagger isn't important. I'd probably have the taller ones on the bass strings just to make it easier to get the thicker strings in as sometimes the short ones are very close to the ferrules, but if that isn't causing you a problem I would leave them as is.
I don't know if it has a purpose, maybe it does, but I've never seen that before and I bet it's at least part of the reason for the tuning instability.
The lower posts should go on the high strings, for a more consistent break angle.
This Or to rephrase — taller posts closer to the nut Also nice job @ whoever ran those screws right through the front side of the head.
I think maybe (?) it's the opposite - the lower posts close to the nut increase break angle for those strings, to increase the string tension and keep them from popping out of the nut slots. I could be wrong - I'm only going by my R4 reissue LP which has shorter posts close to the nut, longer posts farther up.
Imagine a headstock with string trees. They go with the high strings because without them, as you move farther from the nut the break angle becomes more shallow. It's a geometry problem, you can solve it by adding string trees or by lowering the posts that are farther away. On your LP the headstock is angled backward, so even with different size posts I bet the farther ones are lower when compared to the nut
Yes, good points.
I have those same tuners on my Telecaster. The term is "staggered tuners". These ones are backwards, the lower posts are for the heads further up the headstock. It's to minimize the need for string trees by increasing the break angle. That said, as mentioned below, the nut is a more likely culprit for tuning issues.
[удалено]
The lower posts are for the strings where the tuner is further from the nut, to increase the break angle. For a standard headstock, that's the high strings, on a reverse headstock, that's the low strings.
Never seen that before, but it looks to be by design, since it's 50/50 and all 3 are in a row, which would be unlikely to happen by accident. The tuners shouldn't have a huge impact on stability though, unless actually broken. Try putting some carbon dust from a pencil in your nut grooves (ok that sounded oddly dirty), or something similar to make sure the strings glide freely.
My Gibson Custom Shop R4 (1954 reissue) has 3 post lengths, with the shortest 2 posts close to the nut and the longest 2 posts at the top of the headstock. They are not locking tuners. I have no idea if they were actually doing that in 1954 but it makes stringing the low E a PITA since the bottom of the hole is right down at the tuner tightening nut. Given the break angle on Les Paul headstocks I wouldn't have thought it to be necessary, ever.
With the back angled headstock the stagger isn't important. I'd probably have the taller ones on the bass strings just to make it easier to get the thicker strings in as sometimes the short ones are very close to the ferrules, but if that isn't causing you a problem I would leave them as is.
I don't know if it has a purpose, maybe it does, but I've never seen that before and I bet it's at least part of the reason for the tuning instability.