So unless I missed it in the manual...

damn autocowrecked..

tenor.gif
 
Do you need a new nut for the String Butler, or does it work okay with the existing angled slots?
Good question, I just heard of this device earlier today via this thread. I watched a couple review vids and they didn't mention the nut at all.

I'm not sure my slots are really cut at much angle though.. I need to take a closer look at my nuts (that's what she said :))
 
Good question, I just heard of this device earlier today via this thread. I watched a couple review vids and they didn't mention the nut at all.

I'm not sure my slots are really cut at much angle though.. I need to take a closer look at my nuts (that's what she said :))
As I think about it, I'm used to LP copies that have angled slots. Gibson doesn't do that so much. Pity, because they're an improvement.
 
String Butler! Thanks for the tip, what a brilliant elegant fix to the age old problem for anyone who bends strings constantly like I do.
Never seen these before, but they look like they could do the trick, and I definitely don't think any mod is necessary.
Who's going to buy one first and do a review??
 
Polytune is a solution to a problem that I've never had.
I have the clip on TC unit. It's great as a single string tuner....that's about it.
 
Polytune is a solution to a problem that I've never had.
I have the clip on TC unit. It's great as a single string tuner....that's about it.

Or that you never knew you had. It amazes me that the obvious benefit seems lost on so many people on this forum. As I said earlier, I was highly skeptical of the need for a polyphonic tuner and thought of it as merely a gimmick at first but after using one and then conducting a few timed head to head comparisons against my strobe tuners and various Korg and Boss tuners it cuts tuning time in at least half. I’ve been playing for 35 years. It’s not like I don’t know how to tune a guitar (I also do my own setups, not that I’d use a polyphonic tuner for that purpose, but tuning and intonation are something I’m acutely aware of). If it didn’t have a distinct advantage over other tuners in a live setting I wouldn’t bother using one. Not only do you see exactly which string is out of tune you see which other ones go out of tune as the one you’re adjusting pulls into pitch. That saves way more time over blindly pinging each string and then having to do it again to catch the other strings that shift when the tension is adjusted on the out of tune strings.
 
Never seen these before, but they look like they could do the trick, and I definitely don't think any mod is necessary.
Who's going to buy one first and do a review??
I was about to order one for my Les Paul, but held off til I could get home and check my tuners since I couldn't remember what type. Do'h.. vintage Kluson. It looks to me like the only proper way to use the String Butler with these is to screw it down onto your headstock, and I don't think I want to do that. Those press-fit collars won't hold it strong enough on their own. Best for the nut/washer type tuning pegs.
s-l1600.jpg
 
IMG_0339.jpg
Never seen these before, but they look like they could do the trick, and I definitely don't think any mod is necessary.
Who's going to buy one first and do a review??
Have never seen a String Butler before but my home made solution is the same idea and it works.
https://ibb.co/b8sChx
A little solder to hold it together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rex
The problem is the tuners. They should make tuners with staggered shaft lengths and then locate the posts in an inverted 'V'. But Gibson will never change. Instead of addressing the root problems (no scarf joint, excessive headstock angle, tuning instability) they stubbornly cling to an old design that's inherently flawed because history...
 
With Gibson facing imminent bankruptcy, it’s been speculated the company will be sold, and the current rumor is that Gibson's soon-to-be new owners will kick its idiot CEO Henry J. to the curb. Thank goodness.

With any luck at all, Gibson’s new overlords might have a bit more sense than Henry did.
 
Last edited:
The problem is the tuners. They should make tuners with staggered shaft lengths and then locate the posts in an inverted 'V'. But Gibson will never change. Instead of addressing the root problems (no scarf joint, excessive headstock angle, tuning instability) they stubbornly cling to an old design that's inherently flawed because history...
Their attempts to improve the traditional design of the LP have been rejected by the market. I don't like Henry J, but you really can't say he's stubbornly clinging to old designs. If anything he's been stubbornly pushing new designs that no one seems to want. Personally I don't have many tuning issues with my Gibsons once the nut is cut properly and lubed up. But I'm also the type of person that would have no interest in buying a Les Paul with a scarf joint, lower headstock angle, contoured heel etc.
 
Their attempts to improve the traditional design of the LP have been rejected by the market. I don't like Henry J, but you really can't say he's stubbornly clinging to old designs. If anything he's been stubbornly pushing new designs that no one seems to want. Personally I don't have many tuning issues with my Gibsons once the nut is cut properly and lubed up. But I'm also the type of person that would have no interest in buying a Les Paul with a scarf joint, lower headstock angle, contoured heel etc.

The problem is Gibson is going waaaay outside the wheelhouse of what basically 99% of the market wants.

The market wants a better Les Paul for a price of less than like $6,500 or whatever ludicrous and arbitrary number they come up with by throwing darts at a board. People don't want forced Robo Tuner guitars that require ribbon cables routed down the neck. They don't want $5,500 gimmick Les Pauls with wacky and hi-larious Floyd Rose + neon paint jobs, or "70's Van" paintjobs or metal control knobs/nuts or circuit boards inside the electronics routing or grey, washed out fretboards that look and feel like they were sanded with a rusty spoon.

They want a Les Paul with a good sunburst finish, a scarf jointed headstock, a G string that doesn't go out of tune if you look at it funny, a functioning QA process, a functional nut, and they want it made by people with more sanding skill than your average reject one-armed lumberjack.

What I'm saying is that you can't really say "well they're at least TRYING" when every attempt at "improvement" is so far out in left-field crazy-pants town that you can barely even tell where they started.
 
Last edited:
The problem is Gibson is going waaaay outside the wheelhouse of what basically 99% of the market wants.

The market wants a better Les Paul for a price of less than like $6,500 or whatever ludicrous and arbitrary number they come up with by throwing darts at a board. People don't want forced Robo Tuner guitars that require ribbon cables routed down the neck. They don't want $5,500 gimmick Les Pauls with wacky and hi-larious Floyd Rose + neon paint jobs, or "70's Van" paintjobs or metal control knobs/nuts or circuit boards inside the electronics routing or grey, washed out fretboards that look and feel like they were sanded with a rusty spoon.

They want a Les Paul with a good sunburst finish, a scarf jointed headstock, a G string that doesn't go out of tune if you look at it funny, a functioning QA process, a functional nut, and they want it made by people with more sanding skill than your average reject one-armed lumberjack.

What I'm saying is that you can't really say "well they're at least TRYING" when every attempt at "improvement" is so far out in left-field crazy-pants town that you can barely even tell where they started.
They're trying, they're just doing a terrible job. I also think the majority of their potential buyers are traditionalists who would reject even minor deviations from the classic LP design. That's why they had to introduce the LP Traditional line after they started "modernizing" the Standard and why the custom shop reissues are still moving at ridiculous prices.

The new titanium zero fret nut they're putting on some models was a small change that probably goes a long way toward addressing the tuning issues but all I've heard about it online was people griping about it. People in the market for a "real" Les Paul want the original design, warts and all. Others who just want a modern LP style guitar would probably go with something like a PRS, regardless of what Gibson offers.
 
The problem is the tuners. They should make tuners with staggered shaft lengths and then locate the posts in an inverted 'V'. But Gibson will never change. Instead of addressing the root problems (no scarf joint, excessive headstock angle, tuning instability) they stubbornly cling to an old design that's inherently flawed because history...
If you had to pick one brand (even better, one model...) that nails it and puts operation first, who would you pick?
 
If you had to pick one brand (even better, one model...) that nails it and puts operation first, who would you pick?
Parker did it in the 90s, but the guitar was underpriced and eventually the company tanked. Especially after they sold (out) and bit by bit discarded the original inventions of Parker/Fishman which made the Fly the Fly. It's not an LP or a Strat. That was its major flaw! Ha ha ha. But what a great guitar. To this day, that's all I play with real pleasure. The original, unrefined, Ken Parker era Parker Fly.
 
Back
Top Bottom