Why are PRS Tuners so ugly?

[Alnus Rubra]

My wife said I have a mini-toggle.

Bodia, two mods and now you! Haha!!

If you can’t beat them, join them I suppose!

I’ve a pair (of mini toggles that is)! Should I be worried?!

 

[László]

My wife said I have a mini-toggle.

“Dr. Freud, what say you about this patient?”

“My diagnosis is that her comment gave this patient toggle dysmorphic disorder, which as we know, requires many years of guitar therapy to overcome. The recommended treatment is to acquire as many guitars as possibe to restore this man’s toggle confidence.”

“So...he should go guitar shopping, then?”

“Yes. And buy only the finest guitars. This is a medical emergency that requires immediate treatment.”

 

[JoeDirt]

Just replaced my S2 Phase II tuners with Grover locking Rotomatics. A much, much cleaner look. Of all the awesome things about PRS guitars, why are the tuners so damn ugly??
(Can't figure out how to post a pic...)

3+ pages of replies but yet noone has really answered your original question. Why are the tuners so damn ugly? They always design the tuners to be as ugly as the old yahoos who are playing the guitars!

 

[Alnus Rubra]

3+ pages of replies but yet noone has really answered your original question. Why are the tuners so damn ugly? They always design the tuners to be as ugly as the old yahoos who are playing the guitars!

 

[László]

3+ pages of replies but yet noone has really answered your original question. Why are the tuners so damn ugly? They always design the tuners to be as ugly as the old yahoos who are playing the guitars!

I consider myself a fine antique, rather than ugly.

 

[C&M Music - Lafayette]

I think the question was answered.

 

[rnodern]

Not at all ugly. I find the other (back) locking tuners to look plain and ordinary.
There is something pleasing about the PRS locking tuners.

 

[rugerpc]

1. Form follows function.

2. Function is objectively quantifiable.

3. Aesthetics are subjective.

4. Function trumps aesthetics.

5. Return to rule one.

 

[Alnus Rubra]

1. Form follows function.

2. Function is objectively quantifiable.

3. Aesthetics are subjective.

4. Function trumps aesthetics.

5. Return to rule one.

Funny I was thinking about this thread and how fashions have changed!

A few years ago, or so, “ahem”, when I began playing guitar, I really paid very little attention to machine heads (tuners)!

I just thought of them as a functional part of the guitar.

Fast forward a few years, or so! Now they are as important to me as a functional part of the guitar as they are aesthetically.

I’m loving the PRS open back tuners. They suit the headstock.

But in this great big wonderful world, we can chose whatever machine heads we want, within reason. That’s the great thing about George Orwell’s prediction failing to come true 34 years ago!

 

[Deleted member 5962]

3+ pages of replies but yet noone has really answered your original question. Why are the tuners so damn ugly? They always design the tuners to be as ugly as the old yahoos who are playing the guitars!

Who you callin' "old?"

 

[IKnowALittle]

3+ pages of replies but yet noone has really answered your original question. Why are the tuners so damn ugly? They always design the tuners to be as ugly as the old yahoos who are playing the guitars!

Speak for yourself bro'.

 

[Huggy Love]

I have 2 HB's, both have ebony pegs, one has locking, one has standard, and to be honest the black set screws match a little better, to my eyes. If the pegs were chrome I admit it might be a different story.

I don't deny the set screw looks a little utilitarian on such sleek instruments but maybe that's their brash rebellious side. I think it gives them their toughness, their edge, their baddassness.

....... maybe it's not that they're "ugly" to you ......

........maybe you just feel threatened by them.

 

[dkilpatrick]

This might break the thread, but I love the functionality of prs phase II locking tuners over all others that I had to Mod my non-prs as well.

 

[DISTORT6]

If they look like the wings on the left, they are tragic, ugly, and the guitar should be taken away from the owner.
If they look like the wings on the RIGHT, they're absolute artful perfection. Just beautiful.

 

[bodia]

If they look like the wings on the left, they are tragic, ugly, and the guitar should be taken away from the owner.
If they look like the wings on the RIGHT, they're absolute artful perfection. Just beautiful.

If your wings look like those on the left, you don't deserve them .......sh!t, I'd better go check mine!

 

[Sillyak]

I think they suit the PRS headstock, but maybe that' just because that's what is on there.

 

[Bluesverb]

The following answer is strictly from a my Manufacturing and Lean Engineering experience.

Simply put......a lower price point due to lower parts, inventory, and labor.

As long as functionality is maintained or improved upon, this what ALL manufacturers strive to accomplish.

Marketing, by design, advertises it as an improvement.

For example, whenever you stop or prevent Chrome platting, it saves money. If you leave parts off, such as the back of the tuners, there is less metal. Therefore, less cost. Plastic Tuner buttons, instead of metal. Again, less cost due to less parts, inventory, and labor.

Now, can anyone "hear" the difference? Positive or negative?
Is there a MEASURABLE difference in frequency response? Is it attributed to the tuners, or because every piece of wood is different?

Good marketing would be "less energy is absorbed, and therefore, more energy is transferred to the wood of the guitar. Thus, more TONE!!!"
Again, Could you technically here ANY difference in practicality? Even if you did, would it mean a better tone?

Cost cutting, or Lean Manufacturing/Engineering, extends not only to the manufacturing process, but to the final product. Hence, the S2 Line of guitars to compete at a lower price point in the market.

Another example, If you look at PRS cases from the 80s-90s, you will see metal feet on them and a soft grip handle. Now no feet and no soft grip handle. Again, Less cost in parts, less inventory, and MORE importantly, less Labor!

In Manufacturing, taking cost out of a product, and then Sales marketing it as a positive attribute, is a good advertising strategy. If it actually makes a positive difference to the end product, would be ideal and considered a WIN/WIN.

Look at the PRS P22/P24 series. They (Fishman/PRS) did exactly that back a few years ago when they "Improved" the Piezo Series. The advancement in electronics/chips, from the original version, meant a better sound with a smaller circuit board (less wood is removed), and better pricing.

That is why there Companies always have some sort of disclaimer such that "...due to ongoing product research and development, improvements to the product is subject to design and functionality changes at any time..."

Us die hard guitarists, will believe whatever we are told!!! LOL

 

[Dirty_Boogie]

The following answer is strictly from a my Manufacturing and Lean Engineering experience.

Simply put......a lower price point due to lower parts, inventory, and labor.

As long as functionality is maintained or improved upon, this what ALL manufacturers strive to accomplish.

Marketing, by design, advertises it as an improvement.

For example, whenever you stop or prevent Chrome platting, it saves money. If you leave parts off, such as the back of the tuners, there is less metal. Therefore, less cost. Plastic Tuner buttons, instead of metal. Again, less cost due to less parts, inventory, and labor.

Now, can anyone "hear" the difference? Positive or negative?
Is there a MEASURABLE difference in frequency response? Is it attributed to the tuners, or because every piece of wood is different?

Good marketing would be "less energy is absorbed, and therefore, more energy is transferred to the wood of the guitar. Thus, more TONE!!!"
Again, Could you technically here ANY difference in practicality? Even if you did, would it mean a better tone?

Cost cutting, or Lean Manufacturing/Engineering, extends not only to the manufacturing process, but to the final product. Hence, the S2 Line of guitars to compete at a lower price point in the market.

Another example, If you look at PRS cases from the 80s-90s, you will see metal feet on them and a soft grip handle. Now no feet and no soft grip handle. Again, Less cost in parts, less inventory, and MORE importantly, less Labor!

In Manufacturing, taking cost out of a product, and then Sales marketing it as a positive attribute, is a good advertising strategy. If it actually makes a positive difference to the end product, would be ideal and considered a WIN/WIN.

Look at the PRS P22/P24 series. They (Fishman/PRS) did exactly that back a few years ago when they "Improved" the Piezo Series.

Us die hard fans of PRS guitars, will believe whatever we are told!!! LOL

Interesting perspective. I agree, in principal, regarding the lean manufacturing concept (I'm a manufacturing engineer by training). But, I think that this has zero to do with PRS guitars. They are a premium brand/item, and I dont see how this would be a cost consideration at all.

When you're trying to keep a product below a $100 pricepoint (for example) the maybe $2 in manufacturing costs and parts for the tuner "upgrades" is a 2% difference in the final product cost - that's actually quite significant, and is a consideration with mass-market/mass-produced, lower cost/quality items.

However, for a $4,000 guitar, that $2 tuner "upgrade" cost is only 0.05% of the total price of the guitar. I would say that pretty much 100% of those in the market for a U.S. made PRS would not care about that $2, and PRS makes enough margin on these luxury items that $2/guitar wouldn't make much of a difference to their bottom line.

 

[Guitpicky]

3+ pages of replies but yet noone has really answered your original question. Why are the tuners so damn ugly? They always design the tuners to be as ugly as the old yahoos who are playing the guitars!

I think "refined" is the word you're looking for

 

[Bluesverb]

If you would, I will respectfully beg to differ. These are Opinions only for discussion, .for anything else

I can't help but to identify these things as I made my living as an Industrial Engineer and Lean Program Manager for my Teams.

$2 here, $2 there,.....it all ads up. Collectively, at the end of the day, EVERYTHING is all about money. Less Labor, Less inventory, Less Carrying costs, Less Ordering, Shipping, etc......

Using $2.00 as an example, $2.00 times 10,000 manufactured core models per year, equals $20,000 realized in "hard savings". Then you can count on "soft savings" as listed above.

There is always the "Squeeze" in manufacturing. Rising costs due to inflation and the competition pushing down the price point to capture market share.

Hence, the S2 line was designed to compete in the $1000 to $1500 market (Street Pricing).

If any model is the "Cash Cow", it is the new CE Bolt on, IMHO. Import parts are all over that guitar. Even the Gig Bag is Asian. Take away the 85/15s, and I would bet the sales would drop. I would believe PRS new this ahead of time.

Funny thing, even the original PRS Gig bags (Non SE) has less features that the original ones made years ago.

BTW - Look at the cost of the S2 Tuners vs the Phase II or Phase III tuners on the PRS website. You know that the list price is a Function of the cost. Therefore, I believe we are looking at more than $2.00!!!

Look at the tremolo price difference between the S2 and Core. Wow!