i thought i'd start a little thread for us builders to critique some of the common ways that things are done in the making of a bass.

my first critique is the 4 a side tuners when used with an offset headstock (the fender headstock style). dont get me wrong. the lack of a glue joint and the straight grain keeps it nice and strong. the shape also looks great and lets you tune without reaching onto the other side of the headstock, but combined you have to use string trees. why not have an offset headstock with a 2 a side headstock? this lets you get a good angle across the nut without the string trees, and you dont have to do a scarf joint to keep it strong.
i love the look of fender headstocks, but i wouldnt make one like the original because of this.

OK my turn. I know i am definitely gonna have some disagreement. But basses should use a zero fret and only use a nut for keeping the strings from moving sideways.

A zero fret offers a few advantages over most nuts. It is the same material as the other frets for the same open string sound (even brass nuts can sound different if the nut is tight.)

Most importantly, most production basses have the nut slots cut too high. It takes more effort to fret a bass with high nut slots compared to ones where it is cut correctly. A correctly cut nut is not something you should expect a customer to do on their own. It is tricky especially if you cut it to close to low, and once you try to fix it there is no going back.

A correctly cut nut on regular basses is essentially just as important to the action as the saddles on a bridge. A zero fret eliminates this problem easily.

I also would prefer a little space between the nut and zero fret that way it is easy to slide up and down to an open note.

Would a tilted back fender headstock look right? just curious. How about if the tilt is slight?

OK alot of these will have there detractors which is understandable.

1) I find filters much more useful than an EQ that is redundant to the amp or soundboard (so passive basses have a one up on actives here)
2) having an active preamp that doesn't have a passive bypass. Easy way to bypass dead batteries
3) neck pockets that aren't tight enough and/or deep enough into the body
4) only 20 frets... bad! 21 atleast gets you the the highest E. Some would argue 24 needs to be the standard
5) cutaways/neck heels that aren't done well for higher fret access. Many examples abound
6) without fail, acoustic basses that have super high action (I always wondered why the hell this was)
7) single coils without a simple-to-have humcancelling coil (that doen't even alter the sound) Correction: read some posts below
8) Unshielded basses... pickup cavities and electronics cavities
9) crappy hardware. You need smoothe tuners and a significant bridge (the damn strings are coupled at the bridge. come on now.) The tuners need to stay in tune and the bridge saddles need to keep from falling down. Jacks need to be pretty damn good too.
10) nuts that are cut too high from the factory (without the zero fret of course)
11) knobs that have no markings as to where they are set
12) side jacks that you can't see but have no guide
13) strap buttons in the wrong place for proper balance
14) neck heavy designs
15) 1-way trussrods
16) truss rod access not easy (impeded heel access, bad tuner placement etc.)
17) straplocks should be standard on basses by now
18) needing any kind of tool to change the battery
19) I must say strongly that this is my opinion, but not being able to adjust polepieces on pickups
20) not using threaded inserts for the most potentially used screws on the bass... any access covers, pickup height screws... or the most important screws on a bass that are hard to redo... neck bolts!

OK so some of these are alot more arguable than others but this is my short list

Oh yeah I must say... I am not a builder... YET! Not sure if I would ever be considered a full-fledged builder as I will probably never build a neck from scratch personally. But I will have a design soon and it will be implemented atleast once.

I also would prefer a little space between the nut and zero fret that way it is easy to slide up and down to an open note.
That's an interesting thought!

nice ones there. the zero fret is a good one.

reguarding the single coils without the dummy coil, the dummy coil does in fact change the sound by either adding to the inductance or taking away from it (series or paralell). this can be allowed for through designing it with more/less inductance, but it cant just be put on a pickup and expected to not change it. i dont think hum is a problem (for me at least) as long as the cavities are properly shielded. the pickup itself can be shielded at the sides without effecting the tone if you dont connect the shielding material as a loop around the pickup (ie insulate the ends of the loop so they dont conduct)

bad strap placement is another one. i understand certain designs, but when it can be put somewhere better it should be imo.

7) single coils without a simple-to-have humcancelling coil (that doen't even alter the sound)


sorry to bust your bubble, but this is impossible. you cannot have a silent single coil without adding a humcancelling element and this will most certainly change the sound.

Most people don't understand single coils and are very dissapointed when they hear a lone single's noise. No matter how much shielding you do, you will get that hum (the amount will vary by location and/or proximity to the elements that generate 60hz interference).

2) having an active preamp that doesn't have a passive bypass. Easy way to bypass dead batteries

As long as you (or the guy at the board) can compensate for the change in output (level).


10) nuts that are cut too high from the factory (without the zero fret of course)

Preach it brother!


11) knobs that have no markings as to where they are set

That's what ears are for.



15) 1-way trussrods
16) truss rod access not easy (heel access, bad tuner placement etc.)

To be quite honest...the average joe shouldn't be touching the truss rod. One of those "just enough knowledge to be dangerous" areas...


18) needing any kind of tool to change the battery

...you mean, like, the guitar player? :D

Concerning the zero fret and to play devil's advocate, I pulled this off of another builder's site. Just for further discussion on the subject:

"Zero frets are in constant contact with the string, when crowned properly the string intonates well and sounds fine but over time the "lead off" shifts forward as the zero fret wears down and the intonation shifts across the board. I can't actually hear the difference (which is why I don't deal with earvana or feiten systems) but what I CAN hear is fret buzz when the zero fret begins to wear. Changing out a worn nut (which takes WAAAY longer to wear down) is a cakewalk compared to removing a zero fret, sourcing and installing a replacement and adjusting it to match pre-existing fretwear."

hmmmm thats a good point about the zero fret. But I have never seen one wear. But I don't fix other people's instruments. so... hmmm

I myself hardly put wear on regular frets because I have a light touch with both hands, so I wonder if this would make a difference for me.

Maybe the answer would be that all zero fret instruments need to come with a small compartment that contains extra frets (and maybe some other extra parts.)

Also I must say that the string would only significantly vibrate over the nut when there is an open string pluck. I know the string still vibrate slightly over the nut when fretted but it would be minimal by comparison.

Perhaps if the zero fret had a flat edge on the top (but why aren't all frets this way... too sharp for the fingers?)

A bass without an upper horn or too short of a horn (As I am crafting one at this moment)

hmmm as far as humcancelling. I am asking more than anything because I am not sure.

I thought that you could introduce a coil with very minimal windings and no magnets that will pick up the same noise as a regular pickup. But if it is wound in reverse it would cancel the noise of the lone single coil. At the smae time the minimal amount of coils technically would change the inductance and the sound, but would it really be that noticeable (by comparison to having 2 regular coils in humbucking mode?)

OK so tell me what's wrong. If you can't do this at all with a small amount of coils in the dummy coil than I understand. If you can but the only problem would be that the output would be low, then can you amplify it and mix it?

hmmmm thats a good point about the zero fret. But I have never seen one wear. But I don't fix other people's instruments. so... hmmm

I myself hardly put wear on regular frets because I have a light touch with both hands, so I wonder if this would make a difference for me.

Maybe the answer would be that all zero fret instruments need to come with a small compartment that contains extra frets (and maybe some other extra parts.)

Also I must say that the string would only significantly vibrate over the nut when there is an open string pluck. I know the string still vibrate slightly over the nut when fretted but it would be minimal by comparison.

Perhaps if the zero fret had a flat edge on the top (but why aren't all frets this way... too sharp for the fingers?)

I don't think the difference between the sound of a properly set up nut and a zero fret is enough to worry about. (At least to me)

as far as the wear thing goes, I haven't much experience with them to know how long they last, but using stainless steel frets would probably make them last longer.

On the other hand, A nut usually wears pretty slowly too (especially if it's brass), and is much easier to replace. Any reasonably mechanically inclined person with basic tools should be able to adjust it without causing any permanent damage. Pop it off, sand the bottom of it until it's at the right height, and stick it back on. No big deal. If they royally screw it up, they can take it to a repair person and get it done professionally.

Now, if the manufacturers would just set them up reasonable at the factory, it wouldn't even be an issue.

hmmm as far as humcancelling. I am asking more than anything because I am not sure.

I thought that you could introduce a coil with very minimal windings and no magnets that will pick up the same noise as a regular pickup. But if it is wound in reverse it would cancel the noise of the lone single coil. At the smae time the minimal amount of coils technically would change the inductance and the sound, but would it really be that noticeable (by comparison to having 2 regular coils in humbucking mode?)

OK so tell me what's wrong. If you can't do this at all with a small amount of coils in the dummy coil than I understand. If you can but the only problem would be that the output would be low, then can you amplify it and mix it?

I could be wrong, but I think the dummy coil needs to be similar to the active coil to be effective. It'll certainly changes the overall characteristics of the coil, and will affect the sound a bit. The volume shouldn't change that much. Your resistance will be much higher, but that shouldn't significantly affect output, as long as your amp or electronics don't load the output to heavily.

Please feel free to point out if I'm completely wrong on this one. ;) I've never used a dummy coil, so I'm just going from my general electronics knowledge.

A bass without an upper horn or too short of a horn (As I am crafting one at this moment)

Well thats Ok if you like neck dive... or you have only half of a neck :p

These are all good mentions.

Also,

A bass that sits too low in the lap. This is common on Warwicks. This not only encourages bad posture, but also lowers the neck, which makes playing much less pleasant (see the low slung rocker approach).

One shouldn't have to slouch to play when sitting down.

...
I could be wrong, but I think the dummy coil needs to be similar to the active coil to be effective. It'll certainly changes the overall characteristics of the coil, and will affect the sound a bit. The volume shouldn't change that much. Your resistance will be much higher, but that shouldn't significantly affect output, as long as your amp or electronics don't load the output to heavily.

Please feel free to point out if I'm completely wrong on this one. ;) I've never used a dummy coil, so I'm just going from my general electronics knowledge.

well, you are wrong, actually. There was a patent granted to I don't remember who. He made his dummy coils by using about 24? or so windings of thicker gauge to achieve a similar effect to a traditional humcancelling coil (which is about the same geometry and number of windings). He actually made this coil very big with no bobbin and it was mounted inside the control cavity surrounding the controls (the coil was square). I wish I could remember who it was ...maybe someone else does. The point is, whenever you introduce a humcancelling coil, whatever the method, the sound changes ...how much is VERY subjective and I'm sure there are advocates for both sides. The change is not really in output (assuming is wired in series) but in the high end response. Of course, this makes the guitarrists more aware of the change in sound ...ahhh, those strat freaks and their single coils :D

Let me clarify that I am not condoning the use of a dummy coil. But me, personally, I prefer a traditional 2 coil humbucker ...single coil sound is not, IMHO, a benefit over those of a true humbucker.

i thought i'd start a little thread for us builders to critique some of the common ways that things are done in the making of a bass.


Simple radius fretboards? It's a minor flaw, but it always irks me. I think about geometry too much. :rolleyes:

Strap buttons. It's far too easy to pick your bass up with the strap twisted, and POP, bass on the floor. Luckily I haven't actually dropped mine, but I have had some close calls (popped off strap, managed to catch it with my fretting hand)

Output jacks/cables. I wish they were all XLR I bought a new cable, used it maybe 5 times in practice on a new bass, with a good Neutrik locking jack, and it was cutting out.. WTF? I think my next bass may have both connectors available.

Headstocks. This one will probably stir up some noise, but really, I think tuners on the headstock is a dumb idea. Why add another 8 inches of wood and a bunch of weight (tuners/wound string) at the end of a big lever? Headless really seems the way to go. I know it looks wrong, but I think that's just because we're all used to seeing a headstock. Again, this is just the engineering part of my brain being picky. I don't own a headless yet, so I can't speak from experience but it's just not the way I would do things.

design flaws: the neck pocket on Fenders, too short IMO, and the rounded corners on the neck are nice but useless.

Fat blocky neck heels, poor upper fret access

Headstocks. This one will probably stir up some noise, but really, I think tuners on the headstock is a dumb idea. Why add another 8 inches of wood and a bunch of weight (tuners/wound string) at the end of a big lever?

I like headstocks an the look of tuners angled :)

I'm gonna go ahead and say headstocks in general. A headless design is much more logical when it comes to overall length (for travel/storage) and balance (no neck-dive). Headstocks are fine for guitars, but for basses (excepting upright basses), they are long enough that it's a problem. Headless designs may look weird to those used to headstocks, but they are a superior design, IMO.

Edit: Re Arx, and that's what I get for not reading the thread before I post!

I hear ya'll about headless but it is just butt ugly to me :)

I'll have to agree that headless basses have a superior design, but I still prefer the look of a headstock.

Also with 8 strings I prefer a regular 4 peg headstock and octave tuners at the bridge side - I haven't seen any 8 peg headstocks that I liked other than Angus Modified 4 string Tobias.

I like the resonance from the mass of a headstock.

.... He actually made this coil very big with no bobbin and it was mounted inside the control cavity surrounding the controls (the coil was square). I wish I could remember who it was ...maybe someone else does.

A very early F bass had a set up something like you describe.

http://www.borealphoto.com/photos/287991000_jaykn-L.jpg
http://www.borealphoto.com/photos/295166443_AGWHa-M.jpg

Compliments of TBer ERICK LAM

My fender is getting a new neck with zero fret, no radius, 3x1 headstock, asym neck profile. Heresy on a fender? :p

But i went traditional on the woods, what was quite a feat since here in Brazil we have eascy access to stuff like purpleheart, ipê and such. 3 piece neck, the sides are quarter sawn maple with a pau ferro center, pau ferro fingerboard.

Fingerboards with a constant radius. The only way to get ideal action is with a compound radius or no radius at all.

I've opted for the last one.

I don't understand the compund radius arguments. Can you guys point me to some good threads? Thanks, Joe

RE hum canceling: if I understand correctly, for two coils to have the same RF pickup, what must be held constant is the product of the # of turns times the enclosed area. And the direction of the coil axis. So, if you increase the area, you can reduce the turns, thus reducing the extra inductance introduced into the circuit. Then, since you have fewer turns, you can probably fit a larger gauge wire, which will then have the additional benefit of reducing the extra resistance you're adding to the circuit (assuming series connection).

You could also have a small dummy coil, and amplify it. In practice I guess you would set up a circuit with a trim pot on its gain, and then do a setup procedure using a noise source, and adjust gain until you kill the hum.



As far as shielding, it's easy enough to shield a cavity, which then covers the sides and back of the pickup. Does anybody know, though, which if any manufacturers shield the inside of their covers, so there's also shielding at the front of the pup? I think maybe Bartolini?

But i went traditional on the woods, what was quite a feat since here in Brazil we have eascy access to stuff like purpleheart, ipê and such. 3 piece neck, the sides are quarter sawn maple with a pau ferro center, pau ferro fingerboard.

Human... do you get maple easily in Brazil? Hope you wont tell that maple grows in that part of the Amazonas!! :(

A very early F bass had a set up something like you describe.

http://www.borealphoto.com/photos/287991000_jaykn-L.jpg
http://www.borealphoto.com/photos/295166443_AGWHa-M.jpg

Compliments of TBer ERICK LAM

well, that's a very nice shot of conventional dummy coils, this is how they are used. The patent I had seen was much different than this. Maybe our own pilotjones can find it? he's the expert at researching patents on the LC :D The original discussion might have been here at TB.

I don't understand the compund radius arguments. Can you guys point me to some good threads? Thanks, Joe

No, but I'll explain it quickly.

On a simple radius, the nutward end of the fretboard is not a scaled version of the bridgeward end. If you scaled it to the same factor as the spread of the strings over that distance, you would find that you would have a much flatter curve than what you end up with on a simple radius.

This is what a compound radius is. The ends are scaled copies of on another. That way the strings can all be equal heights off the fretboard.

With a simple radius, your edge strings will be higher towards the bridge end than your middle strings will. You can't lower them at the saddles because the surface below them actually has a slight downward curve. Assuming you set the lowest action you could based on the middle string(s), If you matched the outside strings height from the fretboard at the bridgeward end, the strings will touch the fretboard up towards the nut.

It helps to think about an extreme example. Say you're cutting a fretboard out of a piece of 4 inch pipe (this would be a simple radius) It's 1.5" wide at the nut, and 3.5" inches wide at the bridge. Your nut would have a bit of a curve to it, and the other end of the board would curve almost 180 degrees. If you were to look at the edge of the fretboard, what shape is it? (hint: not a straight line)

-Nick

That's what ears are for.

Not having markings leads to people having to watse time trying to figure out where things are set. With markings they can silently know where things are set... that's what eyes are for.
:smug:

To be quite honest...the average joe shouldn't be touching the truss rod. One of those "just enough knowledge to be dangerous" areas...


Disagree with this one strongly. Not knowing how to do something as simple as adjusting a trussrod only helps one person... the tech you pay too much money to do it for you:smug:. It certainly won't help you on a gig if you need a tweak... you'll have to deal with it and get help later.
:rollno:

Should saddle and pickup height be off limits too?

A very early F bass had a set up something like you describe.

http://www.borealphoto.com/photos/287991000_jaykn-L.jpg

Compliments of TBer ERICK LAM

An example of a bass that doesn't sit well in the lap.

I'm gonna go ahead and say headstocks in general. A headless design is much more logical when it comes to overall length (for travel/storage) and balance (no neck-dive). Headstocks are fine for guitars, but for basses (excepting upright basses), they are long enough that it's a problem. Headless designs may look weird to those used to headstocks, but they are a superior design, IMO.

Edit: Re Arx, and that's what I get for not reading the thread before I post!

I disagree. I can travel fine with headstocks, I just did a gig where I put two long scale basses in gigbags in the trunk of my Miata (of course flying is a different situation).

They don't have to be overly long.
They don't have to neck-dive.
They are not an inferior design IMO.

I can't play headless basses. They just don't *feel* right, to my hand. Even ones with volute "stops" so your hand bumps it before you go off the end... I just don't care for them.

Also, if my tuners are at the other end, how am I supposed to easily pluck the strings and tune at the same time? :hiding:

I prefer the dual coil humbuckers too now. I've been making those and single coil bass and guitar pickups, but haven't made or tried a single coil with a dummy coil. What I hear from pickup makers who have made them, is that the sound of a dummy coil is closer than say a split or stacked coil to a straight single coil pickup but definitely not the same.

Also, if my tuners are at the other end, how am I supposed to easily pluck the strings and tune at the same time? :hiding:

LOL.

Seriously though, I played a Steinberger for a few years (quite a few years ago) and found that having the tuners at the bridge end were less of a hassle for me while tuning. It also doesn't affect the tuning as much as having a hand on the headstock or top neck area. Also, that bass or rather the bridge and nut system (and graphite neck) was the most consistently stable when tuned and while tuning on a bass I have ever tried.

I disagree. I can travel fine with headstocks, I just did a gig where I put two long scale basses in gigbags in the trunk of my Miata (of course flying is a different situation).

They don't have to be overly long.
They don't have to neck-dive.
They are not an inferior design IMO.

Nobody said you can't travel with them, just that it's easier without.

I can't play headless basses. They just don't *feel* right, to my hand. Even ones with volute "stops" so your hand bumps it before you go off the end... I just don't care for them.

Also, if my tuners are at the other end, how am I supposed to easily pluck the strings and tune at the same time? :hiding:

Yep, lots of people feel this way. They're used to having a headstock so it seems wrong when it's not there.

I do feel it's a bad design though, even if it is the most common by far and everyone is used to it.

-Nick

Thanks Nick, i understood what compound radius was but not why the line across them wouldn't be straight.

I got it with the help of your illustration. Here is what I visualized. The nut end has a small scale version of the heel end the way it is supossed to be. Everything is flat and straight. now superimpose the nut cut to the same radius over the smaller scale one in your mind and imagine what it does to the strings. *lightbulb* I see it!

So the best way to produce a fretboard is by how many degrees of the arc that is covered on both ends. For instance a typical 4 string jazz bass should cover about 7.25 degrees of an arc on the nut side and also 7.25 degrees on the heel side. (I got this from using a 12 inch radius at the nut where the nut arc length is 1.52 (close to a jazz bass taking into consideration that it is an arc. This can be done more exact though!) So in this example the nut radius would be 12 and if the width of the bass at the heel is 2.5 the radius at the heel should be around 20.

I should make an excel spreadsheet for this.

The other thing to keep in mind is that then the strings need to be proportionately spaced over the nut as they are over the heel end (and therefore also at the bridge.) This means that the strings will be further from the edge at the heel end (unless you take this also into design consideration which can also be done.) The spacing is where bridge spacing comes in. I think it's a safe assumption that most basses aren't designed this way because most bridge spacings are a certain standard width (19mm for 4 strings?) whereas nut widths have 2 distinct variations (p and j) and all manner of other sizes (and we are just talking about 4 stringers) plus all the mostly non-compound radii fretboards. So everything has just been kinda slapped together (same as pickups that don't follow a radius.)

I guess I should try to incorporate the 19mm bridge into the spreadsheet (but also let it be variable.)


No, but I'll explain it quickly.

On a simple radius, the nutward end of the fretboard is not a scaled version of the bridgeward end. If you scaled it to the same factor as the spread of the strings over that distance, you would find that you would have a much flatter curve than what you end up with on a simple radius.

This is what a compound radius is. The ends are scaled copies of on another. That way the strings can all be equal heights off the fretboard.

With a simple radius, your edge strings will be higher towards the bridge end than your middle strings will. You can't lower them at the saddles because the surface below them actually has a slight downward curve. Assuming you set the lowest action you could based on the middle string(s), If you matched the outside strings height from the fretboard at the bridgeward end, the strings will touch the fretboard up towards the nut.

It helps to think about an extreme example. Say you're cutting a fretboard out of a piece of 4 inch pipe (this would be a simple radius) It's 1.5" wide at the nut, and 3.5" inches wide at the bridge. Your nut would have a bit of a curve to it, and the other end of the board would curve almost 180 degrees. If you were to look at the edge of the fretboard, what shape is it? (hint: not a straight line)

-Nick

All this said,where or who makes the perfect Bass?:smug:

Nobody said you can't travel with them, just that it's easier without.

You may notice that I didn't say anyone said you couldn't travel with them... and no, I don't find the lack of a headstock to make that easier. The lack of a regular sized body, yes.

Yep, lots of people feel this way. They're used to having a headstock so it seems wrong when it's not there.

I do feel it's a bad design though, even if it is the most common by far and everyone is used to it.

-Nick

Are headstocks on other instruments also bad design? Just curious.

My problem with headless basses has been that I haven't really found one that sounds like I want. I've owned a few. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

well, that's a very nice shot of conventional dummy coils, this is how they are used. The patent I had seen was much different than this. Maybe our own pilotjones can find it? he's the expert at researching patents on the LC :D The original discussion might have been here at TB.

If you can remember some of the wording (particularly any odd words or word combinations) I can find it. Also the approximate year of the patent issue or filing would help. Tell me if it is some person who is well fairly well known. Would I recognize the name?

It is most likely within patent classification 84/723 through 84/732. Class 84 (and older class 984) is music and musical instruments and many pickup designs fall under those subclasses. Ther may be a few other classes throughout the huge index but I would say it's a good 90% chance it will be in one of those.

I put a search in for (guitar AND hum AND cancel AND pickup) and got 46 hits dating from 1976 and later (but what if he never uses guitar as a word but instead stringed instrument? This is common.)

All this said,where or who makes the perfect Bass?:smug:

Several builders IME. It's in the eye of the beholder.

Tiny, ultra-light bodies on a bass. It might be just an opinion, but I hate basses without even a little weight and mass to them. There's no sustain and it tend to lack a depth and thickness to the tone. There's definitley a point where too heavy is bad, but if a bass is like 6 lbs or less, I garuntee you it'll sound pretty thin 99% of the time.

All this said,where or who makes the perfect Bass?:smug:

I want to attempt this but I think you can only make a perfect bass for an individual, and not the masses. Like I said I bring up a lot of good points, but they aren't for everyone (actually I think a couple of them are but not many.)

There are builders out there who could build me the perfect bass if I gave them all the specs, but it would only be perfect for me, and that's if we don't overlook anything between us. Harder done than said. The other problem is that most particular users don't know enough about design to ask for things that would make the bass perfect. I am a good case in point. Even though I do know quite a bit about design, I wasn't aware of the compound radius issue until this thread. Now I know, but what else do I not know about... probably a lot!!! I have never played a fanned fret for longer than 5 minutes at a trade show but that may also be a part of my perfect bass.

There are also a few things that I failed to mention about electronics and pickups that i think would be the perfect bass for me, but the electronics are more subjective than anything, and I can't say about the pickups because it's a secret. LOL :)

Ha! it took me a bit but I found an almost perfect circle calculator online for compound radius.

http://www.1728.com/circsect.htm

At the bottom select chord length (straight measurement across the nut, not the arc!) and radius. Then put in the chord length and the radius (I used 1.5 and 12 for a jazz bass) and it gives me a central angle of 7 1/6 degrees (7.16666.) Now change the chord length to 2.5 (width of heel on jazz bass) and change the radius until the central angle also says 7.1666. The radius that makes the match is exactly 20 like I estimated before.

The only downfall of this calculator is that you can't select chord length and central angle as the inputs, so you have to play with numbers for the 2nd part.

The perfect jazz bass radius (if you like 12 inch radius at the nut) and assuming that this has fender dimensions (1.5 inch nut and 2.5 inch heel) is a 12/20 compound radius.

I would have to measure my nut but I would venture to say that the string width at the bridge is probably not perfect at 19mm. I am going to figure this out next.

The other thing to keep in mind is that then the strings need to be proportionately spaced over the nut as they are over the heel end (and therefore also at the bridge.) This means that ...How do you figure? I've found this to be true for a geometrically "perfect" implementation of a f*nned fret instrument, but with parallel frets that requirement goes away. With parallel frets, any angle taken across the fretboard results in a properly proportionate set of string/fret crossing points, you just have a difference in overall scale length.

Human... do you get maple easily in Brazil? Hope you wont tell that maple grows in that part of the Amazonas!! :(

No maple here! Dont worry. :D

Actually maple is "exotic" for us. I've though about havin a full pau ferro neck, its just heavier than maple, but just a little bit, far from wenge. I didnt want to betray the whole Fender thing and i like the feel and looks of maple, so i asked for it.

well, that's a very nice shot of conventional dummy coils, this is how they are used. The patent I had seen was much different than this. Maybe our own pilotjones can find it? he's the expert at researching patents on the LC :D The original discussion might have been here at TB.I saw a reference to the large size, low turn dummy coil patent on the music-electronics pup makers forum, but I never pursued it. The To me the idea is such an obvious one to anyone who paid attention in a first-year college physics course and who knows how humbuckers work, and so should never have received a patent. Finding the patent would just piss me off. ;)

There are builders out there who could build me the perfect bass if I gave them all the specs, but it would only be perfect for me, and that's if we don't overlook anything between us.


As a matter of fact a good amount of builders could do that. A good builder's job is to communicate with you ideas for the better playability and comfort for your custom. To throw around ideas on how to make things better and better suited for you and your playing style. That can take a lot of time and many e-mails but should result in something well suited to you. It's not just about you telling him what to build but discussions of what you like or would like and why you would like that.

Sometimes you find that the particular option you absolutely wanted is actually not feasible or not good at all for the instrument you really wanted to have. A good dose of two-way communication usually results in the best custom experience.

I''ll stop derailing the thread now :)

Thanks Nick, i understood what compound radius was but not why the line across them wouldn't be straight.

I got it with the help of your illustration. Here is what I visualized. The nut end has a small scale version of the heel end the way it is supossed to be. Everything is flat and straight. now superimpose the nut cut to the same radius over the smaller scale one in your mind and imagine what it does to the strings. *lightbulb* I see it!

So the best way to produce a fretboard is by how many degrees of the arc that is covered on both ends. For instance a typical 4 string jazz bass should cover about 7.25 degrees of an arc on the nut side and also 7.25 degrees on the heel side. (I got this from using a 12 inch radius at the nut where the nut arc length is 1.52 (close to a jazz bass taking into consideration that it is an arc. This can be done more exact though!) So in this example the nut radius would be 12 and if the width of the bass at the heel is 2.25 the radius at the heel should be around 18.

I should make an excel spreadsheet for this.

The other thing to keep in mind is then that the strings need to be proportionately spaced over the nut as they are over the heel end (and therefore also at the bridge.) This is where bridge spacing comes in. I think it's a safe assumption that most basses aren't designed this way because most bridge spacings are a certain standard width (19mm for 4 strings?) whereas nut widths have 2 distinct variations (p and j) and all manner of other sizes (and we are just talking about 4 stringers) plus all the mostly non-compound radii.

I guess I should try to incorporate the 19mm bridge into the spreadsheet (but also let it be variable.)

Sounds like you got it. :) I'm especially impressed that you caught the bit about string spacing. If you calculate based on the centre lines of your strings, rather than the edge of the fretboard, and you make sure your strings are proportionally placed, it should end up geometrically correct. If you calculate based on the fretboard width you'll probably be a bit out, since a lot of people set things up with a constant gap from the edge of the board, instead of the gap getting wider at the same rate as the strings diverge. I wouldn't worry about the error due to equal spaces, if you do your nut that way. (even I'm not that picky about the geometry)

-Nick

How do you figure? I've found this to be true for a geometrically "perfect" implementation of a f*nned fret instrument, but with parallel frets that requirement goes away. With parallel frets, any angle taken across the fretboard results in a properly proportionate set of string/fret crossing points, you just have a difference in overall scale length.

Well, for a geometrically "perfect" string to fretboard spacing, you need the proportional positioning. Once again, extremely exaggerated thought models to the rescue:

Run your string at a really sharp angle, from the bass side at the nut, to the treble side at the bridge. Clearly the fretboard below it is an arc, which it isn't if you have the ends proportionally positioned on a compound board.

You could probably correct for different string spacing, by skewing the one arc, but really, under normal circumstances the error is truly negligible.

-Nick

Actually I just figured out the correct bridge spacing for a 12/20 compound jazz bass neck on my fender jazz bass and guess what I got... 18.95 mm spread at the bridge. I guess that is close enough for government work. (actually my room for error on measuring the string spacing at the nut would be beyond this error.)

So here are the numberrs I used (pulled off an actual fender jazz except the compound radius.) 1.5 inch nut, 2.5 inch heel, 12 inch radius at nut, 20 inch radius at heel (the width/radius at both points are proportional.) and given that the heel was measured at the last fret (22nd) and that the fret was 24.45 inches into a 34 inch scale. I measured the spread of 3 strings at the nuts was 29.5 mm from center of G to center of E string. The measurement across the strings to the centers should be 56.85mm which divided by the 3 spaces comes to 18.95mm

Yeah technically there is one other way to have a single radius neck that isn't flat and has straight action. It's not very feasible though. Have the string be an equal distance from each other over the whole scale (i.e. 19mm spacing at both the bridge and the nut end.) yuck! but this would allow the same radius over the whole fretboard also!

This will also be the argument as to why string spacing does matter and does need to be proportional at the nut and bridge. It may need some explanation but it's obvious to me.

17) straplocks should be standard on basses by now


Agree 100%

I think straplocks were like a $10 upgrade when I ordered my Carvin IC 5. What are they new, like $20 or $25? I'd more than happily pay a few dollars more for a production-line instrument just so I don't have to install aftermarket locks. You could get the strap-side buttons with the bass just like how you often get an allen wrench, a truss-rod tool, and keys for a hardshell case when you make the purchase.

How do you figure? I've found this to be true for a geometrically "perfect" implementation of a f*nned fret instrument, but with parallel frets that requirement goes away. With parallel frets, any angle taken across the fretboard results in a properly proportionate set of string/fret crossing points, you just have a difference in overall scale length.

Also if you strung a g string in the g part of the nut and the E part of the bridge I think it would be obvious that there would be a flawed hump in the middle of the fretboard. This is taking it to extremes but is a perfect example.

P.s.

As far as headless instruments go - They may be a superior design. Technically, transistors are a superior amplifier design from an engineering perspective, yet both bass players and especially guitar players plop down thousands of dollars for tube amps, because they provide the subjective sound that people like.

I've seen some headless designs that I've liked. A Fender Jazz without a headstock? Uggg! I don't even want to think about that. I played one of the older Steinbergers a few years. It was a very interesting sounding instrument. Headstocks, IMO, are another thing that gives an instrument style, especially if the head is well designed. In my opinion, the rectangular Steinbergers are one of the bass designs most devoid of anything aesthetically pleasing. Not having a headstock makes them even more boring to me. Plus, as someone stated earlier, a headless instrument has its own feel; whether or not you like this feel is purely personal. I really did not like it. But to each his or her own.

Yeah--quite right, I wasn't really thinking it through--the hump would produce an error about big enough to notice if you were a virus sitting on a buckyball.

:)

OK my turn. I know i am definitely gonna have some disagreement. But basses should use a zero fret and only use a nut for keeping the strings from moving sideways.

A zero fret offers a few advantages over most nuts. It is the same material as the other frets for the same open string sound (even brass nuts can sound different if the nut is tight.)

Most importantly, most production basses have the nut slots cut too high. It takes more effort to fret a bass with high nut slots compared to ones where it is cut correctly. A correctly cut nut is not something you should expect a customer to do on their own. It is tricky especially if you cut it to close to low, and once you try to fix it there is no going back.

A correctly cut nut on regular basses is essentially just as important to the action as the saddles on a bridge. A zero fret eliminates this problem easily.

I also would prefer a little space between the nut and zero fret that way it is easy to slide up and down to an open note.

What is your opinion in the case of fretless instruments?

Concerning the zero fret and to play devil's advocate, I pulled this off of another builder's site. Just for further discussion on the subject:

"Zero frets are in constant contact with the string, when crowned properly the string intonates well and sounds fine but over time the "lead off" shifts forward as the zero fret wears down and the intonation shifts across the board. I can't actually hear the difference (which is why I don't deal with earvana or feiten systems) but what I CAN hear is fret buzz when the zero fret begins to wear. Changing out a worn nut (which takes WAAAY longer to wear down) is a cakewalk compared to removing a zero fret, sourcing and installing a replacement and adjusting it to match pre-existing fretwear."

Wouldn't this wear occur for all frets as well?

Wouldn't this wear occur for all frets as well?
I suppose it depends on how much you use the open string in comparison to every individual fret on the fingerboard.

It does, but I was posing that question more in a rhetorical sense. I would think that fretwear would occur over time anyway and as such if you need to dress or replace fret 0 you are probably going to have to dress or replace other frets as well.

I'm the guilty party regarding the zero fret blurb that Majestic posted.

I've replaced hundreds of nuts over the years, as well as more zero frets than I care to count. Most of my design choices came about from observing things as a repair guy, so I opted not to use zero frets because they are more costly and involved to replace than a standard nut. That all depends on the customer too, some players don't care if the wire is a duplicate of the original. Stainless is an alternative, but some people feel there is a difference in sound. Many players have very uneven wear depending on positions and keys they like to use so it's not uncommon from my little perspective to see the zero frets wear out relatively quickly as compared to the other frets. It also depends on the break angle of the "nut" right behind it.

In the same blurb (not posted) I go on to say that Rob Elrick and MTD make incredible instruments and players who like a zero fret as an option can't go wrong with either of those choices, I simply choose not to use them in my own instruments.

I have to take issue with the constant radius argument on here. A properly dressed constant radius will follow a straight line under the tapered path of the string. Just take a precision straight edge and check the length of the board under each string, if it's done right you won't see any light creeping over the fret tops. I associate the compound radiusing as a great option for guitar players who need to bend a -3rd+ cleanly with low action and don't want choking, but I don't view it as a huge plus on bass. That's just me though, plenty of great ideas and food for thought in this thread.

oh boy...where to begin...

1-short bottom lines kill the balance of an instrument sitting down. you should be able to put the bass on your lap and take your hands away and have it stay there. pick up 99.99999999 (you get it) % of instruments and do that little test and they all end up on the floor.

2-single cut instruments look cool no doubt but adjusting the truss rod on those things is no fun. also it adds a whole bunch of weight that i'd rather not have hanging on my shoulder. also its tricky to get an angle in the neck which leads us toooo....

3-instruments with no neck angle. it helps with the reach it helps with the action and i havent noticed anything negative about it.

4-truss rods that dont do much/dont work/are hard to adjust. why put an adjustment rod in your neck and than make it a pain in the ass to reach? Also truss rods with allen rench adjustments dont make sense to me. But the real bad news is when you are told to turn your rod 1/4 turn and wait a day or two. ??? the rod should react instantly. if im at a gig and i need to adjust my truss rod i dont have a day to wait. i need it now. And it is definitly possible to do that so...why not?

5-Another design flaw is when builders make things too perfect. like using a fretboard that is just barely thick enough to hold the frets or wires that are exactly the right lenght. leave a little room...when the bass needs new frets its nice to have some room to play with on the fret board and when electronics need to be worked on its nice to have a little wire to work with. im not talking a 1/2 inch fingerboard or 10 feet of wire but just enough to give a little room to work.

woah...that turned into quite the rant.

I for one hate having to guess if an allen wrench is metric, US, Venus-standard, or whatever else is out there...they all seem to have too much play or don't fit no matter what size you try. What's wrong with just having a slothead??
My understanding is that the rod does react instantly, but the neck wood needs time to settle after a rod adjustment. Right before a gig seems like the wrong time to be dealing with such drastic adjustments. Wood takes decades to grow into its own grain pattern, and flighty human demands will not change that no matter what shape it is cut into-- it's wood, it is what it is, its not something to instantly change ten minutes before a gig, after all...a player should adapt to the wood and not the other way around-- ya can't be a sudden control freak in this area but it'll work with you if you work with it.

What is your opinion in the case of fretless instruments?

Wouldn't this wear occur for all frets as well?

I have less of an opinion (less strong) with fretless but maybe the nut should be the same material as the fretboard. Well this might onlly work if it's ebony. I am not sure a rosewood nut would hold up. Either way the nut should be barely off the fretboard. (i.e. if possible you should try to get mwah on the open string.)

Wouldn't this wear occur for all frets as well?
You'll get wear on all of the frets, but the zero fret will always be in contact, and a big part of the wear will be from very small movements as the witness point rocks, or moves slightly side to side as you fret the notes you're playing. (by coincidence, the mechanical term often used for this type of wear is "fretting") Tuning up will do it too.



I have to take issue with the constant radius argument on here. A properly dressed constant radius will follow a straight line under the tapered path of the string. Just take a precision straight edge and check the length of the board under each string, if it's done right you won't see any light creeping over the fret tops. I associate the compound radiusing as a great option for guitar players who need to bend a -3rd+ cleanly with low action and don't want choking, but I don't view it as a huge plus on bass. That's just me though, plenty of great ideas and food for thought in this thread.

I fairly certain you're wrong on this one.. Granted, the error can be quite small depending on the layout, and in some cases may be below what you might notice on a quick check with a straightedge. Also you can set the angle such that the errors are averaged (middle strings a touch too low, edge a touch too high), and it'll be even less obvious.

The factors that affect the amount of error are the radius of the board, and the ratio of width between strings at the nut and at the end of the fretboard.

I also talked about string positioning having an effect, but as pilotjones said, that is really negligible. I think it's good to understand the fine details though, even if you plan to ignore them.

I do think a compound radius will be a worthwhile difference. It'll be subtle, but it will allow a lower action.

-Nick

PS: out of curiousity I just tried out the straightedge on the bass I just built. When I measure below the B and G strings, it's quite flat. Just the slightest hair of relief in the centre of the board. The A string has a little more, which agrees with my assertion. I didn't feel the need to level my frets, so you could blame it on that, and in fact my measurements might be bunk, but the effect is definitely legit.

I have less of an opinion (less strong) with fretless but maybe the nut should be the same material as the fretboard. Well this might onlly work if it's ebony. I am not sure a rosewood nut would hold up. Either way the nut should be barely off the fretboard. (i.e. if possible you should try to get mwah on the open string.)

You're not going to get mwah off a zero fret, so I do have an opinion about that. I definitely agree about getting the nut extremely low. It probably shouldn't be the same material as the fretboard though.

Most fretboard materials won't make a good nut. Tone-wise, the subtle muting from the edge of your fingers will be hard to emulate with a nut. I'd think you would want to lean to the duller side of things though if you wanted to get really anal about it.

-Nick

Yeah I was thinking about how you could get the nut to sound like your finger since your finger is effectively the fret. Maybe not have a nut but have a really strong band made of rubber hoding it against the bare fretboard? Someone can do better than that though. let's brainstorm

I'm the guilty party regarding the zero fret blurb that Majestic posted.

I've replaced hundreds of nuts over the years, as well as more zero frets than I care to count. Most of my design choices came about from observing things as a repair guy, so I opted not to use zero frets because they are more costly and involved to replace than a standard nut. That all depends on the customer too, some players don't care if the wire is a duplicate of the original. Stainless is an alternative, but some people feel there is a difference in sound. Many players have very uneven wear depending on positions and keys they like to use so it's not uncommon from my little perspective to see the zero frets wear out relatively quickly as compared to the other frets. It also depends on the break angle of the "nut" right behind it.

In the same blurb (not posted) I go on to say that Rob Elrick and MTD make incredible instruments and players who like a zero fret as an option can't go wrong with either of those choices, I simply choose not to use them in my own instruments.

I have to take issue with the constant radius argument on here. A properly dressed constant radius will follow a straight line under the tapered path of the string. Just take a precision straight edge and check the length of the board under each string, if it's done right you won't see any light creeping over the fret tops. I associate the compound radiusing as a great option for guitar players who need to bend a -3rd+ cleanly with low action and don't want choking, but I don't view it as a huge plus on bass. That's just me though, plenty of great ideas and food for thought in this thread.

Well perhaps a zero fret should be stainless steel. That ruins half my argument for having the same sound as an open fret, but actually I am not quite so sure. In my experience the main difference in sound from using stainless steel frets was that when you fret them they are really clacky. You don't fret a zero fret since it is already down though so it might not make much of a difference. I would agree that it might make a very small tonal difference just from being a slightly different material. But atleast it's metal and has a similiar way that the string goes across it (not restricted laterally.) At the same time you get the perfect precision of the right height at each open string, with little effort. It's still a superior design in my opinion.

I've know builders to use a slightly taller zero fret than the other frets but I think this defeats the purpose

I for one hate having to guess if an allen wrench is metric, US, Venus-standard, or whatever else is out there...they all seem to have too much play or don't fit no matter what size you try. What's wrong with just having a slothead??
My understanding is that the rod does react instantly, but the neck wood needs time to settle after a rod adjustment. Right before a gig seems like the wrong time to be dealing with such drastic adjustments. Wood takes decades to grow into its own grain pattern, and flighty human demands will not change that no matter what shape it is cut into-- it's wood, it is what it is, its not something to instantly change ten minutes before a gig, after all...a player should adapt to the wood and not the other way around-- ya can't be a sudden control freak in this area but it'll work with you if you work with it.

I've seen truss rods that work instantly and its awesome. im not talking huge changes but tweaking my instrument before a gig kinda making sure everything is the way i like it. and i totally disagree with you about the player adapting to the wood, it seems to me if you're gunna put a truss rod in a neck you should put it in the best possible way right? and it should work as best as possible.

The offset Jazz body is the worst. Now with 35 inch scale basses and offsetting the body even more, you have to reach for first position. Why? P bass or stingray. The only 2 basses that have a body that makes sense.

Let me clarify that I am not condoning the use of a dummy coil. But me, personally, I prefer a traditional 2 coil humbucker ...single coil sound is not, IMHO, a benefit over those of a true humbucker.

I can't tell the difference between "true" single coils and the split-singles like Nordstrands or some Dimarzios, except for the lack of hum.

The offset Jazz body is the worst. Now with 35 inch scale basses and offsetting the body even more, you have to reach for first position. Why? P bass or stingray. The only 2 basses that have a body that makes sense.


edit: interesting observation--i haven't noticed it, but after reading, i want to compare the body shapes and tummy cuts to see what you're talking about


...do you mean it's worse if you're sitting with the bass on your plucking-hand side leg? i'm confused, because i thought the concept of the offset waist put the tummy cut further towards the headstock (when standing), which would be opposite of the problem you describe

The things that irritate me the most about some of the basses i've played and owned (and still own) pretty much all have to do with erganomics;

1) Neck Dive - i can't belive that you could make an instrument for so long (fender) and still have this massive design flaw of the necks diving on 90% of their basses i've tried. Having been battling for years with RSI related problems in my wrists i KNOW how bad this problem can be (for me). and yes.. i play a jazz bass!

2) Neck Profile - this is obviously just my opinion, and i'm sure relates directly to my own hands, and everyone will probably differ on this - but i personally don't see how those fatter neck basses (warwick, pbass etc) work for people. i teach a lot of students every week, i've looked into technique extensively (thanks to my RSI's), and i just don't see how people could (when using correct left hand technique) not prefer a slimmer profile. Thicker profiles make the stretch for the fingers, and the curl in the fingers, excessively difficult in lower positions - unless you have huge hands, and then you'd be in the minority. IMO a design flaw.. but i'm sure people will disagree with me.

3) How the bass sits in the lap. If you're a teacher, you know how frustrating it can be trying to teach a beginner how to hold the instrument/basic technique when the neck keeps diving to the ground and/or the lower horn (if it exists) keeps sliding off the leg.

they're the big ones for me..

some good suggestions in this thread for builders! interesting stuff.

on whoever was saying that 24 frets should be minimum.. i just thought i might add that i used to think the same, but i didn't play much slap back then. i don't know, i've just realised how much easier it is to get that solid fundamental when slapping on fender style basses, and i think it has a lot to do with the fact that you have more room between the bridge and neck, and IMO that sweet spot is towards the end of the fretboard on a 20 fret bass. would love to hear some discussion on this..

all the best,
andy

I for one hate having to guess if an allen wrench is metric, US, Venus-standard, or whatever else is out there...they all seem to have too much play or don't fit no matter what size you try. What's wrong with just having a slothead??

Because IME a slothead is far clumsier to use than an allen which, if you use the proper size (I've had no issue finding the right one for any of my basses), has a far greater contact patch.

My understanding is that the rod does react instantly, but the neck wood needs time to settle after a rod adjustment. Right before a gig seems like the wrong time to be dealing with such drastic adjustments. Wood takes decades to grow into its own grain pattern, and flighty human demands will not change that no matter what shape it is cut into-- it's wood, it is what it is, its not something to instantly change ten minutes before a gig, after all...a player should adapt to the wood and not the other way around-- ya can't be a sudden control freak in this area but it'll work with you if you work with it.

That also goes against my experience. I tweak my basses and they don't need time to settle. I'm not even sure how far back that edict about "1/4 turn and wait a day" goes. It's hardly the norm. Heck, I could make a quick tweak during a set if I was bored enough.
:smug:

The things that irritate me the most about some of the basses i've played and owned (and still own) pretty much all have to do with erganomics;

1) Neck Dive - i can't belive that you could make an instrument for so long (fender) and still have this massive design flaw of the necks diving on 90% of their basses i've tried. Having been battling for years with RSI related problems in my wrists i KNOW how bad this problem can be (for me). and yes.. i play a jazz bass!

2) Neck Profile - this is obviously just my opinion, and i'm sure relates directly to my own hands, and everyone will probably differ on this - but i personally don't see how those fatter neck basses (warwick, pbass etc) work for people. i teach a lot of students every week, i've looked into technique extensively (thanks to my RSI's), and i just don't see how people could (when using correct left hand technique) not prefer a slimmer profile. Thicker profiles make the stretch for the fingers, and the curl in the fingers, excessively difficult in lower positions - unless you have huge hands, and then you'd be in the minority. IMO a design flaw.. but i'm sure people will disagree with me.

3) How the bass sits in the lap. If you're a teacher, you know how frustrating it can be trying to teach a beginner how to hold the instrument/basic technique when the neck keeps diving to the ground and/or the lower horn (if it exists) keeps sliding off the leg.

they're the big ones for me..

some good suggestions in this thread for builders! interesting stuff.

on whoever was saying that 24 frets should be minimum.. i just thought i might add that i used to think the same, but i didn't play much slap back then. i don't know, i've just realised how much easier it is to get that solid fundamental when slapping on fender style basses, and i think it has a lot to do with the fact that you have more room between the bridge and neck, and IMO that sweet spot is towards the end of the fretboard on a 20 fret bass. would love to hear some discussion on this..

all the best,
andy


How about teaching students the importance of a good strap? I don't experience neckdive with any of my various basses becuase my straps won't let them dive. If I used a cheaper, more slippery strap it might be and issue. Instead I spent $30 and got good straps.

This also easily addresses your #3. I play with a good strap and keep the bass in the same position whether seated or standing.


I agree on the number of frets.

4) only 20 frets... bad! 21 atleast gets you the the highest E. Some would argue 24 needs to be the standard



I don't get it. A Fender style 20 fret bass has every note exactly three times, no more, no less.

You want at least 21 - which gives you every note exactly three times... except E... you get 4 of those. Why should E be more special than the other 11 notes?

So many songs are in E, especially rock stuff. I've had it happen where I couldn't play that high E when i wanted to a couple of times. But I never worried about a note above that E. Maybe it's me personally but I think atleast few others would agree.

I don't get it. A Fender style 20 fret bass has every note exactly three times, no more, no less.

You want at least 21 - which gives you every note exactly three times... except E... you get 4 of those. Why should E be more special than the other 11 notes?

How about teaching students the importance of a good strap? I don't experience neckdive with any of my various basses becuase my straps won't let them dive. If I used a cheaper, more slippery strap it might be and issue. Instead I spent $30 and got good straps.

This also easily addresses your #3. I play with a good strap and keep the bass in the same position whether seated or standing.


I agree on the number of frets.

You prefer a constant lateral pull on your shoulder to a properly balanced bass?

You prefer a constant lateral pull on your shoulder to a properly balanced bass?

:D maybe he not so much prefers it as accepts it as a simple and fairly tolerable way to handle a bass regardless of the balance

...but then again, maybe he does prefer it--kind of like a hug every time you play!

:D maybe he not so much prefers it as accepts it as a simple and fairly tolerable way to handle a bass regardless of the balance

...but then again, maybe he does prefer it--kind of like a hug every time you play!

Yeah, it is certainly a good way to make a badly balanced bass tolerable, but IMO, it's still a flawed design.

6) without fail, acoustic basses that have super high action (I always wondered why the hell this was).
The higher the action,, the louder acousic instruments get, IIRC.
I used to have my ABG like this, but when I stopped bringing it to jam sessions, I dropped the nut, and bridge saddle down dirt low, and poped on flats, for playability and tone, but the volume was indeed lowered.

BTW, when the action was lowered, before I put on flats, the volume lowered, it wasn't just the flats effect.

Yeah but I have yet to hear an acoustic bass (guitar) that didn't need to be plugged in (high action or not.)

The higher the action,, the louder acousic instruments get, IIRC.
I used to have my ABG like this, but when I stopped bringing it to jam sessions, I dropped the nut, and bridge saddle down dirt low, and poped on flats, for playability and tone, but the volume was indeed lowered.

BTW, when the action was lowered, before I put on flats, the volume lowered, it wasn't just the flats effect.

Yeah but I have yet to hear an acoustic bass (guitar) that didn't need to be plugged in (high action or not.)
Ernie Ball Earthwood!:D

Supposedly the Tacoma Thunderchief,

I have a cheapo ABG, with no cutaway, has no trouble keeping up with a guitar and two to three singers, haven't tried with multiple guitars though.

I have yet to hear an semi-acoustic bass that doesn't sound like crap. Not starting anything with this, it's just every time I hear one it sounds terrible.

That also goes against my experience. I tweak my basses and they don't need time to settle. I'm not even sure how far back that edict about "1/4 turn and wait a day" goes. It's hardly the norm. Heck, I could make a quick tweak during a set if I was bored enough.:smug:

Thats how it should be. i disagree with the allen wrench, i like a gibson style nut, but to each his own. Ive played many basses where the truss rod simply doesnt work the way it should. Its good that your basses dont need time to settle, what kind of truss rods do you use?

You prefer a constant lateral pull on your shoulder to a properly balanced bass?

I don't experience that. I use a good strap. I experience the bass held in place, the only sensation being the weight of it spread out instead of localized.

Thats how it should be. i disagree with the allen wrench, i like a gibson style nut, but to each his own. Ive played many basses where the truss rod simply doesnt work the way it should. Its good that your basses dont need time to settle, what kind of truss rods do you use?

Most of my main basses have Allen type adjusters. I have some others that take a regular wrench, which works but tend to round off over a period of time. I dislike screwdriver type adjusters, phillips or flat, because they usually don't allow the tool to meet the screw straight on.

On the Brubakers they have heavier duty than normal dual action trussrods. I like the dual action because I can dial in back bow. I never have an issue getting straight enough with that.

:D maybe he not so much prefers it as accepts it as a simple and fairly tolerable way to handle a bass regardless of the balance

...but then again, maybe he does prefer it--kind of like a hug every time you play!

And maybe it doesn't happen. Too obvious?
;)

Here's a fun excercise: Try to picture a bass with ALL of the features meantioned in this thread (where they don't contradict). What does it look like? Photoshop it!

the nice part about a regular wrench is that its pretty easy to find a new nut. not sure what its like finding an allen wrench nut.

another design flaw that i see is thick plasticy finishes. some people like em but i personally dont. I take care of my bass but it sees alot of action. Rock gigs, pit gigs, studio work and traveling take a toll on an instrument even if you take care of it. My bass has a thick poly finish and you can see every ding and scratch. not that i really care but it would be nice to be able to take care of these small spots without doin a whole lot of work. I like Oil finishes cause they are easy to apply (when building) look good (in my POV) and when your bass gets scratched or dinged you can just sand it out and put a little oil on it.

Here's a fun excercise: Try to picture a bass with ALL of the features meantioned in this thread (where they don't contradict). What does it look like? Photoshop it!

Now there's an opportunity to open a new thread pointing out the design flaws of the "perfect" bass.

Looks like things are moving full steam ahead into personal preferences rather than actual design flaws.

Now there's an opportunity to open a new thread pointing out the design flaws of the "perfect" bass.

Looks like things are moving full steam ahead into personal preferences rather than actual design flaws.


That's where they've been the whole time;)

I don't experience that. I use a good strap. I experience the bass held in place, the only sensation being the weight of it spread out instead of localized.

cool man.. each to his own.

IME straps definately help (i use wide leather straps on all my basses), but it definately doesn't help enough for me.

As far as teaching my students to play with a strap whilst sitting.. well, i do do that when i need to. But still a massive design flaw in my opinion. You shouldn't NEED a strap whilst sitting down! plus, if i'm doing 4-5+ hours practice a day, sitting down, with a strap pulling on my shoulder.. well, anyone who's been there i'm sure knows what i'm talking about. Neck dive is an issue that should not NEED to be solved - it should be solved in the product development stage, figuring out how the instrument is going to balance whilst sitting AND standing. all IMO obviously.

ps. on another note, i agree that the bass should be in the same position whilst seated and standing. Thats why to me it's so important to have a bass that sits well in the lap, and balances the same when strapped on - so when you put your million hours of practice in sitting down, and then go to a gig and stand up, all your technique doesn't fly out the window.

Because IME a slothead is far clumsier to use than an allen which, if you use the proper size (I've had no issue finding the right one for any of my basses), has a far greater contact patch.

I read somewhere that manufacturers deliberately make the truss rod nut of soft metal so it'll strip before the rod threads do if it's cranked too hard (easier to replace). When you get a second-hand bass, there's the possibility the previous owner used the wrong sized allen wrench and started the process of stripping the female hex receptor of the nut (sorry to use such a technical and/or sexual term LOL). Are all allen wrenches created equal? Usually they are black, but sometimes the ones that come with cheapo basses are that yellow-plated type. Ideally should the wrench be as soft as the nut, or harder?

I read somewhere that manufacturers deliberately make the truss rod nut of soft metal so it'll strip before the rod threads do if it's cranked too hard (easier to replace). When you get a second-hand bass, there's the possibility the previous owner used the wrong sized allen wrench and started the process of stripping the female hex receptor of the nut (sorry to use such a technical and/or sexual term LOL). Are all allen wrenches created equal? Usually they are black, but sometimes the ones that come with cheapo basses are that yellow-plated type. Ideally should the wrench be as soft as the nut, or harder?

The bass makers should be responsible for the stripping of the threads or the female hex receptor of the nut. The allen key makers are not. Hence, soft nuts, and hard wrenches.

That post sounds quite wrong.

Here's a fun excercise: Try to picture a bass with ALL of the features meantioned in this thread (where they don't contradict). What does it look like? Photoshop it!

Probably not far from this :

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/932/682503.JPG

cool man.. each to his own.

IME straps definately help (i use wide leather straps on all my basses), but it definately doesn't help enough for me.

As far as teaching my students to play with a strap whilst sitting.. well, i do do that when i need to. But still a massive design flaw in my opinion. You shouldn't NEED a strap whilst sitting down! plus, if i'm doing 4-5+ hours practice a day, sitting down, with a strap pulling on my shoulder.. well, anyone who's been there i'm sure knows what i'm talking about. Neck dive is an issue that should not NEED to be solved - it should be solved in the product development stage, figuring out how the instrument is going to balance whilst sitting AND standing. all IMO obviously.

ps. on another note, i agree that the bass should be in the same position whilst seated and standing. Thats why to me it's so important to have a bass that sits well in the lap, and balances the same when strapped on - so when you put your million hours of practice in sitting down, and then go to a gig and stand up, all your technique doesn't fly out the window.

BIG +1 here. That's exactly my point, and the force pulling the neck down has to go somewhere. The strap isn't correcting it, it's compensating for it. It can make a neck heavy bass more playable, but just because you can deal with a design flaw such that it doesn't bother you, doesn't make it any less of a flaw.

A good strap can make a huge difference, nobody's disagreeing, but I'd rather not depend on it.

When I built my first bass I knew it would be neck heavy (super wide wenge necked 5 string w/ a 37" scale B string), so I designed the body accordingly. I made the upper horn extra long, and shifted the tail end strap button up a few inches. End result, it's still got a tiny bit of dive, but it's easily managable with a good strap.

I absolutely love the bass, but I still consider the dive a design flaw, which I will correct on the next one I build.

-Nick

cool man.. each to his own.

IME straps definately help (i use wide leather straps on all my basses), but it definately doesn't help enough for me.

I used either a 3" smooth Levy's Leather strap, a Comfort Strapp or a 2.5" suede underside Levy's Leather strap. None are expensive and they all work great.

As far as teaching my students to play with a strap whilst sitting.. well, i do do that when i need to. But still a massive design flaw in my opinion. You shouldn't NEED a strap whilst sitting down! plus, if i'm doing 4-5+ hours practice a day, sitting down, with a strap pulling on my shoulder.. well, anyone who's been there i'm sure knows what i'm talking about. Neck dive is an issue that should not NEED to be solved - it should be solved in the product development stage, figuring out how the instrument is going to balance whilst sitting AND standing. all IMO obviously.

Suppose a larger headstock contributes to the sound? Should that contribution be discarded for the sake of a perfect balance? Not IMO. Getting that sound back is hard... keeping the bass from moving is by comparison very easy.

ps. on another note, i agree that the bass should be in the same position whilst seated and standing. Thats why to me it's so important to have a bass that sits well in the lap, and balances the same when strapped on - so when you put your million hours of practice in sitting down, and then go to a gig and stand up, all your technique doesn't fly out the window.

See the contradiction? I do.
;)

Okay, see if you follow me on this: sitting down the bass is on your lap. I'm guessing you'd agree that's what is supporting the majority of the weight. If you put the strap on while sitting down, the weight of the bass is still being supported by your lap. How much pull on your shoulder do you think you'd experience (or have you tried this?)?

I've been there and I don't experience what you're talking about. I like using the strap because I'm not using anything but the strap to keep the bass in place; neither hand, not my forearm, nothing... I can raise both hands and it stays put.

One of the best changes I made years ago was to place my basses in the same position seated as standing. I found that the strap doesn't really have to provide weight support when seated. It's holding the bass in position.

BIG +1 here. That's exactly my point, and the force pulling the neck down has to go somewhere. The strap isn't correcting it, it's compensating for it. It can make a neck heavy bass more playable, but just because you can deal with a design flaw such that it doesn't bother you, doesn't make it any less of a flaw.

If it doesn't bother you, it's not an issue. If it's not an issue, why would it be a flaw?

A good strap can make a huge difference, nobody's disagreeing, but I'd rather not depend on it.

And I'd rather be able to play any bass I want. Different strokes.
:cool:

When I built my first bass I knew it would be neck heavy (super wide wenge necked 5 string w/ a 37" scale B string), so I designed the body accordingly. I made the upper horn extra long, and shifted the tail end strap button up a few inches. End result, it's still got a tiny bit of dive, but it's easily managable with a good strap.

I absolutely love the bass, but I still consider the dive a design flaw, which I will correct on the next one I build.

-Nick

I read somewhere that manufacturers deliberately make the truss rod nut of soft metal so it'll strip before the rod threads do if it's cranked too hard (easier to replace). When you get a second-hand bass, there's the possibility the previous owner used the wrong sized allen wrench and started the process of stripping the female hex receptor of the nut (sorry to use such a technical and/or sexual term LOL). Are all allen wrenches created equal? Usually they are black, but sometimes the ones that come with cheapo basses are that yellow-plated type. Ideally should the wrench be as soft as the nut, or harder?

Anyone can "gorilla" any trussrod adjuster to the point of breaking it. Can't gorilla proof them. Most that I've seen rounded off were because of using the wrong sized tool or not having proper AND easy access to the adjuster.

I used either a 3" smooth Levy's Leather strap, a Comfort Strapp or a 2.5" suede underside Levy's Leather strap. None are expensive and they all work great.



Suppose a larger headstock contributes to the sound? Should that contribution be discarded for the sake of a perfect balance? Not IMO. Getting that sound back is hard... keeping the bass from moving is by comparison very easy.

There are other ways to balance it. IMO it's worthwhile. Re-positioning the strap buttons, making sure the horn is long enough, and that the bridge (and therefore neck) isn't too far from the tail of the bass, even adding weight can sometimes help.

Nobody's suggesting that balance is the most important characteristic, but I would certainly say unbalanced basses are fairly common, and that it is a design flaw. It's not necessarily a dealbreaker if it's within reason.


See the contradiction? I do.
;)

Okay, see if you follow me on this: sitting down the bass is on your lap. I'm guessing you'd agree that's what is supporting the majority of the weight. If you put the strap on while sitting down, the weight of the bass is still being supported by your lap. How much pull on your shoulder do you think you'd experience (or have you tried this?)?

I've been there and I don't experience what you're talking about. I like using the strap because I'm not using anything but the strap to keep the bass in place; neither hand, not my forearm, nothing... I can raise both hands and it stays put.

One of the best changes I made years ago was to place my basses in the same position seated as standing. I found that the strap doesn't really have to provide weight support when seated. It's holding the bass in position.

I don't see any more contradiction in what he said than what you just explained.

A bass that is neck heavy, and being held in place with the strap will tend to shift as soon as any weight is taken off. Of course the shape of the bottom edge of the bass can have a large effect if you allow it to rest fully on your lap.

if you set your strap high enough that sitting down has no effect, than you're fine. I find my bass most comfortable slightly lower. When I sit, the bass rests on my leg in a similar position to where it is when I'm standing, but the weight on the strap is reduced.

There are other ways to balance it. IMO it's worthwhile. Re-positioning the strap buttons, making sure the horn is long enough, and that the bridge (and therefore neck) isn't too far from the tail of the bass, even adding weight can sometimes help.

You're assuming that hasn't been done in the situation I mentioned. I don't know why.

Nobody's suggesting that balance is the most important characteristic, but I would certainly say unbalanced basses are fairly common, and that it is a design flaw. It's not necessarily a dealbreaker if it's within reason.

In this tangent the subject is balance. I didn't say anyone was suggesting that it's the most important characteristic and as such I have no idea why you're pointing that out. I'd think that was obvious. And while it's not necessarily a dealbreaker, that doesn't mean it's not a dealbreaker. For some.

I don't see any more contradiction in what he said than what you just explained.

Maybe you didn't understand my point. And what contradiction do you see in what I explained?

IF you have the bass in the same position seated as standing* AND your seated position is without a strap, why would putting a strap on while seated put undue pressure on you? You're still primarily supporting the bass with your lap.

A bass that is neck heavy, and being held in place with the strap will tend to shift as soon as any weight is taken off. Of course the shape of the bottom edge of the bass can have a large effect if you allow it to rest fully on your lap.

Not if you're wearing a strap and supporting the bass on your lap as I said. If you do it as I described, the primary support of the weight of the bass is not the strap... the strap is only holding it in place. Most neck dive that I've seen isn't because of a large amount of weight at the neck, it's about a slippery strap that exacerbates the issue.

Here's a quick analogy: Stand a sledgehammer vertically on a floor, with the weight towards the bottom. Now place you finger on the top of the handle. You're using far less effort to balance the sledgehammer vertically than if you picked it up.

if you set your strap high enough that sitting down has no effect, than you're fine. I find my bass most comfortable slightly lower. When I sit, the bass rests on my leg in a similar position to where it is when I'm standing, but the weight on the strap is reduced.

Which is what "I" said. If the weight on the strap is reduced, what effect does that have on the bassist who plays seated for 4-5 hours?

BTW Brubakers have a relatively small headstock and balance great.
:D


*bass349 and I agree on this.

You're assuming that hasn't been done in the situation I mentioned. I don't know why.

No, I was just talking about the original topic "common designs you feel are flawed"

I consider an unbalanced bass flawed. Granted, if it's close enough to be easily dealt with, that flaw won't cause any serious problems.


In this tangent the subject is balance. I didn't say anyone was suggesting that it's the most important characteristic and as such I have no idea why you're pointing that out. I'd think that was obvious. And while it's not necessarily a dealbreaker, that doesn't mean it's not a dealbreaker. For some.

I guess I just don't understand how someone could say that an unbalanced bass isn't a flawed design. I was just trying to clarify that I see it as a flaw, but not necessarily a huge one.


Maybe you didn't understand my point. And what contradiction do you see in what I explained?

IF you have the bass in the same position seated as standing* AND your seated position is without a strap, why would putting a strap on while seated put undue pressure on you? You're still primarily supporting the bass with your lap.

Yes, you would be supporting the bass with your lap, but if that's the case, how is the strap going to help you? It won't keep anything in position unless it's got some weight on it.



Not if you're wearing a strap and supporting the bass on your lap as I said. If you do it as I described, the primary support of the weight of the bass is not the strap... the strap is only holding it in place. Most neck dive that I've seen isn't because of a large amount of weight at the neck, it's about a slippery strap that exacerbates the issue.

The slippery strap is exacerbating the issue that the neck is heavy. Exactly my point. If the bass is balanced, a slippery strap isn't a problem, because the strap doesn't need the traction to keep the bass balanced.

With a strap that is not slippery, the strap has to correct for the imbalance by gripping your shoulder against the force exerted by gravity. There will be a pull on your shoulder, in the direction in which the neck is trying to fall.


Here's a quick analogy: Stand a sledgehammer vertically on a floor, with the weight towards the bottom. Now place you finger on the top of the handle. You're using far less effort to balance the sledgehammer vertically than if you picked it up.


This analogy doesn't fit at all. the end of the lever arm (the top of the handle) would be analog to the end of the headstock, not the shoulder strap. The strap button, which you're lifting the weight of the neck by, is actually fairly close to the fulcrum.

You're taking a sledgehammer which is lying flat on the floor, and then lifting the moderately heavy handle up by lifting at a point a couple inches away from the head. It doesn't take the full force that it would take to lift the whole hammer, but it is an inefficient point to lift from. I won't take the analogy any further than that, because it doesn't take into account the shift of the load as the strap button is moved, etc. It's not that applicable.



Which is what "I" said. If the weight on the strap is reduced, what effect does that have on the bassist who plays seated for 4-5 hours?

BTW Brubakers have a relatively small headstock and balance great.
:D


*bass349 and I agree on this.
Hey, I'm totally with you. A good strap is awesome, and I'd highly recommend that people follow your advice and get one. My bass is a little bit top-heavy, and is still fairly comfortable and easy to play because I have a decent strap.

OTOH, if the bass was balanced better, the strap would be less important, and the bass would be even more comfortable to play, and that's my whole point. (Band-aids are good, but it's better not to cut yourself)

-Nick

eh......?

thats probably one of the worst designes ive seen. some things are ok about it but overall...

eh......?

thats probably one of the worst designes ive seen. some things are ok about it but overall...

What?

No, I was just talking about the original topic "common designs you feel are flawed"

I had mentioned a specific example.

I consider an unbalanced bass flawed. Granted, if it's close enough to be easily dealt with, that flaw won't cause any serious problems.


I guess I just don't understand how someone could say that an unbalanced bass isn't a flawed design. I was just trying to clarify that I see it as a flaw, but not necessarily a huge one.

I'm not saying it's not a flaw. I'm saying it's not as detrimental as many seem to think. Many people think any neck dive is a big deal and I'm saying that with the right strap it's not even an issue. It appears that some think the player will still experience some kind of pulling and I disagree, based on my experience.

Yes, you would be supporting the bass with your lap, but if that's the case, how is the strap going to help you? It won't keep anything in position unless it's got some weight on it.

Balanced or not, a bass that is not being held in place will move easily. A good strap can prevent that. If you have a good strap that keeps the bass from moving, would neckdive still be an issue?

The slippery strap is exacerbating the issue that the neck is heavy. Exactly my point. If the bass is balanced, a slippery strap isn't a problem, because the strap doesn't need the traction to keep the bass balanced.

I don't see it as exacerbating the issue... the issue was already there, it simply didn't address it. Again, even a balanced bass will move easily with a slippery strap. Some people like that.

With a strap that is not slippery, the strap has to correct for the imbalance by gripping your shoulder against the force exerted by gravity. There will be a pull on your shoulder, in the direction in which the neck is trying to fall.

And will that pull be noticeable?

This analogy doesn't fit at all. the end of the lever arm (the top of the handle) would be analog to the end of the headstock, not the shoulder strap. The strap button, which you're lifting the weight of the neck by, is actually fairly close to the fulcrum.

Consider the floor your lap.

You're taking a sledgehammer which is lying flat on the floor, and then lifting the moderately heavy handle up by lifting at a point a couple inches away from the head. It doesn't take the full force that it would take to lift the whole hammer, but it is an inefficient point to lift from. I won't take the analogy any further than that, because it doesn't take into account the shift of the load as the strap button is moved, etc. It's not that applicable.

I don't recall mentioning how you'd pick up the sledgehammer.

Hey, I'm totally with you. A good strap is awesome, and I'd highly recommend that people follow your advice and get one. My bass is a little bit top-heavy, and is still fairly comfortable and easy to play because I have a decent strap.

Do you notice your bass pulling on your strap in the direction of the imbalance?

OTOH, if the bass was balanced better, the strap would be less important, and the bass would be even more comfortable to play, and that's my whole point. (Band-aids are good, but it's better not to cut yourself)

-Nick

I guess it is pulling, based on that statement.

Neckdive is just one of the things a good strap addresses. Even my heavier basses are comfortable to play because of the straps I use. The strap is not a band-aid IMO, it's a staple. That's my point.
:cool:

I had mentioned a specific example.

I'm not saying it's not a flaw. I'm saying it's not as detrimental as many seem to think. Many people think any neck dive is a big deal and I'm saying that with the right strap it's not even an issue. It appears that some think the player will still experience some kind of pulling and I disagree, based on my experience.

Okay, well I was responding within the context of the original post, and of bass349's statement that he though neck dive was a design flaw. As far as the pulling goes, It has to occur.. that's simple physics. If gravity is acting on an object (the neck), and it's not moving there has to be another force balancing it out. that force is the traction of the strap on your shoulder and it will have a horizontal vector. If your strap is wide, and your bass is only a little neck heavy it may be distributed enough that you don't notice it.


Balanced or not, a bass that is not being held in place will move easily. A good strap can prevent that. If you have a good strap that keeps the bass from moving, would neckdive still be an issue?

Well, of course no bass is perfectly balanced so it's all relative, but the 3 basses I own are all slighly neck heavy (as virtually all basses are). All of them stay put just fine, though the heaviest one does apply a significant pull to my shoulder.
One is very close to balanced. I can hold it any way I want, walk, run, turn around in circles, and jump. It takes virtually no effort to keep it right where I want it the whole time.
The middle one is generally okay, but if I turn to quickly or jump it might slide a bit. No big deal.
The great big heavy one, which is definitely the least balanced tends to want to head for the floor if I make any sudden moves.

None of them are badly enough balanced that I'm unhappy with them, but had I not built the neck heavy one with a really long top horn, I don't think any strap would keep it in place, and if it did, it would mean sore shoulders very quickly.




I don't see it as exacerbating the issue... the issue was already there, it simply didn't address it. Again, even a balanced bass will move easily with a slippery strap. Some people like that.


"The slippery strap is exacerbating the issue that the neck is heavy." Your words, not mine.




And will that pull be noticeable?

In this particular case, it is noticeable. It's not bad, because I expected it to be a problem and designed to minimize it. Not all designs do.


Consider the floor your lap.



I don't recall mentioning how you'd pick up the sledgehammer.



Do you notice your bass pulling on your strap in the direction of the imbalance?



I guess it is pulling, based on that statement.

Neckdive is just one of the things a good strap addresses. Even my heavier basses are comfortable to play because of the straps I use. The strap is not a band-aid IMO, it's a staple. That's my point.
:cool:

Ok, I still think your sledgehammer analogy is still all wrong. You do say you're balancing the sledgehammer using your fingers on the tip. I still don't see how you could visualize the strap (or button?) as the tip. I was just trying to make the analogy fit, and suggesting that the leverage is actually working against you, and not for you as your analogy implys.

And yes, a good strap adresses neck dive. On some basses it will reduce it to the point where it's completely imperceptable. On some, it will be good enough to make it work, but not particularily comfortable, and some are just so top heavy that it'll be an annoyance regardless of what you use for a strap.

My band-aid analogy was probably bad, in that you could have taken it to mean that you shouldn't need a good strap unless you have a problem with neck dive, when what I was actually trying to convey is that IMO the neck dive shouldn't be there anyways. The strap may be able to deal with it just fine, but it shouldn't be required to.

Anyways, It seems we're getting a little off track here.
Maybe we should pick up on one of the more interesting tangents.;)

-Nick

...Again, even a balanced bass will move easily with a slippery strap....

I disagree. An evenly-balanced bass will not move at all, regardless of whether the strap is slippery or not. That's what they mean by "balanced" - it stays where you put it, not because of anything to do with the strap, but because the center of gravity is exactly in the middle of the two ends regarding how you have it angled while you're wearing it. This is why moving the strap button changes the balance (changing the strap, on the other hand, doesn't - it only deals with the symptom of bad balance, aka neck dive).

cool bass but a bad design in many ways...

Probably not far from this :

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/932/682503.JPG

not sure what you're saying what too, my wording or my statement but ill clear up both for yah.

That design is flawed. I see a couple of good qualitites about it, but overall i would consider it a bad design.

That bass isn't going to balance anyway you look at it. its probably heavy, like many gibson basses.

one nice thing about that bass is that im guessing it has a neck angle (most gibsons do and also that bridge leads itself toward angled necks) and gibson truss rods tend to work OK.

These are all good mentions.

Also,

A bass that sits too low in the lap. This is common on Warwicks. This not only encourages bad posture, but also lowers the neck, which makes playing much less pleasant (see the low slung rocker approach).

One shouldn't have to slouch to play when sitting down.

I have bad posture and have exercises to improve it, but when playing my warwick, both standing and sitting my posture improves

I think plate style bridges are a flaw. I hate winding my strings around the tuners, and then when I want to change strings I have to pull all those turns of string through a little hole. Bridges like hipshot A style bridges you dont have to do that with. Their individual saddle bridges dont either.

straight (un-angled) headstocks that require string trees - why? Just angle it back. It looks cleaner and is easier to tune (you dont have to reach as far/awkwardly for the G string).

Active electronics where you have to unscrew something to get to the battery. Its slow, clumsy, you need to have a screwdriver handy - just let me pop it out, replace it, and put it back in. I know some basses have this, but the number of them that dont irritates me.

neck heels that dont allow for comfortable access to the higher frets. Fender comes to mind - that square block is probably a cheap, quick, and easy to manufacture joint when it first started, but in the modern-day manufacturing world, making a smoother transition from the neck to the body, even with a bolt on neck, is not hard to do.

+1 on the straplocks being standard by now - they are standard for me.

cool bass but a bad design in many ways...

ergonomically it is rubbish, but design wise its one of the best designed basses ever, because it sold and it was recognizable .

Look up a designer called Luigi Colani, he makes very pretty things, but i can't stand his work because it is largely floored when it comes to function, however he's minted and had an exhibition on him in the design museum. Thats successful design.

That's what ears are for.Not having markings leads to people having to watse time trying to figure out where things are set. With markings they can silently know where things are set... that's what eyes are for.
:smug:

Nah...that's what sound check is for. Sorry, but I just like dome knobs...you can always rotate them so the set screw is pointing at your face, if you prefer.


To be quite honest...the average joe shouldn't be touching the truss rod. One of those "just enough knowledge to be dangerous" areas...

Disagree with this one strongly. Not knowing how to do something as simple as adjusting a trussrod only helps one person...
Should saddle and pickup height be off limits too?

Well, you can't ruin the instrument by tweeking the height of the pickup and saddles....but as the preceeding discussion of truss rod stripping proves, you certainly can ruin it by buggering the rod.

Q: How many guys do you suppose know that you should turn the truss rod 1/8 turn at a time....as opposed to (say) a full turn? A: A frighteningly small number.

You can tweek it between sets all you like, but without a straightedge you're shooting blind....and you'd better be prepared to adjust the bridge saddles as well if you change the relief significantly.

I disagree. An evenly-balanced bass will not move at all, regardless of whether the strap is slippery or not. That's what they mean by "balanced" - it stays where you put it, not because of anything to do with the strap, but because the center of gravity is exactly in the middle of the two ends regarding how you have it angled while you're wearing it. This is why moving the strap button changes the balance (changing the strap, on the other hand, doesn't - it only deals with the symptom of bad balance, aka neck dive).

So if you pull down on the neck the bass will not move? Cool... I can only imagine what's stopping it.

What you're saying doesn't make sense. Ever see Vicor Wooten swing his completely around?
:D

Nah...that's what sound check is for. Sorry, but I just like dome knobs...you can always rotate them so the set screw is pointing at your face, if you prefer.

Cool... and if there's no sound check by all means don't use your ears, right?

Would you consider the setscrew a marking?


Well, you can't ruin the instrument by tweeking the height of the pickup and saddles....but as the preceeding discussion of truss rod stripping proves, you certainly can ruin it by buggering the rod.


And if you do any of the adjustments correctly you won't ruin the instrument either. It's about learning how. The previous discussion only proved a lack of knowing how to do it.

Q: How many guys do you suppose know that you should turn the truss rod 1/8 turn at a time....as opposed to (say) a full turn? A: A frighteningly large number.

And where did that "rule" come from? IME it's not true. Neither is restricting it to 1/4 per day.

You can tweek