I'm thinking about building a 4-string for my personal use. I'll make most of it out of off the shelf parts mainly from either Warmoth or USACG.

My question is this... when comparing a 4-in-a-row style vs a 2x2 style... does either design have a distinct advantage? The only thing I can think of is the angled 2x2 design doesn't require a string retainer, although I'm not sure why that would be an advantage. From a comfort standpoint, either design is good for me. Does it all come down to visual preference or is there something else to consider?

Anyone care to weigh in on this?

A 2x2 moves your center of gravity ever-so-slightly towards the other end, and allows for a smaller headstock.

The 2x2 design saves a small chunk of wood.

The small chunk of wood at the end of a long lever needs a large chunk of wood at the other end to balance.

Remove both the small chunk and large chunk, and you have a lighter bass.

Oh yeah, i think not having a string retainer also increases tuning accuracy and improves string life.

Your bass will be a little bit shorter wich 'may' improve portability (assuming your case is shorter...)

absolutelly off-topic:
8 string octave bass will look cool in 4Bass+4Treble

absolutelly off-topic:
8 string octave bass will look cool in 4Bass+4Treble

If strung normally (octave strings next to each other), stringing your headstock 4bass+4treble will cause all your strings to bind against each other, making tuning impossible. The stress on your nut will also be one of a kind.

If strung normally (octave strings next to each other), stringing your headstock 4bass+4treble will cause all your strings to bind against each other, making tuning impossible. The stress on your nut will also be one of a kind.


Really??

http://ct.birdsong.googlepages.com/b_8ct2.JPG

Ctbass&birdsong's image btw.

That looks like they are alternating bass treble and i think ehque thought you meant all four bass strings on one side and all 4 treble on the other like so...
B T
B T
B T
B T

That looks like they are alternating bass treble and i think ehque thought you meant all four bass strings on one side and all 4 treble on the other like so...
B T
B T
B T
B T

Yeah...That's what I thought too. Putting all four bass strings on one side of the headstock and all four treble on the other side. I, too, imagined a horendous knot of strings just beyond the nut.

Well that would just be silly. They're just talking about the bass side vs treble side of the headstock, which is how L and R tuners are designated...I hope.

2x2 makes a better angle for the headstock thus eliminating the need of a strin retainer
but 4 in a row looks better IMO

I prefer 4 in a row but it really has a lot to do with body design too. If you have nearly symmetric body (like SG or double cut LP) it's better to have symmetric design in headstock too. Any 5 string setup also looks a lot better with 3+2 setup instead of 4+1 which looks kind of silly in my opinion.

Some people are confusing things a bit. They are equating 4-inline with flat headstock and string retainer, and 2+2 with tilt-back headstock. While these generally go together this way, it is not a rule. I've seen many tilt-back (scarfed) 4-inlines. Flat 2+2s I don't recall, but anything's possible.

Some people are confusing things a bit. They are equating 4-inline with flat headstock and string retainer, and 2+2 with tilt-back headstock. While these generally go together this way, it is not a rule. I've seen many tilt-back (scarfed) 4-inlines. Flat 2+2s I don't recall, but anything's possible.

This is all true, however... I was thinking about putting together a bass using parts from either Warmoth, USACG, etc... and all these places do think of 4-inline with flat headstock and string retainer and 2+2 with a tilt-back headstock. Doesn't have to be this way, but those are without doubt the two different generic designs.

So after reading the above posts it would seem that the only tangible difference between the two different headstock designs would be that the 2+2 perhaps allows for a bass with slightly less weight.

I suppose I started this thread because as I also play acoustic guitar, and instrument design and choice of wood is everything for that instrument... and the unquestioned headstock standard is 3+3 (as opposed to the Fender electric 6-inline) I thought I'd ask.

As best I can tell, the 4-inline for a bass was started because Fender started it that way and it was for a variety of reasons simply easier and less expensive to manufacturer and those considerations were very important to Fender.

Although I think for my bass I'm strongly leaning towards 2+2 for no other reason than I have more of an emotional attachment towards that layout.

Flat 2+2s I don't recall, but anything's possible.

The older Yamaha BB-series 4-strings had flat 2+2 headstocks. My BBN5-II of that era is a flat 3+2.

Asad

The older Yamaha BB-series 4-strings had flat 2+2 headstocks. My BBN5-II of that era is a flat 3+2.

Asad
Cool. Now all we need is a tilt-forward headstock!

Cool. Now all we need is a tilt-forward headstock!

Maybe the whole headstock should pivot. You could push it forward to set all the strings into a drop tuning :ninja:

FWIW, I find 4 inline slightly easier to tune. You just move your hand up the line, you don't have to switch to the other side.

And 2+2 looks much better on a semi-hollow - it goes with the whole acoustic guitar vibe.

2x2 (imo) only fits on a Gibson/Epi instrument.
4 inline makes it look like a Fender.
Maybe you could do a 3x1? 3 on left, 1 on the right...
just a thought...

2x2 (imo) only fits on a Gibson/Epi instrument.

I disagree -- It doesn't have to be a squarish "traditional" headstock:

http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/Images/Guitars/Product/Main/BBN4F.gif

Asad

Well that would just be silly. They're just talking about the bass side vs treble side of the headstock, which is how L and R tuners are designated...I hope.

Isn't that the only way 8 tuners can be laid out, then? i've never seen a octave-tuned bass strung inline.

Maybe you could do a 3x1? 3 on left, 1 on the right...
just a thought...

like an EBMM?
http://myweb.ecomplanet.com/TOWN8019/MyStorage/Logo%20Page%20Pics/B022355_Neck_and_Body_both_May_1985.JPG

Maybe you could do a 3x1? 3 on left, 1 on the right...
just a thought...

Doesn't MusicMan have a copyright on the 3x1 headstock?

I prefer symmetry when it's an option...

Smaller headstock = less neck-dive, too. Also, it's a bit easier on your wrist to tune underhanded (like a reverse headstock) than overhanded (like a Fender headstock), and faster, too, if you have to do it during a bar of rests or something.

Something else to consider... Sometimes when I'm playing live with a drummer, I like to have fun with him by playing one of his crash cymbals "for" him (using my headstock). It's just a fun way to get his attention and the audience seems to like it when I do it. You can't really do that on headstocks with any of the tuning machines on the bottom, without risking knocking the thing out of tune.

A smaller headstock gives you more options when it comes to gigbags & cases. My MTD Artist 5 (4+1) does not fit in my Undercover double-bag because it's too long. When I had a custom neck built for one of my Line6 Variax basses, I specifically wanted it 3+2 so it would fit better in the double-bag (it's a good 1.5" shorter from end-to-end than it would have been otherwise, had I gone with 4+1).

For no neck-dive and the best fit in various gigbags, you could always go headless :smug:

Some people are confusing things a bit. They are equating 4-inline with flat headstock and string retainer, and 2+2 with tilt-back headstock. While these generally go together this way, it is not a rule. I've seen many tilt-back (scarfed) 4-inlines. Flat 2+2s I don't recall, but anything's possible.

Wal also did this:

http://www.trevorandthea.eclipse.co.uk/prohs.jpg

Isn't that the only way 8 tuners can be laid out, then? i've never seen a octave-tuned bass strung inline.

I think you missed the spirit of that. The confusion there was the suggestion of 4 lower gauge strings on the Bass/L and the 4 higher gauge strings on the Treble/R side, crossing strings.

But yes, 8 Tuners in line would also be silly.

Doesn't MusicMan have a copyright on the 3x1 headstock?
MM holds a copyright on the headstock, showing the 3+1 arrangement. IIRC, the attached text does not explicitly mention the 3+1 aspect (again, IIRC, which I may not). If this is the case then I think it would take a familiarity with MM's copyright defense history to know whether they have enforced rights to the particular shape, including the tuners, or a broader right to the 3+1 arrangement. I'd like to know the answer, too.

There was a decent discussion of it here a year or so ago. Should turn up in a search. I don't think there was a final resolution, though.