| 
09-20-2007, 05:50 AM
|  | Registered User | | Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Saint Petersburg, Russia | | | Why no 4+1 anymore?
Sign in to disble this ad
I wonder why G&L does not do 4+1 headstocks anymore. Is that due to weight concerns? To me, G&L 4+1s look so much better that 3+2s... |
09-20-2007, 09:47 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Lancaster, PA | | | I agree. The 4 + 1 did have a massive headstock though. I'm thinking that neck dive had a lot to do with the change.
__________________
4 strings + 27 tubes = bliss |
09-20-2007, 10:02 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North Dakota | | | I prefer 3+2 |
09-20-2007, 08:42 PM
|  | Smile more, ok?
Staff Reviewer; Bass Gear Magazine Moderator | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Columbia MO | | | i dunno if i remember this right, but i believe they switched after too many necks came back twisted...which they suspected was from having all the stinrg tension on one side of the neck.
my 97 had the neck replaced at the factory with a 3+2, before I owned it tho.
maybe one of the other guys here can confirm this, or call bluff on my crappy old guy memory.
__________________
F/S: Sadowsky and Mooradian gig bag |
09-21-2007, 05:54 AM
|  | Registered User | | Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Philadelphia | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef  i dunno if i remember this right, but i believe they switched after too many necks came back twisted...which they suspected was from having all the stinrg tension on one side of the neck.
my 97 had the neck replaced at the factory with a 3+2, before I owned it tho.
maybe one of the other guys here can confirm this, or call bluff on my crappy old guy memory. | Considering my decaying memory, I can't confirm much, but I read exactly this somewhere during the past week or two. (And it wasn't this post -- I swear!  )
__________________
Jimmie Vaughan: [Y]ou're always trying to get that extra thing to put you over the top..., right? Instead of gear, I've found a cool pair of shoes works just as good.
|
09-21-2007, 07:21 AM
| | Smile more, ok?
Staff Reviewer; Bass Gear Magazine Moderator | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Columbia MO | | Heck, I don't even remember writing that now
__________________
F/S: Sadowsky and Mooradian gig bag |
09-22-2007, 08:10 PM
| | | | |
09-23-2007, 01:54 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Saint Petersburg, Russia | | Quote:
Originally Posted by stingray666 | G&Ls have prettier bodies :-P |
09-27-2007, 07:59 PM
| | |
4+1 is really beautifull to my eyes...  |
09-27-2007, 08:36 PM
| | |
1997, 4+1, L2.5K  |
09-27-2007, 08:44 PM
| | |
1997, 4+1, L2.5K |
06-26-2009, 10:17 PM
| | | | many people think a 3+2 configuration yields a better B string sound due to the added break distance between nut and attachment at tuner. |
06-26-2009, 10:56 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | | Quote:
Originally Posted by stingray666 | As much as BP and Wonderdog protect the brand - and they should, they own neither the 4+1 nor the 3+2 bass headstock. Now, try 4+2 on a guitar and they'll be on you like flies on poo.
Ken... |
06-26-2009, 11:01 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | | Quote:
Originally Posted by sytone many people think a 3+2 configuration yields a better B string sound due to the added break distance between nut and attachment at tuner. | It's actually about the same and not enough different to quibble over.
Man, you guys really dredged this one up.
I have no direct knowledge, but I'd bet Chef is pretty much there. It also balances nicer. Can you imagine a 4+1 on an ASAT bass with a light body?
But they sure are better looking.
Ken... |
07-22-2009, 05:17 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Metro D.C. and Brooklyn, NY | | I don't have neck dive issues with mine...
And my neck isn't twisted, 12 years running. I don't know what everyone is talking about...
unless the fact that my neck is a 4-piece unit rather than one solid piece makes the difference...?   
I curse the day they changed to 3+2.
__________________
CLUBS: #201 Ampeg, #37 nekkid FB, #144 Fretless, #244 G&L, #66 Stingray
Last edited by eastcoasteddie : 07-22-2009 at 05:23 PM.
|
07-22-2009, 05:51 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | | Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoasteddie I don't have neck dive issues with mine...
And my neck isn't twisted, 12 years running. I don't know what everyone is talking about...
unless the fact that my neck is a 4-piece unit rather than one solid piece makes the difference...? | 4 piece? Which is the fourth?
I count three; the two halves of the bi-cut and the fingerboard.
Ken... |
07-22-2009, 06:54 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Metro D.C. and Brooklyn, NY | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Baker 4 piece? Which is the fourth?
I count three; the two halves of the bi-cut and the fingerboard.
Ken... | hey, maybe I don't know squat about how necks are built, but it looks like 4 pieces to me...  
there isn't a separate fingerboard slab glued on. The neck IS the fingerboard...
__________________
CLUBS: #201 Ampeg, #37 nekkid FB, #144 Fretless, #244 G&L, #66 Stingray
|
07-22-2009, 07:19 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | | | Wow! That looks like 4 pieces to me too.
Please forgive my ignorance here, but I've not seen or heard of a bi-cut neck that appears to be more than two pieces, or three including a fingerboard.
The center glue line is where the bi-cut is. You can tell from the view of the back of the neck, where the slight mis-convergence is due to the saw kerf. So that started off as a single piece of wood that was cut in half lengthwise.
The unusual thing is the two outer pieces. The bi-cut was normally done on a single piece of maple, and it was done in such a way that the glue line barely showed at all. Then it was either shaped & finished as-is, or had a fingerboard glued on prior to shaping.
Those extra glue joints will make that neck a bunch stronger than a normal bi-cut neck - very resistant to twisting. I wonder if it was done by design?
Thanks!
Ken... |
07-22-2009, 07:55 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Metro D.C. and Brooklyn, NY | | | Thank you for the lesson!
I had to read it a couple of times to understand it all, but I get it now.
Makes a lot of sense.
Anyone else chime in with info about this???
__________________
CLUBS: #201 Ampeg, #37 nekkid FB, #144 Fretless, #244 G&L, #66 Stingray
|
07-23-2009, 07:13 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: May 2008 Location: Madison, Wisconsin | | Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoasteddie Anyone else chime in with info about this??? | Only that I, like Ken, have never seen anything like it. Very cool. I wonder if they were flirting with a new design when they put that together.
If anyone would know more about this curiosity, my money would be on GG Jaguar. | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | |
