SX bass headstock

foetus66 · #1 02-07-2013, 03:11 AM

Wow, you guys are passionate about the headstocks on these cheap basses. There are several threads about them. So, I have a question about 'em that doesn't seem to have been covered.

I don't mind the shape of the new headstocks, kinda reminds me of old Peavey T series or something, which I like. But from what I can tell in pictures of them, they look HUGE. Like, half the size of the body. (ok, maybe a third).. Looks like you could use it for a barbell.

Is this just the pictures playing tricks on me? I'm interested in possibly picking one up. Specifically, a shortscale one, which might add to the headstock's large appearance, but pics of other shortscale basses don't seem to strike me as having this problem.

BlueTalon · #2 02-07-2013, 03:13 AM

Mine is roughly the same size as a Fender Jazz headstock.

foetus66 · #3 02-07-2013, 03:14 AM

Another possibility just struck me -- is the body just on the small side?

BlueTalon · #4 02-07-2013, 03:28 AM

THAT is quite possible. They make a bass the call 3/4 size (as if it's a cello or something). The bodies on those are cartoony small. And the neck is small, and the headstock is normal size.

Rip Topaz · #5 02-07-2013, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueTalon

THAT is quite possible. They make a bass the call 3/4 size (as if it's a cello or something). The bodies on those are cartoony small. And the neck is small, and the headstock is normal size.

+1. My son has a 3/4 size SX, and the headstock looks pretty freakish on that size. The body is tiny but the headstock is full sized. On the full sized ones it looks fine.

dabbler · #6 02-07-2013, 03:57 AM

If anything is large on the SXes, it's the bodies. Ibanez, Squier and SX for comparison:

foetus66 · #7 02-07-2013, 04:04 AM

Thanks for clearing that up. I wonder if that is the case with ALL of their 30" scale basses.

xantometapon · #8 02-07-2013, 04:41 AM

I have a short scale SX Ursa 4 model (kind of Jaguar shape)
I think the headstock is ok in it´s size. Do not think is that big at all.

At least in my bass, it looks fine in relation to the body.

What I don´t like at all is the shape of it.
Right now it is been cutted by a luthier to make it a little more "fender" like.

Besides that, I really like the bass.
Thinking about buying another shorty but with a P/J configuration.

Rip Topaz · #9 02-07-2013, 04:44 AM

The thing I wonder about with everyone cutting their headstocks, is it putting the bass more at risk of dead spots by reducing the mass of the headstock?

It just seems to me that it may be better to just leave it be.

xantometapon · #10 02-07-2013, 04:44 AM

Just to add some more info, the body of my Ursa 4 is almost, almost the sime size as the body of my Warwick LX4.

xantometapon · #11 02-07-2013, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rip Topaz

The thing I wonder about with everyone cutting their headstocks, is it putting the bass more at risk of dead spots by reducing the mass of the headstock?

It just seems to me that it may be better to just leave it be.

Wow!
Didn´t think about that.

Well, it is already being made so let´s hope nothing bad happens...

mcnach · #12 02-07-2013, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xantometapon

Wow!
Didn´t think about that.

Well, it is already being made so let´s hope nothing bad happens...

Adding or reducing mass at The headstock does note induce or cure dead spots, on itself.
The reason people sometimes add mass to cure deadspots is that it will shift the frequency at which you will have a deadspot. It is unpredictable, but it can often move it to a frequency that won't bother you, away from the original range...

bassbenj · #13 02-07-2013, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rip Topaz

The thing I wonder about with everyone cutting their headstocks, is it putting the bass more at risk of dead spots by reducing the mass of the headstock?

It just seems to me that it may be better to just leave it be.

Just one or two data points. I always do the "dixiecup" mod on my SX Ursa headstocks and have never seen it cause any dead spots. On the contrary, I have an Ursa 5er that indeed has a mild deadspot on the fretted neck. And I can say that the headstock mod (unfortunately) made no difference to the existing dead spot. Though, that Ursa bass has two necks the other one being fretless (with ebony blank plank fingerboard modded by me from standard lined maple SX fretless neck). Luckily, the fretless neck has no dead spots and is absolutely amazing, so that is the one that usually stays on the bass.

Rip Topaz · #14 02-07-2013, 11:03 AM

Wow, really?

Can we see the fretless? That sounds really cool.

jdfarrell81 · #15 02-07-2013, 11:16 AM

The first SX short scale J-bass I ordered was fantastic. The second one had a body that was ridiculously small. It's a possibility to be aware of, but Kurt at Rondo is great with customer service.

Mastermold · #16 02-07-2013, 11:21 AM

The new SX five string headstock is larger than the older Sadowsky'ish one. I don't like it. But the four string models don't seem much larger if any.

**ronaldpdbrandt** · #17 02-07-2013, 11:27 AM

They actually have some of the old-headstock necks in stock right now. I just ordered one myself.

http://www.rondomusic.com/product3922.html

bassbenj · #18 02-07-2013, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rip Topaz

Wow, really?

Can we see the fretless? That sounds really cool.

Here's some quick and dirty photos. Unfortunately my computer with the image adjusting software is dead so they are a bit dark, but you get the idea.

and

Cool new pickguard, eh?

Electronics have been changed: Vol with push-pull series/parallel; blend; tone; toggle switch for .015 ufd/off/.047 ufd.; jack. Still passive. Strings are GHS pressure-wounds. And Oh yeah, that is a Graphtech nut. I made the string tree out of a piece of stainless rod.

Is this thing Booteek or what? it sounds as good as it looks!

Rip Topaz · #19 02-07-2013, 08:25 PM

Love it!! Great looking bass.

1bassleft · #20 02-07-2013, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronaldpdbrandt

They actually have some of the old-headstock necks in stock right now. I just ordered one myself.

http://www.rondomusic.com/product3922.html

Wow, that is so cheap. My two wishes are
(1) that this bass:
http://www.rondomusic.com/pisces2tslh.html

had that headstock (although the current one is Tele-able) and, more importantly,

(2) Rondo didn't insist on overseas buyers purchasing a hard case. I understand why, of course, but it adds to the cost, the shipping and all of that then adds to the import tax.

It turns a no-brain bargain into a "hmm, think about it." My alternative option is the Czech (EU = no import tax) Bach:
http://www.bachmusik.com/en/bach-bpb-60-but-lh_p1185

but their lefty, although I like butterscotch, is horrible basswood - just about the worst thing for a trans finish. Last year, my son went on a school band trip to NY and DC - why didn't I get one posted to his hotel?