Welcome to TalkBass, the Premier Bass Player Community and Information Source. Register a 100% Free Account to post and unlock tons of features.
Discussion in 'Hardware, Setup & Repair [BG]' started by RockBobby, Feb 22, 2014.
Between those two, I would go with the round one. I don't want a string guide that the strings have to be fed through.
Use a headstock design that doesn't require a 'fix' to make it work.
I use the bar guide on most of my basses. It does a great job of pulling the A string down at the proper angle just like the other three. It fits nicely between the the 1st and 2nd tuner post. It also adds down force to the nut which increases the tone transfer.
And that was helpful in what way?
Personally I don't like the mushroom type as they often tend to bind. On the other hand I don't much like having to feed strings through tree holes either. And I prefer to reduce the amount of friction on strings to a minimum to keep tuning from being "sticky". To that end I usually use a Graphtech black tusq lubed nut and roller string trees like these:
While I have had a couple where the rollers didn't turn freely, mostly they have been superb and I love them.
On a few of my basses I have installed bar type trees and except for the string feed-through thing, they do seem to work OK. So since you already have it, I'd go with that rather than the sticky mushrooms.
You can also get top loading bar types from hipshot:
What you haven't told us is what headstock type you have. I'll assume it's not angled and you need one or the other. The classic Fender-style for the D and G is sufficient if you can get four good string wraps around the A string tuning post and you'll avoid threading the strings through, which would be a mild convenience every now and again (more so if you use rounds and change them monthly or more often).
The only time I have had any binding on the "mushroom" type was on the ones with the string grooves cut in the bottom. The flat bottom ones work great.
in ref to: "Use a headstock design that doesn't require a 'fix' to make it work."
Couldn't get back sooner- needed coupla px also:
1- headstock angle "does a great job of pulling the A string down at the proper angle" as also, the others.
2- allows straight line from nut to tuner post (been a few recent posts regarding that)
3- no need to bend/tuck strings under or around extra hardware
or thread strings thru holes to string/restring.
4- no drag or snagging of windings on washers/plates, bars, or add'l hardware edges.
5- no need for 'ultralite' tuners to compensate for add'l metal/ hi-mass hdwe added to weight of headstock.
Those few for starters, just from my angle of view-
I'm sure there are plenty of diff views.
IMO a good enough design doesn't need 'work-arounds'.
This is how some of us learn new things- from other's successes or other. And sometimes diff ways are just fun.
You are acting like an angled headstock has no disadvantages. They break easier, which is the biggest disadvantage. They are more prone to drag on the nut. They are definetly not imune to dead spots like you claim. Ultralite tuners are more for neck dive issues.
Correct- didn't mention any disadvantages, but didn't say there weren't any.
"They break easier, which is the biggest disadvantage. ":
Best to not drop a bass on its head, nor try to squeeze thru a doorway too fast, or close a car door before it's fully inside.
"They are definetly not imune to dead spots like you claim.":
Where was that?
"They are more prone to drag on the nut.":
Achieving same 'break angle' whether by angled headstock or use of bars, plates, etc, makes no diff on "drag on the nut".
"Ultralite tuners are more for neck dive issues.":
True- but, doesn't adding more hardware/weight potentially create neck dive?
Close the thread. This turned into a pissing match!
Rock. Retainers and tuners are like choosing politics. Close thread
Mount both of them on the headstock and PISS EVERYONE OFF!!!!!
Separate names with a comma.