If you like 2 + 2 consider buying a non Fender bass.
I did. Not dissing Fenders, just wanted something different.
I did. Not dissing Fenders, just wanted something different.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
The Soundgear line does nothing for me, really. Not saying that they're bad, just I'm not into them at all.Everything can be a factor in what makes a bass a good bass for me.
I like them a bit more, but not way more. The Soundgear line is an excellent, versatile design.
This headstock and it's logo are so awful, I honestly thought the picture was corrupted at first glance.
Meh. Not a fan.
A lot of European guitars used a similar style, incline German makers who came over to the US like the Martin family. They also influenced the Travis Bigsby that predates the Strat by 15 years...
So in this thread we realize some bass players don't like what other bass players like or don't care about.
Just having fun...
I haven't been around much on these forums the past few years so Im sort of getting a kick reading about the various idosycnreacies some of us have..first it was the weight thread where people obsess about literally a couple of ounces difference in the same model bass now it's the inline headstock.
In no way mean any of that in a negative way either, it's just sort of an amusing observation to me.
Just having fun...I haven't been around much on these forums the past few years so Im sort of getting a kick reading about the various idosycnreacies some of us have..first it was the weight thread where people obsess about literally a couple of ounces difference in the same model bass now it's the inline headstock.
In no way mean any of that in a negative way either, it's just sort of an amusing observation to me.
The Fender in-line 4 headstock was designed to reduce the cost of manufacturing the instrument. By having all of the tuners on one side, only one part number was required for the tuners. If tuners are on both sides of the headstock, two part numbers are required (left hand and right hand). Also, the straight headstock is less costly to manufacture than an angled headstock. Since the string break angle over the nut is less, string trees are required to maintain the proper tension.
From a purely technical perspective, the angled headstock with 2 x 2 tuners is the better approach. In practice, Fender basses are a mainstay of the musical landscape. Other than the neck dive that can occur due to the heavy headstock, I don't think there are any practical implications for Fender's manufacturing cost cutting.
From a purely technical perspective, the angled headstock with 2 x 2 tuners is the better approach. In practice, Fender basses are a mainstay of the musical landscape. Other than the neck dive that can occur due to the heavy headstock, I don't think there are any practical implications for Fender's manufacturing cost cutting.
I shouldn't have said that. I got no problem with metal or any other kind of music, and it isn't metal that sits at the bottom of my personal list, but glam rock/hair band rock. And it seems like those 4 inline/angled headstock anyway basses were the choice of bands like that. It was an 80s thing, too, probably. That design (includes paint but no pickguard, often black hardware and sharkfin inlays) was kind of a fad, and deservedly went away.
Or maybe I'm misremembering all of it. Anyhow, the headstock I like the least is inline and angled. And has mini tuners. IMO, if you're gonna go inline, use clover tuners, a flat neck and a string retainer. If you're gonna angle the neck, go 2 + 2 or 3 + 2. 4 + 1 should be flat.
I'd like to see that myself, but I'd rather have a used one in good shape. I bet it would cost less than a reissue, too.
What about lollipop tuners on a 4 in line headstock?
I don't like 4+1, personally. I prefer 5 in line aesthetically, or 3+2/2+3.
Love 'em. I've been planning a '66 J inspired bass for a while now.
I like 4 + 1 on Fender-style fivers just fine, waaaay better than I like 5 inline. The reason I haven't bought a 20 fret 5-string neck from Warmoth is because they won't do anything but 5 inline. G&L does a 3 + 2 on a Fender -style headstock which looks great.
With an attitude like that, how are we ever going to get into an online argument over absolutely unimportant stuff?
M. M.
I just put lollipop tuners on my Peavey, and I think they look better with the shape of the headstock than the clover style ones it had before did.
4+1 just always looks off to me. Like that one tuner was just tacked on as an afterthought. It looks lonely.
It's remarkable how worked up people get over trivia like headstock configurations. It's yet another variant of, "Academic politics are so vicious simply because the stakes are so small."
i don't think luthiers would consider there headstock designs and configurations trivial. headstocks are the easiest way to identify the brand of most guitars so of course they put a lot of thought into what they want to represent there brand. fender tried a 2x2 headstock and it didn't fly. because that is not what a fender headstock is suppose to look like.
headstocks are guitars hood ornament.
