• 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.

5-String Headstock Opinions

#41
Personally, I like the 2/3 layout as well. It's a little different than what most builders are doing, and I like different.

But it's really a non issue for me. If I were to buy one, there would be another tuner there anyway. ;)
 
#42
john turner said:
for my opinion, i like the 2+3 more for the nicer handling of the low b - i'd just as soon not have any of the large windings of the low strings over the post if i can help it.
Click to expand...

EXCELLENT point. It's a pain to bend the fat portion of the string around a skinny tuning post. Also, it takes longer for the string to "settle" when fat windings are around the post.

Ergonomically speaking: it's easier to change the tuners on the top of the headstock. Looks-wise: I prefer 2+3 because it's unconventional. But the overriding factor is JT's point above.

To put things in perspective: tuner config isn't going to make or break a sale. But even so, I have a strong preference!
 
#43
I prefer the 2/3 setup for two reasons

1. The pull is straighter
2. My fat fingers have less tuners to get caught up in when my E string is out of tune.

I guess I have a #3 also...


I like the look...
 
#45
As I mentioned earlier, the Fat Part of the String is NOT on the Tuner Post. It just looks that way because of the winding Spread under the Purple Silk. If the String was made Too long for the Bass then It might be a Problem but it is Just fine as it is. We have been using the Same 38" winding length (+/- 1/2") for over 20 years on our 5 & 6 String Basses (and 7s now) with out any problems.
 
#49
Thanks for asking our opinions Ken!!!! It means a LOT to us to have a say in the things you do (even if you don't do what we suggest...)

IMO *I* actually see no aesthetic difference between the two, and if I were deciding from looks alone I really wouldn't care one way or the other.

My only preference would come from the fact that for the first 15 years of playing, all of my basses (4 bangers) had inline 4 tuners, all along the top of the (80's style pointy) headstocks. It was only about 2 years ago that I got a 2+2 headstock, and I still can't get used to turning the tuners on the bottom of the headstock. Now neither of your options is going to alleviate that problem for me (and I DOUBT you're thinking about a 5 inline headstock, I've never seen that done well anyway...) but in the end given your choices I would go for 3+2 to keep the majority where I'm comfortable. I'll also give a +(I lost count) to the straight string pull crowd. All of my basses have had straight pulls from the nut to the tuner. It wouldn't keep me from buying one of your fantastic basses (my wife and anemic checkbook do that) but I have avoided some other brands becuase of it.
 
#51
Ok, here's my turn:

1) normally people just get accustomed with the "usual taste" (shape) and feels kind of highly uncomfortable in accepting a change, even if there's a real, sensible advantage; go figure if the advantage is barely perceivable or only "psychological"! The change, if implemented, will be completely "absorbed" quickly (I think): just remember how "ugly and totally unacceptable" the Sting Ray headstock "felt" when the bass came out on the market! Think about the world without it now!!!

2) the 2+3 objectively offers some advantage, some extra "breath" to the low B but also (unquoted up to now)...

3) ...less-string-beyond-the-nut for the G (and D) as well!!! And this might give to the G (and D, too) another new "flavour" and feel under the fingers: Gary Willis clearly states that he never liked the Fender strings configuration because the G feels too "stiff" (his respected opinion!!!) so he set for his own 2+3 optimal configuration (after Mike Tobias precious input, anyway!) that both solves the tighter B feeling and the "better singing G" at the same time

4) the 2+3 would be highly desirable, specially on the Ken Smith more traditional headstock (MVVHO, obviously) because this headstock design is the one that suffers "more" of the B closeness to the nut on the market. I mean: if you look at the Lakland headstock, it clearly derives from the standard Fender 4 in line (therefore supposed 5 in line or 4+1 for the five strings) but for his 5ers Lakin simply "aborted" the B too close to the nut position for an almost Fender-traditional long headstock with the 3+2 (introduced by G&L first, anyway!)

Another headstock that might greatly gain by this 2+3 "switch" is the Warwick headstock

To say it all, I frankly always wondered "what are these Smith and Warwick guys waiting for!!"

;-)

In addition, the Warwick should also go thru another intelligent move, that Ken made already, in intelligently redesigning his headstock, narrowing the top headstock part, so to keep the strings as close togheter and in-line with the nut slot as it is possible up to the tuners posts.

Ok, my english is terrible sometimes but... the matter is complex and highly subjective!!! (Bill Evans was used to say that the words are the children of the thoughts, go figure the translated ones!!)

My 2 euro-cents!!!
V.
 
#55
Ken, you said that with the 2/3, you felt something ever so slightly, but you felt it. Ever try pushing that B even further up, to see if it becomes more evident?

I posted somewhere else where someone made a 33" bass that the B felt great on. Extended b headstock thingy (technical term for the new millenium) and tilted headstock is all I could tell from it.........

If it buys you ANYTHING, I say 2/3.
 
#56
KSB - Ken Smith said:
I have been making both 3/2 regularly and 2/3 by request for the last few years. I would like to offer the 2/3 as standard just to cut down on confusion in the shop and offer the original 3/2 only by special request instead.

What are your thoughts, opinions and preferences on this subject?

This would be our new Standard 5-String Tuner layout. Your responses and opinions will be appreciated.

Here are the two ways as mentioned; 3/2 Invalid Link Removed

Or 2/3 http://www.kensmithbasses.com/nammshow/namm04/images/anniv(H).jpg

I posted the URLs because I don't know how to post the pics.. Mods?? Please post the Pics instead of my URLs if you see fit to do it... Thx...
Click to expand...

I like 3 on the left(low strings) and 2 on the right. When did you start doing the angled tuner thing ?
 
#59
I'd go with 2/3 rather than 3/2.

Contrary to what others have said, I find it easier to tune the lower pegs than the upper. That's for any tuning where the fretting hand is operating the machines. Certainly, tuning on-the-fly with your picking hand, it's probably easier to reach the upper tuners, but that's rare for me.

Second, the straighter the pull over the nut the better. I would even consider requesting an adjusted headstock shape to create straighter lines to the tuners.

Third, if there is any improvement of B string feel, no matter how slight, it should be taken advanage of.

-Bob
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back