Anyone surprised by the return of headless popularity?

[Gilmourisgod]

Im not sure the current crop of headless tuners really are an improvement on the original Steinberger design, which is brilliantly simple, more like deliberate changes that are just different enough to be called "new". Does Ned still hold a patent on the original design? There are some Chinese knockoffs that look.a lot like the original bridge design called Overlords of Music, by all accounts a POS of the first order. The NS design clamping system is pretty ingenious, but hasnt been around long enough to say much about long term reliability, and Ned hasnt licensed it out to anyone else AFAIK.

 

[kumimajava]

Im not sure the current crop of headless tuners really are an improvement on the original Steinberger design, which is brilliantly simple, more like deliberate changes that are just different enough to be called "new". Does Ned still hold a patent on the original design? There are some Chinese knockoffs that look.a lot like the original bridge design called Overlords of Music, by all accounts a POS of the first order. The NS design clamping system is pretty ingenious, but hasnt been around long enough to say much about long term reliability, and Ned hasnt licensed it out to anyone else AFAIK.

Indeed the original design is simple - but for that reason, also lacked some functionality which many people appreicate - such as being able to adjust string spacing easily. Equally, with the increased popularity of multiscale intruments, the ability to stagger individual tuners is a welcome addtion for some. Of course, the individual ABM tuners that have been around for ages - also allowed this multiscale stagger, but those also did not allow for easy adjustment of string spacing (due to the way the height-adjustment is handled).

So if all you play is single-scale 4-string instruments (or narrowly-spaced 5s) with no desire to adjust string spacing, then the original Steinberger bridge is wondefully functional and not significantly limiting. And this is probably by far the most 'common' buyer/player segment. But if you preferences lie elsewhere, I can see how the newer generation of more adjustalbe tuners *really* is an improvement. To me: it's nice to have more options, and always interesting to see what new design opportunities this enables.

I've not tried the new NS-design clamping bridge, so can't comment about that.

 

[ardgedee]

Im not sure the current crop of headless tuners really are an improvement on the original Steinberger design, which is brilliantly simple, more like deliberate changes that are just different enough to be called "new". Does Ned still hold a patent on the original design? There are some Chinese knockoffs that look.a lot like the original bridge design called Overlords of Music, by all accounts a POS of the first order. The NS design clamping system is pretty ingenious, but hasnt been around long enough to say much about long term reliability, and Ned hasnt licensed it out to anyone else AFAIK.

Any patents on the original Steinberger tuners should have expired a long time ago, but Ned sold them with his company to Gibson in the late 80s so he wouldn't have been able to license them anyway.

I've read that the string claws for the original Steinberger bass bridges were a weak point, vulnerable to breakage under ordinary wear'n'tear. I don't know if it's because the design was bad, or they were not made well.

Most of the current generation of non-Steinberger-design tuning bridges seem to be both simpler and more robust -- which doesn't necessarily mean they're better or easier to use, but they should at least hold up well. Though yeah, the Overlord of Music knockoff is a pretty shabby reproduction.

 

[evs]

I bought one after I smacked the singer in the head on a small stage. I turned around and he wasn't supposed to be there. He knocked my bass out of tune!

Bastard. I hope apologised

 

[Snert]

I've read that the string claws for the original Steinberger bass bridges were a weak point, vulnerable to breakage under ordinary wear'n'tear. I don't know if it's because the design was bad, or they were not made well.

HeadlessUSA have replacement stainless units. I bought some through Steinberger World maybe 20ya for my XL2.

Also, how many people actually adjust their spacing at the bridge?

 

[Barticus]

Also, how many people actually adjust their spacing at the bridge?

Agree, it’s like a universal fit for adjusting spacing that you adjust to get to your preferred spacing. I’ve had the regular version of this bridge on basses and didn’t work well for me as it didn’t really give me the tight spacing I wanted. Bit I’m sure there are big fans of it.

 

[Snert]

Agree, it’s like a universal fit for adjusting spacing that you adjust to get to your preferred spacing. I’ve had the regular version of this bridge on basses and didn’t work well for me as it didn’t really give me the tight spacing I wanted. Bit I’m sure there are big fans of it.

I simply don't get the spacing issue, by that I mean, being really picky about it, and I'm basing this on many posts I've read here.

For my 5s and 6s, I prefer 16ish, but am looking at a 6 with 18 and I'll have to adjust (buying at a distance and it's not cheap). But I also have a SRC6 and guitars at 10.5 and I never use a pick. Many seem to be able to move between bass and guitar, or mandolin, or banjo etc. It just takes practice.

 

[Barticus]

I simply don't get the spacing issue, by that I mean, being really picky about it, and I'm basing this on many posts I've read here.

For my 5s and 6s, I prefer 16ish, but am looking at a 6 with 18 and I'll have to adjust (buying at a distance and it's not cheap). But I also have a SRC6 and guitars at 10.5 and I never use a pick. Many seem to be able to move between bass and guitar, or mandolin, or banjo etc. It just takes practice.

Yep same for me 16-17mm and switch between guitar playing with fingers without issues. However 18mm just feels too wide unless the nut is super narrow which makes it more comfortable to play. My Mayones Patriot 5 has a narrow and thin neck with 18mm spacing at the bridge and it’s tolerable to play. However, my Status Streamline 5 with 18mm spacing does not feel as comfortable, and I really wish I could’ve ordered that one with 16.5mm spacing instead.

 

[Snert]

However, my Status Streamline 5 with 18mm spacing does not feel as comfortable, and I really wish I could’ve ordered that one with 16.5mm spacing instead.

I wanted to order a Streamline 5 with 16.5mm, but could never scrape up the shekels, then Status closed. This is why I mentioned on another thread that I wouldn't mind machining up some bits to make my old S3000 to make it a narrow 5 circa 14mm. S/H Status prices are just stupid at the moment and I think they will be for some time.

 

[kumimajava]

I simply don't get the spacing issue, by that I mean, being really picky about it, and I'm basing this on many posts I've read here.

I guess the converse question would be: why *not* have the spacing adjustable, if it doesn't significantly weaken the design?

It may be something as simple as a preferring 'equal center-to-center' spacing vs 'equal gaps between strings' spacing (i.e. progressively wider center-to-center going towards lower strings). A few players (and builders) have a strong preference for the latter - and many 'non-adjustable' bridges use the former, since of course they can't predict what gauges would be used. And a myriad of other individual prefefrences for something other than the stock spacing...

Likely in most situations it's possible to get used to the 'standard setup', but why not adjust the instrument to your comfort from the outset, if the hardware allows it?

 

[ctmullins]

I had a four-string with a Steinberger bridge (the DB version, which was super-cool). I sold it, because the 18mm spacing was too wide. A very nice bridge otherwise.

 

[foal30]

Any patents on the original Steinberger tuners should have expired a long time ago, but Ned sold them with his company to Gibson in the late 80s so he wouldn't have been able to license them anyway.

I've read that the string claws for the original Steinberger bass bridges were a weak point, vulnerable to breakage under ordinary wear'n'tear. I don't know if it's because the design was bad, or they were not made well.

Most of the current generation of non-Steinberger-design tuning bridges seem to be both simpler and more robust -- which doesn't necessarily mean they're better or easier to use, but they should at least hold up well. Though yeah, the Overlord of Music knockoff is a pretty shabby reproduction.

I have not had a string claw problem on my L2

 

[foal30]

I wanted to order a Streamline 5 with 16.5mm, but could never scrape up the shekels, then Status closed. This is why I mentioned on another thread that I wouldn't mind machining up some bits to make my old S3000 to make it a narrow 5 circa 14mm. S/H Status prices are just stupid at the moment and I think they will be for some time.

Did you used to drive an old Holden?

 

[Hummergeist]

I gave up on headless basses after years, because of the poor availability of strings. And I don't want to use clamps. I've owned an original Steinberger with the curved clip-on leg stand and rotating strap plate, two or three Spirits, a Synapse 5 string, and a Spirit guitar.

 

[Zooberwerx]

I gave up on headless basses after years, because of the poor availability of strings. And I don't want to use clamps. I've owned an original Steinberger with the curved clip-on leg stand and rotating strap plate, two or three Spirits, a Synapse 5 string, and a Spirit guitar.

I could survive on the available double ball-end sets but, admittedly, the offerings are limited. For the most part, the clamping systems leave a lot to be desired. My hands-down favorite is the lock-down on the Zon Vinny which employs right-angles, locking grub screws, and compression bars...a triple threat! Reverse-stringing (ball-end at headstock) opens up addt'l avenues. The Kubicki ratcheted-wheel is a bit cumbersome...the more compact NS Design works just as well if not better. I would have no trouble with a properly-designed lock down and conventional micrometer tuning machines.

Riis

 

[ctmullins]

I like a good double-ball setup. I don’t find the string availability limiting; I can find a stainless round wound set with little trouble.

I have three basses with the Nova headpiece, and have had zero issues using single-ball strings with those. The lock-down screws are generously sized, which makes things quite secure without unduly crushing the windings.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

I like a good double-ball setup. I don’t find the string availability limiting; I can find a stainless round wound set with little trouble.

I have three basses with the Nova headpiece, and have had zero issues using single-ball strings with those. The lock-down screws are generously sized, which makes things quite secure without unduly crushing the windings.

That's good to know, I remember my XP-2 came with a single ball string adapter that was effectively useless, it cut through the windings every time. String lengths can be finicky with double ball, I bought a set of the Funkmaster stainless double-ball strings Mark King uses, super-light .030 to .90 recently, same set I've been buying for years, and they wouldn't fit! They have stopped making them to Steinberger spec in favor of a more generic length. The strings are slightly too long, you can't get enough travel on the bridge claws to tighten them up to pitch. I could kludge it by adding washers up at the headstock... or something..., but it would look like a##. Might have to give up on the Funkmasters, which is a bummer, I like to bend them like guitar strings.

 

[Bob_Ross]

So if all you play is single-scale 4-string instruments (or narrowly-spaced 5s) with no desire to adjust string spacing, then the original Steinberger bridge is wondefully functional and not significantly limiting. And this is probably by far the most 'common' buyer/player segment. But if you preferences lie elsewhere...

Exactly...hence my earlier comment re: someone's "leap-of-faith". 'Cuz we're already talking about a niche product -- bass guitars -- and then an even narrower niche subset of that -- headless bass guitars. And so now someone comes up with the brilliant idea "Wait, there aren't enough options available for those players of headless bass guitars who might also want adjustable string spacing, or multi-scale instruments, or individual string saddles, or etc. etc."

How did that entrepreneur convince investors this was a profitable endeavor?!?! That's what surprises -- hell, completely amazes -- me!

 

[ardgedee]

I imagine the main advantage of a bridge with adjustable string spacing is not for the user's sake but the manufacturer's and bass guitar maker's. Instead of having to tool up four or five bridges with slightly different spacing, they only have to make the tooling for a single, slightly more complicated bridge. The bass guitar maker doesn't have to keep four or five different bridges in inventory, trying to guess which one will be the most popular, they only have to keep one model of bridge.

If a fraction of users want to take advantage of the feature to further alter string spacing to their liking, it's mostly a marketable bonus.

 

[Bass4LifeRS]

Yep same for me 16-17mm and switch between guitar playing with fingers without issues. However 18mm just feels too wide unless the nut is super narrow which makes it more comfortable to play. My Mayones Patriot 5 has a narrow and thin neck with 18mm spacing at the bridge and it’s tolerable to play. However, my Status Streamline 5 with 18mm spacing does not feel as comfortable, and I really wish I could’ve ordered that one with 16.5mm spacing instead.

On the Streamline, if you ordered the 16.5 mm spacing, the neck width was still the same as if you had the 18mm. Just the strings were closer.