common designs you feel are flawed

[dblbass]

A lot of #1 type bridges allow for through body stringing.

#2 what's worse... possible neck dive or dead spots?

Its definitly possible to have a small headstock and not have dead spots.
many things can cause dead spots. perhaps the instruments you're refering to had those other problems.

joey k

 

[Brad Johnson]

Its definitly possible to have a small headstock and not have dead spots.

I didn't say it wasn't. Heck, look at my main basses.

many things can cause dead spots. perhaps the instruments you're refering to had those other problems.

joey k

Perhaps not.


I do know of luthiers who've attributed a lack of dead spots on their instruments as a result of at least their headstock design as a factor. Headstock mass is also behind the idea of a Fatfinger IIRC.

I really don't get the logic of your post, consider what I actually said.

 

[dblbass]

I didn't say it wasn't. Heck, look at my main basses.




Perhaps not.


I do know of luthiers who've attributed a lack of dead spots on their instruments as a result of at least their headstock design as a factor. Headstock mass is also behind the idea of a Fatfinger IIRC.

I really don't get the logic of your post, consider what I actually said.

I thought your post was saying that a small headstock will give you dead spots, therefore i posted my comment. Im sayiing headstock size doesnt matter when it comes to dead spots. seems logical to me.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I thought your post was saying that a small headstock will give you dead spots, therefore i posted my comment. Im sayiing headstock size doesnt matter when it comes to dead spots. seems logical to me.

Nope, wasn't saying that... and I'd disagree with your second statement too. Mass at the headstock AFAIK has been shown to affect deadspots.

Not that deadspots have been an issue on any of my basses. That's the beauty of shredding regardless of context. No boring long notes.

 

[Arx]

A problem caused by people being to cheap or lazy to anticipate it isn't much of a problem IMO. And "bad maintainence" can also be chalked up to the same thing.

Most people carry a bass in something. What's a good reason not to put a strap in that same something?

Of course, but sometimes you take it out to use it, and forget to put it back or whatever. It happens, not all of us are perfect.

What's a good excuse for not keeping a spare one?

I'm not that anal. In this particular case if I did have a spare, it still would have been with my other bass and not with my backup. I suppose I could buy 2 straps for every bass I have, but I think you get the point.

It's like taking only one instrument cable and hoping that if it breaks, someone else who's more prepared will come to the rescue. Otherwise you're screwed. Or using active basses and not carrying spare batteries.

It's not really like that at all. I expect instrument cables to get screwed up frequently. I expect batteries to die. I really don't expect my strap to break, etc. However, on the off chance that something does happen it's nice to know that I could buy/borrow another one on short notice, without figuring out where to get the buttons.

And if they weren't too cheap or lazy to carry a spare strap...

I've never had a strap break on a show but is that the only reason to have a spare? No.

I'm sensing a theme here.

I guess really I just don't see much advantage to a recessed lock. I don't think anyone notices the looks much when the bass has a strap on it and I think the strength issue is pretty much negligible.

Pros:
Looks, arguably.
Strength (doubt it'll ever be an issue if they're correctly installed)

Cons:
In the event that I do something stupid, finding a strap becomes a major problem instead of a minor embarrassment.

I think I prefer the ones that'll take a normal strap (The original ones are silly though. If you can't use a normal strap, may as well have the flush mount ones.)

A lot of #1 type bridges allow for through body stringing.

Yes, but they don't require through body stringing, so it doesn't in any way negate the benefits to someone who doesn't care about stringing through the body. As long as there's a quick release, the other silly options are fine. My latest bass has a through body option. I think it's stupid so I don't use it.

I like the quick release, and it's so trivial to implement that leaving it out seems like bad design.

#2 what's worse... possible neck dive or dead spots?

Your wording implies that not having a heavy headstock WILL cause dead spots.

I wouldn't want a bass with either.

My next bass is going to be a lightweight headless which will balance perfectly on my shoulders. If it doesn't balance perfectly, it's trivial for me to add a small amount of weight to the lighter end. It's not so simple to lighten the heavy end of a finished instrument which is already too heavy.

My current bass is a prime example. It's big, heavy, and I love the sound, but it relies on the strap too much to keep it in place. I may add a couple pounds of lead to the tail end to make it balance better, but it's going to be damn heavy by the time It's done. If I had built my own neck from scratch, I would have saved some weight on the headstock and had better balance to begin with.

Due to leverage, weight differences at the headstock have more effect than anywhere else, so it seems the natural place to save weight.

I guess I'll have to wait and see how it works when I build the next one.

-Nick

 

[WarriorJoe7]

alright some of these are some less common problems that you only see on older or cheap instruments (or both)

1) not having seperate saddles for each string
2) not having seperate saddles for octave strings on an 8 or 12
3) when you have a fantastic bass but all of them need the same mod (example: TBC makes an awesome bass for a great price, but chuck that damn preamp and go passive.)
4) when you have deadspots in the same area of all your basses (that means that something is wrong with the design FENDER.)
5) stainless steel frets (might work for some but they sure go clackety clack when you fret.)
6) requires a string-T
7) neck pickup gets in the way of slapping (not a problem for me but others yes...)
8) the back cover (or back) should have a laminated chart that shows what the controls are for, especially for non standard basses
9) if there is a battery or control cover there should be a place to secure allen wrenches for truss and bridge adjustments.
10) you should be able to store an extra battery with the one being used.
11) the neck area at the nut is the weakest point (no volute or other reinforcement.)
12) slab body - no contours

Oh yeah and to Brad. I always like your posts and you always make great points. However not everyone can be as perfect as your standard. Heck not even everyone is wired that way and it is not their choice either. I am like you but I understand how others are not and a little bit of why. Let's not get into that. We should strive to make instruments as fool proof as possible, because not everyone is up to the same standard.

In theory we are talking about mass produced instruments (common designs = common instruments = mass produced.) I can say that I like most of my suggestions here for a mass produced instrument. However having a one off custom made instrument to your specs will always trump the fool proof mass produced ones, because what is truly perfect takes into account all your personal preferences. This cannot be done on a grand scale, or even of 2. Now I know I just got done talking about mass produced instruments and I just brought up alot of points that aren't even about them or wouldn't be economically feasible, but those things are actually beside the point.

I agree that quite a few of my suggestions are just preferences (some aren't.) Like the recessed straplocks. The only reasons I can see why they would be better would be looks (personal,) chews up case (legit,) and so it doesn't break off (a rarity.) I still think that dual duty strap locks are best because of flexibility, but its just my opinion too.

 

[WarriorJoe7]

Good point about the large headstock vs dead spot design. Although both can be avoided but no one can tell us HOW. LOL

 

[Arx]

Hey. I never thought of the chews up case thing... good point.

I think I may have mentioned it already, but I'm going to say it again.

cheap jacks... oh how I hate them...

My Ibanez has a neutrik locking jack. I liked it so much that I think I'm going to put one on every bass I build (unless I find something even better) I don't even care about the locking, what I like is that the connection is solid, and the construction is really good.

OTOH, I think that using phone plugs is a design flaw to begin with. Guitars should be XLR. Then you could use mic cables everywhere, and you could have balanced amplifiers and everything, solving some potential noise/hum issues.

My next bass is going to have dual plugs. an XLR, and a neutrik locking jack for when I forget my xlr -> 1/4" cable.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Of course, but sometimes you take it out to use it, and forget to put it back or whatever. It happens, not all of us are perfect.

It's called learning from mistakes.

I'm not that anal. In this particular case if I did have a spare, it still would have been with my other bass and not with my backup. I suppose I could buy 2 straps for every bass I have, but I think you get the point.

I don't consider being prepared with a commonly used wear item anal. Any more than carrying a spare set of strings.

It's not really like that at all. I expect instrument cables to get screwed up frequently. I expect batteries to die. I really don't expect my strap to break, etc. However, on the off chance that something does happen it's nice to know that I could buy/borrow another one on short notice, without figuring out where to get the buttons.

Straps can wear.

I guess really I just don't see much advantage to a recessed lock. I don't think anyone notices the looks much when the bass has a strap on it and I think the strength issue is pretty much negligible.

Pros:
Looks, arguably.
Strength (doubt it'll ever be an issue if they're correctly installed)

Cons:
In the event that I do something stupid, finding a strap becomes a major problem instead of a minor embarrassment.

I think I prefer the ones that'll take a normal strap (The original ones are silly though. If you can't use a normal strap, may as well have the flush mount ones.)

As you've made abundantly clear, they're not for everyone. For those people who can deal with them and all of the effort that that entails, they're nice.

Yes, but they don't require through body stringing, so it doesn't in any way negate the benefits to someone who doesn't care about stringing through the body. As long as there's a quick release, the other silly options are fine. My latest bass has a through body option. I think it's stupid so I don't use it.

Many of the non quick release bridges are made of thinner castings of metal. Not sure if you've noticed that or not.

I like the quick release, and it's so trivial to implement that leaving it out seems like bad design.

I prefer them myself but also have experienced different sounds with different types of bridges so for something like my old Jazzes, where going with a heavier duty bridge changed the tone for the worse IMO, I'd rather keep the original bridge.

That is not trivial.

Your wording implies that not having a heavy headstock WILL cause dead spots.

No, it doesn't. I said "#2 what's worse... possible neck dive or dead spots?".

I wouldn't want a bass with either.

My next bass is going to be a lightweight headless which will balance perfectly on my shoulders. If it doesn't balance perfectly, it's trivial for me to add a small amount of weight to the lighter end. It's not so simple to lighten the heavy end of a finished instrument which is already too heavy.

My current bass is a prime example. It's big, heavy, and I love the sound, but it relies on the strap too much to keep it in place. I may add a couple pounds of lead to the tail end to make it balance better, but it's going to be damn heavy by the time It's done. If I had built my own neck from scratch, I would have saved some weight on the headstock and had better balance to begin with.

Due to leverage, weight differences at the headstock have more effect than anywhere else, so it seems the natural place to save weight.

I guess I'll have to wait and see how it works when I build the next one.

-Nick

Okay.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Good point about the large headstock vs dead spot design. Although both can be avoided but no one can tell us HOW. LOL

I agree, there are other remedies for that but I clearly remember some builders using mass at the headstock to counteract deadspots. For example I thought that was the reasoning behind the Tyler headstocks.

 

[Moksha]

Hey Bass349,
Talking or ergonomics have you seen these Invalid Link Removed
Seriously wierd looking.

Moksha

 

[Keith Guitars]

"Zero frets are in constant contact with the string, when crowned properly the string intonates well and sounds fine but over time the "lead off" shifts forward as the zero fret wears down and the intonation shifts across the board. I can't actually hear the difference (which is why I don't deal with earvana or feiten systems) but what I CAN hear is fret buzz when the zero fret begins to wear. Changing out a worn nut (which takes WAAAY longer to wear down) is a cakewalk compared to removing a zero fret, sourcing and installing a replacement and adjusting it to match pre-existing fretwear."

I came late to this discussion, so this might be an old point.
However, I have some disagreements with the above.

1: The intonation point 'shifting' forward is, by his own admission, too subtle to hear. Furthermore, the tiny amount
it moves might even help you, since many of the intonation-correction approaches involve moving the nut slot
slightly towards the first fret.
I compensate the location of my zero frets, since I can
measure the difference with a good tuner. Intonation is
one of the few objectively quantifiable qualities of an instrument.
It seems a bit strange to dismiss something because you
"can't hear" it, if it is measurable in more absolute terms.

2: Next - a nut takes "WAAAY longer to wear down"?
I don't think so. Fretwire is harder than many (maybe most?)
nut materials I've ever used. I just don't see what the big
issue is here - yes, the fret is in constant contact with the
string. However, the contact is relatively static - the contact
point doesn't get all that much movement (read: abrasive action
from the string winds).

Zero frets are a great idea, that got a bad rep due to cheap
guitars in the '60s. They work really well, sound good,
last a long time, are much easier to set up properly, are more
tolerant of string gauge changes, and are generally really excellent.

If you don't believe me, just ask MTD, Elrick, or any of the
other fine builders that are using them very happily.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Cheers,
Martin

 

[wilser]

I came late to this discussion, so this might be an old point.
However, I have some disagreements with the above.

1: The intonation point 'shifting' forward is, by his own admission, too subtle to hear. Furthermore, the tiny amount
it moves might even help you, since many of the intonation-correction approaches involve moving the nut slot
slightly towards the first fret.
I compensate the location of my zero frets, since I can
measure the difference with a good tuner. Intonation is
one of the few objectively quantifiable qualities of an instrument.
It seems a bit strange to dismiss something because you
"can't hear" it, if it is measurable in more absolute terms.

2: Next - a nut takes "WAAAY longer to wear down"?
I don't think so. Fretwire is harder than many (maybe most?)
nut materials I've ever used. I just don't see what the big
issue is here - yes, the fret is in constant contact with the
string. However, the contact is relatively static - the contact
point doesn't get all that much movement (read: abrasive action
from the string winds).

Zero frets are a great idea, that got a bad rep due to cheap
guitars in the '60s. They work really well, sound good,
last a long time, are much easier to set up properly, are more
tolerant of string gauge changes, and are generally really excellent.

If you don't believe me, just ask MTD, Elrick, or any of the
other fine builders that are using them very happily.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Cheers,
Martin

all I gotta add is an "amen, brother" perfectly stated.

 

[vikingur]

the dimensions of the thunderbird (hard to fit in case) and strap button placement (poor balance)

 

[bass349]

Hey Bass349,
Talking or ergonomics have you seen these Invalid Link Removed
Seriously wierd looking.

Moksha

wow.. that is the strangest looking thing i've seen in a while!!

very, very interesting design concept. i'd love to have the opportunity to check this thing out properly. I'm heading to the states in about 18 months so i'll try and swing by texas and pay them a visit

thanks for the link!