Fodera makes extended b headstock.
I can't help feeling that if the guys at Fodera really thought this was beneficial, they'd find a much more elegant way to do it.
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.
Does a reverse headstock tighten up the low end?
- Thread starter BboogieXVII
- Start date
I can't help feeling that if the guys at Fodera really thought this was beneficial, they'd find a much more elegant way to do it.
In highschool I was a full-time guitard. I only played floyd rose guitars, my favorite one had the dang bridge disabled so that, in the playing area, it was like a non-trem headless guitar. It had stupid light .008" strings and still felt stiffer for all fretting, picking and especially bending compared to my buddies cheap non-locking kramer which was laced with .010"s- not by much on the lower strings, but d through highe e felt like overcooked spaghetti on his. Irritating as my strings were dumb-thin and they were a third as high off of the frets as his were. It is not a myth, it just is such a small difference on a long 34"scale (7"/25" vs 7"/34") that it almost doesn't matter. The effect can be mitigated with careful string selection if you have a reverse headstock.
I am less and less in love with my Warwick and one of the reasons is the pingy tight g string. That same feeling is there (to my hands and ears, ymmv) on most basses with the g tuner on its own side down closer to the nut. Were I having the energy to build a bass, among a bunch of other structural features, I would make an effort to eliminate as much unplayable length on the B as possible and put the g tuner way out in the wind for perfect-ish feeel on standard string sets.
I am less and less in love with my Warwick and one of the reasons is the pingy tight g string. That same feeling is there (to my hands and ears, ymmv) on most basses with the g tuner on its own side down closer to the nut. Were I having the energy to build a bass, among a bunch of other structural features, I would make an effort to eliminate as much unplayable length on the B as possible and put the g tuner way out in the wind for perfect-ish feeel on standard string sets.
Last edited:
Do you have any evidence for this or is it just conjecture?
There's no up charge for the extended B head stock. It's the same as any other headstock in their line up. So no, people don't pay thousands for that headstock.And people pay thousands for this? Each to his own and all that, but really? Those angles through the nut, different key lengths, mixed up tuning directions, inside/outside windings - IMO this is about as un-engineered as it is possible to get. And for what, a longer bit of the B string behind the nut which makes not a jot of difference to anything... Although I do like the inlay
In a word, no. But what it will do is allow for the B and E string leaders to be installed properly at the tuner posts, to allow adjustment of the appropriate break angle over the nut, and help overall with tuning, stability, and string life.
This is the main reason I am a proponent of a 2(B+E) + 3(DAG) headstock on a 5-string bass, instead of 3+2 or 5-in-line. It gets the B string tuner far enough upstream so it won't kink or bind the speaking length of the string either over the nut slot or the tuner post.
This is the main reason I am a proponent of a 2(B+E) + 3(DAG) headstock on a 5-string bass, instead of 3+2 or 5-in-line. It gets the B string tuner far enough upstream so it won't kink or bind the speaking length of the string either over the nut slot or the tuner post.
If Fodera thought that the inverse of my experience were true, would they offer that funky B placement as a "uh, I guess, if you want it..." option or would they be patenting it, licensing it, pushing it in glossy ads and upcharging for it like the buzz feiten "system" years ago? if I had doubted the feel in my hands enough to get twelve packs of d'addario 9's, twelve hardtail strat bodies, four floyd-nut strat necks, four reverse strat necks, four standard strat necks, an accurate to four decimals digital fishing scale, and a center-crane apparatus with a cam lift to scientifically verify what my hands told me for the five years that I owned that guitar, we would have the cold data rather than my guitard story. Pm me if you would like to finance the research.
Last edited:
How does increasing scale length exacerbate the problem?
Well it's true that Tension and Length are directly proportional. So if you increase the Scale Length by 1/35 then you need to tension the same string higher by 1/35 more tension. But the length of string has increased and so amplitude of the wavelength will be fractionally increased as well, which will mean more movement of the string under the fingers. I guess the point I'm making is for any scale length there wll be a gauge of string that suits you the best. This is where I consider the journey should start. You don't have to go with string sets as some strings come in a huge range of custom string sizes. For example I like light gauge strings so I go for 40-60-80-100. These seem to give a fairly consistent tension although the perception of the string tension is different. It feels like the E string is more floppy than the others but this strings moves more and slower than the others.
I hope I didn't offend anyone. That's not my thing.
Regards
Davo
Well it's true that Tension and Length are directly proportional. So if you increase the Scale Length by 1/35 then you need to tension the same string higher by 1/35 more tension. But the length of string has increased and so amplitude of the wavelength will be fractionally increased as well, which will mean more movement of the string under the fingers. I guess the point I'm making is for any scale length there wll be a gauge of string that suits you the best. This is where I consider the journey should start. You don't have to go with string sets as some strings come in a huge range of custom string sizes. For example I like light gauge strings so I go for 40-60-80-100. These seem to give a fairly consistent tension although the perception of the string tension is different. It feels like the E string is more floppy than the others but this strings moves more and slower than the others.
I hope I didn't offend anyone. That's not my thing.
Regards
Davo
My point is that as far as I am aware, there's no scientific reason as to why it would change anything. People saying 'well I had this one guitar and this happened so it must be true' doesn't offer anything concrete. And maybe Fodera are too classy for that.
@Happynoj I get what you're saying. Is there empirical data for why an 810e sounds better with an svt than a pair of 212av's? ...why a p and svt810e works better with two lps into marshall stacks than almost every other option? ...why tort just looks so darn good? Would it matter? There is concrete data supporting the use of greenboy cabs over all else, its not a secret, but most people dont bother with them even when they have the money to. too classy... if the inverse of my watery experiment were true, then they (or literally any other legitimate company) wouldn't offer it as an option, it would be a standard feature across their entire line and they would upcharge for the vanity of a normal headstock layout. I'll pm you with a link to my kickstarter for this experiment in a few days. Donate over $700 and get a strat.
Last edited:
hasbeen
Commercial User
- Sep 23, 2004
- 4,810
- 2,687
- Disclosures
- Executive Vice President, The Adam Hall Group
Tension is an equation built on: scale length, pitch to which you're tuning and mass of the string. Beyond that, string construction affects stiffness, which many confuse with tension.
I think I'm going to have this on my grave stone.....I've been on this soapbox for some time now.
Yes there is, and it's the physics of bass reproduction...when all else is equal (and while these two cabs aren't 100% equal in tone, they're pretty close), bigger cabs with more drivers always sound better.
In this topic I learned that the only scale of the neck (like 35") affects the tension of the strings not the tuning peg placement and my dislike for Fodera has grown a little bit more.
Eh, they were just doing what a customer wanted. If it were me, I would explain to the customer why their logic was messed up...once. But if they insisted, I'd do it, too, and I'd enjoy getting the upcharge
Slightly off topic and sorry to sound obtuse, but...
What is meant by "floppy B?" and is it really that common?
I've had 4 six stringed guitars (all 35" scale), and none of them had a B string that I would consider "floppy," and I use low tension strings DR Lo-Riders, medium gauge, with very low action. The B string doesn't feel as if it has as much tension on it as, say the D, but it feels fine and responds very well.
So who has a "floppy B" and how do you define a "B" as "floppy"?
What is meant by "floppy B?" and is it really that common?
I've had 4 six stringed guitars (all 35" scale), and none of them had a B string that I would consider "floppy," and I use low tension strings DR Lo-Riders, medium gauge, with very low action. The B string doesn't feel as if it has as much tension on it as, say the D, but it feels fine and responds very well.
So who has a "floppy B" and how do you define a "B" as "floppy"?
You had a Floyd Rose system with the bridge disabled such that the guitar was essentially a hardtail, and you continued to use the locking nut?
Why?
Lo Riders aren't low tension strings. If anything they're tighter than average.
OK - my bad. So my high tension Lo Riders haven't domnstrated any problems with B - so, what makes a "floppy B" string?
You will get all manner of responses to that question. Mine is neck construction. A stiff neck makes a good B. And makes all the other strings sound better too, for that matter. Others will tell you that your 35" scale makes all the difference.
