Gibson basses sound like a muffled fart anyways....
Or more like an acoustic bass with coated flatwounds, and the body stuffed with sprayfoam and sand lol.
Last edited:
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
Or more like an acoustic bass with coated flatwounds, and the body stuffed with sprayfoam and sand lol.
That has nothing to do with string angle from the nut. Alembic would also disagree, BTW...now say what you want about them, but they definitely don't sound like muffled farts.
Well, if I ever get the time... I will do a definitive test of this theory. I'll get a new nut, slot it with 5 grooves for a 125 B string and string my bass with 5 B strings, tune them all to B. That would give me 5 strings to compare all with different lengths after the nut. It would be an even better experiment with an inline 5.
By definitive you mean that you're going to use a calibtated device to measure the tension on each string, or you mean that you're going to do it by feel? The latter won't be definitive, and the former will only be given a strict set of criteria.
So, to the original question, "Does a reverse headstock tighten up the low end?" This is something that has been argued here before. My own experience of this is with guitars, and I would say that, in a way ... yes. It may not technically "tighten up" the low end, but it does give a difference in feel - the feel I'm describing involves more effort in bending a string with longer overall length to a particular pitch (as described below), and a general difference in feel which is quite recognizable (at least to me, and clearly to some others as well). As with so many things of this nature, people who are not particularly attuned to the feel I'm describing will be inclined to dismiss it as nonsense, and people are entitled to their own opinion. But there is an actual physical explanation for this difference in feel (which I imagine will apply to the bass as well). From Physics Forums:
-- --
... what is important for the guitarist when he's bending the string is to reach the note he wants to play. It is important to remark this, because in my opinion if there is a lot of string behind the nut (and/or the bridge), it will be easier to bend the string if we think in terms of distance, but the string tension will not rise so easily as with a locking nut or a shorter length of string behind the nut. I believe the effort and the deflection (in terms of length) of the string will be less with a locking nut. Let's assume the string is attached (locked) at both ends.
In order to reach the desired note, the guitarist has to bend the string the distance d, so the string is deformed and tension is increased from T to T'. The force he exerts on the string is f. Now let's make the thought experiment proposed by sgb and think of a guitar with a distance between the tuners and the nut several times the scale length. If we pull the string sideways at the middle of the scale length we want the tension to increase accordingly, from initial tension T to the target tension T'. But as there is a lot of string length to stretch, we will have to deform it (increase its length) more and the string will travel a distance D, in order to reach the same tension T'.
As D>d, the angle between the two forces T' will be smaller, so the force F that the guitarist has to exert on the string will be considerably higher. So in this case it will be more difficult to reach the note, the guitarist has to bend further the string and he will need more force. In my opinion bending should be easier with guitars with locking nuts or with short "free" lengths of string behind the nut and saddle. But as these distances are comparatively small against the scale length the difference will not be much (at least with common guitar designs).
This is a basic experiment you can do on a lock nut equipped guitar [shorter overall string length]. Bend with the lock nut off, then again with it locked down, I think the effect is definitely noticeable. I found the extra string length would require a greater bend distance to reach a certain pitch. I concluded it was because you are not only increasing the tension in the vibrating length but also the nut-tuner distance. Look at your (non locking) nut while bending, you can see the string sliding through the nut while bending - The string is elastic and the nut-tuner length is undergoing extension. This effect is even more pronounced on certain jazz guitars where the tail piece is some distance from the bridge - One of my guitars (Epiphone Joe Pass) has 23cm of non vibrating sting on the G & D strings that undergoes extension while bending.
-- --
So the longer (more "compliant") overall string length actually requires more effort to reach the same bent note than a shorter overall string length. This does fit with my experience. The difference in feel between a standard and reverse headstock is something I know about from my own experience, not theory. But I think these little physics forum excerpts do a decent job of accounting for it in physical terms. I myself prefer the reverse feel - I've already built a guitar with this configuration, and I'm planning on building a bass this way too. So my money is where my mouth is. The reverse headstock makes a difference, in my experience. You can bet that there are other folks who have not had this experience, but there it is.
Guitar string tension: effect of total length
-- --
... what is important for the guitarist when he's bending the string is to reach the note he wants to play. It is important to remark this, because in my opinion if there is a lot of string behind the nut (and/or the bridge), it will be easier to bend the string if we think in terms of distance, but the string tension will not rise so easily as with a locking nut or a shorter length of string behind the nut. I believe the effort and the deflection (in terms of length) of the string will be less with a locking nut. Let's assume the string is attached (locked) at both ends.
In order to reach the desired note, the guitarist has to bend the string the distance d, so the string is deformed and tension is increased from T to T'. The force he exerts on the string is f. Now let's make the thought experiment proposed by sgb and think of a guitar with a distance between the tuners and the nut several times the scale length. If we pull the string sideways at the middle of the scale length we want the tension to increase accordingly, from initial tension T to the target tension T'. But as there is a lot of string length to stretch, we will have to deform it (increase its length) more and the string will travel a distance D, in order to reach the same tension T'.
As D>d, the angle between the two forces T' will be smaller, so the force F that the guitarist has to exert on the string will be considerably higher. So in this case it will be more difficult to reach the note, the guitarist has to bend further the string and he will need more force. In my opinion bending should be easier with guitars with locking nuts or with short "free" lengths of string behind the nut and saddle. But as these distances are comparatively small against the scale length the difference will not be much (at least with common guitar designs).
This is a basic experiment you can do on a lock nut equipped guitar [shorter overall string length]. Bend with the lock nut off, then again with it locked down, I think the effect is definitely noticeable. I found the extra string length would require a greater bend distance to reach a certain pitch. I concluded it was because you are not only increasing the tension in the vibrating length but also the nut-tuner distance. Look at your (non locking) nut while bending, you can see the string sliding through the nut while bending - The string is elastic and the nut-tuner length is undergoing extension. This effect is even more pronounced on certain jazz guitars where the tail piece is some distance from the bridge - One of my guitars (Epiphone Joe Pass) has 23cm of non vibrating sting on the G & D strings that undergoes extension while bending.
-- --
So the longer (more "compliant") overall string length actually requires more effort to reach the same bent note than a shorter overall string length. This does fit with my experience. The difference in feel between a standard and reverse headstock is something I know about from my own experience, not theory. But I think these little physics forum excerpts do a decent job of accounting for it in physical terms. I myself prefer the reverse feel - I've already built a guitar with this configuration, and I'm planning on building a bass this way too. So my money is where my mouth is. The reverse headstock makes a difference, in my experience. You can bet that there are other folks who have not had this experience, but there it is.
Guitar string tension: effect of total length
Last edited:
Any bends in the string (sideways) will increase the chances of binding at the nut, making tuning possibly unstable especially if you bend the strings alot. Maybe theres a special nut they use? In any case its steve buscemi ugly.
I know alembics dont sound like muffled farts but gibsons definitely do. Their guitars sound sweet though (gibson).
I need to have this copied and reading for pasting into at least 80% of the threads on TB.
"Does a reverse headstock tighten up the low end?" (paraphrasing my OP)
I hadn't really thought about this before but had been contemplating getting a 5 string and I had read here on TB that this might indeed be an option. It has been painstakingly pointed out in various ways that a greater length from the nut to the tuning peg will not increase the tension of the B string. Duly noted, thanks.
I hadn't really thought about this before but had been contemplating getting a 5 string and I had read here on TB that this might indeed be an option. It has been painstakingly pointed out in various ways that a greater length from the nut to the tuning peg will not increase the tension of the B string. Duly noted, thanks.
Yes & no. If you put a heaver string on, you lose clarity. Personally, I want tension and clarity...so I opt for 35" scale with a .120 or .125 B string. A .120 B is clear & define, while not being heavy tension.
No it doesn't. It demonstrates that if you apply the same tension to something with different distances between the force and the object, the tension will be the same. If you hung the fish from 2ft of line and you hung it from 5 ft of line and then plucked the line, the pitches of the resulting note would be different. To make the 5ft line sound the same pitch as the 2ft line you would need a much heavier fish (i.e. more tension).
Yes, top quality wood and craftmanship, but it's not a single cut. Maybe you think of the Imperial?
I certainly was. Thanks.
I apologise for being so harsh, it is nothing personal, but that really is poor execution by any standard. Still I suppose it being a no-charge option proves the adage that the customer gets what s/he pays for.
OK, I've read a lot of this thread and I think I might have had a change of mind (but not on the Fodera headstock!)
So I think we know that
1) For a given Saddle to Nut (Scale) Length, the STATIC tension required for any given string to sound a given pitch is CONSTANT.
2) The force required to bend a given string by a given INTERVAL, say a whole tone, is CONSTANT
3) The force required to bend a string a given DISTANCE , regardless of the change in PITCH, goes DOWN as the BALL to PEG LENGTH goes up. The CAPO test proves this.
4) From 2) and 3) we can say that the PITCH CHANGE for a given BEND DISTANCE goes DOWN as the BALL to PEG LENGTH goes up OR 'It is easier to bend a Minor 3rd on a lock-nut hard tail than on a stock Strat'.
Now the logic (hopefully);
1) GIVEN that, regardless of scale length, a string with longer BALL to PEG LENGTH is easier to bend with the fingers than a shorter string, we might PROPOSE that such a string might also require less energy/work to set in motion at a given AMPLITUDE (or volume).
2) IF, for such a string, the energy required to create a GIVEN amplitude is less, then a GIVEN amount of energy will create MORE AMPLITUDE compared to a shorter string.
3) IF, for such a string, the change in pitch for a given excursion is LESS, then the deviation from pitch in the initial attack of the note will be LESS, which could be interpreted as greater tuning stability or better intonation.
We might also propose that;
1) IF the energy required to start the string vibrating is LESS, then the ATTACK TIME MIGHT BE SHORTER. If so, this MIGHT present as a 'punchier' sounding attack and an overall louder note. The string itself might also be perceived by the player as more responsive.
2) IF the energy required to maintain a given amplitude is REDUCED, then the energy in the string MIGHT BE CONSERVED FOR LONGER and dissipated more slowly. If so, this MIGHT present as LONGER SUSTAIN.
If, by some definition, a PUNCHIER ATTACK with LONGER SUSTAIN and BETTER INTONATION is the same as 'TIGHTER', then YES, an extended B at the headstock might well provide this. Equally, if this thinking is correct (and it might not be), the same might be achieved by having a longer Ball to Saddle distance a-la ALEMBIC, or by stringing through the body...
So I think we know that
1) For a given Saddle to Nut (Scale) Length, the STATIC tension required for any given string to sound a given pitch is CONSTANT.
2) The force required to bend a given string by a given INTERVAL, say a whole tone, is CONSTANT
3) The force required to bend a string a given DISTANCE , regardless of the change in PITCH, goes DOWN as the BALL to PEG LENGTH goes up. The CAPO test proves this.
4) From 2) and 3) we can say that the PITCH CHANGE for a given BEND DISTANCE goes DOWN as the BALL to PEG LENGTH goes up OR 'It is easier to bend a Minor 3rd on a lock-nut hard tail than on a stock Strat'.
Now the logic (hopefully);
1) GIVEN that, regardless of scale length, a string with longer BALL to PEG LENGTH is easier to bend with the fingers than a shorter string, we might PROPOSE that such a string might also require less energy/work to set in motion at a given AMPLITUDE (or volume).
2) IF, for such a string, the energy required to create a GIVEN amplitude is less, then a GIVEN amount of energy will create MORE AMPLITUDE compared to a shorter string.
3) IF, for such a string, the change in pitch for a given excursion is LESS, then the deviation from pitch in the initial attack of the note will be LESS, which could be interpreted as greater tuning stability or better intonation.
We might also propose that;
1) IF the energy required to start the string vibrating is LESS, then the ATTACK TIME MIGHT BE SHORTER. If so, this MIGHT present as a 'punchier' sounding attack and an overall louder note. The string itself might also be perceived by the player as more responsive.
2) IF the energy required to maintain a given amplitude is REDUCED, then the energy in the string MIGHT BE CONSERVED FOR LONGER and dissipated more slowly. If so, this MIGHT present as LONGER SUSTAIN.
If, by some definition, a PUNCHIER ATTACK with LONGER SUSTAIN and BETTER INTONATION is the same as 'TIGHTER', then YES, an extended B at the headstock might well provide this. Equally, if this thinking is correct (and it might not be), the same might be achieved by having a longer Ball to Saddle distance a-la ALEMBIC, or by stringing through the body...
Last edited:
