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.
Doubleneck question
- Thread starter Deleted member 264575
- Start date
If you can get past the tuning key/headstock obstruction problem, it *is* more logical to put the bass neck on top. The longer lateral reach to the bass nut is compensated for by the shorter vertical reach from the shoulder, and the lower-pitched-strings-are-higher-up rule of most western string instruments is preserved.
That's a matter of opinion and up to the physical characteristics of the player. I play both instruments and tend to wear my guitars higher than I do my basses because of a playing style preference, so for me it is naturally better for me to have the guitar neck on top.
As far of the lower pitched strings being higher up rule...sorry I don't agree , we are talking about TWO different necks and essentially Two entirely different instruments. The order of pitch has absolutely no bearing on playing the instrument.
Then you just need to get a third arm installed like Zaphod Beeblebrox.
I agree it's a personal preference. For me, I thought bass on top would be more comfortable (actually, I fell in love with a double neck on a Rennaisaince video <link> and Jon Camp had the bass on top - Also, Thanks to TB member Bob_Ross for that link. It began my search for a double neck). Originally, I tried to visualize the bass on top and the 12 on bottom and it seemed right. Now, with 12 on top and bass on bottom, I'll have to adjust my thinking a bit.
[EDIT]- I've noticed a somewhat trivial common occurrence while researching. All of the DNs I've seen with the bass on top, have only one set of controls (see: Rickenbacker, video link above, etc.), while DNs that have the guitar on top, have 2 separate sets of controls (see: Genesis video on page 1 of this thread) . Can anyone explain why this might be?
[EDIT]- I've noticed a somewhat trivial common occurrence while researching. All of the DNs I've seen with the bass on top, have only one set of controls (see: Rickenbacker, video link above, etc.), while DNs that have the guitar on top, have 2 separate sets of controls (see: Genesis video on page 1 of this thread) . Can anyone explain why this might be?
Last edited:
Neal, you have to keep in mind that any Rickenbacker player (Jon Camp being one of them, Geddy another one) were playing what Rickenbacker sold. I don't know why or who designed the Bass neck on top on a 4080 but that was all that was available as there was no option. Mike Rutherford is a tall guy with long arms...I don't know why he decided to change that , but it was done by a luthier , not Rickenbacker.
So those guys , Jon and Geddy played what was offered and made it work. I never saw either one of them struggle with either neck so I'm sure it wasn't as bad as all that...and if they had a choice , maybe they would have opted for that configuration anyway.
Mike Rutherford's Shergold double necks are modular...he can switch half around to any configuration he wants (he has 4 halves but the bass he elected to always have on the bottom).
http://www.shergold.co.uk/mikes.html
My point for all of this is , for my build, I wanted it the way I felt it was best for me. People can agree with me or not...it's what is best for ME that concerns me, not what other people think. It's a big investment for a fairly impractical instrument so I would think about everything and be sure. If a 4080 comes your way and it's affordable , I wouldn't necessarily not get it because the bass neck is on top. Maybe you can try it out and see if it works for you , but if you do a build you can make the decision where you want what.
Cool. I actually found that Shergold link last night, but haven't read it yet. Thanks for all the great words, btw. Just to clarify; My change of heart re: neck placement, is one that will be good for me. I am 6' - 4", 180lbs soaking wet. I have very long fingers and tend to arch them while fretting. I'm even guilty of Mr. Camps tendency to take my hand completely off the fretboard, between notes (a good example of this left handed 'slapping' technique is at 3:26 of this yootube video link). I guess I am worried about hitting the keys on the headstock of the 12 string below, while playing the first 3 frets of the bass. For me, the change is a welcome revelation/improvement.
PS: Those Shergolds look wild!
Cheers,
Neal
Last edited:
Okay, that's it.....I look a bit like Mike Rutherford, a bit like Jon Camp, a little like Geddy, a touch like Derek Smalls and a bit like....Zaphod Beeblebrox!!??!!
Zaphod: 'If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.' - Douglas Adams - Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
Sounds about right.
Last edited:
I just found out that J. K. Lado made them (?) up here in the 'Great White North', back in 1982. [EDIT]- possibly a one off, though 
;
;
Last edited:
I also considered modifying an Ernie Ball Silhouette. Replace the top neck, pickups, bridge, electronics and I think it would be a unique instrument. Crazy? Looks like it would be even more costly than going the luthier route, though. Here's a link to a site that has the specs on it; [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[EDIT]- added these two for fun;
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[EDIT]- added these two for fun;
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Last edited:
Well you can always go the Chris Squire route and have Paul over at Wal make you one of these....
A production 4080 uses the Stereo input , but I believe has a design flaw....Both neck pickups are sent to one channel while both bridge pickups are sent to the other channel. I guess the thought was that you have a bass channel for the neck pickups and a treble channel for the bridge pickups.
I had mine designed the opposite... the bass goes to a bass amp , while the guitar goes to a guitar amp. To me that makes much more sense as you are basically using each instrument as if they were separate and EQ'd properly for each instrument. That is just my opinion , other's may feel they like it the other way. I also have a selector switch to turn on either neck.
Teijo K.
Commercial User
Its Teijo Kostiainen brand.
I made the body from a piece of European alder that was in the garbage bin at my old workplace.Hey Neal, I have a rush tribute band (stage left band - ck stuff on youtube!)
Here's my '79 4080. Despite what everybody says (heavy, useless etc), this is an amazing instrument. The sound is full and heavy.
Everytime I put this onstage, the audience gets insane. Worths every cent.
It took me 2 years to find the right one...
Good luck on your quest.
Marcos
Neal,
I can't find you to message but you wanted me to let you know when my double neck build thread is up.
http://www.talkbass.com/threads/custom-rutherford-double-neck-build.1128440/
Thanks
Just for reference, here are a couple of points:
The RIC 4080 & 4080/12 both have the guitar neck angled back a few degrees for better bass neck access, this works pretty well in reality.
There were at least two made (one's a Burgundy which I've seen pictured for sale quite some time ago) that were ordered with both 6 and 12 string guitar necks so the owner could change when desired (the guitar neck, essentially a 480 neck is a bolt on, while the bass neck is a reinforced set neck).
A few years ago, there was a fellow here who had refinished a 1970s Ibanez doubleneck, which was an SG body with the bass neck atop a 12 string guitar, finished in white.
These are pretty rare, unfortunately, but I've been considering since then that one could snap up a pair of Epiphones (one SG, and one EB bass) and craft a doubleneck, much like Rutherford did with two Ricks.
It would appear to be a relatively doable project for someone with a modicum of skill and a few tools.
The real problem with a doubleneck, at least what I find, is that there is a compromise necessary with regards to strap length.
You may be able to have one neck at optimum playing height, but the other one suffers from being either too high or too low.
Or, you can have both necks with the same disparity from your preferred height or some variation, and both will suffer somewhat, with the bass naturally being more forgiving.
I have mine so that the center line of where my bass normally hangs will bisect the doubleneck body about 1/3 from the bottom of the body, so the guitar is a little too low and the bass is too high.
I've tried it lower and find it quite difficult to play the guitar cleanly.
In this regard, I find the bass to be best placed on the bottom, since I'm much better at bass than guitar.
However, I still think having the bass on top is more aesthetically pleasing.
The RIC 4080 & 4080/12 both have the guitar neck angled back a few degrees for better bass neck access, this works pretty well in reality.
There were at least two made (one's a Burgundy which I've seen pictured for sale quite some time ago) that were ordered with both 6 and 12 string guitar necks so the owner could change when desired (the guitar neck, essentially a 480 neck is a bolt on, while the bass neck is a reinforced set neck).
A few years ago, there was a fellow here who had refinished a 1970s Ibanez doubleneck, which was an SG body with the bass neck atop a 12 string guitar, finished in white.
These are pretty rare, unfortunately, but I've been considering since then that one could snap up a pair of Epiphones (one SG, and one EB bass) and craft a doubleneck, much like Rutherford did with two Ricks.
It would appear to be a relatively doable project for someone with a modicum of skill and a few tools.
The real problem with a doubleneck, at least what I find, is that there is a compromise necessary with regards to strap length.
You may be able to have one neck at optimum playing height, but the other one suffers from being either too high or too low.
Or, you can have both necks with the same disparity from your preferred height or some variation, and both will suffer somewhat, with the bass naturally being more forgiving.
I have mine so that the center line of where my bass normally hangs will bisect the doubleneck body about 1/3 from the bottom of the body, so the guitar is a little too low and the bass is too high.
I've tried it lower and find it quite difficult to play the guitar cleanly.
In this regard, I find the bass to be best placed on the bottom, since I'm much better at bass than guitar.
However, I still think having the bass on top is more aesthetically pleasing.
Last edited:
I think you have it figured out pretty well.
The guitar and bass outputs should really be separated, rather than having basically standard RIC wiring.
I bought an A/B/Y box and a decent tube guitar amp should I wish to run all this on stage, but alas without using the RoS output.
If one wanted to run a standard 4080 RoS setup, he'd need four amps and some pretty complex switching.
Add bass pedals and effects and that's a lot to contend with on stage, not to mention you'd attract the wrath of every sound guy you would ever work with!
Those are really beautiful.
Is that Dale's work, or someone else?
Latest posts
-
-
Selling a member that is not new, but only has 1 post?- Latest: Thumpin6string
-
-
