Downsides/Cons of Headless Basses?

[halcyo]

Been formulating a “dream bass” build in my mind for a time. For some reason, without any significant proof, I’ve fixated on ideas like doing a headless bass (and maybe even multiscale).

For the sake of discussion, I’ll keep the question vague and open ended- what’s the DOWNSIDE to a headless instrument? Seems like the obvious cure for an ugly headstock, and why not have the instrument be a little less lengthy?

 

[Snert]

I own several and the only one is for those instruments that can only take DB strings (the minority these days), they're harder to come by and more expensive. If you mail order strings like I do for pretty much every bass I own, it's not an issue.
Oh and every so often you'll get some moron make a comment about the looks.

You only asked for negatives. I could give positives too.

 

[Inara]

I see no downsides, for me, for a five string headless. For a four string headless, which I'd actually really like to have, other than the old Steinberger drop-D bridge or Kubicki's approach, there isn't a headless bass equivalent that I've found for a Hipshot xTender to give me a low D. All my four string basses get those, and I need that for material I've written personally and with my band. Other than that, I love them.

 

[halcyo]

You only asked for negatives. I could give positives too.

Oh I’m absolutely open to talks about positives too. I mean, to me, it seems that headstocks are sometimes ugly, often a bit weighty, stick out further to allow for more chances of whacking them into a mic stand or a bandmate on stage, AND I’ve read that tuning down by the bridge can actually be a better tuning experience.

I guess I just wonder why headless designs still seem unusual or out of the ordinary, and why makers still only do some of them. Is it all mostly a matter of taste, or are there much more practical pros/cons? Same situation with multiscale fretboards- are we all mostly just stuck in the past, or is there a darn good reason why the old fashioned instrument designs are truly still the best?

 

[Dave TB Killer]

String choices are slim. I have a Spirit and use a string adaptor. It works and allows the use of regular strings.

 

[Snert]

Oh I’m absolutely open to talks about positives too.

Stays in tune better and longer, straight pull on the string, not wrapped around a tuning peg, no ungainly headstock, shorter instrument, less neckdive if any and less chance of deadspots from the resonance of a headstock.

If headless instruments had been invented first, then someone came out with a headstock, I really can't see an advantage to it nor have I really ever seen any good and logical reasons for including them, beyond that's the wat it's always been done.

AND I’ve read that tuning down by the bridge can actually be a better tuning experience.

Generally it is. Most headless tuners have a much finer turns ratio; mine are 40:1 IIRC, a lot finer than the 16-20:1 of a conventional tuner.

I mean, to me, it seems that headstocks are sometimes ugly, often a bit weighty, stick out further to allow for more chances of whacking them into a mic stand or a bandmate on stage

Yes.

I guess I just wonder why headless designs still seem unusual or out of the ordinary, and why makers still only do some of them. Is it all mostly a matter of taste, or are there much more practical pros/cons? Same situation with multiscale fretboards- are we all mostly just stuck in the past

Musicians are very traditional and it's what they know that sells. Else why would Fender and Gibson be churning out exactly the same designs with only trivial variations for decades?

or is there a darn good reason why the old fashioned instrument designs are truly still the best?

Who says they are?

I hope whatever you decide to have built is exactly what you want and you love playing it.

PS: There's a Headless Club here, and a couple of others, one on Steinberger Spirits I've seen and I'm sure there must be one on original Steinbergers. There's also one for the Ibanez EHBs and I'm sure for other brands that make headless instruments who will be able to give their perspectives too, from an actual user perspective.

 

[juggahnaught]

Been formulating a “dream bass” build in my mind for a time. For some reason, without any significant proof, I’ve fixated on ideas like doing a headless bass (and maybe even multiscale).

For the sake of discussion, I’ll keep the question vague and open ended- what’s the DOWNSIDE to a headless instrument? Seems like the obvious cure for an ugly headstock, and why not have the instrument be a little less lengthy?

Downsides:

• You can't hang a headless instrument on a wall hanger designed for headstocks.

I can't think of any others that aren't jokes.

 

[yberwaffe]

Oh and every so often you'll get some moron make a comment about the looks.

That usually goes for anything non-Fender

 

[Snert]

Downsides:

• You can't hang a headless instrument on a wall hanger designed for headstocks.

I've seen some in the EHB thread have found ways to do it, and some other brands with a vestigial headstock like Le Fays probably can too. Not the original type straight neck designs though.

 

[Aidil]

Downsides:

• You can't hang a headless instrument on a wall hanger designed for headstocks.

I can't think of any others that aren't jokes.

I've seen some in the EHB thread have found ways to do it, and some other brands with a vestigial headstock like Le Fays probably can too. Not the original type straight neck designs though.

Yeap, mine can hang on Hercules wall hanger just fine...

The only downside from me is, the playing position is shifted toward my left since the bridge doubles as tuning machine takes place on my right hand side.

 

[el murdoque]

I've always been open minded about headless.

Here are some of the disadvantages:
As stated before, there are systems that require double ball end strings.
There are systems that end the neck like the headstock has been sawn off - which can lead to two problems:
1. Hanging the bass from the non existent headstock can be problematic
2. If there is nothing getting larger and/or forming some tactile stop at the end and you can run into the problem that your hand slides off the end when you're of the ham fisted persuasion and used to slide down the neck until you hit the stop to find the first fret.

Furthermore, when you have that sort of system that clamps down the strings, I doubt that you can swap them forth and back as you want.

Plus, headless basses look weird to some people.

In my experience, Headless basses of all price brackets are quite stable when it comes to holding the tuning over longer periods of time.

A well made Headless is a great thing.
I don't know as what exactly my bass qualifies:

It has right hand tuning, and those bollards on the headstock only hold the strings.

 

[halcyo]

String choices are slim. I have a Spirit and use a string adaptor. It works and allows the use of regular strings.

I could see restricted string choice being a slight downside, especially if you have particular favorites. Ill have to look up this string adapter you’re talking about.

 

[Killing Floor]

I’ve owned several including Steinberger, Kubicki, Roscoe in my life. Don’t have one currently.

Pros:
Light weight, no neck dive, no dead spots IME, easier to replace strings, easier to tune and fine tune, smaller case for easier transport in a car or plane.
Cons:
Unfamiliar appearance can draw attention.

There are no mechanical cons. In fact, the mechanics are more sound than traditional basses. But not having that familiar branded headstock is a real thing.

 

[Lobster11]

One of my bandmates used to play a headless guitar sometimes and the other guitarists didn't like it because they said they found it harder to figure out what he was playing by watching his hands. So I suppose if you have guitarists who watch the bass player's hands to figure out, say, the key of a song or jam, they might gripe about a headless bass. But I dunno: Are there guitarists who do this?

 

[mmbongo]

'String restrictions' is a non-thing as most modern headless basses like Kiesel take any string.

One thing about a headless that you have to get used to is the balance. There is zero neck dive..quite the opposite. There is body dive since the weight of the bridge and tuners are at the end of the body. It's just something to be aware of, it feels strange at first!

 

[ctmullins]

The only downsides are to be found in the limited imaginations of the people looking on.

From a technical standpoint there are only upsides!

(Okay, the wall hanger thing is a fair point…. )

 

[mmbongo]

The only downsides are to be found in the limited imaginations of the people looking on.

From a technical standpoint there are only upsides!

(Okay, the wall hanger thing is a fair point…. )

Meh. The wall hanging is another non-issue for my headless

 

[luciens]

The most obvious compromise is the one already mentioned - the additional complexity at the bridge-end of the bass, which requires a lot of ingenious engineering to do it right. But this problem has been solved with good solutions by Steinberger, Kiesel and the like.

Another slightly less obvious, but certainly well known, compromise is the other end of the bass (where the headstock used to be). And a good way to secure the string. The humble Steinberger solved this the right way with double ball-end strings, but Kiesel and a few others do it the wrong way with awful set screws, etc., which mash into the jagged amputated string ends sticking out. That must be cut off with wire cutters and you still have little knives and needles sticking out of the tip of the bass. These are just awful. But there may be other non-awful solutions that don't involve double ball ends; this seems to me to be a solvable problem.

But switching ends like this is a long ways, engineering-wise, from the simplicity of the headstock and simple bridge at the butt end design popularized by Leo Fender. That system is very simple, easy to make, etc.

Apart from that, the only engineering mistake I see on headless basses is tiny little bodies with tiny little upper horns that make them impossible to play on the strap. First position requires a fully outstretched arm, which negates the advantage of the elimination of neck dive in the first place, and breaks the arm of the player anyway.

So, if someone makes one with a "standard" sized body, with the neck positioned where it's supposed to be for the player, I don't see any other downsides apart from the engineering of the swapped ends of the bass.

I'd do a headless in a minute if such a one were made, but somehow were able to accommodate available strings without dodgy engineering like the set-screw thing a-la Kiesel, etc.

There may be tone consequences of removing the weight of the headstock if the neck is made of wood, but seems to me that would be pretty minimal. And could probably be worked around by different construction methods on the neck.

I think they're a great idea and the problems are probably solvable...

L

 

[ctmullins]

The set-screws on the headpiece are absolutely not a problem in practice.

 

[luciens]

The set-screws on the headpiece are absolutely not a problem in practice.

Horrible engineering, though. Brute-force mashing the string with a set screw is a terrible way to secure a high-tension item like a string. It looks dodgy and Redneck corner-cutty, and it's dangerous too! There has to be a better way....

L