Downsides/Cons of Headless Basses?

[ahbass2500]

Depending on the design, headless can feel a little different. I was a relatively new bassist when I played my first headless bass (Steinberger Spirit XT2). It took me a week or so before my hand stopped shooting off the neck when going for the first fret. Some (like the Ibanez pictured above) have enough "headstock" there that it should still feel like you have one. Others do not provide as much neck feel near the first fret. This may or may not be important, but is worth calling out as I could see it bothering some players.

 

[MCS4]

I'm a big fan of headless basses and guitars. In my opinion both headless and standard instruments have pros and cons, and I'm glad to have both. Some cons for headless:

• The "smash screw" method of securing the string at the headstock works great most of the time, but it also has ruined at least a handful of strings for me over the years (typically low E or B strings, and also flatwounds)
• Double-ball-end seems good in theory but availability of strings simply is not there if you use a variety of scale lengths, tunings, string gauges and types, etc.
• Many headless setups have limited ability to use heavier string gauges compared to standard setups due to the strings not fitting into the headstock and/or not fitting under the screw
• They vary widely in ease of string change and intonation. Some quicker and easier to work with than a standard instrument -- Carvin/Kiesel for one, other than the occasional busted string from the screws -- but Zon's is awful

 

[ddm0502]

No practical cons because i hasn't owned one, but an aesthetic con (at least for me, your opinions may vary). I personally like the look of a headstock and think headless instruments look strange. I like being able to see an unfamiliar model but still have a good guess as to who made it based on the headstock design.

 

[buldog5151bass]

I haven't played one in years, but whenever I did, the lack of headstock always put me in the wrong position. I expect I eventually would have adjusted.

 

[mmbongo]

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.


L

The set screws on my Kiesel work great. The only thing I have concern about is losing one of them. Leave it up to me to drop it during a string change and it will somehow find it's way over to the air vent in the floor I do wish they would send a pack of extras.

But as far as jagged string ends what you do (on a Kiesel, anyway) is install the string, pull it tight, then put tension on the set screw. Cut the string, then turn the tuner so it pulls the string back until the end is tucked inside the headpiece. Tighten the screw, tune the string. Very simple, no jagged edges poking out.

And FWIW, Kiesel uses the Hipshot hardware which is what most builders use so they've pretty well got it down.

 

[BrentB]

As previously mentioned by others, the only real cons are that some headless basses are Double Ball strings only, some don't sit well on a standard guitar stand, and you usually can't hang them on wall hangers. That being said, the cons do not out weigh the pros in my opinion. Besides reminding you that the 80s were awesome, they are shorter, easier to wield, perfect for traveling, stay in tune better and are fun to play. Yes, there will be people that do not understand the headless life and will tell you that it looks wrong or funny but that is usually because they haven't had the chance to live with one for a while. I absolutely love headless basses just as much as their big headed cousins.

 

[mrperkolator]

the downside is the body. I generally play with the neck at an upward angle around 45 degrees

[serious] Most modern headless basses accept any strings... as long as you don't guillotine them in the string retaining mechanism. I dont own one but I'm a heavy lurker over at the EHB club [/serious]

 

[fhm555]

The downside to owning things like headless basses remind me of two machinists trying to one up each other. One turned a perfect sewing needle from titanium and sent it to his buddy. His buddy line bored it across the short axis and sent it back. Just because something can be done does not mean it’s a good idea.
Not saying stuff like that has no purpose, but if I owned one it would be a mostly stay at home bass. Mechanically complicated small things are tough to build on spec which I suspect is why their numbers have always been so low. Those small numbers coupled with such a unique design impacts future repairs should they become necessary. OEM or proper spares could be very hard to come by.
On the pro side, if it’s what you want, that’s reason enough.

 

[bassfran]

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.

I played a Steinberger XL2A for a number of years and it was a real conversation starter. Not recommended for introverts.

 

[luciens]

The set screws on my Kiesel work great. The only thing I have concern about is losing one of them. Leave it up to me to drop it during a string change and it will somehow find it's way over to the air vent in the floor I do wish they would send a pack of extras.

But as far as jagged string ends what you do (on a Kiesel, anyway) is install the string, pull it tight, then put tension on the set screw. Cut the string, then turn the tuner so it pulls the string back until the end is tucked inside the headpiece. Tighten the screw, tune the string. Very simple, no jagged edges poking out.

And FWIW, Kiesel uses the Hipshot hardware which is what most builders use so they've pretty well got it down.

I guess it's not so much that you can de-dodgeify the Redneck set-screw thing (put enough lipstick on a pig and you can eventually fool whoever you need to fool). To me, it's more that good engineering like the double-ball-end string method of Steinberger is just so much, much better. And of course, even wrapping the string around a tuner post is orders of magnitude better.

But the double-ball-end string is the compromise with the least drawbacks from an engineering perspective. The string is always the same length (assuming good QC) and it's secured properly on both ends of the bass, easy to change strings, etc. It's just heavenly in comparison.

I got to play a borrowed Stein XL2 for a while years ago when I was gigging and it was a revelation in terms of the engineering. It was very difficult to play because of the very poor ergnomics, but the design was really the right way to do a headless instrument.

Anyway, I just can't get past the set-screw thing to go headless with conventional strings, just too Redneck for me....

L

 

[WI Short Scaler]

I've always been interested in them. I've largely gotten neck dive issues under control since putting Bronco necks and using new straps on my two main players. But I am far more interested in keeping a "regular" shaped body than using those small square ones. But that's just my opinion, I really know nothing about them and have never had the opportunity to put my hands on one.

 

[SumOne]

I'm a recent convert to Headless Basses and don't really have anything to add to what others have said - when they are done well they have very few downsides but lots of positives.

The biggest downside is other people's misconceptions, it is potentially a bit of a barrier to getting into an image concious band that feels it doesn't fit their look.

 

[Dave TB Killer]

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.

If you know someone who could make one for you, that might be an option too. I paid around $50 for a piece of metal with some set screws in it. I also got a cheapo one that was totally useless.

 

[mmbongo]

I guess it's not so much that you can de-dodgeify the Redneck set-screw thing (put enough lipstick on a pig and you can eventually fool whoever you need to fool). To me, it's more that good engineering like the double-ball-end string method of Steinberger is just so much, much better. And of course, even wrapping the string around a tuner post is orders of magnitude better.

But the double-ball-end string is the compromise with the least drawbacks from an engineering perspective. The string is always the same length (assuming good QC) and it's secured properly on both ends of the bass, easy to change strings, etc. It's just heavenly in comparison.

I got to play a borrowed Stein XL2 for a while years ago when I was gigging and it was a revelation in terms of the engineering. It was very difficult to play because of the very poor ergnomics, but the design was really the right way to do a headless instrument.

Anyway, I just can't get past the set-screw thing to go headless with conventional strings, just too Redneck for me....

L

As a former Steinberger owner, I'd switch to double ball end strings in a heartbeat! They were indeed a marvel of engineering and made the 'old way' seem questionable. That's fine if you have a Steinberger, but they wouldn't fit anything else. At one point there were as many as 5 brands available. LaBella probably made them all, as they were the originals (they were down the street from the Steinberger factory) and I'm not sure if they still make them or not.

Anyway, that's the problem with Double Ball strings. They have to be exact and cannot vary in length. Now get a headless bass from Kiesel, Ibanez, Strandberg, Roscoe, Zon, Mayones, etc....they will all require a different length string. Double ball won't work. Then you have multiscale. Double ball definitely would not work as each string is different.

So the set screw might not be perfect, but I don't know what else could be done.

 

[groooooove]

the look has got to be the biggest down side.

i'd imagine hypothetically it could be hard to get parts/repairs for the bridge-end if something got messed up down the line? maybe not, though.

 

[TNCreature]

Zero downside IMO

 

[Jefenator]

I ruined a brand new set of TI flats once, trying to use the set screw adapter for my Steinberger. Some strings just seem prone to unraveling when you attempt to use them that way. (And the Tis are expensive!)
I also had to source a new set of ball-tugging jaws for my bridge. I assume they're probably still available out there somewhere now - but conventional spec tuners are everywhere.
Call me old fashioned, but I just like the look of an honest to goodness headstock.
Headless did have its moments, though - especially when flying!

 

[kesslari]

If I could do my custom build over (and had the extra cash at the time) I'd have gone headless.

 

[JamesDeGrandis]

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?

I guess the only downside is that it's not a DOUBLE HEADSTOCK!
RockHewer Custom Arachnophilia 8 2017 Red Malleé Burl Gloss | Reverb

If you call that a downside.

 

[redwood]

Going headless was the best thing I ever did.
Now about my bass.........LOL
Seriously though, I haven't found any cons to owning one. My only issue is that mine is so light sometimes I forget I have it on.
I have thought about coming up with a better design than the set screw(s), but I can't really imagine one which would be as simple and light. Plu, because you trim after securing the string, there is really very little chance of having the core "slip" inside the windings. You just have to get the right pressure on the set screws. It's not that difficult.
Side note, I whacked a gutar player in the head years ago with my headstock. HARD. I thought I knocked him out. (I'll never say if it was on purpose or not ). I believe he is an advocate for headless basses as well.