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.
I think I get what you're saying. But it seems like it wouldn't make that much difference. I'm no luthier though...My vote is on the Normal 5-in-line. You may need to have the the tuning posts to get progressively farther from the nut from long scale string (B) to the short scale (G). This will make-up for the increasing excess string length/increasing string winding 'round the posts.
And it looks better (IMHO).
It would make sense that that one looked the best, I worked on that one the longest and it's a bit more refined. I just dropped the standard Fender headstock on because I could easily trace it in 5 minutes. I'd probably work that curve into the 4+1 since it does fit very well, it makes it my own and yet still draws from the inspirational Fender headstock.Your original hs design is the best. The balance of the curve perfectly compliments the body.
i gotta say, I like the rev, 4+1........ But that's just how I roll.
That's just drafting lines I didn't clean up. The fretboard would stop at the curvy line to the right of the pickup. I debated stopping the fretboard just after the 24th fret and leaving the neck exposed there, but I think I'll just extend the fretboard to cover it up. I may fret that piece just so it looks consistent, or maybe do an inlay there... It's gonna have headstock access for the truss rods so I think that works well. Open to criticism there of course...Looks good, but your drawing confuses me. You have the ends of the fretboard lining up extremely close to the center of the bridge saddles. Why?
Not only have I played a Dingall 5, I own one and it's the reason I'm building this with a 35"-32" scale!Ever played a Dingwall 5? 37"-34" fan. You might reconsider your scale length...
Looks good, but your drawing confuses me. You have the ends of the fretboard lining up extremely close to the center of the bridge saddles. Why?
Ever played a Dingwall 5? 37"-34" fan. You might reconsider your scale length...
Also, a 4+1 headstock gets my vote. Since Fender uses this design, it makes sense for aesthetic reasons.
Actually, the Dingwall SuperJ5 is 35"-32", the same as on this model.
Looks great so far. If i should bother with it i would personaly go for 36-32.
i gotta say, I like the rev, 4+1........ But that's just how I roll.
Awesome. I wonder if Dingwall ever threw a P on one of their Super J5 models?
Also they make people go "What in the name of all things holy is that?!" which is cool.
There's a PJ option for the 4-string SuperJ and it's very popular; but PJ not available on a SJ5 yet.
There have been a few fan-made mockups of a SuperP model over on the Dingwall forums a few years ago, but it's been a long time and the pics are not online anymore. It looks closely like this design of yours, apart from the pickguard and the headstock. It's no surprise really, this is the most obvious, simplest and best approach to a fanned fret P bass.
Hey, just realized you're the guy that did the SuperSR5. I really dug the headstock you did, like the Dingwall routed channel headstocks only a tad different. I may actually play with that idea myself since I'm already stealing ideas from at least 2 different designers, what's another?![]()
Well, I can't say anything since the SuperSR5 headstock is pretty much stolen. It's a EBMM SR-shaped SuperJ headstockEven the logo is a Dingwall ripoff
If you're considering routing the headstock, I strongly advise matching the headstock to the body finish, but leaving the maple routes visible. Like you can see on many SuperJs, and on the white SuperSR5 render I did. Shouldn't be too hard to pull of, but easily worth the effort![]()