• 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.

Headstock design - 2x2 vs 4 inline

Slowgypsy

Slowgypsy

4 Fretless Strings
Dec 12, 2006
1,944
56
NY & MA
www.peterweissdesigns.com
#1
I'm thinking about building a 4-string for my personal use. I'll make most of it out of off the shelf parts mainly from either Warmoth or USACG.

My question is this... when comparing a 4-in-a-row style vs a 2x2 style... does either design have a distinct advantage? The only thing I can think of is the angled 2x2 design doesn't require a string retainer, although I'm not sure why that would be an advantage. From a comfort standpoint, either design is good for me. Does it all come down to visual preference or is there something else to consider?

Anyone care to weigh in on this?
 
#3
The 2x2 design saves a small chunk of wood.

The small chunk of wood at the end of a long lever needs a large chunk of wood at the other end to balance.

Remove both the small chunk and large chunk, and you have a lighter bass.

Oh yeah, i think not having a string retainer also increases tuning accuracy and improves string life.
 
#7
ehque said:
If strung normally (octave strings next to each other), stringing your headstock 4bass+4treble will cause all your strings to bind against each other, making tuning impossible. The stress on your nut will also be one of a kind.
Click to expand...


Really??

b_8ct2.jpg


Ctbass&birdsong's image btw.
 
#12
I prefer 4 in a row but it really has a lot to do with body design too. If you have nearly symmetric body (like SG or double cut LP) it's better to have symmetric design in headstock too. Any 5 string setup also looks a lot better with 3+2 setup instead of 4+1 which looks kind of silly in my opinion.
 
#13
Some people are confusing things a bit. They are equating 4-inline with flat headstock and string retainer, and 2+2 with tilt-back headstock. While these generally go together this way, it is not a rule. I've seen many tilt-back (scarfed) 4-inlines. Flat 2+2s I don't recall, but anything's possible.
 
#14
pilotjones said:
Some people are confusing things a bit. They are equating 4-inline with flat headstock and string retainer, and 2+2 with tilt-back headstock. While these generally go together this way, it is not a rule. I've seen many tilt-back (scarfed) 4-inlines. Flat 2+2s I don't recall, but anything's possible.
Click to expand...

This is all true, however... I was thinking about putting together a bass using parts from either Warmoth, USACG, etc... and all these places do think of 4-inline with flat headstock and string retainer and 2+2 with a tilt-back headstock. Doesn't have to be this way, but those are without doubt the two different generic designs.

So after reading the above posts it would seem that the only tangible difference between the two different headstock designs would be that the 2+2 perhaps allows for a bass with slightly less weight.

I suppose I started this thread because as I also play acoustic guitar, and instrument design and choice of wood is everything for that instrument... and the unquestioned headstock standard is 3+3 (as opposed to the Fender electric 6-inline) I thought I'd ask.

As best I can tell, the 4-inline for a bass was started because Fender started it that way and it was for a variety of reasons simply easier and less expensive to manufacturer and those considerations were very important to Fender.

Although I think for my bass I'm strongly leaning towards 2+2 for no other reason than I have more of an emotional attachment towards that layout.
 
#18
FWIW, I find 4 inline slightly easier to tune. You just move your hand up the line, you don't have to switch to the other side.

And 2+2 looks much better on a semi-hollow - it goes with the whole acoustic guitar vibe.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back