Isn't that the only way 8 tuners can be laid out, then? i've never seen a octave-tuned bass strung inline.
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.
Headstock design - 2x2 vs 4 inline
- Thread starter Slowgypsy
- Start date
Isn't that the only way 8 tuners can be laid out, then? i've never seen a octave-tuned bass strung inline.
- Jun 19, 2004
- 4,782
- 83
- 42
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist, Schroeder Cabinets
I prefer symmetry when it's an option...
Smaller headstock = less neck-dive, too. Also, it's a bit easier on your wrist to tune underhanded (like a reverse headstock) than overhanded (like a Fender headstock), and faster, too, if you have to do it during a bar of rests or something.
Something else to consider... Sometimes when I'm playing live with a drummer, I like to have fun with him by playing one of his crash cymbals "for" him (using my headstock). It's just a fun way to get his attention and the audience seems to like it when I do it. You can't really do that on headstocks with any of the tuning machines on the bottom, without risking knocking the thing out of tune.
A smaller headstock gives you more options when it comes to gigbags & cases. My MTD Artist 5 (4+1) does not fit in my Undercover double-bag because it's too long. When I had a custom neck built for one of my Line6 Variax basses, I specifically wanted it 3+2 so it would fit better in the double-bag (it's a good 1.5" shorter from end-to-end than it would have been otherwise, had I gone with 4+1).
For no neck-dive and the best fit in various gigbags, you could always go headless
Smaller headstock = less neck-dive, too. Also, it's a bit easier on your wrist to tune underhanded (like a reverse headstock) than overhanded (like a Fender headstock), and faster, too, if you have to do it during a bar of rests or something.
Something else to consider... Sometimes when I'm playing live with a drummer, I like to have fun with him by playing one of his crash cymbals "for" him (using my headstock). It's just a fun way to get his attention and the audience seems to like it when I do it. You can't really do that on headstocks with any of the tuning machines on the bottom, without risking knocking the thing out of tune.
A smaller headstock gives you more options when it comes to gigbags & cases. My MTD Artist 5 (4+1) does not fit in my Undercover double-bag because it's too long. When I had a custom neck built for one of my Line6 Variax basses, I specifically wanted it 3+2 so it would fit better in the double-bag (it's a good 1.5" shorter from end-to-end than it would have been otherwise, had I gone with 4+1).
For no neck-dive and the best fit in various gigbags, you could always go headless
Taylor Livingston
Commercial User
I think you missed the spirit of that. The confusion there was the suggestion of 4 lower gauge strings on the Bass/L and the 4 higher gauge strings on the Treble/R side, crossing strings.
But yes, 8 Tuners in line would also be silly.
MM holds a copyright on the headstock, showing the 3+1 arrangement. IIRC, the attached text does not explicitly mention the 3+1 aspect (again, IIRC, which I may not). If this is the case then I think it would take a familiarity with MM's copyright defense history to know whether they have enforced rights to the particular shape, including the tuners, or a broader right to the 3+1 arrangement. I'd like to know the answer, too.
There was a decent discussion of it here a year or so ago. Should turn up in a search. I don't think there was a final resolution, though.
