Headstock reshape effect on tone?

[Bruce Johnson]

You're probably right, and I'm sorry for that, but prejudices and illusions can only be fought with the harsh truth.

The problem is, in that video, he presented his prejudices using an illusion, trying to convince you that it's the hard truth.

He built up that rig, where it appears that there is no body and neck under the strings and pickup. He supposedly removed the frame from the guitar. Then when the sound from the pickup is about the same, he claims that this proves that the frame has nothing to do with the sound!

But........He didn't remove the frame. He just built it into a different form so that it looks like it's not there. The standard Magician's trick. The two workbenches with the two 2 x 4's holding them apart are the frame. They are taking the load of the string tension, in place of the neck and body. Doing the same function. If you took the 2 x 4's away, the strings would collapse and hang loose, a severe change in the sound. And if you worked with those 2 x 4's, reducing their thickness and stiffness, making them softer and weaker, you would hear a change in the sound on the strings, and out through the pickup. The same things that we do to the neck and body to modify the sound. That's how it works.

I don't know whether he's deliberately hiding this to make his point, or if he actually doesn't understand what's going on. But he's using an illusion to try to convince you of his prejudices. And harming the Luthier knowledge base.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Yes, the total weight of the neck would not change, only the twisting downward motion (neck dive)
Would it feel different if you moved 2 tuners? Just the caclulation has me curious.

Ah, I see what you mean now.

 

[retslock]

If i reshape, specifically dowsize it, will that effect tone and resonance on the instrument? In my case it's about a Sire U5 wich I like a lot. Reasons for downsizing is neckdive, uglyness and ability to fit in a guitar case.

I own an Ibanez SR655 that plays and sounds great but I just didn’t like the body shape. I cut down both horns and shaped them into a more pleasing contour. The tone was not affected in the slightest nor does it have neck dive. I like that bass a whole lot more now.

Solid body instruments can withstand some pretty radical modifications without affecting their tone. Having said that, the only changes I’ve ever made to a neck has been shaving to reduce thickness. That neck works fine and is stable with no discernible dead spots. I doubt you’ll affect the tone by reshaping the head.

 

[_Obra_]

The problem is, in that video, he presented his prejudices using an illusion, trying to convince you that it's the hard truth.

He built up that rig, where it appears that there is no body and neck under the strings and pickup. He supposedly removed the frame from the guitar. Then when the sound from the pickup is about the same, he claims that this proves that the frame has nothing to do with the sound!

But........He didn't remove the frame. He just built it into a different form so that it looks like it's not there. The standard Magician's trick. The two workbenches with the two 2 x 4's holding them apart are the frame. They are taking the load of the string tension, in place of the neck and body. Doing the same function. If you took the 2 x 4's away, the strings would collapse and hang loose, a severe change in the sound. And if you worked with those 2 x 4's, reducing their thickness and stiffness, making them softer and weaker, you would hear a change in the sound on the strings, and out through the pickup. The same things that we do to the neck and body to modify the sound. That's how it works.

I don't know whether he's deliberately hiding this to make his point, or if he actually doesn't understand what's going on. But he's using an illusion to try to convince you of his prejudices. And harming the Luthier knowledge base.

I hear what you're saying and I completely understand. I've never thought about it that way .

But despite such a way of thinking (which makes complete sense), I personally performed dozens of tests that you can hear on my YT channel, in which I compare different pickups in the same instruments, or different instruments with the same pickups.

My humble opinion is that the pickup is the one that affects the sound 85%, strings and frets 10%, and I leave the last 5% to others to decide.
In any case, when I read the title of this thread posted by the OP, I found it a bit funny.

Regards!

 

[Belcanto]

I hear what you're saying and I completely understand. I've never thought about it that way .

But despite such a way of thinking (which makes complete sense), I personally performed dozens of tests that you can hear on my YT channel, in which I compare different pickups in the same instruments, or different instruments with the same pickups.

My humble opinion is that the pickup is the one that affects the sound 85%, strings and frets 10%, and I leave the last 5% to others to decide.
In any case, when I read the title of this thread posted by the OP, I found it a bit funny.

Regards!

Glad I can bring some joy! My history makes me think of it as a system where you put in energi to the string which dissipates through different channels. The pickup being one, the vibrations to the body decaying through internal dampening being the other. Both systems are interacting with the string. Where you put the pickup will make the string behave differently, and so on. I liked the way Bruce explained it. My reference would have been to string up a 2 ton concrete block, preferably in vaccum. Then the innerdamping of the string itself would be the biggest energy drain. On the other side we have the double bass. Its the knowledge of that interaction that separates noobs like me from guys like Bruce.

 

[ragetoca]

yes/no responses are best done via a poll.

Agreed but the OP was asking a specific question and was looking for a specific answer he was not looking for suggestions

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Agreed but the OP was asking a specific question and was looking for a specific answer he was not looking for suggestions

Posting is an invitation for suggestions, though, irrespective of what is said in the first post. The post asked if tone would be affected so could have been a yes/no poll.

 

[Zooberwerx]

I own an Ibanez SR655 that plays and sounds great but I just didn’t like the body shape. I cut down both horns and shaped them into a more pleasing contour. The tone was not affected in the slightest nor does it have neck dive. I like that bass a whole lot more now.

Solid body instruments can withstand some pretty radical modifications without affecting their tone. Having said that, the only changes I’ve ever made to a neck has been shaving to reduce thickness. That neck works fine and is stable with no discernible dead spots. I doubt you’ll affect the tone by reshaping the head.

I'd like to see a pic of the mods.

In theory, changing headstock mass will alter the resonant frequency. An engineer pointed out this was akin to a tone bar on a marimba. Sounds plausible to me but I can neither confirm nor deny.

Riis

 

[-Asdfgh-]

With respect to the Jim Lill video, whilst there's some sort of frame as it's not possible to use the theoretical anchor points beloved of physics, and he went about as far from a traditional body as he could after trying various other options. It's meant to demonstrate that radically departing from traditional body forms seems to make little to no difference to tone. And there are plenty of others with swaps of bodies to perspex, concrete, various woods, cardboard impregnated with resin, pencils in resin, pasta in resin, just small bits of planks, all with no obvious effect on tone it seems pretty safe to conclude that for a solid body instrument that anything stiff enough to keep the neck and bridge separate is fine from the perspective on tone. Neck dive, weight, ease of denting, ergonomics and look seem more of a concern.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I'd like to see a pic of the mods.

In theory, changing headstock mass will alter the resonant frequency. An engineer pointed out this was akin to a tone bar on a marimba. Sounds plausible to me but I can neither confirm nor deny.

Riis

Before I got a Fathead I tried a G clamp of a much greater mass and that did work to move a dead spot but was rather heavy. The Fathead itself seemed not to have much if any effect.

The 'best' dead spot I had was 7th fret D on the G string as leaving the D string undamped hid the dead spot very effectively. Smaller headstock Fender. Fretting and leaving undamped an octave down for other notes works in a similar way but is less convenient.

 

[Bruce Johnson]

With respect to the Jim Lill video, whilst there's some sort of frame as it's not possible to use the theoretical anchor points beloved of physics, and he went about as far from a traditional body as he could after trying various other options. It's meant to demonstrate that radically departing from traditional body forms seems to make little to no difference to tone. And there are plenty of others with swaps of bodies to perspex, concrete, various woods, cardboard impregnated with resin, pencils in resin, pasta in resin, just small bits of planks, all with no obvious effect on tone it seems pretty safe to conclude that for a solid body instrument that anything stiff enough to keep the neck and bridge separate is fine from the perspective on tone. Neck dive, weight, ease of denting, ergonomics and look seem more of a concern.

Here are the key things:

The stiffer the frame is built, the less effect the frame will have on shaping the tone on the strings. Build the frame from a slab of granite, and it won't change the tone at all. If you build the frame stiff enough, then it can be built from any material, in any shape, and you won't hear any difference in the sound out of the pickups.

The effect on tone happens when you start deliberately making the frame softer and weaker. The softer (less stiff) the frame is, the more it begins to vibrate along with the strings. Driven by the energy of the strings' motion. The stiffness and damping properties of the frame determine how the frame vibrates, and how it changes the vibration of the string. That's the mechanism of how the frame can change the sound on the string. But only if the frame is soft enough to where it can vibrate with the string.

This change in tone on the string, from the frame vibrating, doesn't have much effect on the overall output level or the EQ frequency curve. It's in the secondary effects, in the background. A softer frame brings out more dramatic dynamics of the Attack Curve; pop, warble, decay and bloom. And background harmonics, those extra frequency spikes that add richness and warmth to the sound. Those are the things that we Luthiers build into our basses by messing around with the stiffness of the frame.

If you only play through a signal chain and amp that adds its own electronic coloration, you may not be able to hear this added tone character over the roar of the tubes. And you may not care. The electronic tone may be fine for your needs. But the mechanical tone, through a clean system, has a rich character that you can't really duplicate electronically. It's your choice whether you want to use it.

In the Jim Lill video, he made an external frame that was at least as stiff as the stock guitar's frame. So, yeah, he observed very little change in the sound out of the pickup. And he used that to promote the idea that shaping the tone with the frame is useless. But he didn't even try it. He could have done another experiment and demonstrated how the tone can be changed by the frame.

 

[Major Seven]

Here are the key things:

The stiffer the frame is built, the less effect the frame will have on shaping the tone on the strings. Build the frame from a slab of granite, and it won't change the tone at all. If you build the frame stiff enough, then it can be built from any material, in any shape, and you won't hear any difference in the sound out of the pickups.

The effect on tone happens when you start deliberately making the frame softer and weaker. The softer (less stiff) the frame is, the more it begins to vibrate along with the strings. Driven by the energy of the strings' motion. The stiffness and damping properties of the frame determine how the frame vibrates, and how it changes the vibration of the string. That's the mechanism of how the frame can change the sound on the string. But only if the frame is soft enough to where it can vibrate with the string.

This change in tone on the string, from the frame vibrating, doesn't have much effect on the overall output level or the EQ frequency curve. It's in the secondary effects, in the background. A softer frame brings out more dramatic dynamics of the Attack Curve; pop, warble, decay and bloom. And background harmonics, those extra frequency spikes that add richness and warmth to the sound. Those are the things that we Luthiers build into our basses by messing around with the stiffness of the frame.

If you only play through a signal chain and amp that adds its own electronic coloration, you may not be able to hear this added tone character over the roar of the tubes. And you may not care. The electronic tone may be fine for your needs. But the mechanical tone, through a clean system, has a rich character that you can't really duplicate electronically. It's your choice whether you want to use it.

In the Jim Lill video, he made an external frame that was at least as stiff as the stock guitar's frame. So, yeah, he observed very little change in the sound out of the pickup. And he used that to promote the idea that shaping the tone with the frame is useless. But he didn't even try it. He could have done another experiment and demonstrated how the tone can be changed by the frame.

In my TB travels ,I think I've seen you explain this a least 3 times. now. Too bad there isn't some kind of index of contents for your stuff to
stumble upon.

 

[Bruce Johnson]

In my TB travels ,I think I've seen you explain this a least 3 times. now. Too bad there isn't some kind of index of contents for your stuff to
stumble upon.

Hah, it's been many more than that! I keep a library of text files of most of the "Bass Engineering" posts that I've written here on TB over the years. I frequently use them to cut-and-paste when answering the same questions, yet again. But I didn't in the post above. I just wrote that one freehand a few minutes ago. Based on about 30 years of thought and experiments building electric basses.

 

[Belcanto]

Here are the key things:

The stiffer the frame is built, the less effect the frame will have on shaping the tone on the strings. Build the frame from a slab of granite, and it won't change the tone at all. If you build the f.....

This makes all the sense in the world for me. I suppose weight of the frame is a factor too to consider in this process of making an instrument. This is much more of an answer than I hoped to get when posting here. And it gives me a much better insight of the possible consequenses when I start reshaping the head. Thanks to you all. Now its time for me to go to the drawingboard and decide what to do.

 

[Major Seven]

Hah, it's been many more than that! I keep a library of text files of most of the "Bass Engineering" posts that I've written here on TB over the years. I frequently use them to cut-and-paste when answering the same questions, yet again. But I didn't in the post above. I just wrote that one freehand a few minutes ago. Based on about 30 years of thought and experiments building electric basses.

I wish it were a book. Remember the last whole earth catalog? This could be the last whole bass manual.

 

[Bruce Johnson]

This makes all the sense in the world for me. I suppose weight of the frame is a factor too to consider in this process of making an instrument. This is much more of an answer than I hoped to get when posting here. And it gives me a much better insight of the possible consequenses when I start reshaping the head. Thanks to you all. Now its time for me to go to the drawingboard and decide what to do.

Yeah, we went far deeper into the subject here than you expected. Sorry. But that's what happens when you ask technical questions here on Luthier's Corner. We live for these moments.

But the basic answer to your question is that it is unlikely that the headstock modifications that you are thinking of will have any noticeable effect on the tone.

 

[Bruce Johnson]

I wish it were a book. Remember the last whole earth catalog? This could be the last whole bass manual.

Well, I've thought about compiling all that and publishing it in the Wiki section here on TB. Calling it something like the Bass Engineering Notebook. Technical explanations on the engineering behind electric basses. To help Luthiers advance their craft.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Here are the key things:

The stiffer the frame is built, the less effect the frame will have on shaping the tone on the strings. Build the frame from a slab of granite, and it won't change the tone at all. If you build the frame stiff enough, then it can be built from any material, in any shape, and you won't hear any difference in the sound out of the pickups.

The effect on tone happens when you start deliberately making the frame softer and weaker. The softer (less stiff) the frame is, the more it begins to vibrate along with the strings. Driven by the energy of the strings' motion. The stiffness and damping properties of the frame determine how the frame vibrates, and how it changes the vibration of the string. That's the mechanism of how the frame can change the sound on the string. But only if the frame is soft enough to where it can vibrate with the string.

This change in tone on the string, from the frame vibrating, doesn't have much effect on the overall output level or the EQ frequency curve. It's in the secondary effects, in the background. A softer frame brings out more dramatic dynamics of the Attack Curve; pop, warble, decay and bloom. And background harmonics, those extra frequency spikes that add richness and warmth to the sound. Those are the things that we Luthiers build into our basses by messing around with the stiffness of the frame.

If you only play through a signal chain and amp that adds its own electronic coloration, you may not be able to hear this added tone character over the roar of the tubes. And you may not care. The electronic tone may be fine for your needs. But the mechanical tone, through a clean system, has a rich character that you can't really duplicate electronically. It's your choice whether you want to use it.

In the Jim Lill video, he made an external frame that was at least as stiff as the stock guitar's frame. So, yeah, he observed very little change in the sound out of the pickup. And he used that to promote the idea that shaping the tone with the frame is useless. But he didn't even try it. He could have done another experiment and demonstrated how the tone can be changed by the frame.

Maybe he'll revisit it, but plenty of others have shown that sawing bits off a solid body instrument make little impact. I've only seen one where it did, if slightly, and another with similar methodology where it didn't - basically logs of different woods.

I'd agree that from looking at the physics, stiffness is key and the bench system is very stiff.

I did test it myself too, to see how cheap I could go with materials for a project on the drawing board for several years now. In the end I bought a load of sapele as it looks nice.

 

[Major Seven]

Maybe he'll revisit it, but plenty of others have shown that sawing bits of a solid body instrument make little impact. I've only seen one where it did, if slightly, and another with similar methodology where it didn't - basically logs of different woods.

I'd agree that from looking at the physics, stiffness is key and the bench system is very stiff.

Sawing parts off makes no difference in tone. OK. I play mostly seated. It seems the lower bout of any bass affects the position of the bass.
I use a strap, the bass does not rest on my thigh but the lower bout still has the effect of rotating the body through the neck axis away from me at the bottom.,(make sense?) I may have a little belly but not a beer gut. The bout also limits how vertical the neck can get while sitting. I'm thinking about changing that to faciltate a more vertical neck position.

 

[13ghosts]

Here are the key things:

The stiffer the frame is built, the less effect the frame will have on shaping the tone on the strings. Build the frame from a slab of granite, and it won't change the tone at all. If you build the frame stiff enough, then it can be built from any material, in any shape, and you won't hear any difference in the sound out of the pickups.

The effect on tone happens when you start deliberately making the frame softer and weaker. The softer (less stiff) the frame is, the more it begins to vibrate along with the strings. Driven by the energy of the strings' motion. The stiffness and damping properties of the frame determine how the frame vibrates, and how it changes the vibration of the string. That's the mechanism of how the frame can change the sound on the string. But only if the frame is soft enough to where it can vibrate with the string.

This change in tone on the string, from the frame vibrating, doesn't have much effect on the overall output level or the EQ frequency curve. It's in the secondary effects, in the background. A softer frame brings out more dramatic dynamics of the Attack Curve; pop, warble, decay and bloom. And background harmonics, those extra frequency spikes that add richness and warmth to the sound. Those are the things that we Luthiers build into our basses by messing around with the stiffness of the frame.

If you only play through a signal chain and amp that adds its own electronic coloration, you may not be able to hear this added tone character over the roar of the tubes. And you may not care. The electronic tone may be fine for your needs. But the mechanical tone, through a clean system, has a rich character that you can't really duplicate electronically. It's your choice whether you want to use it.

In the Jim Lill video, he made an external frame that was at least as stiff as the stock guitar's frame. So, yeah, he observed very little change in the sound out of the pickup. And he used that to promote the idea that shaping the tone with the frame is useless. But he didn't even try it. He could have done another experiment and demonstrated how the tone can be changed by the frame.

Even if it misses the actual topic of the thread somewhat, I find this discussion very interesting. As already mentioned, this video convinced me to build my first bass.
I see several points here that are perhaps somewhat mixed up, but I can understand all the arguments

I find the video convincing per se, at least at the beginning, when he set the pickups on the two guitars to exactly the same height. Sure, the end is a show. Rather funny.

I have very different basses. One of them is an old Ibanez SDGR1500 from around 1990, which has an incredibly brilliant sound, almost too much, despite the thin neck. This is due to the wood and possibly the construction. If I put the same pickups in a similar position in another bass, the sound is definitely different and that brilliance is gone. I can hear the influence of the wood in any case. Or let's say the influence of the stiffness of the instrument or the density of the material.

If we have two guitars made of very similar wood with the same pickups and a similar construction, one expensive and one cheap, the sound of the two instruments should not be worlds apart. The same will be true for basses. However, basses have different frequencies and string tension, so the construction of the bass should play a much bigger role.

Anyone can buy a guitar or bass cheaply off the peg (an original like artist XY 1969). But a high-quality instrument with a specific sound, finish and handling is something different/special. I think that's clear to any musician who has ever held one in their hands.

That's why I see the video more as a contribution to the discussion. Also against the vintage voodoo (he did the same with microphones...). So I don't think that guitar makers are getting fewer orders as a result. It's more the big companies with all the rather high-priced “signature” instruments that are working on this.

But it would indeed be really interesting to show what differences in construction can do to the sound.