I can't stop myself. Build 3. Backwards and headless.

[Wevhc]

I am still working on build #2 - I just had a small setback and had to buy some more tools. I'm ready to complete that now!

But while I'm getting to get back to that one I'm working on a new project.

I bought this cheap lefty and I'm going to:
1: put the neck on the other end and
2: rip the head off

I didn't look at it super carefully when buying it because of 1 and 2 (and the $100 price tag) but so what? It will not be any worse than it is right now. Trust me!

And on the subject of build 2 I think I'm going to play with it to its logical conclusion but I'd like to rebuild it (from scratch) with the design I had intended to use on that one. I do not need to do anything crazy like "saving wood" or whatever. I just need to get on it and cut it out the way I intended to do before I actually cut it. Sheesh!

cheers

 

[Wevhc]

Not really progress - I just took it apart. I think things will fit after I cut off some of the tail of the neck. Looks like I’ll need to shim up the bridge. But it will be fine and ugly and I’ll have another head to give away! “All of my coworkers are getting heads for Christmas!”

I suppose I’ll measure for length before I cut the neck pocket since, well, like, I have to do that. Ha ha. I’d rather not move the new neck pickup but I suppose that I would consider doing so. If I did then I wouldn’t need to cut the base of the neck but I think i prefer making fewer holes - keeping it as close to original as possible in the constraints that I’ve given (it will be headless and backwards).

 

[Max Bogosity]

Sacrilege! I love it.

 

[Wevhc]

Sacrilege! I love it.

I mean, I'm just trying stuff out on cheap basses before I do this to my Mockingbird. It will be great - trust me. OK, fine, I won't do _this_ on the Mockingbird but I do have a plan to make it headless. I would just like a little more experience beheading guitars before I behead one that's through neck! And expensive.

 

[stigbeve]

Cool idea. Can't wait to see the progress and final product.

 

[T_Bone_TL]

I mean, I'm just trying stuff out on cheap basses before I do this to my Mockingbird. It will be great - trust me. OK, fine, I won't do _this_ on the Mockingbird but I do have a plan to make it headless. I would just like a little more experience beheading guitars before I behead one that's through neck! And expensive.

Or you could just build what you want, rather than starting with expensive and burning the value it has unaltered. Your choice, of course. If you want to come out money behind you can do that.

 

[Wevhc]

Or you could just build what you want, rather than starting with expensive and burning the value it has unaltered. Your choice, of course. If you want to come out money behind you can do that.

But I like how that bass sounds and I'm sure I'm not going to alter that sound in any way by converting it to headless!

I know... Not realistic. But I do like how it sounds! I just hate the neck dive and don't want to deal with that. As it stands today I'll just keep using my Fingybass and going through effects to get it to sound like the Mockingbird does naturally because the Fingybass is perfectly balanced, light and super easy to play all day long...

 

[ardgedee]

But I like how that bass sounds and I'm sure I'm not going to alter that sound in any way by converting it to headless!

I know you're writing that tongue in cheek, but removing the head raises the resonant frequency of the neck and will change your guitar's tone far more than carving up the body a little would.

 

[T_Bone_TL]

There are a number of not-likely-to-mess-with-the-tone mods to extend the strap button and deal with neck dive through the power of applied leverage, in all seriousness. I'd hazard a guess that with that particular shape you could make an extender that hooked onto the upper side without any permanent alteration of the body. From time to time folks wander by and make great alterations to a bass they love in some way. A lot of them just vanish, rather than (I presume) admitting to having lost what they liked. If they are not bragging about the success of the modification, and they vanish, I make inferences...

Here's one that actually owned up to screwing up a good thing through over-enthusiastic modding. https://www.talkbass.com/threads/am...e-a-neck-thinner.1499155/page-2#post-24888259

 

[Wevhc]

I know you're writing that tongue in cheek, but removing the head raises the resonant frequency of the neck and will change your guitar's tone far more than carving up the body a little would.

But think of how easy it will be to play! Why, so much easier than this backwards bass...

Anyway, we'll get to deheading (or not - thanks for the pushback on your parts) other basses some other time. I'm still working on build 3 (and perhaps restartng build 2 to be more like build 1 only well done).

I do still have to decide which bridge to use on this one:

1: Top which is Overlord of whatever. Bleh! Never going to happen!
2: Second row left. Simple enough with shim. Need to route for tuners.
3: Second row right. Requires being routed into the body a little for that plus routing for the tuners.
4: Bottom row. ALP. Simple shimming.

#4 would be the simplest to do but I'm leaning towards #3 because I want to use #4 on a nicer bass. I don't really feel like I'm ever going to use the overlords (I have a couple) so you could make me an offer on them. [One is NIB and one is partially messed up with spare parts!] I do want to try #2 and #3 out for sure but the ALP shown (and the Guykers not shown) are definitely much nicer and easier to use so, again, I want to save those for "real" builds...

 

[Wevhc]

Here's one that actually owned up to screwing up a good thing through over-enthusiastic modding. https://diy.stackexchange.com/a/238814/18078

Or a link to working on wiring in a garage?

I do understand where you're coming from, honestly. And I am totally new about these things and crazy enthusiastic and, well, crazy. But I do own up to my mistakes! Build 1 was really just messing around and while the shape and style 100% work for me the end result is genuinely awful. That's OK - I wasn't shooting for anything different. I was shooting for seeing what happens! When I'm done messing around and seeing what I can do on my own and what the results are I seek help. I seek help, that is, if I'm going to continue and can't get the results I'm after on my own. Right now... I'm not asking for help yet because I'm still messing around. I'm having fun messing around!

 

[ardgedee]

Here's one that actually owned up to screwing up a good thing through over-enthusiastic modding. https://diy.stackexchange.com/a/238814/18078

Is that the link you meant to paste?

 

[T_Bone_TL]

Is that the link you meant to paste?

Obviously not. Thought I had copied the post I found https://www.talkbass.com/threads/am...e-a-neck-thinner.1499155/page-2#post-24888259 but cearly got somehting unrelated in the backlog of stuff.

 

[Wevhc]

I don't like how these headless nuts are working out. I'm going to have to do some other thing on future builds (as I've already said) - I just don't know what. Small details related to that aside this one is pretty close to playable. Some build pix and close-to-finished product. No, the neck isn't totally twisted - that's a wide angle lens effect.

Head (and build #2 waiting for more neck routing) first and then other stuff. Full pic at the end.

 

[T_Bone_TL]

I don't like how these headless nuts are working out.

How so? In what way?

 

[MynameisMe]

Fancy pantsy!

 

[Wevhc]

How so? In what way?

They look like they should lean over the top of the fretboard but when i set them like that they’re recessed a little too much. So thinking about that right now it just tells me they’re made wrong. They were pretty cheap parts… On build 1 I set it outside of the real nut and that seems to have worked but it looks funky. (On builds -1 and -2 I had the issue I’m having now.) I’ll try to get a picture later.

 

[Wevhc]

How so? In what way?

Purpose built headless (Steinberger) have a 0 fret or a nut that is otherwise separate from the headpiece.

I can tweak this to make it work but someday I’d like to intentionally make one of these that worked and looked right from the start.

Scratch that, of course. I genuinely appreciate the workmanship that goes into your instruments but I don’t like, for myself, ones that “look right”.

 

[T_Bone_TL]

I think you're free to use a separate nut, or a zero fret, as you like, though with a retrofit the separate nut is obviously less work than trying to graft on a scrid of fingerboard to hold a zero fret. Indeed, I thought you were using a separate nut, but that may have just been in the in-progress pictures and the final picture (in post #14) was too far away to see clearly, at least for me. Here the final picture is presumably what you're talking about with the string retainer/headpiece also serving as the nut.

Leave another 3/8-1/2" on the neck, tilt the thing back to mount it, (planing and angling the end cut as need be) and cut a nut for the actual nut-job, letting the headpiece just be the headpiece.

 

[Wevhc]

letting the headpiece just be the headpiece.

but I want a perfect world and I want it to look like the steinberger - it really should just be the one piece. Insert baby crying emoji.

oh. Ha ha. I want it to be like the steinberger but that one has a zero fret. And the fingybass has a normal nut. Well, I don’t want it like the steinberger or the fingybass - I want the headpiece to be the nut. I don’t understand why they don’t make that just be the default case.

Anyway, this is really close to playable and I can make it be that and wow does it look wacky and I can deal with that. I think I’m ok with the almost end result and I learned a lot and I’m getting better and the next one will totally blow your minds. How do you feel about sideways? I might have to do a short scale to make that work and I’m not a fan…