Could this possibly be the "secret ingredient" that makes Squiers sound better than USA Fenders? 
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.
I don't know... Fender/Squier question?
- Thread starter D M C
- Start date
Smooth_bass88
vaxx!
- Oct 31, 2006
- 12,122
- 16,795
- Disclosures
- have been on nationally released albums, charting on the Billboard 200
Seems like squire headstocks are always snapping off- especially when you slap and pop. Better replace if with a Warmoth ASAP. Also, if you have too many strawberry milkshakes the body of the bass will explode and shrapnel will fly everywhere. Fair warning...
I did a quick and dirty calculation using the average density of hard maple and an eyeball estimate of the area of a Fender headstock (a generous estimate). A 1/16 difference comes to something in the neighborhood of 0.6 ounces in weight. I'd imagine the random difference in wood would be just as great.
If the difference is in the CAD file, why is the headstock thickness the only apparent difference between the two?
I'm just asking for possibilities. I mean there's a reason for everything, even if the reason is inattention and laziness.
Hopkins
Commercial User
It was just a guess, I don't know what the real reason that the Squires are cheating everyone out of 1/16" of headstock.
Turnaround
Commercial User
The fact that the guys who design those things choose the headstock size and shape based entirely on aesthetics makes me think it doesn't really matter. I'm sure if it made any difference you'd see Jazz and Precision basses having very different headstocks to compliment their very different sounds etc.
Speaking of tone, is it true that the wood and even the strings have something to do with a bass's tone?
Maybe I'm Doctor Doofus and I'm missing the point, but you didn't say there was a difference in tonality between the two basses, but asked if the respective thicknesses
could affect tonality. All other things being equal, as you seem to imply, wouldn't playing them and comparing them that way answer your question ?
could affect tonality. All other things being equal, as you seem to imply, wouldn't playing them and comparing them that way answer your question ?
From an interview with Roger.
"Anybody who’s played Fenders knows about it, it’s always been there, and some basses have it more than others. So we began to add two strips of graphite in the neck and thickened up our headstock. I didn’t do it for stability problems, I’ve never had stability issues with my necks, but just so that I could go to bed at night knowing I’ve done everything I can to reduce dead spots."
"Anybody who’s played Fenders knows about it, it’s always been there, and some basses have it more than others. So we began to add two strips of graphite in the neck and thickened up our headstock. I didn’t do it for stability problems, I’ve never had stability issues with my necks, but just so that I could go to bed at night knowing I’ve done everything I can to reduce dead spots."
Actually you are correct. The modern fender headstocks ('90s-'00s) are thicker than the '60s and '70s headstocks.
here they are, '78j (left) and '08j american standard (right) headstocks.
Last edited:
