Isn't neck dive simply a builders flaw?

[bubinga5]

i guess this is subjective...i dont want to dis anyones bass...whats comfortable for me may be uncomfortable for someone else...i played a t bird and although liked the tone, i was struggling with the weight and neck....but im only a scrawny guy..

all i mean is you shouldnt have to fight an instrument

 

[metron]

Hair = split. I must be mesmerized by circular redundant conversations.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I don't like neck dive, but I wouldn't call it a "flaw". Fact is, some players like certain bass designs (Thunderbird, Thumb) enough to deal with the neck dive. Other players don't really care about neck dive.

Same here. If you get the desired result and you the player are cool with it, it's not really a flaw.

And considering that some builders allow input from their customers, I'd say it would be more of a design flaw than a builder one... if that. If you design a bass that balances fine and a customer chooses woods that throw that off, is that a builder flaw (not IMO), a design flaw (again, no IMO) or just how it goes sometimes (yep).

I don't own any basses that don't work fine for me as I play them. Nice strap that stays in place, playing position I like, etc.

 

[tZer]

If I pick up a bass that is marketed as perfectly balanced that's what I want.

A balanced bass is not subjective and therefore if a seller advertises it as such, so it should be.

You are right to expect if it's advertised as balanced, that it will be balanced when YOU play it. "You" could mean anyone, so if it's prone to neck dive more me, but not for him - it's not balanced. It's balanced for some, not balanced for others. Advertising it as 'balanced' implies no neck dive for anyone - period.

That is, unless they're opting for some sort of marketing-speak loophole and the word 'balanced' is in quotes and referring to some intangible qualities like it's 'disposition', 'temperament' or other figurative qualities.

But short of any qualification for the term, you are absolutely correct to assume it means no neck dive and if it does not, they've misrepresented themselves.

But as for that being representative of a flaw - it's a flaw in their advertising ethic, not necessarily in the design of the instrument.

 

[Diogenes]

Can a Steinberger L2 be considered a flawed design? It doesn't neck dive but the location of the strap buttons positions the bass such that the neck extends quite a bit further to the left (for a 'righty' bass) than a lot of conventional designs. Although I don't consider that a design flaw, it's something I don't find comfortable or worth putting up with although other bassists aren't bothered by it... in much the same way that I don't care for the neck dive of an EB-3 that other bassists aren't bothered by.

What original designs that contemporary luthiers have come out within, say the past 20 years or so, suffer from neck dive? Not being facetious, I'm just really curious.

Also, what do people considered balanced? To me it means more than merely lacking neck dive.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

If you get neck dive from a bass that is marketed as "perfectly balanced", then that is probably false advertising rather than a design flaw.

If the bass is not marketed as perfectly balanced, then you get what you get. It's not that hard to figure out which basses will be balanced and which won't: a horn that extends to the 12th fret is usually the sign of a well-balanced bass.... solidbody, anyway.

Not necessarily. First you must define what is "perfectly balanced". I`m sure everyone will have a different definition.

 

[Rickett Customs]

And considering that some builders allow input from their customers, I'd say it would be more of a design flaw than a builder one... if that. If you design a bass that balances fine and a customer chooses woods that throw that off, is that a builder flaw (not IMO), a design flaw (again, no IMO) or just how it goes sometimes (yep).

I think as soon as any alternate woods, thrown in by the client, it becomes an issue with the builder to work out (especially if the body/headstock design is well balanced with woods other than the alternates).

However, with shapes, etc... (like big or way too small headstocks, single cutaways, that fall really short of the 12th fret on the upper horn) and the client wanting it, regardless of the consequences, that's a design flaw that the client will deal with. Whenever i'm put in this position, I will always voice my advice on it and if it is disagreed, then they're getting it exactly the way they want it.

 

[Rickett Customs]

Can a Steinberger L2 be considered a flawed design?

Not at all, especially with no headstock mass.

 

[Fuzzbass]

I disagree. As has been noted a few times neck dive is fundamentally a design flaw. The things you cite above don’t impact the ergonomics of the bass. There are pros and cons to the design of anything – it’s finding the balance between function and form. In the case of something like a guitar, neck dive is a victory of form over function – hence, a flaw…

I haven't seen ONE good argument that neck dive is a "design flaw". I've only seen people say "I don't like it". Ergonomics, just like tone, appearance, and playability, is a SUBJECTIVE factor.

Let's review the definition of ergonomics: Design factors intended to maximize productivity by minimizing operator fatigue and discomfort. So, you're dead wrong: many of the things I cited: neck profile, string spacing, scale length, and even roundwound strings, directly impact operator fatigue and discomfort. Some bassists say "I'm not entirely comfortable playing 35" scale, but I do so because I feel it gives my B string better tone". So, it's equally reasonable for someone to say "I'm not entirely comfortable with neck dive, but I accept it because I love everything else about the bass".

If you're going to say that neck dive is a design flaw, then you can also say that an excessively heavy bass (whatever that means) is a design flaw. You can say that any bass that you have trouble playing, regardless of the reason (fat neck, number of strings, etc etc etc), was designed poorly... but that's for your comfort, not necessarily everyone else's.

Again: heatheroo's T-bird doesn't dive because of the way he plays it: it doesn't impact his comfort at all. So, one cannot say T-birds (or Thumbs or whatever) have poor ergonomics, even though they neck dive for some players.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I think as soon as any alternate woods, thrown in by the client, it becomes an issue with the builder to work out (especially if the body/headstock design is well balanced with woods other than the alternates).

However, with shapes, etc... (like big or way too small headstocks, single cutaways, that fall really short of the 12th fret on the upper horn) and the client wanting it, regardless of the consequences, that's a design flaw that the client will deal with. Whenever i'm put in this position, I will always voice my advice on it and if it is disagreed, then they're getting it exactly the way they want it.

I agree and think this is the stance a builder should take even regarding optional woods. If you (the customer) decide to go with a heavier than usual neck on a lighter than usual body you should be prepared for the balance being different than a builder's norm. Better yet, put it in writing.

The whole 12th fret for balance thing IME is just about as general a guideline as 35" for a good B string. Neither is mandatory and there are plenty of exceptions to both.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Not necessarily. First you must define what is "perfectly balanced". I`m sure everyone will have a different definition.

Yes... very good point.

 

[tZer]

Can a Steinberger L2 be considered a flawed design? It doesn't neck dive but the location of the strap buttons positions the bass such that the neck extends quite a bit further to the left (for a 'righty' bass) than a lot of conventional designs.

I call that a 'quirk' as mentioned by someone earlier. Steinberger's represent an attempt at innovation and as such, you can somethings and lose some other things. To me, there's a good reason the 'traditional' designs persist and the innovations, like Steinberger, tend to be niche.

Also, what do people considered balanced? To me it means more than merely lacking neck dive.

I consider 'balanced' an instrument that hangs on a strap (any strap) in or very near playing position without requiring the fretting hand or the plucking arm to support it in any way. You should be able to let the instrument go and it should stay put, in or very close to playing position.

To me, proper playing technique does not involve also having to support the instrument in any way with your hands. Your hands should be 100% free to do nothing more than play.

Even though my hands are on the instrument, they are not supporting it at all and if I were to let it go, this one would stay exactly as you see it here.

Now I also have a StingRay 5 and a Jazz V - both reasonably well balanced, but each will dive a little bit - but only a little - when I let them go. So there is a little wiggle room for the idea of balanced, but an instrument whose in danger of losing a headstock unless you're holding it up is definitely NOT balanced.

 

[efenaye]

Its a design tradeoff not a flaw. Not all people are fussy and some prefer certain body shapes purely for the look. Its all working as intended imo

 

[dvh]

I haven't seen ONE good argument that neck dive is a "design flaw". I've only seen people say "I don't like it". Ergonomics, just like tone, appearance, and playability, is a SUBJECTIVE factor.

Let's review the definition of ergonomics: Design factors intended to maximize productivity by minimizing operator fatigue and discomfort. So, you're dead wrong: many of the things I cited: neck profile, string spacing, scale length, and even roundwound strings, directly impact operator fatigue and discomfort. Some bassists say "I'm not entirely comfortable playing 35" scale, but I do so because I feel it gives my B string better tone". So, it's equally reasonable for someone to say "I'm not entirely comfortable with neck dive, but I accept it because I love everything else about the bass".

If you're going to say that neck dive is a design flaw, then you can also say that an excessively heavy bass (whatever that means) is a design flaw. You can say that any bass that you have trouble playing, regardless of the reason (fat neck, number of strings, etc etc etc), was designed poorly... but that's for your comfort, not necessarily everyone else's.

Again: heatheroo's T-bird doesn't dive because of the way he plays it: it doesn't impact his comfort at all. So, one cannot say T-birds (or Thumbs or whatever) have poor ergonomics, even though they neck dive for some players.

tZer's post answers it better than I can...

I consider 'balanced' an instrument that hangs on a strap (any strap) in or very near playing position without the requiring the fretting hand or the plucking arm to support it in any way. You should be able to let the instrument go and it should stay put, in or very close to playing position.

To me, proper playing technique does not involve also having to support the instrument in any way with your hands. Your hands should be 100% free to do nothing more than play.

 

[smperry]

Same here. If you get the desired result and you the player are cool with it, it's not really a flaw.

And considering that some builders allow input from their customers, I'd say it would be more of a design flaw than a builder one... if that. If you design a bass that balances fine and a customer chooses woods that throw that off, is that a builder flaw (not IMO), a design flaw (again, no IMO) or just how it goes sometimes (yep).

I don't own any basses that don't work fine for me as I play them. Nice strap that stays in place, playing position I like, etc.

Agreed.

 

[Johnny Alien]

To me, proper playing technique does not involve also having to support the instrument in any way with your hands. Your hands should be 100% free to do nothing more than play.

But playing position is the variable. Your picture proves it. That is not the position I like. I play with the bass lower and completely horizontal. So something that drops to 90 degrees to you would have neck dive and to me would be proper playing position. That is why everything spoken about revolves around personal preference and playing style. You view on perfect is not the same as mine or someone elses. So which person is right enough to warrant this being a "flaw"?

 

[ric stave]

If all these bass makers would just get rid of those pesky obsolete headstock thingies, this thread coulda been done 8 pages ago.

A headless T-Bird would be pretty cool. If anyone has one and can't deal with that unbalanced feeling, send it my way - I just bought a new hacksaw blade.....

 

[fullrangebass]

Not many people are aware of the strain induced from improper positioning of the bass. Not all people have the same flexibility, but there norms of what is "comfort". tZer's picture shows a VERY relaxed and comfortable playing position of the bass IMHO. And I do work MANY hours with my fingers all through the day, so when I go and rehearse (from 2 to 4 hrs) I DESERVE a bass with no ergonomic issues and no neck dive

 

[Brad Johnson]

If "you" want to consider it a flaw, I guess it is one.

In the meantime, I don't own any truly flawed IMO basses because they work fine for me... and I'm glad about that. Then again I'm a guy who doesn't dwell on dead spots so what do I know?

 

[tZer]

But playing position is the variable. Your picture proves it. That is not the position I like. I play with the bass lower and completely horizontal. So something that drops to 90 degrees to you would have neck dive and to me would be proper playing position. That is why everything spoken about revolves around personal preference and playing style. You view on perfect is not the same as mine or someone elses. So which person is right enough to warrant this being a "flaw"?

Agreed. If I lowered the neck to horizontal and let it go, guess what... It'd stay put, NOT spring up to the position pictured - because it's balanced, not loaded. It will stay in 'playing position' without requiring support from my hands even if that playing position is horizontal.