New build experiment

[mikewalker]

I scratch-built "something sorta similar" way back in the late 80s:

There were no issues with the "E" string, (actually that bass was tuned BEAD originally) with that much break angle...

 

[rwkeating]

If you use an LMI dual action bass truss rod and install it so the adjustment is at the headstock, it might not even reach to your neck screws. The LMI in total is just a shade under 24" long. On 34" scale bass with 24 frets you might be okay with your design as is.

I also agree with a longer top horn for the purpose of a better balance.

 

[mark5009]

I scratch-built "something sorta similar" way back in the late 80s:

There were no issues with the "E" string, (actually that bass was tuned BEAD originally) with that much break angle...

That is very cool, Mike! Is this still your bass-of-choice? Or are there design aspects you'd now change?

 

[mark5009]

If you use an LMI dual action bass truss rod...

I also agree with a longer top horn for the purpose of a better balance.

I've had a closer look, and measure, and think I'll adjust the neck bolts a touch. I'm planning on using a bolt-plus-glue approach (M6 SS into steel inserts plus hide glue) and, given a full pocket (top and bottom), I think I can get away with 3 bolts. Maybe...

And I really am going to lengthen that top horn. Any day now...

 

[mikewalker]

That is very cool, Mike! Is this still your bass-of-choice? Or are there design aspects you'd now change?

Nope! This bass is long gone (sold on ebay in the mid 90s)

Headless has fallen out of favor for me. Not enough different kinds of double-ball strings available... and all the "retro-fit-normal-strings" headstock CLAMPS seem to eventually destroy the string (sooner than later). Bass has become "all about the STRING" for me in recent years. If EVERY brand, model, gauge, and scale length of string was freely available in double ball end, then I might reconsider, mostly just for portability's sake. Plus I am very fond of garish oversized headstocks

And also I gotta say that after decades of playing short-scales, I have firmly gravitated to 32 inch as "the ultimate" ( and can tolerate/enjoy playing 34 surprising well now...)

 

[T_Bone_TL]

Not enough different kinds of double-ball strings available... and all the "retro-fit-normal-strings" headstock CLAMPS seem to eventually destroy the string (sooner than later).

But the bass you showed (and the bass being built here) don't need double-ball strings as they use normal tuners, and the ball-end at the HS.

 

[mikewalker]

But the bass you showed (and the bass being built here) don't need double-ball strings as they use normal tuners, and the ball-end at the HS.

That's a very good point! But lately I don't have time to build my own basses any more, so I've mostly been looking at the commercially available ones that are "double-ball-end, or use our built in wonder clamp". ( still pondering the acquisition of a Status Streamline - even though I technically do not "need" one... )

 

[mikewalker]

I do think aiming for more of a "straight-string-pull" is a bonus for any "tuners at the butt end" design, consider the venerable FLEISHMAN for example...

 

[mikewalker]

Also, ya got things like this that aim for it:

And this very nice old one (Steinberger prototype?) :

I've sometimes pondered something like this, only instead of 4-in-line, make it a staggered 2+2 with a sort of "V" shaped protrusion out of the end of a more conventional body... ( I have a sketch in the archives somewhere...)

 

[mark5009]

I've sometimes pondered something like this, only instead of 4-in-line, make it a staggered 2+2 with a sort of "V" shaped protrusion out of the end of a more conventional body... ( I have a sketch in the archives somewhere...)

Hmm... now there's a thought... Back to the drawing pixels...

 

[Omega Monkey]

Interesting design. The obvious thing to keep in mind with the tuners, is the angle will lessen as you pull them "back" (in the direction of your right elbow in playing position). If you pull them back even a couple inches further away from the bridge, even with the same spacing, you would have smaller angles. But it also looks like they are spaced pretty far apart. With an arc the tuning heads will be naturally spaced out by the design. So unless you have gorilla fingers, no need to get too precious with clearance between each one (but don't get too close either, measure some real world established designs for a ballpark idea of what would be acceptable).

Also the 4 neck bolts in a t shape is a bit silly because you lose half the stability in 2 dimensions that way (yaw and roll using aviation terms). "Pitch" (as in up/down angle) should be pretty secure, but the other 2 dimensions don't really benefit from the 4th bolt at all. You basically want to increase the surface area defined by the bolts, so some sort of trapezoid would be much better. That also gets them out of the way of a potential truss rod conflict.

And I agree about the upper horn, and will go further and say the body as a whole could be a big bigger in overall dimensions. The body is what gives the instrument a LOT of it's sustain and tone, and you don't have much there.

 

[WardEarth]

I don't think your tuner design will effect your ability to tune the bass. People can pluck and tune both with their right hand, plenty of time.
Personally Ive been tuning with the 12th string harmonic, which with your design choice would probably be even easier, shorter distance to move and most peoples right hand is stronger / more steady.

One design aspect that I really like is a concave body, allows a little space for your belly. But might not really help your situation cause you are going fairly narrow.

 

[mark5009]

Interesting design.

Also the 4 neck bolts in a t shape is a bit silly ...

And I agree about the upper horn, and will go further and say the body as a whole could be a big bigger in overall dimensions. The body is what gives the instrument a LOT of it's sustain and tone, and you don't have much there.

Thanks for the comments! I've just finished another iteration and will post it here. You are 100% right about the neck bolts, I really wasn't thinking straight there. The body though, perhaps not so much. The design is a touch deceptive and I'll post a comparison with a standard P-bass body. They're pretty similar in overall size

 

[mark5009]

One design aspect that I really like is a concave body, allows a little space for your belly. But might not really help your situation cause you are going fairly narrow.

Thanks! As mentioned, I think the design is a touch deceptive in terms of size. Another graphic coming up!

 

[mark5009]

[update]

Thanks to everyone for the excellent feedback! It has really helped me clarify my thinking. Here is a new version of the same bass, now with added Straight String Paths ;-) and other subtle, and not so subtle, changes. All feedback appreciated! As a note, I just couldn't get the 5-tuners in an arc thing to look any good when I went for (mostly) straight string paths. That being the case, time for a new approach.

And, by way of comparison, here is the body compared with an outline of a "standard" '57 P-Bass. The dimensions are quite similar, though the moments are going to be quite a lot different. Getting the balance right is going to be an interesting challenge.

More to follow...

 

[mark5009]

Time to start, at least for the bits I know about, the neck, for instance.

First up, here is a pile o' wood -- old floorboards mostly -- that I'll use for the build. The neck will be from some Qld mahogany I have around, with the interior laminates being merbau (reclaimed). I have quite a lot of merbau from other projects (some furniture for the garden), so I'll use that for the fretboard. Not a normal choice but it fits well with this build aesthetic The other boards are hoop pine, jarrah, and white cypress.

First up was sawing the interior strips for the neck blank. For fun these are at 4mm

Then time to saw the mahogany for the interior and exterior parts of the neck blank...

Gotta make sure all the bits are square. I like to do that old-school, using a hand plane. I've made a few of my own but the best for this task is my old Stanley No 7 (with a Hock blade). This is an old one, from around 1919 as far as I can tell. After cleanup and tune up, it is a wonderful tool

Quick thickness check to make sure I get the blank the size I want

A quick check to make sure all the parts fit correctly

Close enough to start the glue up

A thin smear of Titebond I, applied with the fingers (I love that bit!), before clamping and leaving overnight. Time enough to cut the fretboard blank.

Back to the bandsaw, then some trimming on the tablesaw, a quick plane and I have a 12mm blank ready to go. Hooray!

 

[WardEarth]

Nice man! Looks like you've got a solid workshop together. That band saw in particular, very nice to have.
And ya your body isn't that narrow, you could probably concave the back if you wanted, depending how thick you're going.
Hard for me to picture those tuners exactly. They're going to be sitting on top and it'll be strung through the body?
The upper horn looks a bit like the warwick fortress's, maybe a little shorter. I'd probably recommend deciding on the length of it once you're able to kinda assemble and put a strap on. That way you can combat neck dive by leaving it a little longer if you like.

 

[mark5009]

Nice man! Looks like you've got a solid workshop together. That band saw in particular, very nice to have.
And ya your body isn't that narrow, you could probably concave the back if you wanted, depending how thick you're going.
Hard for me to picture those tuners exactly. They're going to be sitting on top and it'll be strung through the body?
The upper horn looks a bit like the warwick fortress's, maybe a little shorter. I'd probably recommend deciding on the length of it once you're able to kinda assemble and put a strap on. That way you can combat neck dive by leaving it a little longer if you like.

Thanks! My shop is small and packed, though with enough space to move my main bench out if needed. The bandsaw is a Laguna 14", the table saw a Laguna 10". Love 'em both for their compact size and effectiveness.

As for the thick, I'm kind of going to let that develop as the build progresses. As you mention, the tuners are a thing. I have an idea of making a bolt-in carrier for them that lets me remove them for replacement if needed but keeps everything compact. But that'll mean I might have to recess something in the bottom layer to allow the keys enough clearance. And I'm not 100% sure where the controls are going to go to get the look I'm after yet still make it all workable. To me this is the fun part: the making it up to get something unique. After all, if I wanted a J-Bass, there are lots of excellent instruments available for a fraction of the cost of even a low-end build like this

And your comment on the upper horn is well taken. Thanks!

 

[ctmullins]

I’m guessing from your wood choices that you’re in Australia? Your design reminds me of the creative out-of-the-box thinking that another one of our Australians, @reverendrally , is fond of. I like it!

(Consider adding your location to your TalkBass profile.)

 

[mark5009]

I’m guessing from your wood choices that you’re in Australia? Your design reminds me of the creative out-of-the-box thinking that another one of our Australians, @reverendrally , is fond of. I like it!

(Consider adding your location to your TalkBass profile.)

Thanks for the kind words! And, yes, I'm in Oz. Sydney to be more specific. The wood is a bit of a give away, isn't it? It's not that we can't get the northern woods but we have an abundance of funky stuff locally at a fraction of the price (particularly if you go reclaimed or found). The availability of this stuff kind of drives my designs...

And thanks for the heads-up about the profile.

.. mark.