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.
New Ibanez (headless, multiscale)
- Thread starter chanson
- Start date
Hmm... didn't realize until now the lower end models were Basswood! Interesting choice but I can't help but feel it's not the right one.
That is def a carrot to move to the higher end chambered mahogany.
I also would say in order to have a lower end entry they would have had to make compromises on the wood, since the hardware would be a larger expense compared to a standard setup, and is standard across the headless models (by the looks of it)
From the looks of it, seems the Mono Rail MR5HS bridge is the iteration of Ibanez own last model Mono Rail 5S bridge into the headless application.
So, each of the MR5HS bridge possess setup features of intonation, action, as well as sideways string spacing.
I guess I was getting more at the actual tuning system. I seem to remember reading about some headless tuning systems that were problematic because they could twist the string, or something like that? Just curious how exactly Ibanez has it worked out and whether their system could have the potential to be problematic at all.
The usage of basswood on the what so called "entry" models of these headlesses doesn't necessarily mean that they would be lower ends.
The usage of roasted maple/walnut w/Graphite reinforcement rods for the necks, roasted birdseye maple for the fretboards, stainless steel for the frets, and the inclusion of gigbag indicate that these actually aren't lower end models. At least from Ibanez usual practices in numbering their basses in the last, maybe, 20 years, their model numbering scheme for the headless models which started at 1000 would mean that the entry headless models are somewhat comparable to their Premium line.
You just supported what I was saying.
Because of the additional features, they may have needed a less expensive body wood to keep the EHB1000 around the $1k mark.
I have my Ibanez Mikro string that way, but I don't play it much. I'm thinking about stringing my SRMS805 that way.
Depends on how much room there is to move the 'C' saddle forward, for intonation. Might be worth seeing a few in the wild beforehand before making the decision.
So have do the moving saddles work? It says 1.5mm room for adjustment. Does that mean 1.5mm both sides? So on the six string you have 17mm. Can it be both 15.5 and 18.5mm?
1.5mm to both sides (so total 3.0 mm). But, cause it needs to be divided to all spacings between the 6 strings (there are 5 spacings) so each spacing will get additional 3.0 mm / 5 = 0.6 mm, thus the string spacing would be 17.6 mm max.
0.6mm? That's not much at all. Do know this sure? Where did you read that? Seems vague to me.
There are 5 spaces of 17 mm right now, the outer strings can move 1.5 mm each so that's 3 mm added.
((5 x 17) + 3) / 5 = 17.6 mm
((5 x 17) + 3) / 5 = 17.6 mm
See... ^
@LordHar also calculated the same 17.6 mm result. And prior to your question, @skeeler answered similar question from @gscroggin with also the same result on post #175.
No need for us to read this from somewhere. The calculation is all a matter of logic.
@LordHar also calculated the same 17.6 mm result. And prior to your question, @skeeler answered similar question from @gscroggin with also the same result on post #175.
No need for us to read this from somewhere. The calculation is all a matter of logic.
