why not a headstock with headless string adapter? have the strings break where they do on a normal headless, but a faux headstock extending beyond? You could use a lightweight yet still aesthetically pleasing design
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.
Some new thoughts on bass headstocks (I think)
- Thread starter reverendrally
- Start date
Well, while I was away on holidays, I spent a bunch of hours with a pencil and paper. This was just one of the ideas I rejected...
Suffice to say, I think I've come up with something usable. Still some work to do on it, but I'm 90% there. I think I'll be doing some destructive testing with pine first to see how strong they are before doing anything permanent. My biggest challenge has been coming up with something that fulfilled these demands;
1. Get D and A tuners closer to the nut than the other tuners.
2. Allowed the headstock to sit in a wall hanger. Headless basses are a major pain in this regard.
3. Had some sort of aesthetic beyond pure functionality. (ie. not totally ugly)
4. Was able to be expanded for 5 and 6 string configurations.
5. A unique design.
6. Easy access to the truss rod.
All of these demands created significant challenges. I'm still not sure the design has fully met them. But with all things, you play one thing off against the other.
Suffice to say, I think I've come up with something usable. Still some work to do on it, but I'm 90% there. I think I'll be doing some destructive testing with pine first to see how strong they are before doing anything permanent. My biggest challenge has been coming up with something that fulfilled these demands;
1. Get D and A tuners closer to the nut than the other tuners.
2. Allowed the headstock to sit in a wall hanger. Headless basses are a major pain in this regard.
3. Had some sort of aesthetic beyond pure functionality. (ie. not totally ugly)
4. Was able to be expanded for 5 and 6 string configurations.
5. A unique design.
6. Easy access to the truss rod.
All of these demands created significant challenges. I'm still not sure the design has fully met them. But with all things, you play one thing off against the other.
As has been mentioned, Ned Steinberger solved this problem 35 years ago, the straight-line pull of a screw-based tuner imparts no twist on the string, a vastly superior (IMHO) tuning system in almost every respect. My Steinberger takes months to go even slightly out of tune if left unplayed, and that's probably due to string stretching rather than any slack in the tuners or movement of the graphite composite neck. If a volute gives you a tactile reference to where the neck end is, it can be carved into the end of the neck easily enough. That would also provide some edges to hang the bass from. I never felt the need for it myself. The minimalist body design fell out of fashion, but the double and single ball string bridge versions are commonly available now that his patents have expired. Some people have designed basses with purely decorative headstocks to make the bass look "right", or as a counterweight to balance the body weight, but it's not really necessary. My Steinberger balances perfectly without it.The Kubicki Factor bass had a minimalist headstock of sorts, mainly to enable a drop-D tuning device. Geddy Lee played one for a while in the 80's because he got tired of whacking headstocks against the mike stands! Somebody started a new "Headless Bass Club" thread on the forum that has some interesting variations on the theme.
Last edited:
From a scientific perspective, making the higher tension string tuners closer to the nut is only as important as the difference between the tension of those strings and others. I don't think that difference is significant for these purposes, especially with balanced string sets. Making the headstock shorter is probably more useful. Not only does it make the stress less significant because the pull happens on a smaller distance, but it also shifts the center of balance, making the bass balance better.
The Dingwall 5 string long-scale headstock is an engineering marvel in that sense. Only headless would work better. Very compact 2+3 orientation, with the G tuner almost in the same vertical of the nut at the B string. The headstock's so compact that the 37" scale bass is just as long as a 34" Fender.
The Dingwall 5 string long-scale headstock is an engineering marvel in that sense. Only headless would work better. Very compact 2+3 orientation, with the G tuner almost in the same vertical of the nut at the B string. The headstock's so compact that the 37" scale bass is just as long as a 34" Fender.
