• 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.

The official "Show your basses" thread part 19!

#15,281
fretno said:
View attachment 4420874
Click to expand...
:hyper:

Getting me pumped for my next build... if I can pull it off... 27" scale headless travel bass. All maple for durability, will be trying out chambering (on maple, the king of tearouts LOL) to keep the weight down.

Though your pic got me thinking... why don't we see basses with conventional *and* bridge tuners?

This would eliminate need for double-ball strings of having to hex-wrench the string end into an anchor plate.

You could do initial tuning with the conventional tuners and then fine tune easily at the bridge....

I know in the past, tuning bridges/ bridge pieces would have contributed a lot, perhaps too much weight in conjunction with the head tuners but now you can get everything fairly light...
 
  • Like
Reactions: fretno
#15,282
MovinTarget said:
:hyper:

Getting me pumped for my next build... if I can pull it off... 27" scale headless travel bass. All maple for durability, will be trying out chambering (on maple, the king of tearouts LOL) to keep the weight down.

Though your pic got me thinking... why don't we see basses with conventional *and* bridge tuners?

This would eliminate need for double-ball strings of having to hex-wrench the string end into an anchor plate.

You could do initial tuning with the conventional tuners and then fine tune easily at the bridge....

I know in the past, tuning bridges/ bridge pieces would have contributed a lot, perhaps too much weight in conjunction with the head tuners but now you can get everything fairly light...
Click to expand...

Like this?
v78u33n5qm3voec1chpm.jpg
DSCF0273.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zagnuts, Dec1975, BBassBassington and 4 others
#15,284
yeah they are out there , I think
MovinTarget said:
:hyper:

Getting me pumped for my next build... if I can pull it off... 27" scale headless travel bass. All maple for durability, will be trying out chambering (on maple, the king of tearouts LOL) to keep the weight down.

Though your pic got me thinking... why don't we see basses with conventional *and* bridge tuners?

This would eliminate need for double-ball strings of having to hex-wrench the string end into an anchor plate.

You could do initial tuning with the conventional tuners and then fine tune easily at the bridge....

I know in the past, tuning bridges/ bridge pieces would have contributed a lot, perhaps too much weight in conjunction with the head tuners but now you can get everything fairly light...
Click to expand...
That sounds awesome !
 
#15,287
fretno said:
whoops who did that ! lol
Click to expand...

Some chick named Rose Floyd! I was thinkin along the lines of set bridge, but that crossed my mind for the "why not?" as it is a heck of a lot more comfortable and convenient when standing up on stage to just tweak at the bridge... also, and I might get myself in trouble here, appear a bit more professional to not be so obviously tuning if the strings are giving you crap...
 
#15,290
fretno said:
Yeah it's a cool idea . Not sure why it never really took off .
Click to expand...

At the time it was probably considered too much of a luxury/unnecessary cost...

My daughter's violin has fine tuners on it's bridge, but the tuning pegs are not remotely precise unlike bass/guitar tuners at least well made ones!

And of course there is the aforementioned weight/cost factors.

I'd say it's much more viable now though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fretno
#15,291
AB Nate said:
*Unknowingly suggests cost as a possible reason*

Is the hardware justifiably more

or

does it just add additional moving parts making instruments more Finnicky?

ala Rose Floyd.
Click to expand...

Well, FR's are finnicky due to other reasons, not the tuners themselves, right? If you had a bridge locked in place and it was never free to float... the tuners wouldn't slip under normal play would they?

Not trying to be contrarian, I honestly do not know...

Now if you put an original Steinberger bridge on a conventional bass, you'd be adding ~2lbs but those tuners were solid.
 
#15,293
MovinTarget said:
Well, FR's are finnicky due to other reasons, not the tuners themselves, right? If you had a bridge locked in place and it was never free to float... the tuners wouldn't slip under normal play would they?

Not trying to be contrarian, I honestly do not know...

Now if you put an original Steinberger bridge on a conventional bass, you'd be adding ~2lbs but those tuners were solid.
Click to expand...
I’ve only know one guitarist who was “1with his FR”. The rest always required a tech to change strings… :vomit: lol.

I have no idea myself as I’ve never attempted to explore one either. The tech in me is a bit curious but the guy who appreciates every minute to do other more enjoyable things in life is definitely not!!! Hahahaha
 
  • Like
Reactions: MovinTarget and Nuage420
#15,294
AB Nate said:
I’ve only know one guitarist who was “1with his FR”. The rest always required a tech to change strings… :vomit: lol.

I have no idea myself as I’ve never attempted to explore one either. The tech in me is a bit curious but the guy who appreciates every minute to do other more enjoyable things in life is definitely not!!! Hahahaha
Click to expand...

I hear ya, which is why the Steinberger style bridge is kind of appealing apart from the weight... In actuality, doesn't have to change anything about how you use the bass if you never touch the bridge tuners, but you have that option if you want...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AB Nate
#15,295
MovinTarget said:
I hear ya, which is why the Steinberger style bridge is kind of appealing apart from the weight... In actuality, doesn't have to change anything about how you use the bass if you never touch the bridge tuners, but you have that option if you want...
Click to expand...

I’d think the gear on a bass such as the Ibanez EHB would be similar in that it would be there but not offensively. I am really curious to see what Dingwall comes out with for a tunable bridge when the time comes. Their hardware is usually designed from the ground up
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nuage420 and MovinTarget
#15,296
AB Nate said:
I’d think the gear on a bass such as the Ibanez EHB would be similar in that it would be there but not offensively. I am really curious to see what Dingwall comes out with for a tunable bridge when the time comes. Their hardware is usually designed from the ground up
Click to expand...

That's where I'd think you'd see this combo, on the high end near-production basses. Put on some light weight tuners and then a reasonably weighted bridge/bridge pieces that tune...

The other niche would be the longer scales... lots of people can play a 35"+ scale bass, but it would be a struggle to reach all the tuners while standing up, especially if they are inline... So that's another point of consideration for Dingwall which does a lot of longer scale lengths, perhaps giving us short-armed people less reason to avoid them. ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AB Nate
#15,297
MovinTarget said:
That's where I'd think you'd see this combo, on the high end near-production basses. Put on some light weight tuners and then a reasonably weighted bridge/bridge pieces that tune...

The other niche would be the longer scales... lots of people can play a 35"+ scale bass, but it would be a struggle to reach all the tuners while standing up, especially if they are inline... So that's another point of consideration for Dingwall which does a longer of longer scale lengths, perhaps giving us short-armed people less reason to avoid them. ;)
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Random fact.

With my strap hanging in a normal(for me) position my 35” scale Spector is about 1” longer of a reach then my 37” scale dingwall. Food for thought! o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: MovinTarget

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back