• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Worst chronic bass design flaws?

The fretboard looks really cool though. Is there a bass version available?

Yes.

bass.gif
 
What do you think is the worst design flaw that is almost universally present in production basses?

My vote would be the truss nut mechanism - often a pain to use, and easy to strip.

I would say the problem is not just the truss rod nut, but the whole truss rod mechanism.

Let me get this straight. We route out our wooden necks, slap in a steel rod with a nut on the end, torque it down so it warps the neck slightly and hope the freaking thing works??? Really, is this the best we can do? Don't get me started on the fact the arc this produces is only good from the first to about the twelfth fret. And after the twelfth? It produces a hump. A hump I must say that countless luthiers and techs must try and compensate for.

I'd like to see someone design a system that produces a consistent radius arc throughout the length of the neck. One whose radius is derived from the entire length of the string (nut to bridge).
 
I am going to say how T birds headstocks are, where they route for the truss rod it makes it really then right at the angle it tilts back and numerous 'birds bust there necks.

I know alot of people are fine with a repaired headstock but it bothers me alot. Gibson has alot fo these problems and with a glued in neck joint its not like you can swap necks an hour before a gig .

I have two Thunderbirds, one with a repaired headstock, and one that has never been broken. It doesn't make any difference to me which one I play. I gig with the repaired one, because they are both '76 birds and I figure if I damage it it is no big deal.
 
well, how about because it's inaccurate? It's not just basses, but guitars, ukes, banjos, anything with frets. there is always a trade off because of the strings being in a straight line or fanned or whatever. Not every note fretted will ring to true pitch...the squiggly fret addresses that problem head on.

Yes, but in a band unless every guitar/bass has them someone is still going to be out. Your perfect intonation could sound out of tune because it isn't the same as all the other instruments.

Sometimes it is possible to be too picky. There are a whole lot of great songs (pretty much every song for that matter) recorded on instruments that don't have perfect intonation. It has worked out ok for them.
 
I would say the problem is not just the truss rod nut, but the whole truss rod mechanism.

Let me get this straight. We route out our wooden necks, slap in a steel rod with a nut on the end, torque it down so it warps the neck slightly and hope the freaking thing works??? Really, is this the best we can do? Don't get me started on the fact the arc this produces is only good from the first to about the twelfth fret. And after the twelfth? It produces a hump. A hump I must say that countless luthiers and techs must try and compensate for.

I'd like to see someone design a system that produces a consistent radius arc throughout the length of the neck. One whose radius is derived from the entire length of the string (nut to bridge).

I disagree. The problem is, you can make a neck that is perfectly flat (or the exact curvature you want) out of wood, BUT the tension on the strings BENDS THE NECK.

Simplest solution is to put a tensioning rod in the neck to COUNTERACT the string tension. And you make it adjustable since the WOOD in the neck is ALSO susceptible to temperature and humidity fluctuations, PLUS you have to be able to account for different string gauges and mfrs which have different tensions. I like that someone thought up such a simple solution. What's the problem? :cool:
 
well, how about because it's inaccurate? It's not just basses, but guitars, ukes, banjos, anything with frets. there is always a trade off because of the strings being in a straight line or fanned or whatever. Not every note fretted will ring to true pitch...the squiggly fret addresses that problem head on.

It's not really that big of a problem. In fact the ONLY stringed instruments that can play in tune in every key are fretless ones... yes, including pianos.

Musical pitches are most harmonious when their frequencies are ni specific ratios to each other. If you tune a piano to one key signature, let's say "C", those ratios are not correct for other key signatures. For that reason pianos and fretted instruments are tuned to what is called "even-tempered" tuning which is a "best-compromise" tuning so that you can play in different keys and not sound bad.

IOW a "C" in the key of "C" is, strictly speaking, a different frequency than a "C" in the key of "F". We are listening to "out of tune" notes ALL THE TIME.

Now if you really want to talk about pitch accuracy, on fretted stringed instruments, the frets are typically positioned at the exact locations specified by the equal-tempered definition. But when you fret the string it not only shortens the effective sounding length but, to a lesser or more degree, you are increasing the tension which changes the pitch from what it should be!!! The amount of tension change is different for different depending on how far up the neck you fret, string material (differen mfrs use different formulas) AND string gauges!!

My point?
1. We are listening to out of tune notes all the time. People fretting (sorry) over this to the nth degree are chasing windmills.

2. The ONLY way to play a guitar or bass perfectly in tune up and down the fretboard is to NOT HAVE FRETS.

3. Since we are listening to out of tune notes all the time, our auditory system is pretty accomodating of small pitch errors. Otherwise, we could NEVER enjoy music. It's a small miracle that we do. :cool:
 
It sounds like there is a general consensus about neck dive and weight. Here is my solution, headstocks are a universal design flaw. They are entirely unnecessary from a design perspective.

Thus the solution---

Invalid Link Removed


Ned Steinberger was a genius, he saw what a bass really needed and didn't need. I think half of the people on this thread would love to play one of these bad boys, even if they hated it, if you get my drift.
 
It sounds like there is a general consensus about neck dive and weight. Here is my solution, headstocks are a universal design flaw. They are entirely unnecessary from a design perspective.

Thus the solution---

[mg]http://centralscum.lostfrog.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/steinberger2.jpg[/mg]


Ned Steinberger was a genius, he saw what a bass really needed and didn't need. I think half of the people on this thread would love to play one of these bad boys, even if they hated it, if you get my drift.

I love Steinberger designs. I'd play one any time....if I could afford it.