Bass Ergonomics

[bnt]

Interesting article in the Ergonomic Guitar blog about Santiago Arteaga's new bass: [url="http://buildingtheergonomicguitar.com/2008/02/bass-guitar-design.html"]The Design of An Ergonomic Bass Guitar[/url].

Interesting, though he talks like he invented the single-cut principle...

[Dood]

I do like the fact that at least the report is outlining ergonomic issues and addressing them.

Without wanting to blow my own trumpet, A large % of my Shuker was based on ergonomic improvements as opposed to pure aesthetics.

[warwickhunt]

I've no idea how it would work in practice but I like the idea of the rotated neck... but would it make it easier to play? The rest is pretty much covered by a whole bunch of basses already out there.

[BigRedX]

Some interesting ideas. The rotated neck has been done before in a more extreme form on the [url="http://www.littleguitarworks.com/torzal/"]Little Torzal Twist[/url] which is mentioned in the article and also in the [url="http://www.nortonguitars.com/"]Norton Guitars and Basses[/url] where the angle of the neck to body is completely adjustable via the Mainframe system.

I like the way the strings fit into the head on this bass but I'm a little concerned as to how well they're going to stay there under agressive playing?

[warwickhunt]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='147010' date='Feb 25 2008, 11:29 PM']Some interesting ideas. The rotated neck has been done before in a more extreme form on the [url="http://www.littleguitarworks.com/torzal/"]Little Torzal Twist[/url] which is mentioned in the article and also in the [url="http://www.nortonguitars.com/"]Norton Guitars and Basses[/url] where the angle of the neck to body is completely adjustable via the Mainframe system.

I like the way the strings fit into the head on this bass but I'm a little concerned as to how well they're going to stay there under agressive playing?[/quote]

Isn't the headstock string seat system just a direct rip-off of the Kubicki sysyem?

[Lfalex v1.1]

There is merit in the idea that the electric bass guitar in its current form is [i]ergonomically challenged[/i]

The original concept, be it the the '51 "P", the Rickenbacker "Frying pan" or any of an number of alternatives, remains the bastard offspring of the upright (orchestral) bass and the electric guitar.

Whilst few of us would dispute Leo's contribution to the inception, evolution and continued evolution of the electric bass guitar, there's no guarantee that he was necessarily barking up the right tree, so to speak.

Hats off to Ned Steinberger for a valliant attempt to address what he felt were the shortcomings of conventional instrument design.
Unfortunately, that was driven more by a desire to produce a minimalist desgn than a truly ergonomically driven re-appraisal of bass or guitar design.
That notwithstanding, the materials used coupled to the design did advance thinking about what a bass could be, and how it could be constucted.

Similarly, the aforementioned Kubick Ex-Factor approach tried to address what Phil Kubicki felt to be shortcomings in bass design.
He kept a headstock (of sorts) to facilitate the "extension" to "D"
His design also permitted a broader choice of strings than the Steinberger design allowed (being initially limited to double ball-end strings), as the headstock anchored the ball-ends, and the bridge the "free" end.
That is the logical conclusion of re-assessing the issues caused by mounting tuners on the headstock (excess weight in the wrong place, causing neck-dive)
and of dealing with the Steinberger design's limitation of string choice.

I haven't played a Torzal "Twist" design (yet) but I HAVE played Steinbergers, Kubickis, and Dingwalls (Novax fanned-fret designs)
All have something different to offer, be it the compact nature of the Steinbergers, the Flexibility of the Kubickis or the optimised scale length/ tone of the Dingwall.

To me, the primary issues centre around;

Weight
Balance
Upper-fret access
Comfortable plucking hand position. (I like the full length thumb-rest on the new design study and various ramps as fitted to some basses)

How these are achieved are specific to each design.

What I am glad of is the relative restlessness of the bass-playing community (compared to our guitar-playing brethren) when it comes to attaining the pinnacle of playablilty / tone.

We'll try anything once, whether it's active electrics, new pick-up designs, material advances or new design trends/advances.
Ultimately, this gives us, the consumer (or more importantly, player!) more choice to fit our needs.

Long may it last!!

Keep on inventing!!

[mcgraham]

I'd say the most comfortable bass I've ever had slung round my neck was bassjamm's Fbass. It sits PERFECTLY against your body with the PERFECT angle for correct technique. However, as more accessible basses go, I've played for that long on jazz basses, I find that they are by far my preferred shape of bass for playing and that my technique and muscle memory has evolved around that shape. The cutaways, the curves, the smooth finish.. only difficulty I've found is their neck dive, which should hopefully be rectified on my bass that Jon is working on.

For ergonomic g*itars, I would recommend checking out Gus Guitars (although their basses are foul IMO). The outward curve rather than inward curve on the lower body is great for seated playing. And boy are they light!

Mark

[bnt]

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='147190' date='Feb 26 2008, 12:03 PM']Hats off to Ned Steinberger for a valliant attempt to address what he felt were the shortcomings of conventional instrument design.
Unfortunately, that was driven more by a desire to produce a minimalist desgn than a truly ergonomically driven re-appraisal of bass or guitar design.
That notwithstanding, the materials used coupled to the design did advance thinking about what a bass could be, and how it could be constucted.[/quote]
Don't forget that, before Ned made his own instrument, he designed what was arguably the first bass to take ergonomics seriously, the [url="http://www.spectorbass.com/NewFilesNew/ns1stuff.html"]Spector NS-1[/url]...

[Kiwi]

There's a design convention that says something like

greater specialisation = less flexibility

So if you design something to be better adapted to the shape of a body, the question is WHO'S body are you designing it for? In principle, the best designs are those which can be adapted to suit the specific needs of their user. Thats why I like what Michael Spalt has been doing with his basses.

Given Gary Willis's thoughts on technique, the other question is how much do you design for and how much should the player change any inefficient technique to improve things?

No hard and fast rules in design. Nothing's ever black and white.