Famous luthiers about headless, chambered and custom basses

[mario_buoninfante]

Interesting interview I found while navigating the internet   

https://www.bassgearmag.com/luthiers-round-table-7/
 

[TheGreek]

Some very interesting points made in this article. 

A good read if you have a spare 10-15 minutes. 

[Lfalex v1.1]

They all sat on the fence over headless basses, didn't they!

Only Pete Skjold got close to saying anything meaningful on the topic.

And for those that had never built one, have they never seen, examined or played one?

 

At least they were more vocal on the effects of chambering.

And almost a unified voice on custom builds, with advice that mostly mirrors what you'd hear from BC on the subject. 

 

Would've been funny if they'd had Ned Steinberger in there!

Edited January 12, 2023 by Lfalex v1.1

[mario_buoninfante]

3 hours ago, Lfalex v1.1 said:

They all sat on the fence over headless basses, didn't they!

Only Pete Skjold got close to saying anything meaningful on the topic.

And for those that had never built one, have they never seen, examined or played one?

 

At least they were more vocal on the effects of chambering.

And almost a unified voice on custom builds, with advice that mostly mirrors what you'd hear from BC on the subject. 

 

Would've been funny if they'd had Ned Steinberger in there!

 

I have to admit I found all the comments about headless basses quite good. Some didn't quite answer the question, that's fair to say, but I found them interesting nonetheless.
I'd have loved to have Steinberger there too. Afaik he considers himself more of a designer than a luthier (in line with his background), but he influenced the bass world as much as, if not more than, some of these big names.
 

Edited January 12, 2023 by mario_buoninfante

[itu]

Steinberger talked about his findings back then (ghost note issues etc.) but I do not find it anywhere. Someone could be brave enough and do some excavation. His comments were very interesting, not only because his background was design and furniture.

[Sambrook]

Enjoyed that, thanks.

[mario_buoninfante]

3 hours ago, itu said:

Steinberger talked about his findings back then (ghost note issues etc.) but I do not find it anywhere. Someone could be brave enough and do some excavation. His comments were very interesting, not only because his background was design and furniture.

 

Probably not exactly the article you were thinking about, but...

 

https://www.musicradar.com/news/how-ned-steinberger-redesigned-the-bass-world

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by mario_buoninfante

[itu]

Similar content, very good.

[SumOne]

I took that as confirmation that headless can sound as good as normal Basses. Seeing as they are shorter, lighter, better balanced and less likely to knock out of tune they seem the better choice to me. 

 

..... Apart from the thing none of them discussed - the look is just a step away from keytars! I'm not fussed, but a lot of people are, that must limit sales and its probably why not many get made. 

[Munurmunuh]

18 hours ago, Lfalex v1.1 said:

they were more vocal on the effects of chambering

 

Thanks for bringing this my attention — it seems that chambering would do to a bass exactly what I don't want. Useful to get that learnt  

[BigRedX]

10 hours ago, itu said:

Steinberger talked about his findings back then (ghost note issues etc.) but I do not find it anywhere. Someone could be brave enough and do some excavation. His comments were very interesting, not only because his background was design and furniture.

 

IME the more interesting musical instrument ideas and designs come from those whose main training is not in the making of musical instruments, as they have less pre-conceived ideas about how things should be done. 

 

After all how many Jazz Bass copies do we need?

[BigRedX]

1 hour ago, SumOne said:

Apart from the thing none of them discussed - the look is just a step away from keytars! I'm not fussed, but a lot of people are, that must limit sales and its probably why not many get made. 

 

It's all to do with what we are used to. Had the first popular bass guitar been headless, we be wondering why there's any need to have excess material beyond the nut.

[BigRedX]

18 minutes ago, Ricky Rioli said:

 

Thanks for bringing this my attention — it seems that chambering would do to a bass exactly what I don't want. Useful to get that learnt  

 

I've owned one chambered and one semi-hollow bass. The chambered bass was so completely different in both concept and execution from a typical bass guitar it would be impossible to tell what effect the chambering on it own had to the sound (if anything). The semi hollow bass sounded like a bass guitar.

[tauzero]

On 13/01/2023 at 07:41, SumOne said:

I took that as confirmation that headless can sound as good as normal Basses. Seeing as they are shorter, lighter, better balanced and less likely to knock out of tune they seem the better choice to me. 

 

..... Apart from the thing none of them discussed - the look is just a step away from keytars! I'm not fussed, but a lot of people are, that must limit sales and its probably why not many get made. 

 

They look lovely. The only purpose of the headstock is as an advertising hoarding to show the name of the maker, otherwise it just adds weight and unbalances the bass.

[mario_buoninfante]

On 13/01/2023 at 07:41, SumOne said:

..... Apart from the thing none of them discussed - the look is just a step away from keytars! I'm not fussed, but a lot of people are, that must limit sales and its probably why not many get made. 

 

More than few headless have a standard body though

[Dad3353]

1 hour ago, tauzero said:

They look lovely. The only purpose of the headstock is as an advertising hoarding to show the name of the maker, otherwise it just adds weight and unbalances the bass.

 

At its conception, tuners suitable for mounting below the bridge had not been invented; the 'standard' way of tuning, inherited from acoustic instruments of the time, was at the nut end. The Fender headstock was even a nominal nod and tribute to the 'scroll' headstock of acoustic double basses. The mechanics suitable, strong enough and reliable enough for headless didn't come until much later. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Dad3353

[Boodang]

The main difference I've found with a headless bass (I've got a Sei custom), and something not often talked about, is that you've now limited yourself on string choice. Not the greatest selection in double ball end, and have you tried clamping a nylon string! TE strings seem to unravel when you clamp, and thus crush, the winding. Can be hit miss as well, where one set is ok being clamped but the next set just unravels. Nightmare! And a shame, as I really love the bass but hate the string situation and apparently it can't be converted to a headed. Actually thinking of just getting another one made in headed and putting this on the wall as a piece of art. 

[SumOne]

5 hours ago, mario_buoninfante said:

 

More than few headless have a standard body though

Yeah, they still have a certain 80s vibe to the look though that a lot of bands aren't into. 

[Lfalex v1.1]

On 13/01/2023 at 08:37, Ricky Rioli said:

 

Thanks for bringing this my attention — it seems that chambering would do to a bass exactly what I don't want. Useful to get that learnt  

 

That depends upon why and how they chambered it, whether the design was prototyped and assessed properly and whether that then reliably translated  to small-scale or mass-production.

 

I have one chambered bass. It's a solid design, not acoustic nor electroacoustic;

A Warwick Infinty SN4.

 

The construction is quietly impressive.

It's made from Zebrano. If it were solid, it'd simply be too heavy, so they've chambered it to cut the weight. I've no idea what the internal design is like. 

 

It seems like they've chambered a front blank and a back blank, each 50% of the body thickness and sandwiched them together. There's a small veneer between them. The joins are barely visible. 

 

It IS a very resonant instrument. If you strap it on too tight (!) it kills it a bit.

 

I wouldn't rule out a chambered bass. 

I'd have to play it to see if I liked that particular one. 

That would only allow mass-produced or second-hand customs.

Commissioning a custom-build would be a shot in the dark unless the builder has a good pedigree in such instruments. 

Making one yourself could be an interesting journey of trial and error to achieve what you're looking for.

 

Anyone for a chambered headless? 🤪

[40hz]

Thanks for the link - a thoroughly interesting interview!

 

I note that they all seemed to skirt around the topic of headless basses. I mean, clearly, headless, imo, don't sound that different at all - (looking at you Status), but it was interesting all the same to note how tentative they were, as if they all knew something, but didn't want to be the one to definitively say it.

 

Also, the way they all seem to really buy into tone wood as a concept in a solid-body, electric instrument (except Carey Nordstrand, who implied it doesn't matter).

[LeftyJ]

13 minutes ago, 40hz said:

I mean, clearly, headless, imo, don't sound that different at all - (looking at you Status)

 

It was interesting to read in the interview that all the luthiers (who make wooden necks exclusively) noticed a difference except Joe Zon - who attributes that to the stiffness of his composite necks. He adds that on a wooden neck the size and angle of the headstock have a much more profound effect. 

 

With my Status basses (both bolt-on, headless S2 Classics) I have no similar headed instrument to compare them with. I do notice they have an incredibly fast attack but I couldn't tell if that's the graphite / phenolic or the lack of a headstock. I owned a solid maple neck-through Hohner B2A headless that shared many of the characteristics of my Status basses though: fast attack, tight sound, and very clear highs. Oddly, the Hohner produced less overtones through my amps and had more emphasis on the fundamental. 

[mario_buoninfante]

1 hour ago, LeftyJ said:

who attributes that to the stiffness of his composite necks.

And in fact the early/original Steinberger were made out of carbon fiber.

I have a Spirit XT-2, that is passive and made of wood of course, and the things that I immediately notice when I pick it up compared to a Spector Legend and a G&L L2000 Tribute, is the incredible sustain and the roundness of the sound.
The low E is really fat, but all the strings are well balanced. And in fact this (and similar basses) are often used in reggae/dub.
I always empirically attributed the really long sustain to the fact that is neck true, but for whatever reason (I'm mainly thinking out loud here) I also feel that the small body helps in this case as if there is less mass to dampen the sound.
But again, this lat comment in particular is more of a sensation that I have, I never even stopped and properly thought about it.
One thing I can say for sure is that I feel a lot the vibration of this bass when I play it, and I like that

Edited January 15, 2023 by mario_buoninfante

[Lfalex v1.1]

@LeftyJ  in particular...

 

I have a Hohner B2A 5er. Same as your 4 except it has a pair of Js in it.

And does it not do a fine impersonation of a "super J"

I also had a Status Streamline 4. 

Which sounded "thin" but "hot".

 

I reckon the wood component absorbs some of the higher frequencies and leaves the fundamental seeming stronger as a result.  I agree about the fast attack and sustain. 

 

(Vis a vis the Hohners) The sustain (I think) comes from the neck- through construction and lack of mass damping caused by the headstock. 

 

It is my belief that Double-ball-end strings bring something of their own to the party; they're all the same length,  and apart from the consistency of  feel that this imparts,  it also eliminates any variable degree of elasticity in the string caused by the uneven length of string between nut and tuner on a traditional bass. This results in a more predictable transfer of energy from you to the string - less is lost and more of what you as a player put in remains. 

 

Don't get me wrong,  I've had 2 headless basses out of more than 20.

I'm no headless fan boy!

I'm trying to rationalise why a Hohner that was relatively cheap can perform so well in some respects. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Lfalex v1.1

[tauzero]

12 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

 

At its conception, tuners suitable for mounting below the bridge had not been invented; the 'standard' way of tuning, inherited from acoustic instruments of the time, was at the nut end. The Fender headstock was even a nominal nod and tribute to the 'scroll' headstock of acoustic double basses. The mechanics suitable, strong enough and reliable enough for headless didn't come until much later. 

 

The Steinberger system came later and is a more satisfactory solution, but various others simply put normal bass tuners at the other end.

 

 

[BigRedX]

15 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

The Fender headstock was even a nominal nod and tribute to the 'scroll' headstock of acoustic double basses.

 

As nice as that idea might sound, it doesn't have much basis in fact. The original Fender headstock on the Telecaster and first version of the Precision bass didn't feature the "scroll" design at all, and it appears to be fairly well documented that Leo Fender got the idea for the Stratocaster headstock (which was the first Fender instrument with that design) from Paul Bigsby, who had "borrowed it from Martin Guitars, who in turn got it from any number of 19th century German luthiers.

Edited January 15, 2023 by BigRedX