Headless Dingwalls are coming!

[MichaelDean]

Looks like they're properly announcing headless Dingwalls at Guitar Summit this year. Doesn't appear to be any other details yet. 

 

The little wings for the headstock so it fits on a hangar seem odd, but it's nice they've thought about it. 

 

 

 

[BassApprentice]

Image nicked from @Bass Direct

 

[Bass Direct]

14 minutes ago, BassApprentice said:

Image nicked from @Bass Direct

 

We cannot wait for these! Already on order!

[velvetkevorkian]

...how do you tune it? Is that the thumbscrews at the bridge?

[MichaelDean]

Looks like it. And a lever to clamp the string at the "headstock".

[BassApprentice]

2 minutes ago, MichaelDean said:

Looks like it. And a lever to clamp the string at the "headstock".

Yup - and little extenders so you can use a wall hanger?

 

 

@Bass Direct estimate of price?

Edited yesterday at 15:25 by BassApprentice

[SumOne]

Nice one. I've been hoping for a headless Dingwall for ages. I think they dropped the ball on this and are now playing catch up on multiscale headless with Ibanez (and Strandberg, Hils, Sire). If you're making basses for people that like innovation (which is generally the Dingwall selling point) then it seems crazy to have old fashioned impractical headstock (heavy exactly where you don't want weight) when headless technology is what it is now. 

[Woodinblack]

Not a dingwall fan but the extender is a good idea for hanging, if that is what it is for!

[jeffjohnson]

I didn't think they could make them any uglier 

[Machines]

2 hours ago, SumOne said:

Nice one. I've been hoping for a headless Dingwall for ages. I think they dropped the ball on this and are now playing catch up on multiscale headless with Ibanez (and Strandberg, Hils, Sire)

 

I know they've been in development at least 3 years, I think Sheldon really wanted to get the design right - but agree they are a bit late to the party. I also expected a much more different body design to the Afterburner, but it is unmistakably a Dingwall.

 

Not for me (i've just got an ABZ), but would definitely have a crack on one.

[Stub Mandrel]

1 hour ago, jeffjohnson said:

I didn't think they could make them any uglier 

 

The finish looks cheap.

[crazycloud]

A headless 5 might be in my future then, depending on what they cost.

[Musicman20]

1 minute ago, crazycloud said:

A headless 5 might be in my future then, depending on what they cost.

Are these a Canadian bass or an import MIC bass?

[crazycloud]

No idea. Doesn't really matter to me either way.

[Musicman20]

41 minutes ago, crazycloud said:

No idea. Doesn't really matter to me either way.

I just mean the price will be dramatically different whichever it is.

[Machines]

7 hours ago, Musicman20 said:

Are these a Canadian bass or an import MIC bass?

 

Canadian. I'd assume an import option may occur in the future but these parts look very bespoke and if it does happen, I'd guess it won't be for at least 2 years.

[Bass Direct]

16 hours ago, BassApprentice said:

Yup - and little extenders so you can use a wall hanger?

 

 

@Bass Direct estimate of price?

In line with the ABII range is the best I can say right now

[DG5]

17 hours ago, SumOne said:

Nice one. I've been hoping for a headless Dingwall for ages. I think they dropped the ball on this and are now playing catch up on multiscale headless with Ibanez (and Strandberg, Hils, Sire). If you're making basses for people that like innovation (which is generally the Dingwall selling point) then it seems crazy to have old fashioned impractical headstock (heavy exactly where you don't want weight) when headless technology is what it is now. 

Opinions are fine but just that. Many basses are poorly designed and cause the problems you mention but ironically Dingwall have been much better than most when it comes to balance. None of my Dingwalls have any neck dive at all. I don’t like headless instruments and they’re certainly not innovative - just different. To say Dingwall has dropped the ball is nonsense.

[SumOne]

32 minutes ago, DG5 said:

Opinions are fine but just that. Many basses are poorly designed and cause the problems you mention but ironically Dingwall have been much better than most when it comes to balance. None of my Dingwalls have any neck dive at all. I don’t like headless instruments and they’re certainly not innovative - just different. To say Dingwall has dropped the ball is nonsense.

 

Indeed, opinions are just that  (including saying my opinion is nonsense!). How are Headless 'certainly not innovative' (noting that opinions are just opinions) Headless to me seems more innovative than just having a fairly standard headstock - it requires different things like new bridges/tuners/headstocks/string clamps/hanging mechanism etc. 

 

Balance is more of an issue with light basses, it's not too difficult to stop a bass having neck-dive if the body is heavy...but people don't tend to like heavy basses.  I had a Combustion and it was about 4.5kg, I think that weight would be quite a  downside to a lot of people - even though it balanced well (I guess it needed to be that heavy at the body partly to balance a 37" scale with a headstock and tuners at the far end). Not all Dingwalls are that heavy, but a lot are whereas something like a Ibanez EHB is about 3.3kg and well balanced. Going headless is an obvious way of being able to make the bass well balanced and light - especially on a bass with 5 strings and a long scale.

 

Strandberg led the way with headless multiscales way back in about 2007, Ibanez released cheaper multiscale headless bass in 2020 to a mass market - they have been popular and other companies like Hils and Sire have since followed....and now Dingwall are doing the same at least about 6 years late to the party, how is that not dropping the ball on it? 

[Woodinblack]

28 minutes ago, SumOne said:

 I had a Combustion and it was about 4.5kg, I think that weight would be quite a  downside to a lot of people - even though it balanced well (I guess it needed to be that heavy at the body partly to balance a 37" scale with a headstock and tuners at the far end).

 

My combustion wasn't that heavy, not that it was light, and the balance wasn't an issue with it. 

[Stub Mandrel]

28 minutes ago, SumOne said:

How are Headless 'certainly not innovative'

 

Because they've been around for about 2/3 of the history of the modern electric bass?

[SumOne]

Just now, Stub Mandrel said:

 

Because they've been around for about 2/3 of the history of the modern electric bass?

Doesn't stop them being more innovative than a traditional headstock. e.g. this new Dingwall hanging mechanism, quite unique looking string clamps at the headstock end and a fairly unique looking tuning mechanism. More innovative than slapping some generic hipshot tunes onto a headstock.  Isn't that what Dingwall are saying - it took a long time because it is headless and needs new innovations?

[Jean-Luc Pickguard]

I could probably be tempted by a headless d-roc.

[SumOne]

6 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

My combustion wasn't that heavy, not that it was light, and the balance wasn't an issue with it. 

 

Yeah, like I said - not all Dingwalls are that heavy....but they do all tend to be on the hefty side of things, I see a Combustion currently for sale on here is 4.7kg and that isn't unusual. An average Combustion or NG3 seems to be at least 4.2kg.  I'd hope something that sort of weight doesn't have neck-dive or something is quite seriously wrong with the design. The trickly thing is making a well-balanced lightweight 5 string - like the Ibanez EHB MS average of about 3.3kg.

[Stub Mandrel]

1 minute ago, SumOne said:

Doesn't stop them being more innovative than a traditional headstock. e.g. this new Dingwall hanging mechanism, quite unique looking string clamps at the headstock end and a fairly unique looking tuning mechanism. More innovative than slapping some generic hipshot tunes onto a headstock.  Isn't that what Dingwall are saying - it took a long time because it is headless and needs new innovations?

 

I have a headless that's forty years old. It may have been innovative once but it's vintage now.

 

The hanging mechanism (which shouts 'gimmick' and appears to lack the obvious improvement of gearing the two sides together) could be described as innovative in application if not mechanism. But just being a headless bass is not innovative in any way.