Headstock Mass

[Mickguard]

I can't believe this subject hasn't come up...I've searched the entire forum, but found nothing directly related.

Basically, I came across the Groove Tube Fatfinger the other night...I'd never encountered this before, nor the concept of adding mass to the headstock.

So I'm wondering how much of this is hype and how much is fact? Especially since I'm looking at a skinny headstock design.

Is there an optimal mass for the headstock? Or better yet, is there an optimal size and weight to an attachment like a fatfinger --does size matter?

And what about placement? Do you just clip these things on wherever you can, or does the 'effect' change depending on where you place it?

If it's such a breakthrough, why aren't guitars designed to include the extra mass?

If the extra mass itself is important, does the material matter -- why not use wood? There are some dense woods out there, seems like that'd be interesting. For example, one could take a block of nice looking wood, route a groove in it, line that with protective felt, so the whole thing will attach snugly to the headstock. No screws, no clamp, and you could carve it to look good too.

I'm thinking of cool things you could do with that idea --add an extra dimension to the headstock, a 3D logo, etc....

All right, all right, I'll get back to work (grumble, moan, complain, grouse)

[psw]

Yes...it does work. Most people will notice the effect when they replace cheapo open tuners with cast ones. That is another reason for doing the washer trick to stagger tuners on a strat too! If you dont believe me, get a small g-clamp and attach it to the head of your guitar (careful not to scratch it). I think the idea is that the neck vibrates with the string and some of that energy is lost by the headstock being able to vibrate freer than the body end. By adding mass, the ability for the head to vibrate is less; so less energy is lost (the head is harder to vibrate due to added mass) and more energy is transfered to the body...something like that anyway. (either that or it just changes the resonant frequency of the vibrating neck, or both...whatever) It may even help with dead spots...or at least change them. As for an optimum...all things are different to different people...it will effect "tone" and sustain...but will it improve it, try it and see... pete

[chopp3r]

don't forget steinbergers... they have pretty awesome sustain and no headstock. =)

[psw]

Yes...they had a large metal cap to hold the string, no flexable headstock to absorb or cancel out frequencies and a rediculously stiff, carbonfibre neck...so, actually proves the point!

[Mattia]

What PSW said. Add some clamps to the headstock, see if you like what it does. I like small, stiff headstocks with not too much mass, personally.

[Mickguard]

Yes, I'm going to play around with my idea for a slide on attachment...the Groove Tube version is way too high-tech for me

I could make a set of 'tuneable' clips --they'd be slim enough to fit under the strings, slender enough to fit between the tuners... the best part would be Epiphone players can use 'em to cover up the logo...

I actually put a clamp on my guitar the other night to see if there was any difference, although it was hard to tell because I was playing through a preamp into my laptop with headphones (my late-night, in-the-house rig!).

[soapbarstrat]

Oh man, that thing I used to do with clamping a pair of vise-grips onto the headstock got old fast.

[Druss]

For REAL sustain hold a string and touch your headstock to a wooden coffee table a buddy showed me that a while back I just cant figure out how to attach to my headstock it yet. I'm probably going to have to start working out.

[Mattia]

For REAL sustain hold a string and touch your headstock to a wooden coffee table a buddy showed me that a while back I just cant figure out how to attach to my headstock it yet. I'm probably going to have to start working out.

OK, I'm holding an old guitar string in my left hand, and the guitar's headstock is touching the table. I got nothing.

[thegarehanman]

Idch, if you want to minimize the strings' vibrational loss via the neck and headstock, just make it stiffer. You could put an ebony veneer on the front of the headstock, backstrap the back of the headstock, and put graphite rods in the neck.

[Druss]

For REAL sustain hold a string and touch your headstock to a wooden coffee table a buddy showed me that a while back I just cant figure out how to attach to my headstock it yet. I'm probably going to have to start working out.

OK, I'm holding an old guitar string in my left hand, and the guitar's headstock is touching the table. I got nothing.

Your suppose to wrap the string around your neck right below your Adams apple first then smash your head into the coffee table.

[Mickguard]

Idch, if you want to minimize the strings' vibrational loss via the neck and headstock, just make it stiffer. You could put an ebony veneer on the front of the headstock, backstrap the back of the headstock, and put graphite rods in the neck.

Okay, so that's what I'm trying to figure out --WHY adding mass is supposed to help. So you're saying it's just to reduce the loss of vibration after the nut?

I've been debating whether or not to put graphite rods in ... been wondering what kind of alternative materials might work too. I know Myka uses something else --a hollow rod or tube? At the hardware store I've seen aluminum U-shaped beams. Quite small, very light, and certainly stiff enough. But maybe the graphite rods are significantly lighter?

[redwhiteandthemaple]

Forget what I said below.. here's a much simpler version.

As I learned from physics class and so on..

Force=mass*acceleration

Vibration if you think about it is basically an oscillation, motion of going back and forth with an origin in the middle. (This is an acceleration because the motion or it vibrating is like a sin wave. Speed is constantly changing.)

Force.. (although in here, it's in the form of energy, but not getting into that for simplicity reasons )

Force is distributed equally through the body and neck.

Where body has more mass, its acceleration is lower. Where the neck is less mass, therefore, more acceleration.

Therefore more vibration; thus, more drag force, which energy is lost through air, heat, etc.

I'unno.. I tried.. Hope that helps from technical point of view.

(asdg89auwp3oirjsdkf I wrote a paragraph then the libralian kicked me off for write "e-mail"...)

So here I am at the other end of the library

Basically.. (recall..)

Your body vibrates too, but very little to almost no difference and since the body is in contact with a bigger mass/denser object (you the player) it has insignificant loss of sustain through vibration or drag force which accounts for all air resistance or since oscillation isn't perfect its "energy" is lost through air/heat/etc. (of course if Newtonian physic was perfect we would have the guitar sustain for a year if we wanted to)

But the neck loses much more sustain, because well first of all it is lighter, and it is s'pose to share as much vibration as in the body as the neck. So the "energy" input or "force" is the same but different mass make it that the neck experiences more oscillation as to say the distance it travels when vibrating is lot longer than the body. Therefore it experiences more loss through "drag force" which is basically all the force that is applied to in our real-flawful-world physics. So the energy transfer is not as efficient and therefore... the neck loses lot more sustain.

Also, putting a metal chunk helps alot because it's Denser, and of course heavier.

(i'll edit this when i get home.. not a good explanation... probably because there are ppl waiting for this computer..)

-IR

[thegarehanman]

Graphite and carbon fiber are both lighter than aluminum. Myka does use graphite, but his is roundbar rather than the squarbar stewmac sells. I don't know if he uses hollow ones or not though. I don't think the idea is necessarily to reduce vibrations after the nut. I think it'd be a better policy to just try to reduce vibrations in the whole neck, since the whole thing is a lot more prone to vibrations than the body of the guitar. However, getting rid of these vibrations may not yield results your happy with. If the neck really does sap that much vibration out of the strings(I somehow doubt it's as significant as it's made out to be), then that's a factor that has contributed to all of the vintage guitars you've played and enjoy the tone of.

peace,

russ

[Mattia]

I believe David uses hollow CF tubing, available from (among other places) kite supply places. Quite a bit cheaper, lighter, and less stiff than a rectangular bar, but that's what he wants. I've toyed with the idea of using some round stuff, see how I like it, but I've got a significant stack of rectangular stock that's worked just fine to work through first.

CF is 'better' than metal because it's stronger per unit weight, and it's got zero memory effect; bend it, and it returns to its previous shape, which neither wood or metal do as consistently. I like the even, relatively predictable stiffness the rods give me; I don't see them as damping vibration, per se, but it 'evens things out', is my impression. I can't stand the feel of rubbery strat necks, personally, and the comment I got from a player who normally plays a vintage 1-piece maple neck strat (so, flatsawn) re: the neck on the red GOTM entry from a few months back was 'whoa, stiff neck'; I found this amusing, because that's been my slimmest neck to date (fairly 'normal' profil, just this side of medium), and floppiest, because it's very long (24 fret neck, joins body at the 22nd fret). All sorts of options available, but I like my necks rock-solid.

[psw]

I don't think the idea is necessarily to reduce vibrations after the nut.

No, it's more to do with changing the resonant frequency of the neck by adding mass on one end of the thing. This seems to make it more difficult for the higher harmonic frequencies of the note to ring...so you get more fundumental and a smoother tone with less dampening, hence more sustain...something like that.

I think it'd be a better policy to just try to reduce vibrations in the whole neck, since the whole thing is a lot more prone to vibrations than the body of the guitar. However, getting rid of these vibrations may not yield results your happy with.

Yes, quite right...a stiffer neck will result in better sustain by reducing dampening by sypathetic vibrations in the neck that can cause dampening at certain frequencies (also causeing dead spots). It also has the effect of retaining the higher harmonics causing it to sound brighter and sustain more due to a reduction of dampening factors.

If the neck really does sap that much vibration out of the strings(I somehow doubt it's as significant as it's made out to be), then that's a factor that has contributed to all of the vintage guitars you've played and enjoy the tone of.

Exactly....you will notice the effect of the increased mass on a neck that has a lot of dampening effects (a cheap guitar) but not very much on a very stiff neck or a quality guitar. The change in mass will have more effect on a neck that has a lot of sympathetic dampening vibrations...if it hasn't by virtue of it's stiffness, you won't really notice it.

But dampening factors and mass is a factor in a guitars tone and response. Adding mass will not help with the stiffness however and won't add harmonics. So with stiffness you are back to the maple vs mahogany neck, maple, rosewood, ebony fretboard debates. Adding carbon fibre is a way of addin the stiffness, but not the mass and a far better approach if sustain and a wide frequncy range of harmonics is what you are after.

Harmonics are at the heart of the "tone" equation and can be dialed out with processing but virtually impossible to recreate. I do find that the mass trick is effective on acoustic guitars giving a smoother, sustained tone with more energy to the top, making them slightly louder, but if it is sustain you're after...well I got a thread for that

pete

[Guitarfrenzy]

Carbon fiber rods, like mattia is talking about does seem to not only make the neck more stable, but it eliminates dead spots you'll find on some necks. Since I started using them long ago, I don't think I'll ever build another neck without them. It gives the neck, better tone, more stability, and what else can you ask for. I also like the idea that once you get the guitar setup done correctly, you don't have to adjust it due to climate changes, etc. At least this is my own experience with CF rods, and you should test it out youself though and make your own conclusions about them.

As far as adding mass to the headstock, I can see how that would increase the sustain also. Very interesting thing to consider. I've seen builders use CF rods on the headstock also, a veneer on top to cover it, I might have to try that on my next build.

[Mickguard]

A lot to think about...

First, I don't even know if I like a stiffer neck...I'm just not that experienced enough as a player yet...Although I have a crusher grip in my left hand, maybe it would help to have a stronger neck. I'll have to see if I can find someone around here who built a guitar with a carbon rods in the neck...

But I figure, as long as you're building your own guitars, you might as well go whole hog and add in the features you want that you wouldn't find on ordinary production guitars.

I'm not so sure I need oodles and oodles of sustain, and my guitar now does pretty well already. But I do like the idea of a neck that's able to withstand changes in heat and humidity (I'm thinking of sweaty club-type atmospheres)

I do have some kite rods here that I was thinking of playing with --maybe they rounded shape offers a medium ground between nothing and the squared carbon fiber rods? Hopefully Myka will pipe in with his thoughts on this.

I almost ordered the rods from Stewmac, then decided to wait...I'm not in a big rush here. Having fun learning about these things.

psw, your explanation about some guitars showing more effect from the added mass makes sense--I was playing around with the Rocket, but that neck feels pretty solid. I'll have to try it out on my Melody Maker (ol' sphaghetti neck )

[Odin]

Its nice with sustain, but i cant really remember when i played a guitar and lack of sustain was a problem.. Why cant the fat finger guys make a device that makes me sound more brown..

[erikbojerik]

So THAT's why the acoustic guys always have a capo hanging off the headstock...

That's also why I LOVE the ebony lams in my bass neck. Stiffness and mass all in one (or two....or three....), it makes a difference.

[Mickguard]

Well, I was playing around with the pressing the headstock against a table top idea...there's a definite change in the guitar's acoustic (unplugged) tone although I'm not sure there's much of a difference when it's plugged in --the main difference I heard was that the entire table became kind of a resonance chamber.

But it seems to me that rather than simply adding mass to the headstock, the ideal would be to find a way to eliminate the vibration there? You'd figure there's a way to add some kind of shock absorber...

I've been considering adding a center laminate too, if I go with a two-piece neck (which would make it a 3-piece, of course). Makes sense what erik says. Do you think it's the ebony that makes the difference, or just the fact that it's a laminate?

[psw]

I really think we are talking about two, maybe three effects.

1. Additional headstock mass will change the resonant frequency of the necks vibrations and allow less dampening of frequencies through sympathetic vibration, but will cut down on harmonics (the complex back "tones") that can give a note character resulting in more fundumental, more sustain and less (or at least different) dead spots along the fretboard. This effect is more prevalent in flexible necks prone to vibration.

2. Extreme stiffness of the neck including the headstock will result in far less vibration of the neck meaning that there is less dampening and as a result sustain, not only of the fundumentals but all the harmonics as well. It accentuates the body's tone by concentrating vibration to the body and will produce a louder acoustic effect.

3. Pressing a headstock on a surface like a table transfers vibrations in the neck onto another resonating surface increasing output. So quite a different effect. Seen as it is a given that I mention sustainers in any thread, a great poor mans sustainer effect can be created by pressing the headstock against the speaker baffle of an amp...instant infinite sustain. The vibrations of the baffle are transferred through the neck causing the strings to vibarate in a continuous physical/mechanical feedback loop. You can hear this on John Jorgonsons fabulous Helecaster's track "Like Father, Like Son".

Nothing is exclusive, you could have a stiff neck with added headstock mass for instance and either will work to create the resonating effect. But there is no "best", the dampening of harmonics creates unique tones, that is one reason that people found that guitars like steinbergers "sterile" lacking in character. Others found the consistant and hi-fi like harmonic rich vibrations of this type of construction (extremely stiff carbonfibre without any headstock) very appealing and gave effects far more harmonics to work with to create rich soundscapes (think '80's chorus sounds)

It's all a matter of what it is you want out of an instrument and finding a balance. It's really goes to the heart of what gives each guitar it's own sonic stamp, and the neck (being so slim and prone to vibration) is probably more fundumental to a guitar's signature "tone".

pete

[Hoser Rob]

Since tone is subjective, there is no 'proof' whatsoever that adding mass at the headstock will improve it, though it'll almost certainly give you more sustain. More sustain does not equal better tone, in case anyone is confused about that.

I've known some excellent (and quite knowledgeable) guitarists who've changed their tuners from the old style stamped Klusons to heavier tuners and immediately put the old ones back on because they didn't like the sound.

If you want to see if you like the difference it's absurdly simple. Get some poster adhesive like Blu Tack and glob a bunch onto your headstock. It you like the way it sounds, get the brass thing.

[erikbojerik]

Adding a laminate will improve the neck stiffness slightly if it is the same wood as the outer layers (but with the grain reversed), but most of all it will improve the stability (tendency of the neck to move over time).

If the center lam is a much stiffer wood (hehehe) than the outer layers, then you'll improve the stiffness of the neck. Not only ebony, but also katalox, purpleheart or bloodwood would be a good addition in the stifffness category.

I find the ebony does just what Pete says...strong fundamental & strong sustain without losing harmonics.

BTW, I've heard it said that the headstock vibration is a great reason to put a piezo transducer there....I will be trying this in the (probably distant) future.