biliousfrog Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 You've probably seen those ugly looking things that Satriani & Billy Sheehan clamp onto their headstocks, the Fat Finger. Has anyone tried to incorporate something similar into their guitar? Maybe put some brass rods into the headstock or add a brass plate? I've heard that they work differently on different guitars & have the most effect on smaller headstocks with less mass & instruments with lighter tuners such as old Kluson's.....just wondered whether anyone's considered it or tried it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biliousfrog Posted January 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 I just found this on the groovetube's site: http://www.groovetubes.com/product.cfm?Product_ID=2130 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 I've had the idea of carving a thick horn or knob or something like that into the headstock itself. One of these days, still working up the skills for something like that. It could also be made into a detachable piece that won't look as bad as the fat finger. If you don't know Girl Brand Guitars, then you should spend a while looking at some of his stuff (this also refers to the finish you're working on and the idea of adding different parts and elements--here's one of my personal favorites and the other). Check out the headstock on the bass he built...it's extraordinary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 i said in a similar post recently that i hate the idea because it serves no purpose....i also said then that i would put a metal allen wrench holder on te back of the headstock first...because at least it serves a purpose if you really believe that godawful thing works,why not just buy heavier tuners?a set of nice heavy schaller locking tuners would no doubt make the same "effect"(i say believing there is no effect to replicate) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biliousfrog Posted January 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 i said in a similar post recently that i hate the idea because it serves no purpose....i also said then that i would put a metal allen wrench holder on te back of the headstock first...because at least it serves a purpose if you really believe that godawful thing works,why not just buy heavier tuners?a set of nice heavy schaller locking tuners would no doubt make the same "effect"(i say believing there is no effect to replicate) I've not had any personal experience with such a device but looking at the reviews on harmony central (sifting through the numbskulls) there appears to be something in it. Whether or not it increases sustain is debatable & I'm sure that there is a certain placebo effect but the reviews that made me sit up & listen were the ones dealing with "dead" spots. It would be very difficult to do a controlled A/B comparison of the sustain as many factors can affect it especially on an amplified instrument, position & distance to speaker, attack, vibrato etc. (although if your playing changes positively when you add the device it's still having an effect) but something like a dead spot is quite noticeable & very difficult to diagnose. Some of the reviewers claim that guitars with dead spots suddenly became more lively across the neck & apparently lost the troubled areas...I find that quite interesting. I also noticed that some of the reviews mentioned that the effects were more or less noticable on different guitars. Tele's & small headed superstrat's (such as Ibanez) seemed to benefit most whereas large headed guitars such as Les Paul's & even Strat's seemed to benefit less...that's a very general thing & certainly doesn't mean that Ibanez's sustain less & have more dead spots, just that they appear to have the most noticable effect. My friend has two Billy Sheehan Yamaha basses & they've got the biggest, heaviest heads I've ever seen...really neck heavy but Billy uses the FF so, go figure? It was also mentioned that tuners had a similar effect...someone noticed that adding heavier tuners to an LP or SG had a very similar effect & the fat finger no longer made much difference. All a load of rubbish or a very overlooked area of neck design?....worth some consideration I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhoads56 Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 i said in a similar post recently that i hate the idea because it serves no purpose....i also said then that i would put a metal allen wrench holder on te back of the headstock first...because at least it serves a purpose if you really believe that godawful thing works,why not just buy heavier tuners?a set of nice heavy schaller locking tuners would no doubt make the same "effect"(i say believing there is no effect to replicate) Wes, in this instance, you dont know what you are talking about Its not just a case of "chucking on some bigger tuners". Tuners in themselves, have an effect on tone (here we go again...). The fat finger works. I use a simular concept (but totally different idea) in my "R" option, which some local recording engineers (and guitarists who play them) are raving about. But you know, whatever floats your boat.... and no i wont supply pictures/details/plans/etc Oh, and its not brass either... Heres a tip, play your electric guitar accoustically, then strum it whilst touching the headstock on a wall, door frame, door, table, bench, floor, amp, and report back with your findings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 I sometimes do guitars with thicker headstocks. More mass at the headstock helps to stop the thing flapping around with excess vibration. The less wasted vibration, the more sustain. Its not the brass thats important, its the mass! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattia Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 All of this stuff affects the basic neck resonance mode; mass affects it, as does stiffness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Yes, listen to mattia. I was about to edit my post to say that you could probably get a similar response by stiffening the headstock with an extra little CF bar in the headstock. Anybody who doesnt think this can really make a difference needs to get a clamp and attach it to a headstock, try a few different clamps on a few different headstocks if you can. You should definately see in improvement in most guitars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 what i am getting at is certainly there is a better looking way to add mass to a headstockrather than that big ugly fat finger thing...i wasn't clear in this thread,but in the last one i expounded more. but i ALWAYS go with a ighter headstock,because in my opinion the benifits of a better balanced guitar on your back(i always play standing up...unlike most oof you,i know) far outweigh any slight sustain benefits from any extra mass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhoads56 Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 well, you play with so much gain, you effectively have zero tone. Good for me, i can 'slack off' a bit for a certain build thats coming up j/k!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setch Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Now that does sound interesting.... is our Wesley going to commission an Ormsby? You do know what happens when you order from 'pros' on this board.... also J/K!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 is our Wesley going to commission an Ormsby? I know you are talking about Wes rather than me (with the weZ), but i still felt like i was being told off as soon as i read 'our wesley'. I get called that by all the relatives i would rather avoid. It really does send a shiver down my spine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biliousfrog Posted January 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 .... and no i wont supply pictures/details/plans/etc Oh, and its not brass either... Heres a tip, play your electric guitar accoustically, then strum it whilst touching the headstock on a wall, door frame, door, table, bench, floor, amp, and report back with your findings. hmmmm......so it's not brass & you suggest touching it against a wall, door frame, door, table....etc....hmm....are you suggesting that we attach a brick or door to the headstock It's good to know that others are trying this. Those fathead plates look like a reasonable way to experiment without much cosmetic interference. A 6-a-side headstock might me a bit trickier but a 3-a-side could potentially just have a plate cut to shape & held on the back by the tuners. I was thinking of a metal plate on the face of the headstock (steel) to match one of my projects but I might try some concealed rods in the other. I guess stiffening rods are a better bet with a lighter body although I'm not sure that it would have the same impact...after all a clamp wouldn't make the neck stiffer just create more mass, wouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 I guess stiffening rods are a better bet with a lighter body although I'm not sure that it would have the same impact...after all a clamp wouldn't make the neck stiffer just create more mass, wouldn't it? I havn't tried the stiffening rods but the principle is sound, although we all know that means nothing in the real world. As far as i understand it, to maximise tone and sustain you need to minimise wasting the strings energy. If the headstock is too thin or lacks stiffness it will vibrate more and therefore waste more string energy. adding weight seems to produce the same effect. i guess because it takes more energy to move a heavy headtock than it does a light one - but thats probably a bit basic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biliousfrog Posted January 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 gotcha....that seems to make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 well, you play with so much gain, you effectively have zero tone. Good for me, i can 'slack off' a bit for a certain build thats coming up i have tone to the bone baby...my bone is toned...ummm...yeah actually it's not the amount of gain,it's the type i am so finicky about...i probably use only slightly more gain than randy rhoads,but somewhat less than zakk wylde... more around the "exodus" level of gain...for me it's about the percussive attack but i never feel a lck of sustain in any guitars i have...but they are all neck through and set neck...so that may have something to do with it..i have no dead spots to try and counter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fookgub Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 (edited) I've never tried a fat finger, but, FWIW, I did notice a difference when I put an allen wrench holder on the back of my headstock. The neck felt more "lively" (ie: it felt like it vibrated more). I've never had a problem with dead spots on that neck, so I can't address that claim. Also, the differences in tone and sustain were slight, if any. I certainly did not notice the huge differences that people rave about on the 'net, but I do think that the added mass at the headstock had an overall positive effect on the "feel" of that guitar. Another time I was experimenting with piezos, and I clamped a piezo onto the headstock of a strat-type guitar. Again, the neck felt more "lively." This time, the unamplified sound of the instrument became much louder. I don't know if that's because the clamp was more massive than the wrench holder, or if it was more due to construction differences between the guitars (the other one was an Ibanez RG), but it was a noticeable change. Again, I don't recall there being a huge effect on the amplified tone, but (and I'm sort of reaching here... this was a long time ago) I do remember thinking the sustain had improved. The guitar had awful fretwork, which makes it hard to pin down things like dead spots. Anyway, I'm reusing that RG neck on a hardtail guitar now, and I removed the wrench holder. I put a little chunk of brass in its place... nothing fancy, but it's a bit heavier than the wrench holder was. I was thinking that a neat way to make something like this cleaner would be to countersink a little brass disk into the back of the headstock. Better yet, a chunk of brass could be buried under the cap if the headstock has one. These ideas are not very reversible, though. Edited January 24, 2007 by fookgub Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 is our Wesley going to commission an Ormsby? it's no secret...i mean,i called litch and asked him to build me one...but he quoted me $2.39 plus tax and i thought that was a bit steep...because he wanted me to front the cost of the food coloring Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCH Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Heres a tip, play your electric guitar accoustically, then strum it whilst touching the headstock on a wall, door frame, door, table, bench, floor, amp, and report back with your findings. Well I just tried this and there certainly is an increase in volume. But for added sustain duration I'm not so sure. You would have to do more critical measuring. What basically is happening I believe is that the touched object is acting like a speaker, just amplifying the sound. The bigger the object (plus physical attributions) that is touched the more volume. It's like playing unplugged compared to plugged. You will hear the sustain longer amped because of the volume. But the duration of the sustain has not really changed. I would like to see more controlled testing before accepting this. This is something for the Myth Buster gang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_the_damned Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Heres a tip, play your electric guitar accoustically, then strum it whilst touching the headstock on a wall, door frame, door, table, bench, floor, amp, and report back with your findings. I've done a little expermenting based on this idea. I played plugged into a noise gate (as it has an LED on it that lights when the signal gets below a certain threshold) but I wasn't plugged into an amp. I found that without touching my guitar to an object I infact had MORE sustain than when I did touch it to something (ie took longer for the LED to come on). My guess would be that although you do get increased acoustic volume from your gutiar that's because you're wasting more of the strings energy in producing sound rather than vibrating. This is something for the Myth Buster gang. they wouldn't take it on because there's no way something could explode dramaticly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwedishLuthier Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 If you would like to try the effect of the fat finger or any similar gizmo, just attach a steel clamp the the guitars head and listen. I have done it a couple of times and actually noticed a change in the tone rather than a change in how the guitar sustained. But a simple clamp let you test the effect without any investments other than your time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 they wouldn't take it on because there's no way something could explode dramatically. My money's on Westheman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegarehanman Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 (edited) WezV, I think you're going in the right direction. From various articles, I've surmised that part of the neck most suseptable to warping and thus vibrating as a result of string vibration is near the nut. These vibrations deform the neck to some extent. Assuming it's the fact that the neck's being less flexible is what is "changing"(because "improving" is relative in this case) the way the guitar sounds. So the obvious way to make a change here would be to make the neck harder to deform. Adding mass increases the force required to deform the neck. Stiffening rods do the same thing but with much less weight gain. I suppose this would be supportive of running the CF rods into the headstock. I know some people stop their CF rods shortly before the headstock(maybe by 1-7 frets) so that they can easily adjust relief near the headstock. Considering that billious noted that some of the comments regarding the fat finger included a decrease in deadspots, I tend to give these reviews some credit. This is because most people will notice that CF reinforced necks also tend to lack dead spots. So, both methods, in principle, should have a similar result and, assuming some of the reviews are valid, then in practice they have simular results as well. The main difference here being that added mass at the headstock will make a neck harder to vibrate, but it will not make the neck any harder(or at least the difference will be negligible) to deform in one direction over a long period of time. CF rods, however have the benefit of both reducing the strings' ability to vibrate the neck and the strings' ability to deform the neck. Of course, there's probably much more to this than that. I know that we had a discussion about strings vibrating. We all had our different hypothesis about how the strings vibrate, but after doing a bit more research, we(including myself) were all close to the correct answer, but wrong none the less. Anyhow, I'm off to a diff. Eq. class to be taught by someone who has a very poor grasp of the english language. EDIT: And if it's sustain you're after, I'm of the thinking that that's a pretty difficult quality to chase if you're intending to maintain a certain "tone" at the same time. I remember hearing somewhere that gibsons audibly sustain longer than fenders(lp vs. strat, of course), but physically, the strat's strings vibrate for longer. So sustain is an all around tricky business if you ask me. However, I can't say I've ever built a guitar thinking "this needs to sustain more than usual," but I also can't say I've ever been wanting for more sustain from any of my guitars. peace, russ Edited January 24, 2007 by thegarehanman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Maybe this is related... I remember seeing a guitar (possibly a midi guitar?) that has a extra bar running from the headstock to the body. So it's essentially an extra support for the neck. I suppose it's a pretty extreme 'fat finger' but it seems to me it might give results similar to pressing the headstock against a piece of furniture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.