All Is Not Lost.

[the telecaster kid]

Well, fter taking a day to cool down, I put a new headstock on the bass that was trashed. I do need a new fretboard, but the bass should actually end up being better than if I had stayed with my original headstock, which was way too small. Of course, the new headstock is redwood, cause it's the only thing i had lying around, so it doesn't matcht he mahogany neck perfectly, but whatever. It's clamped and glued now.

Neck and headstock

Body

[ElysianGuitars]

do you have a bent truss rod to fit that crooked channel?

[thegarehanman]

sloppy? perhaps. but at least he's not building some pointy, completely uncomfortable looking guitar

[fryovanni]

You know your use of Redwood with a Mahogany neck reminded me of something I used to wonder about. The mass of the headstock area really effects the sound of a guitar. I have often wondered why more people that use scarfed headstocks do not experiment with woods with different charictoristics to modify performance. I mean there is a lot of chat about body woods, and it makes a bit of a difference. However headstock wood is rarely mentioned. It will be interesting to see how the light weight headstock effects your guitars performance.

[the telecaster kid]

You know your use of Redwood with a Mahogany neck reminded me of something I used to wonder about. The mass of the headstock area really effects the sound of a guitar. I have often wondered why more people that use scarfed headstocks do not experiment with woods with different charictoristics to modify performance. I mean there is a lot of chat about body woods, and it makes a bit of a difference. However headstock wood is rarely mentioned. It will be interesting to see how the light weight headstock effects your guitars performance.

I've actually been thinking about that, and I thought of this as an oportunity to experiment a little.

As for the crooked truss rod channel, it's a little wobbly, but the dark line slanting off to the right is a grain line in the mahogany. It's not really that bad.

[mattharris75]

How exactly did you screw up the truss rod channel? Did you use an edge guide?

[the telecaster kid]

I freehanded it. Wasn't my best judgement, but It's not as bad as it looks.

[Ben]

You know your use of Redwood with a Mahogany neck reminded me of something I used to wonder about. The mass of the headstock area really effects the sound of a guitar. I have often wondered why more people that use scarfed headstocks do not experiment with woods with different charictoristics to modify performance. I mean there is a lot of chat about body woods, and it makes a bit of a difference. However headstock wood is rarely mentioned. It will be interesting to see how the light weight headstock effects your guitars performance.

I've thought about that before, but I guess it would only really be significant on the lower frets/ open strings, since the further you move from the nut when you fret, the less significant it will become. The body is always directly at one end of the vibrating string, whereas the other end of the vibrating sting varies as you fret.

But yeah, I cant see why headstock wood choice wouldnt be equally as important as the body on open strings.

This would probably be more relevent on an acoustic.

[Rick500]

I wouldn't have attempted it in the first place (I don't freehand route *anything* on a guitar), but that's actually pretty darn straight for a freehanded route.

I'd use an edge guide whenever at all practical though. It's really easy to set up. Just need a few clamps and a straight, flat board.

[WezV]

You know your use of Redwood with a Mahogany neck reminded me of something I used to wonder about. The mass of the headstock area really effects the sound of a guitar. I have often wondered why more people that use scarfed headstocks do not experiment with woods with different charictoristics to modify performance. I mean there is a lot of chat about body woods, and it makes a bit of a difference. However headstock wood is rarely mentioned. It will be interesting to see how the light weight headstock effects your guitars performance.

I reckon it will have the most noticable affect on the sustain of the instrument. The same way thicker/stiffer headstock apparently increase sustain, or the way that fat finger device that adds weight apparently does.

So a headstock made from a softer/less stiff wood may be more likely to flap around wasting the strings energy so notes dont last as long. I seem to remember seeing some slo-mo videos of headstock flapping around that seemed to demonstrate this effect but i cant remember where!!

I dont think we need to worry to much about sustain anyway on a well built guitar

i was just planning on doing a neck with a different headstock to use up some of the nice pieces of wood i have lying around that are just a bit small for what i need. depends whats in the scrap pile

[ElysianGuitars]

sloppy? perhaps. but at least he's not building some pointy, completely uncomfortable looking guitar

come on up to dallas and play my "uncomfortable" looking guitars(key word there is looking), and you'll see, a lot of time and planning went into making them comfortable.

[fryovanni]

Ben and WezV,

Let me hit a few of these comments with my thoughts(take it FWIW, I am just throughing ideas back and forth with you guys).

I've thought about that before, but I guess it would only really be significant on the lower frets/ open strings, since the further you move from the nut when you fret, the less significant it will become. The body is always directly at one end of the vibrating string, whereas the other end of the vibrating sting varies as you fret.

But yeah, I cant see why headstock wood choice wouldnt be equally as important as the body on open strings.

I don't believe you would remove the headstock from the system when you fret. Actually by that line of thinking it is never going to make a difference because even open strings would stop any effect at the nut(this is not the case though). It is a very simple thing to play with though. Try to modify the way a headstock acts(weight or stiffen somehow) and then try to see ho things change up at different fretted positions and open notes.

This would probably be more relevent on an acoustic.

I am not sure why it would be, but the headstock would effect an electric as well as an acoustic. Actually an electrics closed system would probably be effected more noticably than an acoustic.

I reckon it will have the most noticable affect on the sustain of the instrument. The same way thicker/stiffer headstock apparently increase sustain, or the way that fat finger device that adds weight apparently does.

So a headstock made from a softer/less stiff wood may be more likely to flap around wasting the strings energy so notes dont last as long. I seem to remember seeing some slo-mo videos of headstock flapping around that seemed to demonstrate this effect but i cant remember where!!

I dont think we need to worry to much about sustain anyway on a well built guitar

The Fat Finger device does show that you can yeild notable change. Sustain +/- would certainly be something that could be a product of what you choose. The interesting thing is that you are pointing out that the way the neck vibrates will be modified. This "flap" is a part of the attenuation that alters the tibre of our instruments. Density and stiffness both play a role in resonance as well as attach/decay. If you do something that alters a neck to sustain longer and you effect its resonance at the same time(it would be pretty hard not to). Think about how much energy it takes to set a heavy mass in motion vs a lighter mass given the stiffness does not change. Now think about the energy delivered by say a Low E string vs the High E. If you set that heavy mass in motion it will stay in motion longer than a lighter mass, but it will take more energy to get it set in motion(This is where acoustics and electrics take two seperate paths, an electric has a closed string system(the strings movement itself is your source of signal, transmit energy from the string to the body and you bleed signal(although some may reflect back to the string if the guitar is set in motion and is able to make the string move) an acoustic is an open system(the string energy is transmitted to the guitar and the body creates the sound). The exact effects of these changes are near to impossible to predict because the system is really very complex(so I would not claim to say I fully understand any of this stuff, but I have my opinions). This is where real world testing and trying different things and observation is king. You have to also think in terms of effects at different frequencies, under different levels of tension, think content beyond the fundimental, attack, decay, and sustain, compression. Ok I better shut up now, I am confusing myself

Peace,Rich

[WezV]

exactly, i dont think sustain will be the only think affected at all..the attack of the note is another thing i thing will be strongly affected but obviously all these things are affected and really equate to one and the same thing - resonance!!

that why i put it like this

I reckon it will have the most noticable affect on the sustain of the instrument.

I dont really claim to understand acoustic science and mostly i just go with my gut feeling on these things. I prefer thicker headstocks and denser/heavier/stiffer neck woods and i dont feel a lightweight headstock like redwood would be a good thing - but i havnt tried it so wouldnt rule it out and it can be quite stiff for its density anyway. not sure it would survive many knocks though

[Ben]

Ben and WezV,

Let me hit a few of these comments with my thoughts(take it FWIW, I am just throughing ideas back and forth with you guys).

I've thought about that before, but I guess it would only really be significant on the lower frets/ open strings, since the further you move from the nut when you fret, the less significant it will become. The body is always directly at one end of the vibrating string, whereas the other end of the vibrating sting varies as you fret.

But yeah, I cant see why headstock wood choice wouldnt be equally as important as the body on open strings.

I don't believe you would remove the headstock from the system when you fret. Actually by that line of thinking it is never going to make a difference because even open strings would stop any effect at the nut(this is not the case though). It is a very simple thing to play with though. Try to modify the way a headstock acts(weight or stiffen somehow) and then try to see ho things change up at different fretted positions and open notes.

You wouldnt remove it from the system, just decrease its influence because it wouldnt be as close to the node (where the note is fretted). For example, condsider what would happen if you removed a lot of the wood from underneath the bridge, and then condsider what would happen if you removed the same amount of wood from somewhere a distance behind the bridge. The further that 'distance' was, the less it would alter the sound. Same concept.

Thats how it makes sense in my head at least.

if you were playing on (say) the 7th fret, the wood around and between the 7th fret and the bridge would be what would matter most

This would probably be more relevent on an acoustic.

I am not sure why it would be, but the headstock would effect an electric as well as an acoustic. Actually an electrics closed system would probably be effected more noticably than an acoustic.

I was meaning because acoustic playing styles usually involve more open strings, so (given that I think my 1st point is probably true), that would mean that more notes played on an acoustic would be affected significantly than on an electric, where a lot of the playing happens further up the fretboard.

Just speculation anyway.

[thegarehanman]

...You wouldnt remove it from the system, just decrease its influence because it wouldnt be as close to the node (where the note is fretted). For example, condsider what would happen if you removed a lot of the wood from underneath the bridge, and then condsider what would happen if you removed the same amount of wood from somewhere a distance behind the bridge. The further that 'distance' was, the less it would alter the sound. Same concept.

Thats how it makes sense in my head at least.

if you were playing on (say) the 7th fret, the wood around and between the 7th fret and the bridge would be what would matter most...

Ben, I think your thinking is a bit backwards here. Your analogy of how in the case of the body, the further away from the bridge the wood is, the less it plays a role in the sound of the instrument, is correct. I think you can treat the body as a discrete particle that has ossilations within it, but does not ossilate as a whole, if that makes sense. The neck, however, does ossilate as a unit. Thus, force from the strings is being sapped away to cause these ossilations. The farther the force is from the headstock, the more of a moment arm exists to allow the headstock to vibrate with less force. Thus, the farther you move from the nut, the easier it should become to vibrate the headstock. Now, there are some holes in that idea. One, is that the closer you get to the body, the more vibrations will go through the neck to the body and less to the headstock. Also, typically, as you get closer to the body, the neck gets wider and thicker, making it harder to deform. So my idea is 100% valid, but really the best any of us can do at the moment are close approximations.

Anyhow, that's my logic; it could very well be off base, who knows.

peace,

russ

[Myka Guitars]

This would probably be more relevent on an acoustic.

Actually this is false. An electric guitar is a solidbody acoustic. Changes affect the tone in exactly the same way with both styles of building. Having built many solidbodies and even more semi-hollows it becomes quite apparent that this is the case. It is especially obvious since I have achieved tonal goals with my electric instruments by following acoustic principles.

I think that the headstock material will make a difference and that it will affect the characteristics of the guitar as a whole regardless of whether or not the string is fretted. As a thought experiment visualize a piece of wood and imagine how it resonates with a string stretched across it's length between two elevated bridges at each end; a basic stringed instrument. Now if this material is consistent (and let's imagine that it is) then the vibrations move along the fibers of the wood as the energy is transmitted through it. Some of it is dissipated and some of it goes back into the string adding it tonal signature to the vibration.

Now let's fret it in the middle. If fretted position did change the overall characteristics of the wood that would suggest that the by fretting a string it would place a vibrational dam, or blockade, directly beneath the fretted note in the neck wood and not allow energy to pass that point. This does not seem too likely, does it? My experience tells me that the neck moves as a unit and the vibrations travel throughout the continuous wood fibers all the time or none of the time and that fretted position makes no difference in how the instrument reacts as a whole to vibrational energy.

As for the headstock, yes I think it makes a difference. I have replaced tuners before and the heavier ones do add sustain. To simply test this idea out place a heavy c-clamp on your headstock and play some notes and chords. Fret some notes to see how that changes things. To further test out the holistic vibrational qualities of a neck attach a piece of styrofoam at the end of the headstock (vibrations will be amplified in this low density material). Fret some notes and see how they are also amplified.

~David

[Ben]

Ben, I think your thinking is a bit backwards here. Your analogy of how in the case of the body, the further away from the bridge the wood is, the less it plays a role in the sound of the instrument, is correct. I think you can treat the body as a discrete particle that has ossilations within it, but does not ossilate as a whole, if that makes sense. The neck, however, does ossilate as a unit. Thus, force from the strings is being sapped away to cause these ossilations. The farther the force is from the headstock, the more of a moment arm exists to allow the headstock to vibrate with less force. Thus, the farther you move from the nut, the easier it should become to vibrate the headstock. Now, there are some holes in that idea. One, is that the closer you get to the body, the more vibrations will go through the neck to the body and less to the headstock. Also, typically, as you get closer to the body, the neck gets wider and thicker, making it harder to deform. So my idea is 100% valid, but really the best any of us can do at the moment are close approximations.

Anyhow, that's my logic; it could very well be off base, who knows.

peace,

russ

AAAhhhhhh, I dont doubt that you are both correct. What you both say is what I was overlooking... the fact that the neck will move significantly as a whole... *slaps self*

And I dont intend to argue with your first hand experience David, I'm pretty certain that you know what your doing.

Although when I made the acoustic/ electric comparison I meant it playing-style wise and not structurally, but whatever.

P.s; Russ- If you hadnt noticed- I couldnt answer your question on the mimf RE:GOTM with words, -(since you cant post there on a sunday), so I answered with actions

[thegarehanman]

I noticed! This GOTM will be one for the books.

Edited August 19, 2007 by thegarehanman

[Geo]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this (or I just missed it). The reason the headstock might affect tone/sustain is because the strings are always anchored to it, even when you fret a note. Imagine if the string became detached from the tuner while you were fretting. Your finger wouldn't hold it on.

The tension runs the whole length of the string... so even when you play at the 20 fret, there's still X pounds tugging that tuner towards the bridge. The amount to which the headstock, neck, neck joint, body, and bridge resist that tug probly determines how much "sustain" we hear.

[Myka Guitars]

No problem Ben, I was just tossing in some info for discussion. It is good to share ideas and hear different takes on how things work (or might work ).

Russ, you bring up an interesting point about the position of your hand. It probably does affect the necks vibrations from that point to the headstock. I am not sure exactly how but it certainly makes sense that it would, like generating harmonics by stabilizing the node. Hmmm...

~David

[fryovanni]

Okay TK, so you need to strike this statement.

Well, fter taking a day to cool down, I put a new headstock on the bass that was trashed. I do need a new fretboard, but the bass should actually end up being better than if I had stayed with my original headstock, which was way too small. Of course, the new headstock is redwood, cause it's the only thing i had lying around, so it doesn't matcht he mahogany neck perfectly, but whatever. It's clamped and glued now.

And replace it with...

Well, after taking a day to cool down, I put a new headstock on the bass that was trashed. I do need a new fretboard, but the bass should actually end up being far far better than if I had stayed with my original headstock. Of course, the new headstock is redwood, because it was the natural choice for stiffness, density, resonant responce and should suit the mahogany neck perfectly(I would go into further detail but few would probably grasp my intent, so whatever). It's clamped and glued now.

Have fun with it and stick to the story

Rich

[WezV]

[the telecaster kid]

Well, I've got the new headstockblank glued on, and the shape drawn out.

I just got my new fretboard blank, maple. It's going to be a fretless.

And my arm is healing. I'm getting the stitches out soon.

It doesn't even look that bad anymore.

[low end fuzz]

frettless maple?

epoxy?

experimenting or nervous?

[the telecaster kid]

Yes, nervous. And fretless basses are cool, but mostly nervous.