avengers63 Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 john - make a headless corvus!! I'd LOVE to. Wanna work out a deal for you to make me a headless neck? How would I take a normal, non-tiltback headstock (Fender style) neck and convert it into a headless neck? There's more to it than just cutting off the headstock and reshaping the end. I have a Steinberger, which has a zero fret and a tailpiece-like object that is mounted on the end of the neck which the strings hook through. Assuming I could even find the tailpiece that would mount on the end of the neck, is there any real possibility of interference with the truss rod? Another thought might be to leave a little flap of wood sticking out past the nut and put in ferruels, running the strings through the back of the flap and over the nut. I seem to remember seeing something similar on a Scott French guitar once. Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 proper headless hardware can get expensive so the second solution may work better on a budget - a little tab to hold the strings instead of a headstock and some kind of guitar tuner on the end of the body Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avengers63 Posted March 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Do you see any reason I'd need anything other than the existing nut, which would effectively become a bridge, and the top & bottom ferrules? I can't see it being any different than the strings traveling over the nut on a headed neck, but you never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anderekel Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Well, it's not gonna be high quality, but this guy usually has cheap headless stuff, probably off cheap guitars that broke in shipping. http://cgi.ebay.com/Electric-Guitar-bridge...1742.m153.l1262 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 yeah but the corvus already has a strange body shape that would possibly work for tuners arranged like this on the body end so it would be easy to just have a string holder minimal headstock at the other end Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avengers63 Posted March 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 yeah but the corvus already has a strange body shape that would possibly work for tuners arranged like this on the body end... so it would be easy to just have a string holder minimal headstock at the other end That's EXACTLY what I was thinking when I thought of having a little lip for the string ferrules. It wouldn't be that hard to rout a thinner shelf for the tuners along the interior angle. A straight-edge and a couple of stop-blocks with double sided tape would do the trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. pierce Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 I assume you mean a tiny paddly headstock like this? Hows the truss rod adjustment on that neck? Heel or headstock end? I've seen a couple of heel-adjust fender-style necks where the other end of the truss rod ends well before the nut of the guitar, around the second or third fret. If this is the case, chopping the head off is still an option. Is this for size/compactness, or just to offset neck dive? The large portion of the weight at the headstock is the tuners - I'd be tempted to leave the headstock as is and mount the ferrules in the old refilled tuner holes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 That's EXACTLY what I was thinking Nooooooooo....that's exactly what I was suggestiong you don't DO!!!!! AHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Heh, I was going to post this exact question a couple days ago. First off, I bought the headless bridge kit -- from what I can tell, the quality is just fine. I haven't put it into action yet, but it certainly looks well-made. The only potential concern I have is a bit of roughness around the holes for the end of the strings (it uses normal strings). I plan on filing them a bit, they look like the might potentially chew the strings. A bonus with this kit is that is comes with the headstock adapter -- that's where the ball end of the string goes. Now, the headstock cap is just that -- it fits at the end of the neck. So presumably there's no problem with cutting off the headstock and reshaping the neck to fit the cap. And the trussrod shouldn't really interfere with things--although you'd want to give the hole a bit of clearance, so the neck wouldn't end at the nut. I'm not so sure I'd be comfortable without the volute anyway. So the reason why I didn't end up posting the question is because looking at the headstock piece pretty much told me what I need to know. One of these days, I may actually get around to the build too! Oh yeah, I paid $35 for mine --same seller, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Lets get serious... comes in a multitude of flavours, acoustic, electric, acoustic electric, bass, classical... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avengers63 Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 I assume you mean a tiny paddly headstock like this? Hows the truss rod adjustment on that neck? Heel or headstock end? I've seen a couple of heel-adjust fender-style necks where the other end of the truss rod ends well before the nut of the guitar, around the second or third fret. If this is the case, chopping the head off is still an option. Is this for size/compactness, or just to offset neck dive? The large portion of the weight at the headstock is the tuners - I'd be tempted to leave the headstock as is and mount the ferrules in the old refilled tuner holes. That's EXACTLY what I was remembering. Same guitar and everything. I'd want the truss rod adjustment at the heel. I wouldn't want anything in the way of the ferrules. One less thing to work around. I'd want it for neck dive and balance issues. In my mind, if the tuners aren't there, there's no point in having the extra wood either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RestorationAD Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Headless tuners on the cheap http://projectguitar.ibforums.com/index.ph...c=25580&hl= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Years back I had played with the idea of rear tuners (after seeing the BC rich's I imagine) and headless ideas and the books are still around here somewhere. Obviously you may well end up with something vaguely corvus like. The 'traveler guitars' are an interesting idea. as this does give the compact advantages of compactness without the dedicated headless hardware. However, are they a "good" idea? Difficult to tell...I guess it depends if the idea is aesthetic and "quirky" or practicality. As for whether you "can" cut off the head...I don't see a problem, there are all kinds of ways you might approach it..it should be easy enough to string through some timber beyond the nut, or drill holes through a piece of aluminium screwed to the headstub to hold the strings. I have made one such "experiment" and 'almost' made the fatal error of not allowing enough room behind the zero fret to clear the windings beyond the ball end. So, if you are going to do this, that would be my tip...make sure those windings are well clear. On the surface, rear tuning (like fine tuners) seem like a good idea...but in reality, using the picking hand, or reaching behind with the fretting hand is not the most convenient. I think the idea of going in this direction as a means to "correct" a flawed design like the Corvus though is an odd thought process. Better would be to use this idea for a more convincing set of goals. For instance, a compact ergonomic guitar with rear tuners might be an attractive proposition...perhaps with a built in amp or acoustic (as in my mini travel guitar concept)...the corvus really doesn't fit that bill (the larger Klien types have better ergonomic aspects). Really light guitars are something that might be worth exploring also (the steinberger that even has a hollow neck) but even though compact rear tuning and headless aspects are the most 'visual' features of the steinberger types, it was the exotic materials, climatic stability and neutral even tone and sustain that was more of it's feature. I don't know about the idea of just cutting the head off of things and adding a lot of weight down the other end though...you may find that you replace neck dive (caused by the tuners at the fat end of the neck working as a lever from the centre of gravity) by lightening the head and adding the weight on the rear end causing the opposite affect and the guitar trying to pitch up and smack the player in the head just a few thoughts...do what you must! pete 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.