Jump to content

A Music Man Headstock Noob Question.


DefinitelyAWig

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

First foray into this forum! Be gentle!

I need some help around the potential construction of a Music Man 4/2 style neck.

I was originally looking at making a Fender-ish neck (for my first ever build!) and acquired neck and fretboard blanks accordingly. I’ve since become distracted by the possibility of changing my plans to a 4/2 MM.

So the question is; are the basic dimensions of the starting blanks the same (i.e, for Fender and Music Man)? I’ve not been able to find any helpful info online, at least nothing categorical.

To the eye they look very similar, if not the same.

So there’s no headstock break angle on a MM, but does the headstock dip lower than that of a Fender, therefore requiring a thicker blank? Or to put it another way... Is the depth/distance between the face of the headstock and the top of the fretboard the same on both MM and Fender?

I hope that makes sense!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DefinitelyAWig said:

Hi everyone,

First foray into this forum! Be gentle!

I need some help around the potential construction of a Music Man 4/2 style neck.

I was originally looking at making a Fender-ish neck (for my first ever build!) and acquired neck and fretboard blanks accordingly. I’ve since become distracted by the possibility of changing my plans to a 4/2 MM.

So the question is; are the basic dimensions of the starting blanks the same (i.e, for Fender and Music Man)? I’ve not been able to find any helpful info online, at least nothing categorical.

To the eye they look very similar, if not the same.

So there’s no headstock break angle on a MM, but does the headstock dip lower than that of a Fender, therefore requiring a thicker blank? Or to put it another way... Is the depth/distance between the face of the headstock and the top of the fretboard the same on both MM and Fender?

I hope that makes sense!

well it would depend on what you mean by blank.  if you are talking about one of those paddle headstocks... then the dimensions of the neck might be diff (nut width, heel width) but there's no reason I can see why you wouldn't be able to do a 4x2 setup on that blank.  if we are talking about a literal blank ie just a chunk of wood... then it is even less of an issue.

you may go look at electricherald where they have both a design doc for a mm axis style and numerous fender styles.  I am not aware of a difference in depth on either... but it wouldn't really matter.  I just built a neck out of a 4/4 stock that has more than the typical fender depth (by a light 1/8") and there may be slightly more tension but other than that it doesn't make much of a dif.  Since the tuning pegs are closer to the nut(on 4x2) there is going to be a sharper transition anyway... but it's a pretty small difference.   I don't think you'd want to go too far beyond that(1/8 more) as the grain of the original wood will run out and in theory that weakens the transition.  long story long... it'll be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome!

As @mistermikev said going too deep with the headstock will weaken the transition.

Actually the 4/2 construction needs less depth than a Fender style 6 in a row. If you look at any guitar of that type you'll notice that the string closest to the nut has the steepest angle. Bringing the two farthermost tuners closer to the nut will steepen their string angles, making the nut contact stronger. Thus you'd only need a string tree for the two middle strings, if any.

Now that you made me think and wordify my thoughts I feel an urge to build that sort of a neck myself! Or two! As inexpensive 4+2 tuner sets may be hard to find, using two sets of 3+3 tuners should do the trick for one normal and one reversed headstock!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies @mistermikev & @Bizman62! Much appreciated. What you've both said makes perfect sense. I feel a little more emboldened to go for it!

One thing that I'm still not entirely sure about is that you never see a MM headstock with string trees. Obviously the to E and B strings are moved back towards the nut have a bigger break angle than a Fender, so the pressure over the nut is sufficient. But occasionally on Fender headstocks you'll see a second string tree covering the G and D strings, and as far as I can tell those tuners are in essentially the same place on a MM headstock ...I think? So what is it about the MM design that doesn't necessitate a string tree (particularly on the G string) when it's sometimes necessary on a Strat or a Tele?

Thanks again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The need of a string tree for G and D strings depends on several variables, one of which is the aforementioned headstock dip. A deeper carved headstock obviously increases the string break angle with the cost of weakness in the volute area if the dip is too deep. A millimetre deeper can radically change the angle!

Another way to increase the break angle is to use a taller nut which obviously also requires taller frets for a low enough action. A thicker fretboard also increases the break angle. Deeper slots in the nut also prevent the strings from slipping off when bending but there's other caveats in that approach.

Yet another option to get rid of string trees is the tuners: At least Gotoh make staggered-height six-in-line sets where the length of the posts decreases towards the end of the headstock. The height varies in pairs with a 1.5 mm step to the next height. That makes a whopping 3 mm difference between the E strings. And for the middle two the difference is only 1.5 mm which shouldn't weaken the headstock in any way. All that said I'd use the staggered tuners to fix an issue with an existing guitar. For a new build I'd just carve the headstock 1.5 mm deeper and use standard tuners without string trees - and do it 4+2 for a bigger break angle.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before getting any staggered tuners, read this: https://hazeguitars.com/blog/rant-this-time-its-staggered-height-tuners

Also, if you're going for a MM 4+2 configuration, there may not be any staggered tuners available. Installing a tuner backwards is possible and it will work but there's a difference whether the string pulls the capstan pulls the gear off the worm gear or pulls it tighter. That may cause extra wear and lead to poor tuning stability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would work, but getting the same looks and quality may be difficult.

Again, the 4+2 basically solves the main issue of a 6 in line and the rest can be addressed by a little thicker fingerboard which raises the nut a bit. Fender uses ridiculously thin  fretboards (5 mm) compared to many (1/4" or 6.35 mm) so adding the 1.5 mm needed won't look strange at all.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned earlier, getting two sets of 3+3 will give you one "normal" and one reverse set of 4+2 's. Obviously not staggered but as the blog said it may not be as good an option as it first sounds.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2021 at 12:52 AM, Bizman62 said:

As I mentioned earlier, getting two sets of 3+3 will give you one "normal" and one reverse set of 4+2 's. Obviously not staggered but as the blog said it may not be as good an option as it first sounds.

I still think I'll go with the staggered D & G posts (from a 6 in line). I take your point though. That blog is fascinating and would certainly make me think twice if I were making a 6 in line. But it does seem to be focusing on the posts at the far end of the headstock. But that obviously not an issue on a 4/2.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can be an issue with short posts that I think wasn't mentioned in the blog which I admit I read very hastily. I learned it from a Rosa String Works video where the posts on an old guitar were so short that the string hole was level with the headstock. As it's a common habit to wind the strings downwards for added angle the strings were digging into the wood. Of course the shorter posts work perfectly fine on a thinner headstock so it was only a wrong choice for a replacement on that very instrument. And of course that won't be that big an issue with locking tuners as you only wind them half a turn or so. But it's something that you might like to take into account in your plans.

The two middle posts aren't most likely too short so I guess you won't get any issues using them.

BTW my current build will have the Gotoh 6 in line staggered set which I got as a gift. Let's see how that goes!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...