fryer Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Hi, I have recently bought a cheap Hagstrom HB 4 bass. I have just bought a steinberger type bridge, and want to modify the Hagstrom. In the attached, the HB4a is the existing bass. The HB 4b shows the bridge fitted in the correct place for the bridge to keep the scale length, of 30.75". This needs a fair bit to be cut away to allow access to the tuners. The HB 4c shows the new bridge fitted further back, to reduce the amount of wood removal, but would need an extra bridge to keep the same scale. Would this work ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassassin Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 No reason why having a separate bridge & tuners wouldn't work - the principle would only be the same as the separate bridge & string retainer you get on Warwicks & such. If your headless bridge is the Steinberger/Hohner type, the saddles are only held into the tuner assembly with a single allen screw anyway, so would work perfectly well as just tuners. The separate bridge idea sounds fine to me. Very interesting project, btw. Jon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neepheid Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 I don't see any reason why not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tait Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I don't see any reason it couldn't work, but the main reason I'm posting is to ask why you've flattened the top horn? It just seems like an odd modification, and was wondering if there was a specific reason, or just for aesthetic reasons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allighatt0r Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 [quote name='Tait' post='1189353' date='Apr 5 2011, 05:38 PM']I don't see any reason it couldn't work, but the main reason I'm posting is to ask why you've flattened the top horn? It just seems like an odd modification, and was wondering if there was a specific reason, or just for aesthetic reasons?[/quote] At a guess, I would say it has something to do with moving the strap pin back for load balancing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daquifsta Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) As everyone else has said, can't see anything wrong with the mechanics of a separate bridge at all. I think if it was me though, I'd want to recess the bridge assembly a little way into the body so that the tuners didn't stick out, because I'd be worried about them getting damaged when transporting the beast. Looking forward to pictures of the finished job :-) Edited April 8, 2011 by Daquifsta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry norton Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Could you do a compromise between designs b&c so you've got protection for the tuners without the body looking like it's been cut in half. Lookin' good though - as I've said before, it's nice to see something original like this, ie a bass that isn't a Fender clone or an exotic wood, extended range 'superbass'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benebass Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I'd go for option c - just looks right to me. I totally understand why you'd soften the top horn - seriously considered buying one of their 8 strings a while ago, but wasn't sure about the strap placement. By the way, if you're using a Steinberger bridge & will be using double ball end strings then the measurements of the bridge / tuners will have to be right to take the strings, which are designed for a 34" scale. I think you can buy adaptors for the top of the neck to use single ball end strings easy enough though. Cheers, B. 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.