Examples of 3+1 tuner configs

[ZenBasses]

In deciding the finer details of a new Shuker build it's down to the headstock layout.

I was thinking that a 3+1 layout would be something a little bit different.

Apart from the obvious Musicman example are there any other good examples that use this config.

I seem to remember that Mtd did a few but I might be mistaken.

Also is there actually any benefit to having a 3+1 setup...?. On a 5 string it makes sense to have 4+1 or a 3+2..

Cheers guys+gals

Edited November 17, 2013 by ZenBasses

[ikay]

Not too many out there I don't think. Here's a Teisco from the 1960s - [url="http://guitarz.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/teisco-kb-2-vintage-japanese-bass.html"]http://guitarz.blogs...anese-bass.html[/url]. This one also appears to have an early truss rod wheel-type adjuster. Very forward thinking. Maybe MM lifted some of their Stingray design ideas from Teisco!

Edited November 17, 2013 by ikay

[Dingus]

[quote name='ZenBasses' timestamp='1384648900' post='2279229']
In deciding the finer details of a new Shuker build it's down to the headstock layout.

I was thinking that a 3+1 layout would be something a little bit different.

Apart from the obvious Musicman example are there any other good examples that use this config.

I seem to remember that Mtd did a few but I might be mistaken.

Also is there actually any benefit to having a 3+1 setup...?. On a 5 string it makes sense to have 4+1 or a 3+2..

Cheers guys+gals
[/quote]

I seem to remember that, unlikely as it sounds, Music Man actually have a copyright patent on the 3+1 tuner configuration, so other manufacturers avoid it for fear of being sued by Sterling Ball .

Leo Fender designed the 3+1 headstock on the Stingray to change the resonant frequency of the neck and eliminate a perceived deadspot on the 5th fret on the E string on his initial design prototype.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Dingus

[AndyTravis]

Yamaha did it on a BBN4 bass in the 90's and swiftly got a bollocking from EB and co and reverted to a 2+2.

I should've bought the one I played about 3/4 years ago, as you don't see them often.

Musicman do have a copyright iirc.

[Turk]

[quote name='AndyTravis' timestamp='1384715531' post='2279892']
Yamaha did it on a BBN4 bass in the 90's and swiftly got a bollocking from EB and co and reverted to a 2+2.

I should've bought the one I played about 3/4 years ago, as you don't see them often.

Musicman do have a copyright iirc.
[/quote]

I picked one up a couple of years ago.

BBN4, with hard case, tuner and patch lead, decent quality lead, strap and a Torque 30w practice combo...£95.00...delivered...on a Next-Day service.

Result !!

Edited November 18, 2013 by Turk

[BigRedX]

Gus use a 3+1 layout for their 4-string basses and have a far smaller and more elegant looking headstock than MM:



In fact I don't see how MM can copyright the 3+1 layout since Tiesco beat them to it (and the 4+2 Guitar layout) by at least 10 years:

[stingrayPete1977]

Maybe its a matter of who makes the application first, history is littered with so called inventors of stuff that did not but are the most high profile.

[ZenBasses]

Some informative stuff there.. I'd better check with Jon to see if he knows of any legal reason (bar humbug to EB) as to why it can't be done..

The GUS headstock is where I am heading.

Probably the same Schaller or Gotoh tuners as Jon uses...

Thinking the 3+1

A. To be a little bit different
B. Quite short in the arms... G string is sometimes a stretch.. (enter the crudest comment here).. Not that is problem but would be nice to be little lazy

Thanks guys

[ras52]

AFAIK it's the term "3+1" that MM own... others are free to build 3+1s but they're not allowed to call them "3+1"!

[Jonnyboy Rotten]

The Thunderbird V has 4 +1 which looks a bit odd at the headstock is really well designed for four strings (all along the top) but the fifth one just looks stuck on the bottom of the headstock as a afterthought.

[ChickenKiev]

Patenting the 3+1 headstock is absolutely ridiculous. That's like patenting vowels. Patenting body shapes and to a lesser extent headstock shapes is fine but this honestly takes the cake.

Poo. It has made me a little bit furious actually. Looks like I'm never going to buy an EBMM for the rest of my life now. Petty, but I have principles!

Its not as if the 3+1 is EB's only USP. Their basses have tons of futuristic things that make them awesome, their biggest being their 'Game Changer' system.

I'm going to copyright/patent tuning pegs altogether for a laugh and sue everyone's arses off; give EB a taste of their own medicine.

[ead]

The ACG 4-string Graft basses have a 3 over 1 tuner configuration:

[url="http://www.acguitars.co.uk/acg_admin/wordpress/graft-series-2/finished-graft-basses/"]http://www.acguitars...d-graft-basses/[/url] just click on the images for more pics of each beastie.

As to any advantages over 2+2 or 4 in-line I'm not so sure. The ACG headstock is nice and compact so helps with the balance - infact it's very similar in size to the ACG 2+2. It does look a bit different too so I guess that might be a good or bad thing depending on which band you are in / auditioning for

Edited November 18, 2013 by ead

[Ou7shined]

I fabricated a 3+1+0 a few years ago.

It was my crafty solution for the big assed tuners not fitting the standard headstock without sticking out over the edge.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='ChickenKiev' timestamp='1384780069' post='2280564']
Patenting the 3+1 headstock is absolutely ridiculous. That's like patenting vowels. Patenting body shapes and to a lesser extent headstock shapes is fine but this honestly takes the cake.

Poo. It has made me a little bit furious actually. Looks like I'm never going to buy an EBMM for the rest of my life now. Petty, but I have principles!

Its not as if the 3+1 is EB's only USP. Their basses have tons of futuristic things that make them awesome, their biggest being their 'Game Changer' system.

I'm going to copyright/patent tuning pegs altogether for a laugh and sue everyone's arses off; give EB a taste of their own medicine.
[/quote]
I think most brands will have some kind of copyrite that sounds daft, the ebmm one isnt a new thing and afaik basschat has not been told to remove any for sale posts with any old basses with 3+1 tuners?

[andydye]

[quote name='ead' timestamp='1384781045' post='2280578']
The ACG 4-string Graft basses have a 3 over 1 tuner configuration:

[url="http://www.acguitars.co.uk/acg_admin/wordpress/graft-series-2/finished-graft-basses/"]http://www.acguitars...d-graft-basses/[/url] just click on the images for more pics of each beastie.

As to any advantages over 2+2 or 4 in-line I'm not so sure. The ACG headstock is nice and compact so helps with the balance - infact it's very similar in size to the ACG 2+2. It does look a bit different too so I guess that might be a good or bad thing depending on which band you are in / auditioning for
[/quote]

yep, ACG as ead said



I wonder if it might be related to reducing neck dive as the headstock is slightly shorter and therefore has a reduced lever arm / 'moment'?

Edited November 18, 2013 by andydye

[drTStingray]

You're ok with a 3 + 2 afaik unless Lakland has patented it. Funnily enough no one else (not even Musicman) seem to use this for a fiver but IMHO it looks great.

The 3 + 1 is patented I think and EBMMs lawyers do pursue in particular knock offs (ie people selling fakes) - all this helps buyers to have confidence in what they're getting. I bet Fender are kicking themselves their designs/layouts weren't patented back in the day!!!! As someone who's thought about buying a vintage Fender the first thing that crossed my mind is is it a fake / then is it a jumble of spare parts - worse still a refin jumble of parts etc etc. All would be far simpler if they'd bothered in the first place I reckon!!

Edited November 18, 2013 by drTStingray

[stingrayPete1977]

Loads of fives infact most are 3&2? Are you having a moment drT I recall someone saying they will only buy fives that are 2&3 as it gives more space and wood around the B and E tuners yet they are not very common with most I see being 3&2 or just 5 in a row instead. Smith being the only one off the top of my head from the none one off custom stuff.

Edited November 18, 2013 by stingrayPete1977

[ZenBasses]

[quote name='andydye' timestamp='1384792269' post='2280778']


yep, ACG as ead said



I wonder if it might be related to reducing neck dive as the headstock is slightly shorter and therefore has a reduced lever arm / 'moment'?
[/quote]

Thus is mighty true.. And that's a stunning ACG as ever...

It's all a bit of mine field considering it's such a functional part of most string instruments..

Patenting shapes, finishes, electrics, pickups etc etc.. Fine I get that...

It is like buying a car only to discover the indicators are in the glove box as someone patented the indicators stalks.

[drTStingray]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1384794856' post='2280808']
Loads of fives infact most are 3&2? Are you having a moment drT I recall someone saying they will only buy fives that are 2&3 as it gives more space and wood around the B and E tuners yet they are not very common with most I see being 3&2 or just 5 in a row instead. Smith being the only one off the top of my head from the none one off custom stuff.
[/quote]

Very possibly!!!!! Lol.

I don't get out much but I'm sure all EBMMs are 4 over 1, and Fenders are either 5 in line (neck dive??!!) or 4 over 1.

When I first saw a Lakland with 3 over 2 on the tele back in the early 90s, pre internet and pre much bass info being widely around, I thought it was a new Musicman so similar was the headstock concept!!

I guess I was thinking fender/musicman style headstock rather than the Warwick/Spector/Wal pattern!!!

Edited November 18, 2013 by drTStingray

[bassmachine2112]

<ul>
<li>
<div>[sharedmedia=core:attachments:146919]
<ul>
<li>&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Here,s a Vintage V4 with a 3 over 1 headstock with maple neck</p>

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1384796300' post='2280829']


Very possibly!!!!! Lol.

I don't get out much but I'm sure all EBMMs are 4 over 1, and Fenders are either 5 in line (neck dive??!!) or 4 over 1.

When I first saw a Lakland with 3 over 2 on the tele back in the early 90s, pre internet and pre much bass info being widely around, I thought it was a new Musicman so similar was the headstock concept!!

I guess I was thinking fender/musicman style headstock rather than the Warwick/Spector/Wal pattern!!!
[/quote]
Im surprised g and l doesnt spring to your mind?

[matski]

A friend of mine has a custom made Nexus jazz bass with a 3 + 1 arrangement. It looks odd in my opinion.

[attachment=148753:547825_10150676221934775_1952702073_n.jpg]

[Jonnyboy Rotten]

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1384789461' post='2280720']
I fabricated a 3+1+0 a few years ago.

It was my crafty solution for the big assed tuners not fitting the standard headstock without sticking out over the edge.


[/quote]

Nice! I have those tuners on my Squier P and I had to grind the corner of the end tuner off - Kinda wish I had done this now!

[BigRedX]

IMO 3+1 is a far more elegant solution than 4 in line. One of the few genuine improvements Mr Fender Made when he designed the MM Stingray. It seems weird to me, though, that they didn't go for 3+2 for the 5-string basses...

[stingrayPete1977]

Id say there were a lot less 5 string basses in the lime light when the SR5 came out, EBMM were already playing off the Stingray name with a bass that bears little or no resemblance to a Stingray which people will have identified by the single underslung tuner, still a first port of call when trying to spot a bass in the shadows of a dimly lit stage for me is that single tuner glinting.

The SR5 should have been called a Silouhette bass as its bassically a bass version of the EBMM guitar and with 2 tuners underneath but the Ray connection would have been lost other than the humbucker visually.

Which does the blue SR5 resemble most the Silo guitar or the Stingray classic?
[URL=http://s997.photobucket.com/user/stingraypete/media/20131120_101002_zps9bf88582.jpg.html][IMG]http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af100/stingraypete/20131120_101002_zps9bf88582.jpg[/IMG][/URL]