HeavyJay Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Is there any particular technical reason why a fender p bass headstock is parallel with the neck and a Gibson LP one is angled? I was pondering whether it was because of the machine head configuration. Anyone know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOD2 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Angling the headstock back (i.e. Gibson) produces a steeper break angle on the string as it goes over the nut. This keeps the tension up in this area which prevents strings popping out of the nut and may improve sustain. BUT... this technique means that the headstock is often a separate piece of wood "scarf-jointed" onto the neck otherwise there would be a lot of wastage carving the shape from a single piece. There are no strength issues - this type of joint is very strong but it does require a higher degree of craftmanship to manufacture. Leo Fender set out to keep manufacturing costs down and manufacturing processes simple. The scarf joint would have been an issue here, so his solution was to simplify the headstock design - making neck and headstock from a single piece of wood (no back angle). The headstock was further designed to give "straight string pull" - the strings don't splay out at all after the nut which is good for tuning stability. BUT... the break angle was too shallow therefore the "string tree" was a simple engineering solution to the problem. That's my understanding of how it arose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoo Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 As far as I understand it... the angled headstock is better for maintaining an even break angle over the nut, but is a bit more complicated/expensive to manufacture, and can be a bit more fragile. The straight headstocks are usually made from the same piece of wood as the neck, so there's no glue joint to make. String trees can make sure the string gets the right break angle over the nut, although the friction between string and tree can cause some tuning stability issues.... although I'd think it's more likely to be something that affects players that do lots of string bending more than those that don't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoo Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Hehe - guess I took too long to type that one out then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neepheid Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I concur with all of that. It's not to do with the machine heads being in any particular place - there are examples of angled headstocks with in line tuners - the Hagstrom I am restoring has a slight angle, and I sold a Washburn neck a while back which had an angled headstock and 4 in line tuners. The angle on the Hagstrom is so slight that it is a one piece affair - no scarf joint. One side effect of the angled headstock is that sometimes they don't fit in hard cases not designed for them. I have a hard case I got from Thomann and flat headstocked basses fit no problem but angled - no go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOD2 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 When Fender launched the Strat in 1954 they made a big thing about "straight string pull" and how it help the tremolo work better. But the basic headstock shape (flat angle, tuners in a line) had been established since the Tele and Precision Bass were launched in 1951 so I don't think that was one of the features of the original design. Given Fender's "ethos" (ease of manufacture and repair) I would suspect that it was the ease of manufacture that decided the lack of angled headstock. I don't think they invented the "tuners in a line" idea either, or the actual headstock shape - these ideas were borrowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoo Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 [quote name='neepheid' post='410808' date='Feb 16 2009, 10:15 AM']It's not to do with the machine heads being in any particular place - there are examples of angled headstocks with in line tuners[/quote] I've even got a Strat with an angled headstock. Not a Fender one, obviously... it was made by a local luthier, and I picked it up in a slightly battered state. Still rather nice though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 (edited) [quote name='HeavyJay' post='410784' date='Feb 16 2009, 09:55 AM']....Is there any particular technical reason why a fender p bass headstock is parallel with the neck and a Gibson LP one is angled? I was pondering whether it was because of the machine head configuration....[/quote] Gibson was making instruments in the 1800's and their angled headstock follows on from traditional designs of Lutes and Mandolins etc. Leo Fender had no tradition to adhere to and a very utilitarian and simplistic attitude to design, which is why everyone since has had trouble bettering his instruments. Paul Bigsby made an electric guitar for Merle Travis in the late 40's which had the first tuners in line design and the headstock shape that was subsequently used on the Strat. Edited February 16, 2009 by chris_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Non-angled heads and string-trees are the work of the devil and a bass would have to be pretty special in other respects for me to have to put up with those cost-cutting limitations again. It's ironic that Fender make a big deal about straight string path and trem tuning stability and then wreck it by adding standard metal string trees that add their own tuning problems. Also I find it funny that the picture you post of the "strat" with the angled headstock doesn't actually need it as it's got a locking nut that makes break angles and string trees irrelevant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoo Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 [quote name='BigRedX' post='410874' date='Feb 16 2009, 11:09 AM']Non-angled heads and string-trees are the work of the devil and a bass would have to be pretty special in other respects for me to have to put up with those cost-cutting limitations again. It's ironic that Fender make a big deal about straight string path and trem tuning stability and then wreck it by adding standard metal string trees that add their own tuning problems. Also I find it funny that the picture you post of the "strat" with the angled headstock doesn't actually need it as it's got a locking nut that makes break angles and string trees irrelevant![/quote] Actually, the locking nut isn't in use... I took out the locking parts, but left the body on there to cover the screw holes and truss rod adjuster. The strings pass through it without any contact. The trem's locked in place almost all the time too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 [quote name='stoo' post='410908' date='Feb 16 2009, 11:42 AM']Actually, the locking nut isn't in use... I took out the locking parts, but left the body on there to cover the screw holes and truss rod adjuster. The strings pass through it without any contact.[/quote] Just as well the headstock is angled then! I have two guitars with locking trems, one with and one without an angled headstock. Luckily for me they were bought specifically because of the locking trem system so I don't have to worry about the lack of break angle on one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoo Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 [quote name='BigRedX' post='410925' date='Feb 16 2009, 12:02 PM']Just as well the headstock is angled then![/quote] Makes next to no difference for me... the strings are so bloody close together I can barely play the thing these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilLordJuju Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 [quote name='BOD2' post='410799' date='Feb 16 2009, 10:08 AM']BUT... this technique means that the headstock is often a separate piece of wood "scarf-jointed" onto the neck otherwise there would be a lot of wastage carving the shape from a single piece[/quote] Most Gibson bass necks don't have the scarf-join. They just waste the excess wood I guess. Part of the reason Gibsons are expensive... The Grabber and G3 are an exception - most of them have the scarf-join, and there are a few Gibson basses with very shallow headstock angles (SB 300 / SB 400), but that headstock angle (13 degrees on the EB3 I just measured) is of course one reason they snap off when you drop them backwards. 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.