Author Topic: 5 String Headstock Configuration: 3+2 or 2+3 (Read 573 times)

David Houck · « **Reply #15 on:** April 29, 2012, 03:16:53 PM »

I'll throw this thought experiment in just to make things a bit more interesting (I think Bob Novy wrote about this in a thread a few years ago). If you make the distance between the nut and tuning peg the same as the distance between the nut and the saddle, and design the peghead so that the string doesn't angle down as it passes over the nut, then strike the string, the nut will be the center point of a vibratory wave. Thus half the energy of the sting is absorbed in the non speaking part of the string. This effect probably diminishes the more the peghead is angled down as the nut absorbs more of the energy. This seems to suggest that the shorter the distance from the nut to the tuning peg, the less energy is transferred into that part of the string beyond the nut. However it seems unlikely that on a normal peghead the difference would be material.

cozmik_cowboy · « **Reply #16 on:** April 29, 2012, 03:46:59 PM »

Jimmy: if you were bending the entire 103' that might hold true, but you're not; the nut isolates that 34 (32, 30.75, 25.25, whatever), and it's all you're bending. As far as the speaking length of the string is concerned, those other 100' don't exist.

John: you're exactly right. If you change gauge/mass, you have to change tension to keep pitch; bigger string + same pitch = more tension & the vice would, of course, be versa.

Terry: OK, we saw Neil's Alembic sold not too long ago; I didn't know he had a Modulus, too. And every one I've seen was opaque - but here's a sheer Fender! (nyuk nyuk)

Peter

JimmyJ · « **Reply #17 on:** April 29, 2012, 04:00:16 PM »

John, you have it right: lighter gauge string = lower tension for the same pitch. I used to play a .120 for a low-b and changed to a .125 a few years ago. Slightly more tension and slightly truer fundamental - to my ear. But at some point a giant string starts to act more like a solid rod than a flexible string and the overtones get weirder and weirder. Upright bass scale is in the 41 - 43 range just for reference.

Dave, (with apologies to John for completely derailing his thread!), check this out...
On traditional stringed instruments the length of string beyond the bridge is significant. Finger a very high note on violin and you are likely to reach that 1/2 and 1/2 scenario you just mentioned. Even below that point the beyond-the-bridge string can cause problems by being near a harmonic overtone of the note you're trying to play. This kind of interference is called a wolf and they fix it by clamping a small piece of brass onto the offending string. Like this:

At least on our instruments these extra string bits are not within range of the pickups!

Jimmy J

rustyg61 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 29, 2012, 11:16:35 PM »

Jimmy, in Bill's Hendrix reference, I think by lower he meant lower in pitch, not neck position. So on an upsidedown Strat, the low E would be strung on the peg farthest away from the nut.

So, if my understanding of all this is correct, the string tension on my short scale SCSD is less that that of a 34 scale, & therefore more elastic & likely to flop around causing buzz?

JimmyJ · « **Reply #19 on:** April 30, 2012, 03:32:17 AM »

Rusty,
Yes, using the same gauge strings and the same tuning on a shorter scale would require less tension so - more flop.

I know Bill meant the lower strings in the Hendrix reference but I'm still trying to wrap my wee brain around this... Peter, the reason I keep saying roller nut is because I don't think the nut completely isolates the playing part of the string from the other bits. The string has to be able to move through the nut for us to tune it. So I am theorizing that a 1/2 deflection anywhere along my extreme 103' string would have little effect on the overall string tension. If done in the playing section, I would think part of the 100 extra feet would be pulled across the nut and equalize the change in tension.

On a normal Strat when you bend the high-E string does it not also tighten the short piece between the nut and the tuner? That's the crux of the issue. My uneducated guess is that there could be some compliance effect involved with these extra bits of string.

OK, I'll stop now - really. We need to do some experimenting! (Where did I put that 103' string I had?)

Jimmy J

mikedm · « **Reply #20 on:** April 30, 2012, 02:29:38 PM »

Hey John, congratulations on the custom. Taking any bets on whether or not we get together before it's finished?!

My Orion 5 had the 3+2 headstock. When it came time to replace the strings I went with a heavier gauge, wish I could remember which brand and size, that was some years ago. An unexpected bonus was a less floppy B, or as we're referring to here - more tension. Conversely, I once tried TI Jazz Rounds on my Anniversary. Great feel under the fingers, lovely sound. But being low tension strings they were ultimately too floppy. I would think that your choice of string (gauge, core, etc) will have a greater influence on the stiffness of the string more so than how much extra pull you have beyond the nut, or the saddle for that matter.

And just because I'm an impertinent sod, go with the 2+3 and the fan headstock. IMO, the coolest headstock Alembic offers.

Mike

JimmyJ · « **Reply #21 on:** April 30, 2012, 03:36:11 PM »

Mike is right, the type of strings will have the biggest effect on the feel. And as Mica says the 2+3 tuner configuration gives you the most string options, so I'm voting for that.

I also like the fan headstock (historic reasons for me) but the beauty of a Series bass is that you can have it built however you want. It's gonna be great whatever options you choose.

Again, really sorry I took your thread on such a wild ride...

Best wishes,
Jimmy J

smuprof · « **Reply #22 on:** April 30, 2012, 07:08:29 PM »

Hey Mike -

I threw out a date today to the gang for a get together in the music room. Check your email and let me know.

Fan headstock? I gotta check that out.

John

tbrannon · « **Reply #23 on:** April 30, 2012, 07:22:40 PM »

John,

Here is a 'headstock' thread with plenty of pictures. A few headstock ones in there...

http://club.alembic.com/Images/393/82450.html?1281325818

smuprof · « **Reply #24 on:** April 30, 2012, 08:05:27 PM »

Thanks, Tony. At least one with the 2+3 design.

room037 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 30, 2012, 09:43:30 PM »

Hi,

There are 4 Fan headstocks on the thread.

First one (Sunburst, logo on center) is newest one.
It seems smaller than old one.

Next 3 shots are mine.
These are made 1976', 77', 89'.(left to right).
76' is MSB, 3+2 head with long scale strings.
Low B strings is winding up all tapered part.
77' is LSB, 2+3 head with Super long strings (Fodera strings).
The strings are fit very well.
89' is LSB, 3+2 head with long scale strings.
The string taper is started neerest on the nut.

Next 2 cone head 5 strings are Medium scale.
Mac. Ebony head with Low B Alembic strings and 3+2 cone head with Hi-C strings.

I had only problem on LSB 2+3 config.
It's so far the 3 string tuner.

Eiji

mikedm · « **Reply #26 on:** May 01, 2012, 08:35:50 AM »

John,

Read the PM, sent reply. Going to post it in the gathering thread?

You need to be happy with what you choose, this isn't like painting a room (I have opinions about that, too, bwahahahahaha!). Then again, you can always have a custom headstock created. Not helping, am I? Better leave you alone before I talk you into building MY bass!

See you soon,
Mike

smuprof · « **Reply #27 on:** May 01, 2012, 04:05:35 PM »

Found this and had to post it given the in-depth nature of string behavior this thread has taken on.

High speed photography of an upright in action: really provides some perspective on what your strings are doing!

http://vimeo.com/4041788

John

rustyg61 · « **Reply #28 on:** May 02, 2012, 04:53:31 AM »

WOW John, that is impressive! Thanks for sharing!

jazzyvee · « **Reply #29 on:** May 02, 2012, 08:56:34 AM »

It would be interesting to do film an electric bass and see what the strings look like there.

JAzzyvee