Members musicdog400 Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 So I tried to make one. It is so beautiful, it brings tears to my eyes. [YOUTUBE]w-IIISAFKBs[/YOUTUBE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeepEnd Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 It's certainly different, I'll give it that. I don't know if I could get used to the angled frets though. I presume the slot in the side is the soundhole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gitmo Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 Interesting, but not "headless". You moved the head to the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Grant Harding Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 haha - fun idea! I agree that it's not headless. Looks more like it has it's head up it's **s, but I've been accused of that before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gitmo Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 Looks more like it has it's head up it's **s, but I've been accused of that before... I was going to say that but I don't know him, so I didn't. Obvious joke though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gitnoob Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 Interesting design decisions. I've heard of one other builder who uses the technique of a rod going from the neck to the tail. What's the downside? Seems like it would eliminate the need for neck resets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gitmo Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 What's the downside? Seems like it would eliminate the need for neck resets. Probably not, the strings still pull upward on the neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hudman Posted February 3, 2010 Members Share Posted February 3, 2010 Some things don't need a be be redesigned.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members musicdog400 Posted February 4, 2010 Author Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 Ha ha. I like your humor. I guess it really isn't headless. I've heard of one other builder who uses the technique of a rod going from the neck to the tail. What's the downside? Seems like it would eliminate the need for neck resets. The downside is the tension is no longer on the top, which means inferior sound. This started out as a cigar box, that is why there is a support rod. I think it would reduce the need for neck reset since neck reset is all about the neck / body joint. Some things don't need a be be redesigned.... I have lurked around here long enough to know I am kinda pushing it here, discussing unorthodox ideas. There are some really good reasons for some traditions. Then others are just plain dogma. Sacred cows make great hamburger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarcapo Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 It doesn't make sense so I guess it's art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Misha Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 It looks like it could be used as a weapon!! ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members riffmeister Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 I made one, too: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Grant Harding Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 hahaha - I love it. Great idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mjuenem Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 No bridge pins!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members musicdog400 Posted February 4, 2010 Author Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 I made one, too: That is awesome, I love it. I just might use your idea with the tuners on the back. I am trying to design a headless archtop and I am stuck, I can't think of a way to do it yet that doesn't have some undesirable side effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fendouglas Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 It would bring tears to your eyes if you hold it vertical (a la Bill Wyman) - if you hold it horizontal you could bring tears to the Bass-player's eyes!!! Interesting idea though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gitmo Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 I am trying to design a headless archtop and I am stuck, I can't think of a way to do it yet that doesn't have some undesirable side effect. Why? Most of the best innovations solve a problem and don't just do something for the sake of doing it. The head stretches the string to pitch(tuning machine). If you want a headless design you have to come up with a method for stretching to, and maintaining string pitch. It would probably be helpful if it allows for periodic tuning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members musicdog400 Posted February 4, 2010 Author Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 Why? Some people prefer to stick with convention. There are many good reasons to do this, and your chance of success is much higher. Other people reflexively ask "Why not" instead of "why". The reasons for these differences likely like in the deeper structures of our personality, and our life experiences, and which stage we are at. Some people (Alan Holdsworth comes to mind) view a headless solution as solving certain problems. So I don't really understand the assertion that a headless approach can never solve any problem. If you want a headless design you have to come up with a method for stretching to, and maintaining string pitch. It would probably be helpful if it allows for periodic tuning. Sorry but I am not understanding your idea. I have several headless instruments, all which are tunable and hold their tuning acceptably. I am not alone in wondering about headless acoustic instruments (see here). I am somewhat new to instrument building and welcome any thoughts or criticisms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gitnoob Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 The downside is the tension is no longer on the top, which means inferior sound. This started out as a cigar box, that is why there is a support rod. I don't understand why the tension would differ on the top. You still need the same amount of tension between nut and saddle to maintain pitch. The only difference should be where the force is distributed along the neck. The traditional design puts a "fulcrum" at the neck joint, but your design distributes the load between neck joint and tail. Why would the forces on the saddle/top differ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gitmo Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 Some people prefer to stick with convention. There are many good reasons to do this, and your chance of success is much higher. Other people reflexively ask "Why not" instead of "why". The reasons for these differences likely like in the deeper structures of our personality, and our life experiences, and which stage we are at. Some people (Alan Holdsworth comes to mind) view a headless solution as solving certain problems. So I don't really understand the assertion that a headless approach can never solve any problem. Sorry but I am not understanding your idea. I have several headless instruments, all which are tunable and hold their tuning acceptably. I am not alone in wondering about headless acoustic instruments (see here). I am somewhat new to instrument building and welcome any thoughts or criticisms. I'm not against innovation, quite the contrary, I just don't see the point. If the objective is to be unique that's your prerogative, it just adds a complication that yields no benefit I'm aware of. I'm not being negative, I just don't get it. Your design, and the design your video link show are not headless, both just move the head to a different location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Grant Harding Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 I don't understand why the tension would differ on the top. You still need the same amount of tension between nut and saddle to maintain pitch. The only difference should be where the force is distributed along the neck. The traditional design puts a "fulcrum" at the neck joint, but your design distributes the load between neck joint and tail. Why would the forces on the saddle/top differ? Normally the top is tensioned up by the pull of the strings, making it a more resonant (drum-like) surface. If you remove this and only have the down force of the strings on the bridge saddle it's not the same physics. The same effect can be seen with solid-body electrics. Neck-through designs used to be thought of as having more sustain, but a hard neck bolted to a resonant body beats them hands down in my experience. Tom Anderson is a big believer in this. The biggest potential tone issue that I see with the design is that the bridge is soooo close to the edge of the top, which isn't good for driving the top. I still like the idea and applaude ANY attempt to advance the craft!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarcapo Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 The bridge is too close to the edge of the guitar to drive the soundboard efficiently. That's why the guitar sounds tinny in the video. It looks cool though...but give up asking reasonable questions about design.This is definitely an example of form over function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarcapo Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 I made one, too: That guitar has its head up its ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Glenn F Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gitnoob Posted February 4, 2010 Members Share Posted February 4, 2010 Normally the top is tensioned up by the pull of the strings, making it a more resonant (drum-like) surface. If you remove this and only have the down force of the strings on the bridge saddle it's not the same physics. Seems like break angle over the saddle should still be the driving factor. My guess is that the *static* load on the top is the same for either design, but the dynamic forces differ when you pluck the strings. The neck with a joint at the body must have some sort of rubber band effect -- sort of the difference between plucking a string attached to a fixed wall vs an elastic pole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.