Re-designed headstock?

eggman · Post by **eggman** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:37 am

Howdy,

I've read a few posts about a re-designed Rickenbacker headstock. Can someone please fill me in?

Respectfully,
Larry Carroll

jps · Post by **jps** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:59 am

I think those posts were refering to the new 12 string headstock where the channels go all the way through the headstock.

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:12 am

You can check it out on Rics site.... http://www.rickenbacker.com/us/new_hs.htm

dale_fortune · Post by **dale_fortune** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:54 am

Larry this was 1st done in the late 60's but never put into production. Dick Burke was in charge of this design.

ken_j · Post by **ken_j** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:49 am

Here is one like that from '87 on a Tuxedo.

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:23 pm

This is a great idea from an aesthetic and practical point of view. I also understand that there may be somewhat greater sustain with this design, although I confess to not understanding why that may be so.

karl_teten · Post by **karl_teten** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:44 pm

I think it's kind of like a Martin guitar with Grovers vs Sta-Tites. The larger tuners are like 6 little tone-sucking C-clamps. Maybe the loss of the extra wood will help like that.

IMO the lightest tuner would need to be used as well on this new design for maximum sound.

jps · Post by **jps** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 3:07 pm

What do you mean by the larger tuners? I believe all the tuners are the same.

karl_teten · Post by **karl_teten** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:23 pm

I was talking about old style Grovers vs vintage Sta-Tites. Martin pre-war HD28 players swear by using light tuners for maximum tone on reissue models.

Martin players have gotten great tone results by swapping out large stock tuners for vintage reissue tuners.

Some Martin players swear by the tuners going only in a certain direction (backwards).

dale_fortune · Post by **dale_fortune** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:20 pm

Here's a little tought on this tone sucking logic. Musicial instruments rely on vibration to achieve their sound. Have you ever looked under various automobiles and seen a thing that looks like an arm with a piece of metal attached to it? Some are called harmonic balancers, some are vibration dampers. What they do is soak up the vibrations made by the engine or trans or some other moving part on your vehicle. The thought behind the headless Bass was to increase sustain and eleminate those unwanted dead spots like the Eflat on the A string of your P-Bass. I know as others that the smaller less dense metal tuners work best for max. tone and sustain.

jps · Post by **jps** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:35 am

Karl,
I had the impression that you thought 6 of the 12 tuners were a different size because of this line..."The larger tuners are like 6 little tone-sucking C-clamps..." Your reference to 6 made me think that!

Dale,
I know that some engines, usually 4 cylinder ones used harmonic balancers to smooth them out.

ken_j · Post by **ken_j** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:45 am

I think what Dale is talking about is an arm with a weight on it. This was a common part on certain GM exhaust systems of the eighties, usually bolted on at the catalytic converter. This would prevent a "boom" under cetain conditions. These have been used in other areas, this one just came to mind.

kevin · Post by **kevin** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:07 am

So the 70's logic of a heavier brass bridge, brass nut, and later ideas like the FATHEAD (still being sold) are all just plain wrong?

ken_j · Post by **ken_j** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:22 am

Not necessarally. Every thing has a resonant frequency. Size, mass, and composition all effect it. It is a matter of tuning certain frequencies, or a point above or below those frequencies, in or out.