Converting a 4 string into an 8 string

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:45 pm

Candy AppleGlo!

awesome

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:07 pm

Hey Mark, this is what I wanted that vintage style surround for that we talked about. Is Dale converting your bass to look like the factory version? Are you using 8 Schaller M4's or are you going with the big and little approach? Are your octave strings going to be before or after the bass strings?
Thanks Paul,I'd be honored to have it featured in your book. See ya bright and early on the 25th.

dswp · Post by **dswp** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:30 am

For what it is worth, I stumbled across a web site in Japan some time ago that made this conversion as Dane is now doing. I think, (that is if the page translated correctly)

walker · Post by **walker** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:49 am

Hey Dane - No. The finished result is not designed to be like either version of the factory productions. Mum's the word on the headstock design until it's done. I'm going with the big & little approach on the tuning keys. I'm not sure which way is best for the order of strings. I was considering having the octave strings placed under the big ones like a typical 12-string configuration, but I've never tried it the other way. What's your preference?

walker · Post by **walker** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:53 am

Jared - good call on the color! I've been calling it "Firglo" due to the green being remeniscent of the Fir tree, but I like "Candy Appleglo," too.

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:32 am

Dave, as far as I know, that 4008 headstock is from John Entwistle's bass...but I could be wrong. If it is, then it's interesting that Squire's has the same shape but the high strings first. I felt the the design was weak towards the nut so I added the "shoulders" that the standard 4003 headstock has.
Mark, all 8 string basses I've seen, except RIC's 4003/8, have the octave strings first. For me it came down to feeling that if the bass string was first, most of the picking energy would be absorbed by it, leaving the octave string with a weaker response.
Jared, would it be possible for you to take string spacing measurements off of one of your 4003/8's for me?

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:52 am

Dane-

no problem. Are ya lookin for edge-CTC-edge?

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:03 am

Jared,that would be perfect, assuming you use standard RIC gauge strings.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:50 am

Dane, that bass is absolutely awesome. I'm still considering a 4 to 8 conversion at some point but I'm unsure which way to go (plus I've no cash at the moment...). I'm probably looking at a 4003 to 8, with all the deluxe features, but I'm not sure what to do about the head. If I could get the tuners onto the standard head and get them to work, that would be my preference.

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:15 am

Well Shaun, I did several drawings to determine how do line up the tuners in such a way as to NOT have strings bind on other tuner posts. Besides the design I went with, I also had a version with the end of the headstock looking like a standard 4000 bass. If you're using "big and little" tuners, the "frogfood" design works best. Since you'll have to have your headstock refinished after filling and re-drilling tuner holes, you may as well do it right and lengthen the headstock. It's not that expensive. Labor and materials for all the work done on my bass was only $450.00 so if you're just doing the headstock it wouldn't be too bad.

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:25 am

One good thing about this conversion is that only the headstock needs to be changed. Once you replace your bridge saddles,all you have to do is drill 4 new string holes through the rear of the tailpiece and add two screws on top and you're good to go.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:26 am

Wow, that seems incredibly cheap, way less than I expected (although doubtless here in Dear -literally- Old Blighty it will cost twice as much.) Thanks for the info Dane. I'm really, really impressed with how that bass looks.

I was actually considering going with a kind of "pre '73-ized" 8 string with all the goodies, when I eventually get the cash together; oh, and I would definitely go small and larger (well, 4004 type) tuners, I have a back/neck/shoulder problem and want to keep the weight down and the balance as good as possible.

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:12 am

Shaun, the 4004/Schaller M4 tuners would look very out of place on a vintage styled 4003 which is why I used the somewhat heavier Schaller vintage tuners. If weight is an issue, try the vintage style Hipshot Ultralights. They weigh almost nothing and have the chrome "elephant ear" keys. I think they have slightly larger shafts so theu would have to be offset somewhat so the truss rod cover doesn't hit them.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:18 am

Ok Dane, I'll bear it in mind, thanks. I think it will be a while off yet to be honest, unfortunately.

prog_rockin_metal_man · Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:16 am

hey Dane, what did you replace the bridge saddles with? can you adjust the intonation of the octave strings independently from the fundamentals? When I do my conversion I want to keep the stock ric tailpiece but I want to be able to intonate the bass properly.