The road to hell

[coolingitdown]

I see--I'll be curious what you think of what Paul W. is cooking up for me when it's all done.

Well, I'm certainly intrigued!

[Tarrbot]

And like every other 5-string, he screwed up the headstock. Why can't folks put the headstock 2+3 instead of 3+2 so that the B and E strings can have the room for the silk leader necessary around the tuning post without binding the string? I understand that to keep the traditional headstock profile, just slightly lengthened, why Mr. JH did it, but even then, the way Ric5 does his is a much better solution at the headstock. Thanks for tolerating the rant.

I've read this about 3 or 4 times the last couple of days and still (as an owner of a 4003S/5) have no idea what you mean by this.

The silk leader is too much to be ... what? It doesn't make sense to me. The B tuner is always in the same spot on almost any head I've ever seen. E is next in line.

Why would the 3+2 on a 4003S/5 be any different for stringing up a bass than a 2+3 on a Ric5 one? The only string not really moving is the B. Every other string is pushed to a new location on the head.

I don't get where this is "binding the string". My 3+2 doesn't bind or am I misreading something here.

Yes, confused is what I am.

[iiipopes]

Tarrbot -- on your RIC 5, notice the distance between the nut and the B string tuner, and the distance between the bridge saddle and the ball end anchor in the tailpiece. There is significant distance at both ends. This allows the B string to wrap properly around the tuning post by the thinner leader part of the end of the string, not the thickest part of the string, and to have the proper angle over the bridge saddle to the anchor to seat the string without binding it at the bridge/tailpiece end, either. Most string companies wrap this leader with colored silk for a combination of strength, stability, and aesthetics.

Too many 5-string basses have a Fender-style plate combination tailpiece/bridge saddle setup that is very close from the ball anchor to the bridge saddle. This is compounded by putting the B string tuner as close to the nut as possible. This binds the string in two ways: 1) there is more break angle at both the bridge and headstock/nut, putting stress on the string, weakening it and damping tone, and 2) the thick part of the string ends up going around the tuning post, also weakening it and not allowing enough windings to stabilize the tuning without binding the string against the bushing or overlapping, causing instability.

Now, compare your RIC 5 with the Squier Affinity 5-on-a-side tuners. See how there is binding of the string at both the bridge and headstock as the string makes too much of a break angle over the bridge saddle to the anchor point and over the nut onto the tuner, with the string so far on that it has run out of leader and is starting to try to wrap the thickest part of the string at the base of the silk. I played one of these in a local music store today. Overall, it did sound and play better than its price point would otherwise indicate, but when I tuned the B string, it was not as smooth as the other strings; it didn't want to settle in. Part of it may have been new string stretch, or the nut slot needing a tad more burnishing, but nevertheless, the B string was not stable as it would have been if there had been both the appropriate angle and back lengths over the bridge saddle to the anchor and over the nut to the tuner. Due to the overall diameter of the string, these angles need to be a tad shallower to allow the B string to seat properly, and still be able to tune smoothly, but not so shallow as to let the string jump the saddle groove or nut slot.

[weemac]

Scott I can see now how the 2+3 system would work better for sure, I just find the 3+2 so much easier on the eye..
not that I have a 5 string Rickenbacker anymore..

Eden.

[Tarrbot]

Now I got ya.

That makes much more sense.

Thanks for the explanation.

[iiipopes]

Scott I can see now how the 2+3 system would work better for sure, I just find the 3+2 so much easier on the eye..
not that I have a 5 string Rickenbacker anymore..
Eden.

That's alright. You'll get one eventually. BTW -- this is also the main reason the original 4000 headstock, as carried forward on all 4000 series 4-string basses, has the offset E tuner: since the original electric bass strings were cut down double bass strings, they needed room as well.

[Ivan3000]

I agree that 3+2 looks better to the eye, as long is it isn't 4+1 that doesn't look too great IMO.

[jps]

It all adds up to 5, so whatever works for you/us/I is best.

[weemac]

Scott I can see now how the 2+3 system would work better for sure, I just find the 3+2 so much easier on the eye..
not that I have a 5 string Rickenbacker anymore..
Eden.

That's alright. You'll get one eventually. BTW -- this is also the main reason the original 4000 headstock, as carried forward on all 4000 series 4-string basses, has the offset E tuner: since the original electric bass strings were cut down double bass strings, they needed room as well.

I did have one, loved it. But in the end I just prefer 4 corses...
Eden.

[aceonbass]

I find this works out very well for me. Keeps the stock 4000 series headstock shape, and no binding on the B string windings.

[Grey]

I find this works out very well for me. Keeps the stock 4000 series headstock shape, and no binding on the B string windings.

Looks like that bass is also fitted with a FretFX system. Pretty neat.

[cassius987]

I am not 100% certain but I think most long-scale strings stop the voice length after 37'' from the ball end for the B and E-sized gauges which is before you get halfway up that first crest on a Ric headstock. The voiced length stops around 37.5-38'' on Dane's B string if you look close. Also I just confirmed the 37'' length on some LaBellas and D'Addarios in my possession. Circle K Strings are even shorter voiced at 36.75'' from the ball end. Even on my forthcoming example (which is probably a bit more extreme in regard to closeness of the low tuner to the nut) it would take >38'' to get the voiced length as far as the tuning peg, by my eyeballing.

Long-scale plus sold by GHS and others may be a different story.

One way I have seen people get around this when needed though, from pics shared on TalkBass, was to put washers up against the ball end to extend the string length beyond the saddle. Just a thought for anyone who does end up struggling with too much voiced length past the nut...

[iiipopes]

OK, I found one that is along the lines of what I've been talking about: the Ibanez SRA305. Note the 2+3 configuration that gives proper space to the B string and the top-load bridge that keeps the angle of the B string where it should be. The only problem with this bass is the G string bridge angle may be too shallow and twang a bit: