bolero Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 hey, I'm thinking a H150CM would look pretty killer with the larger headstock from a 575 does anyone know the skinny on various models & the respective headstock sizes? I'm thinking about a custom order...I prefer more wood up there, both cosmetically & for a bit more sustain & oomph thx!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymclark Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 I actually prefer the smaller headstock for a more even tone across the fingerboard. I would even go for a headless model for the same reason if they didn't look so strange. haha. People who make headless instruments tend to make them look like alien ships or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundersteel Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 The H150 models that have the mini-buckers have a headstock size in-between a regular H150 and an H575. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuitArtMan Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 I actually prefer the smaller headstock for a more even tone across the fingerboard. I would even go for a headless model for the same reason if they didn't look so strange. haha. People who make headless instruments tend to make them look like alien ships or something. ??? More even tone across the fingerboard with a smaller headstock??? ??? Explain please. I've never heard this (either in real life or in an internet forum). There are so many other variables in play that unless you are/were a builder that has built numerous guitars that were identical in every other way except for headstock size and could then say (from a place of expereice) that in your experience you've found that smaller headstocks have a more even tone across the fingerboard I don't see how you could make that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymclark Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 ???More even tone across the fingerboard with a smaller headstock??? ??? Explain please. I've never heard this (either in real life or in an internet forum). There are so many other variables in play that unless you are/were a builder that has built numerous guitars that were identical in every other way except for headstock size and could then say (from a place of expereice) that in your experience you've found that smaller headstocks have a more even tone across the fingerboard I don't see how you could make that statement. My post was not a statement of unmitigated fact. Sorry if came across that way. My experience is with upwards of around a thousand instruments working with big box retailers for a number of years. I have certainly played many instruments of VERY similar build where the standout difference is the headstock. Read this in a design book a number of years ago... and my experience supports it. Again, not making it true. May be just the guitars I picked up. Everybody relax.... step away from the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymclark Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 My post was not a statement of unmitigated fact. Sorry if came across that way. My experience is with upwards of around a thousand instruments working with big box retailers for a number of years. I have certainly played many instruments of VERY similar build where the standout difference is the headstock. Read this in a design book a number of years ago... and my experience supports it. Again, not making it true. May be just the guitars I picked up. Everybody relax.... step away from the gun. If memory serves... it has something to do with canceling waves from the counter-vibrating headstock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymclark Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 Found the biggest and more reasonable reason for smaller headstocks is the balance issue. Reducing the lever action. That is a the biggest thing. That is really the only thing I don't like about the G**** SG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymclark Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 Ok. I found it. It was a book I owned by Dennis Waring and David Raymond. Regarding headless guitar design: "... the headstock mass influences the tone and sustain unevenly up and down the fingerboard. The reasons for this are mostly because the headstock is an isolated center of mass at the end of the neck, causing the neck to vibrate inconsistently at different frequencies and as the strings are fretted to various lengths. By doing away with the headstock altogether this complex interaction is greatly simplified leading to a more consistent tone and sustain. Some of the benefits of headless necks can be achieved by designing a conventional headstock as light as possible. Keep in mind that tonal consistency is only a good thing if you want it; some players prefer that each note have its own distinct character." I tend to like the very flat sound. Most I don't think do. That being said, I do like the sound of my Gibson acoustic and Gretsch Nashville... which by no means have small headstocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shook494 Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 I actually prefer the smaller headstock for a more even tone across the fingerboard. I would even go for a headless model for the same reason if they didn't look so strange. haha. People who make headless instruments tend to make them look like alien ships or something. I remember reading about the headstock tone thing on Ed Roman's cite when he used to sell Heritage. He stated in several places that G****n were inferior because the headstocks were too big and robbed the guitar of sustain and tone. I believe he stated the Heritage headstocks were "tap tuned by hand" for the best sounding wood and sustain. He went on to say the same thing about the Dean "fork" headstock as well? Didn't make sense to me though. The old Deans have a HUGE headstock and people still like their tone. I have many guitars with many different heads and I don't know If I can tell the difference in tone. I think I steer towards the body wood more than anything else. I have to say the Heritage headstock has grown on me over the years and I prefer it now. My .02 worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horace Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 Live and learn. Thanks for that info BarryMClark ! Tal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymclark Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 Live and learn. Thanks for that info BarryMClark ! Tal No prob! But... as always... if you like the sound of a guitar... who cares about the headstock size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymclark Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 I remember reading about the headstock tone thing on Ed Roman's cite when he used to sell Heritage. He stated in several places that G****n were inferior because the headstocks were too big and robbed the guitar of sustain and tone. I believe he stated the Heritage headstocks were "tap tuned by hand" for the best sounding wood and sustain. He went on to say the same thing about the Dean "fork" headstock as well? Didn't make sense to me though. The old Deans have a HUGE headstock and people still like their tone. I have many guitars with many different heads and I don't know If I can tell the difference in tone. I think I steer towards the body wood more than anything else. I have to say the Heritage headstock has grown on me over the years and I prefer it now. My .02 worth.Yep. They have a forked headstock. It is large but a lot of wood is cut out in the fork part. Interesting.... "The quality of Dean's original guitars is legendary. Many people discounted them as not being credible due to the headstock and other radical things that Dean was doing. Few people are aware that the large headstock was actually tuned so that the neck would resonate better and therefore make the guitar sound better. Another little known fact is that on the Gibson Korina models of the mid 50's (the most sought after of all the Gibson's) Some of these had forked headstocks much like the Dean's. A forked headstock 50's Korina V can easily bring over $100,000.00." Ed Roman's site. Speaking of forked headstocks.... who remembers these? http://www.vintagekramer.com/alum.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuz Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 Guy, All of the newer and very expensive handmade luthiers are using smaller headstocks. Look at PRS, Mcinturff, Huber, New Orleans guitar company,.... Paul Jackson Jr (American Idol band) signature guitar has a small headstock that looks like the Mcinturff & New Orleans Guitar co. Actually, compared to these newer handmade luthiers, Heritage headstocks are bigger! New orleans guitar company (click on pic to enlarge) Link for Mcinturff guitar http://willcuttguitars.com/_product_31243/...rd_Cherry_Burst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymclark Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 Guy, All of the newer and very expensive handmade luthiers are using smaller headstocks. Look at PRS, Mcinturff, Huber, New Orleans guitar company,.... Paul Jackson Jr (American Idol band) signature guitar has a small headstock that looks like the Mcinturff & New Orleans Guitar co. Actually, compared to these newer handmade luthiers, Heritage headstocks are bigger! New orleans guitar company (click on pic to enlarge) Link for Mcinturff guitar http://willcuttguitars.com/_product_31243/...rd_Cherry_Burst Yup. That is certainly the trend. The headstock on the 140 is pretty small though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuitArtMan Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 Hmmm... There are just as many people out there who will say adding mass to the headstock will increse sustain - and this has been my experience. This was certainly the intent with the Groove Tube Fatfinger and I know many who swear buy it. My experience is that greater mass at the headstock or bridge/tail piece increases sustain, but is less dynamic and sounds somewhat compressed. Remember back in the '70s when guitars had brass sustain blocks embedded in the body? I think one reason many boutique builders use small headstock designs is more for the straight string pull, then for lower mass. I have to admit I have not played a headstockless guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymclark Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 I think remember the Fat Finger thing. That is the old quarter-on-a-vibrating-bumper thing. You can change the frequency of a mass by adding or subtracting mass from it. I believe.... what the fat finger does... and I could be WAY wrong (College physics is an ever lessing dot in my rear view mirror. haha.) is absorb the energy of the headstock. May allow for a damping for the neck as well so it doesn't oscillate wildly and lets the body 'sing' unencumbered by canceling tones from the headstock. What the good folks at Groove Tubes did, I think, was ran a number of tests with different massed clamps and ran with the one that seemed to work in general the best and ran with that. Otherwise, you would have to have one clamp that was for a Les Paul solid body, another for a chambered les paul, another for a Les Paul Junior... another for a strat... another for a swamp ash strat... and so on. The result, is... i have heard some people say that it REALLY REALLY works and other say that it enhanced the guitar's suck factor. Sometimes.... that headstock is part of reason it sounds so good. Lesson here is... always buy with your ear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuz Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Hmmm... There are just as many people out there who will say adding mass to the headstock will increse sustain - and this has been my experience. This was certainly the intent with the Groove Tube Fatfinger and I know many who swear buy it. My experience is that greater mass at the headstock or bridge/tail piece increases sustain, but is less dynamic and sounds somewhat compressed. Remember back in the '70s when guitars had brass sustain blocks embedded in the body? I think one reason many boutique builders use small headstock designs is more for the straight string pull, then for lower mass. I have to admit I have not played a headstockless guitar. Well, I guess these people aren't the ones building guitars. Again, all the handmade luthiers are using smaller headstocks. See my earlier post and google their web sites. But hey, I do appreciate you opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymclark Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 The 'straight string pull' is part of it and I would certainly rather it for that reason. Helps with the intonation of the instrument when you really get into active string bending or Bigsby use or something. There is also adequate pressure against the nut. All that stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzpunk Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I'm currently taking guitar lessons from a great player who has toured professionally with many different artists. On one tour he shared a bill with an up and coming guitar player by the name of Stevie Ray Vaughn. One lesson we were discussing the merits of 'high end' guitars (of which he himself has many) when he told me a story about that tour. He said Stevie was often hangin' around before the shows playing this cheap, beat up no-name acoustic. My instructor said that to this day, it's still some of the best blues playing he's ever heard. I'm sure the specs on that guitar were laughable by forum standards but there is a good lesson in there somewhere! 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymclark Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I'm currently taking guitar lessons from a great player who has toured professionally with many different artists. On one tour he shared a bill with an up and coming guitar player by the name of Stevie Ray Vaughn. One lesson we were discussing the merits of 'high end' guitars (of which he himself has many) when he told me a story about that tour. He said Stevie was often hangin' around before the shows playing this cheap, beat up no-name acoustic. My instructor said that to this day, it's still some of the best blues playing he's ever heard. I'm sure the specs on that guitar were laughable by forum standards but there is a good lesson in there somewhere! 8) Nope. Not laughable at all. I still say the player is more important than the instrument. It is ALL in what you want to hear. Got nothing to do with better. There are only a couple of areas where I will say better with regards to building instruments. And all of them have to do with lockwashers under control knobs. The smaller or no headstock sound thing is totally personal. I am honestly apologetic if I AT ALL suggested that smaller headstocks were better. I don't believe it to be true. I believe it to be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuz Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Whoops, another small headstock alert. I am not closed minded but I do believe (just my opinion) that the smaller headstocks are a superior design. http://www.heritageownersclub.com/forums/i...pic,4434.0.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymclark Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Whoops, another small headstock alert. I am not closed minded but I do believe (just my opinion) that the smaller headstocks are a superior design. http://www.heritageownersclub.com/forums/i...pic,4434.0.html That green is AWESOME! Sad thing is... my generation really only sees Bernie Rico's guitars as metal guitars. Thing is... they were great guitars. Beautiful craftsmanship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolero Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 well back to the original question, does anyone have specs on Heritage headstock sizes? is the 575 the largest? I think builders do that to try to get the tuning pegs in line rather than "a more even tone across the fretboard". this results in a smaller headstock certainly sustain is increased with more headstock mass: a luthier who used to build violins, cellos, classical guitars, harpsichords etc first told me that a long time ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzpunk Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Did you contact Heritage directly? I'm sure they'd be happy to give you the specs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolero Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 good idea... should have thought of that....doh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.