Headless Guitars?

[NoodleFace]

Hey guys. A little background on me first - I've been playing for 20 years (death metal). About 6 or 7 years ago I had to sell most of my gear off to fund getting my BS in Computer Engineering. Just recently I picked up a 6505+ and a couple guitars to get back into it.

One of the strangest things to me, a guy who dropped out of the guitar trade and really didn't look at all for several years, was the abundance and love for headless guitars.

I'm curious how that all started? What are the benefits?

My father has an old Steinberger from the 80's that we laugh about when he takes it out - yet now, these headless guitars are everywhere and there is a lot of love for them from people.

Just kind of curious how and when this happened, haha.

 

[stevexc]

The right people advertising them in the right way, and other right people picking them up and endorsing them.

If it weren't for guys like Tosin and Misha getting on board with .stranberg* and singing the praises on headless ergonomics, I'm about 99% sure they'd still be just as much an obscure niche as they've been since the 80s.

But that's just how it goes with these things - someone visible starts endorsing the new style, and people start demanding it.

 

[Hbett]

There's been kind of a general surge (at least in the metal/prog/fusion communities) towards more ergonomic instruments. There are also more asymmetrical neck profiles, basses with twisted necks, fanned frets, etc. I definitely think endorsements have a lot to do with this, especially as someone who owns a .strandberg* and found out about them because of Chris Letchford.

 

[Vittra]

I'm just not fond of guitars that look like tables, maybe I need to play one to feel the ergonomic differences.

 

[Leberbs]

I'm just not fond of guitars that look like tables, maybe I need to play one to feel the ergonomic differences.

Tables? lol

 

[NoodleFace]

Tables? lol

 

[Leberbs]

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Much like fashion and the music they make, fads come and go and come and go.

 

[laxu]

It has a lot more to do with the Hipshot headless system coming to market. Before that you'd generally need a custom bridge. I'd also say guitarists are becoming more open to something that isn't a Fender or Gibson design.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

It has a lot more to do with the Hipshot headless system coming to market. Before that you'd generally need a custom bridge. I'd also say guitarists are becoming more open to something that isn't a Fender or Gibson design.

I don't think the Hipshot really did as much as you're saying, as of now the only folks using it, other than custom builders, is Kiesel. Even then you're more likely to see the ABM or Strandberg systems.

Also, funny enough, Steinberger is Gibson now.

 

[stevexc]

I don't think the Hipshot really did as much as you're saying, as of now the only folks using it, other than custom builders, is Kiesel. Even then you're more likely to see the ABM or Strandberg systems.

Also, funny enough, Steinberger is Gibson now.

Plus I'm sure Hipshot putting out headless hardware was in reaction to the rising popularity, rather than the other way around.

 

[wakjob]

As a person that has recently undergone multiple wrist/hand/arm surgeries, the whole "ergonomic" thing has got my interest as of late.

Can't play my 7-string anymore.

And yeah... guys like Plini make me romanticize about Strandberg guitars.
As if I could ever...

 

[GuitarBizarre]

There are some solid fundamental reasons why headless makes sense.

1 - Less mass further away from the body makes the instrument feel lighter, more compact and less unwieldy, without resorting to short scale lengths or moving the bridge back

2 - Not having a paddle coming away from the end of the neck, means there's not a 13mm thick, quite vibration-prone paddle there to resonate, vibrate or otherwise cause dead notes or wolf tones.

3 - if you have a small extension at the end to hold your string locks, you can make it much thicker than the 13mm a headstock would be, meaning it's stronger and, again, less wolf tones or dead spots.

4 - Easier truss rod access because you can access it from the end of the neck not from above the strings as they pass to the tuners.

5 - No need to mess around creating a headstock angle - that means no need to scarf joint, and less wasted wood if you're carving the neck out of a single blank (whether multipiece or single piece necks)

6 - very few worries about strings catching in the nut - because there's next to no slack behind the nut so there's less "stretch" in that slack portion during a bend.


Along with a bunch of other advantages.

 

[GuitarBizarre]

BTW, the Steinberger Transcales are 28.625" 6 strings with EMG pickups, neck through and graphite reinforcement. They can be bought for downright SILLY prices if you want to check out the tech on the cheap.

Just don't buy the Spirit models - only the Transcales are baritone length.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

There are some solid fundamental reasons why headless makes sense.

1 - Less mass further away from the body makes the instrument feel lighter, more compact and less unwieldy, without resorting to short scale lengths or moving the bridge

You're only removing a little bit of wood, the design of the body and strap placement will have a significantly greater impact on how much a guitar weighs and how wieldy it is.

2 - Not having a paddle coming away from the end of the neck, means there's not a 13mm thick, quite vibration-prone paddle there to resonate, vibrate or otherwise cause dead notes or wolf tones.

In theory, maybe.

I've worked on numerous headless guitars with dead spots and resonance issues.

3 - if you have a small extension at the end to hold your string locks, you can make it much thicker than the 13mm a headstock would be, meaning it's stronger and, again, less wolf tones or dead spots.

What's stronger? If the neck terminates there's no need for strength.

4 - Easier truss rod access because you can access it from the end of the neck not from above the strings as they pass to the tuners.

Is that really a problem people have?

5 - No need to mess around creating a headstock angle - that means no need to scarf joint, and less wasted wood if you're carving the neck out of a single blank (whether multipiece or single piece necks)

Headed guitars don't need a scarf joint either. The size of the blank needed isn't much different either.

6 - very few worries about strings catching in the nut - because there's next to no slack behind the nut so there's less "stretch" in that slack portion during a bend.

Depends on the guitar, look at the nut issues on the Vaders.

Along with a bunch of other advantages.

Like what?

 

[GuitarBizarre]

1 - Sure, but when people complain about neck dive, take 50g off by changing tuners then claim it's magically resolved, I'll give the removal of a headstock the same credence.

2 - This one is a bit elephant powder. There's plenty of ways to make a bad neck, headless or not. But there are plenty of definite examples of headstock resonance ....ing up a perfectly good neck. (See: Telecaters, Fat Finger, etc). Remove the headstock, remove that problem. If there's a different problem causing dead spots, that's it's own thing.

3 - The strings are pulling against something. If that something is a les paul headstock with a big break angle and a deep truss rod cavity with a lot of wood taken out, its gonna be weaker than if it's pulling against a 20mm thick slab of maple with screwed down fixings located at the minimum length from the nut. You're not going to snap the latter without a lot more force than would be required to damage the former.

4 - No, it's not, but there's fixing a problem and making a practical improvement - you don't have to fiddle an allen wrench under a string retainer or through strings if your access is just a hole in the end of the neck. Minor, but it's not false to say it's more convenient. (And for that matter, how would you compare it to say, the new ibby "trapdoor" covers?)

5 - I know they don't need a scarf joint, which is why I then immediately mentioned a neck type alternative to a scarf joint. As for the neck blank size, that'll obviously depend on the angle you want your headstock at. If you want to do it fender style with string trees, obviously not. If you want to go full Gibson 17 degree, you're going to need more depth in your neck blank than that is required to make the fender type neck. Headless makes literally all of this a non-concern.

6 - I said few worries, I didn't say "Nobody could ever .... this up it's simpler than breathing". Guitars still require skills to build and nobody ever designed anything without then refining it once the problems with it were evident. But if your design minimises your potential problems in advance, you'll have to do less refining later.

 

[NoodleFace]

I appreciate your points, really I had no idea where the fad had come from. They will always look ugly to myself, thankfully they still make regular guitars

 

[Knarbens]

I think headless is a benefit on 8 and more string guitars. More tuners add mass to the headstock which results in a more neck heavy guitar as well as huge looking headstocks. Headless guitars can be built lighter in general without sacrificing a good balance.

 

[cmtd]

I like Satchel from Steel Panther's take on headless guitars in this video clip from about 1:17-1:38.



Joking around really, I just could never get into that design, and I always think about this clip when someone mentions a headless guitar.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

1 - Sure, but when people complain about neck dive, take 50g off by changing tuners then claim it's magically resolved, I'll give the removal of a headstock the same credence.

But that's modifying an existing guitar to reduce weight. Take a look at all the headless guitars with a big chunk of brass at the end of the neck, I'd wager that a lot of them are nearly as heavy as a set of quality, lightweight tuners.

2 - This one is a bit elephant powder. There's plenty of ways to make a bad neck, headless or not. But there are plenty of definite examples of headstock resonance ....ing up a perfectly good neck. (See: Telecaters, Fat Finger, etc). Remove the headstock, remove that problem. If there's a different problem causing dead spots, that's it's own thing.

Exactly.

Removing the headstock has just as much potential to do nothing as to improve/alter how the guitar vibrates.

If all headstocked guitars had issues then going headless would be better, but that's simply not the case.

3 - The strings are pulling against something. If that something is a les paul headstock with a big break angle and a deep truss rod cavity with a lot of wood taken out, its gonna be weaker than if it's pulling against a 20mm thick slab of maple with screwed down fixings located at the minimum length from the nut. You're not going to snap the latter without a lot more force than would be required to damage the former.

So it's better than a badly designed and built headstock.......just like a well built and designed headstock.

4 - No, it's not, but there's fixing a problem and making a practical improvement - you don't have to fiddle an allen wrench under a string retainer or through strings if your access is just a hole in the end of the neck. Minor, but it's not false to say it's more convenient. (And for that matter, how would you compare it to say, the new ibby "trapdoor" covers?)

5 - I know they don't need a scarf joint, which is why I then immediately mentioned a neck type alternative to a scarf joint. As for the neck blank size, that'll obviously depend on the angle you want your headstock at. If you want to do it fender style with string trees, obviously not. If you want to go full Gibson 17 degree, you're going to need more depth in your neck blank than that is required to make the fender type neck. Headless makes literally all of this a non-concern.

If we're talking about a small builder doing things by hand, yes. Though, have you seen how modern guitar production works? The large CNC machines require a relatively large piece to cut off of. The amount of wood saved would be minimal.

The speed and consistency of CNC negates slight material waste.

6 - I said few worries, I didn't say "Nobody could ever .... this up it's simpler than breathing". Guitars still require skills to build and nobody ever designed anything without then refining it once the problems with it were evident. But if your design minimises your potential problems in advance, you'll have to do less refining later.

And this is what I'm getting at.

You can't really say one design cue in a guitar defines all the characteristics.

We're talking about headless guitars not ergonomic guitars. There's a difference.

That's what separates Strandberg's early modified Strat and LP from his current fare. They were both headless, but the devil is in the details. Sweeping generalizations about theoretical advantages is missing the entire point of this thread.