Reverse headstock
- Thread starter Caddie
- Start date
Tensioned string length behind the nut makes a slight difference in the bend factor under your hands. In the case of reversed 6IL, the wound strings are longer and should feel a tad "looser" because the tension is equally spread among a greater length of string, meaning you need slightly less pressure/resistance/push to bend the tensioned string. The plain strings inversely a tad "tighter" under the bending fingers, at least they do/feel that way to me. I seem to recall Jimi said the same thing about playing a reverse strat head versus a normal 6IL layout, but I also recall that was just one benefit he liked and not necessarily the reason he preferred righties set up for a lefty.
And regardless of headstock layout or shape, a locking nut makes any of those variables a moot point. Normal versus reversed becomes a cosmetic taste issue and whether you prefer manually working the headstock tuners from the "top" of the headstock versus from "under" the headstock.
And regardless of headstock layout or shape, a locking nut makes any of those variables a moot point. Normal versus reversed becomes a cosmetic taste issue and whether you prefer manually working the headstock tuners from the "top" of the headstock versus from "under" the headstock.
How straight the string pull is also has some effect. Having more string under tension has good and bad points. The string can feel easier to bend, but you also have to bend farther for the same pitch change. The only guitars I have with reverse headstocks both have floyds, so I really don't have anything to experiment with. I will say that on my Hamers and guitars with three on a side, bending is more uniform than on my guitars with standard F-style head stocks.
I know some people say that top-wrapping a tailpiece on a TOM bridge makes the "tension" less, but what it really does is reduce the break angle, which makes it easier for the string to slide over the bridge, so you have more string to work with, and the same thing applies about it being easier to bend, but as before you get less pitch change per bend distance.
I know some people say that top-wrapping a tailpiece on a TOM bridge makes the "tension" less, but what it really does is reduce the break angle, which makes it easier for the string to slide over the bridge, so you have more string to work with, and the same thing applies about it being easier to bend, but as before you get less pitch change per bend distance.
Guys, it makes no sense your story about tension. The main frequency a string vibrates is proportional to its tension, and inversely proportional to its gauge and to its length. Therefore, provided the pitch remains constant (such as in a low E, for example, which remains a low E when tuned to standard), for the same gauge and for the same scale length, the tension will be the freaking same!
Well, then it comes the cork-sniffing factor, of course. The longer the length behind the nut and behind the bridge, the more string you'll have at your disposal. So, provided it can slip a bit over the bridge and over the nut, you might feel a certain additional elasticity. In that case bends might feel like they are easier to do, but you'll actually have to bend it further in order to reach the same pitch.
I don't know how noticeable it might be though. But I know... It all depends on what you want to believe anyways.
Well, then it comes the cork-sniffing factor, of course. The longer the length behind the nut and behind the bridge, the more string you'll have at your disposal. So, provided it can slip a bit over the bridge and over the nut, you might feel a certain additional elasticity. In that case bends might feel like they are easier to do, but you'll actually have to bend it further in order to reach the same pitch.
I don't know how noticeable it might be though. But I know... It all depends on what you want to believe anyways.
Experience tells me it doesn't matter. I have a few reverse head stock Hamers and have noticed nothing , maybe I'm deaf, or just stupid (watch it!).
Late addition, mine all have Floyd Rose locking nuts, so the string length ends there regardless.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have two basically identical basses, with the sole exception that one has a reverse 4 headstock and the other has a regular 4 headstock. Same model, scale length, body and neck materials, same fingerboard wood, same pickups, same hardware, and maybe about 200 serial numbers apart. The low E on the reverse is definitely "floppier" (not in a bad way), and the the G is tighter and more percussive in response. The regular headstock version is the exact opposite in terms of feel.
I also have several Strats where the experience is the same between the reverse and regular headstocks.
I'll let the Physics majors debate why they think this is incorrect, but it's not.
I also have several Strats where the experience is the same between the reverse and regular headstocks.
I'll let the Physics majors debate why they think this is incorrect, but it's not.
Last edited by a moderator:
geowolves
New member
I would say mass not gauge but otherwise what you say makes sense but that is only accounting for tension. A true string (as opposed to an ideal string) also has some elasticity to it. Since the elasticity is proportional to length a longer string will have more elasticity. The key is that the effective elasticity will increase as the unplayed portion of the string gets longer - assuming the string can slide over the nut (so locking nuts are out).
When people say "tension" it usually would be better to say "resistance to bending". Raising the pitch requires a certain amount of force, and the more string that is "under tension" the more string you have to absorb that increase in force. So, while it feels easier, it's less effective.
