The Steinberger.

Believe.

I'll go on record right away: I believe the original Steinberger bass is so far the only true mile stone in bass history since the Fender Precision. There. I said it. OK, before you shoot me allow me to explain.

The Precision was truly revolutionary for the time. Compared to the double bass it was small; it could be wore like a guitar; it could be amplified; it had frets to make intonation perfect. In a world traditionally diffident of new ideas it surely took guts and faith. Leo Fender saw it when others couldn't.

Almost thirty years later, history repeats itself with the Steinberger. It was such a radical departure we'd be hard pressed to find just one similarity with basses of the time - aside from having a neck and four strings.

In the early 80's Fender, Gibson, Rickenbacker and a few others had basically stated what a bass should look like. Alembic and Co. had added great craftsmanship and combination of exotic woods and brass. The Japanese had introduced decent basses masses could afford. The environment was as challenging for the Steinberger as it had been for the Precision in the 50s.

The Steinberger seemed completely out of touch with reality and, even though it immediately gained a solid followers base, it also left many puzzled. I admit it, back then I didn't like it that much. What was there to like anyway? There were neither graceful lines nor exotic, contrasting woods. Heck! There was no wood, period.

Well, great things have this little peculiarity – either you love them from day one; or you're going to when you finally get it. Many years later, I finally got it.

The Steinberger take on bass.

Problem is, the Precision was designed as large guitar, basically underestimating physic, sound and ergonomic peculiarities of a bass. Everyone else followed suit, content at best to make their creation look different from the Fender. Ned Steinberger saw it otherwise.

Now that I think of it, my opening statement should have been more radical. Something along the line of: The original Steinberger bass is the only true bass ever designed.
But you wouldn't have gotten this far, would you? The thing is, most of the obvious solutions that work on a guitar become rather a limitation on a bass. For the love of the game or lack of better options, we all adjusted to Fender's vision. But that doesn't mean it couldn't - and shouldn't - be improved upon.
I have elaborate on this point in my earlier post: The Headless Conundrum. If you really want to shoot me, please read that first.

The end of the bass guitar.
Two of the most important qualities any great bass should feature are balance and stiffness. There are others, granted. A pint holder for example is a fine feature and a Facebook interface will soon become a must.

When it comes to balance, the extra weight of the headstock has always been a problem. Lets just say that without a headstock you get a shorter, better balanced instrument. Cool. Adieu headstock.

Without it one must find another place for the tuners. All previous attempts of moving the tuners, of part thereof, to the body had been clumsy and rather uninspired at best. Makers were basically using the same headstock tuners - or a smaller version of - at the bottom of the body. Things of the past. Nice memorabilia. But I can't believe some still do that today. I won't say whom, else Warwick might take offense.

This one, oh boy!, it's a masterpiece of ingenuity. If you open this thing you wonder what makes it work so well! It's so simple I nearly got pissed off at myself for not having invented it!

The bridge does its job with simple regulations of height and all. But the great achievement lies in the absolute precision and reliability of the system. Again, The Headless Conundrum digs deeper into this and it does wonders with insomnia.

At the end of the neck there is a clean anchor system where to secure the newly designed Steinberger double ball-end strings. It's fast, effective and modern.

Aside from aesthetic reasons, bodies tend to be large to offer mass, counterbalance the weight of neck/headstock protruding so far away from the center of gravity and to provide anchor points to strap the bass. With the new headless system and the stiffness of graphite the Steinberger could afford a much smaller body.

My feeling is that the shape had a lot to do also with the vision of producing something completely unorthodox. I like that touch of subtle arrogance. Why does the Steinberger looks like that? Because it can. Cool.

With a small body a new problem presents itself. Where to hang the strap? Some makers facing a similar question have simply used whatever anchoring point their design left available, sometimes with total disregard for balance, ergonomics and playability.

To that point, I just tested a bass designed like a Telecaster guitar sporting strap locks in the same position as the guitar's. Believe me, that thing is unplayable! Neck-dive would be a gross understatement and the first fret is half way to Mars. How can one make a bass that is so impossible to play? And G&L of all makers!

Look at the Steinberger's inspired simplicity. The center of the bass becomes the pivot point of the boomerang. To its extremities are the strap locks. When you strap it on, the bass instantly finds its neutral position.

Now let's twist the whole balance concept on its head. When we say 'balance' we think of a neck that doesn't dive. That's it. See? We are so used to getting used to limitations around us that every time something simply... er... works, it leaves us in awe. heck, shouldn't 'perfectly balanced' just be the bare minimum, the one feature we take for granted?

What if balance meant a whole new level of performance? Imagine you could hold the bass horizontally, then gradually your playing style shifts to a more diagonal position; at some point you go back to where you were or, why not?, all the way up, almost vertical. How cool would that be?

To do that on traditional basses you have to push or pull the neck to make the strap slide onto your shoulder and to the new position. But that cannot be done while playing. So basically, you adjust to the bass till you can move it.

The Steinberger instead follows your every move while your hands are busy playing! Effortlessly, flawlessly and without you even realizing it. The bass adjusts to you. There. Beat this.

And since we are on a roll, flip the bass and you'll see an ingenious leg rest that pops up when needed and disappear when it's not.

I also find very comfortable the retro fit jack socket. It's out of the way and there is no chance you can unplug it by stepping on the cable. Sure, we all secure the cable around the strap, but shouldn't a clever system fix that shortcoming instead? With this, who needs to fit a Neutrik jack?

Seriously though, this bass is a compendium of new solutions. The headless string retainer, the tuner/bridge, the strap system, the jack socket position, the leg rest, the graphite composite mold. There are more patents in here than in the latest i-phone.

Black diamond.

Graphite composites (epoxy resin reinforced with graphite to be precise) are very very stiff and reliable. One oft-heard complain is that graphite affects the sound. Actually it has a sound of its own. Which simply means building a system of parts around it to achieve the sound you have in mind. Just like you would with woods.

Some say that the feel is not like wood. Well, of course it doesn't feel like a satin finished neck. But you won't find much difference with a high gloss lacquered neck.

And it's black. Like Ford reportedly said: anyone can buy a Ford car in whichever colour they fancy. So long as it is black. (ps. There are actually a very few yellow and white rarities out there - Bergers, not Fords)

The electronics.

EMG. 'nough said. They are clean, precise, consistent. Players like them or not purely based on that. I like them. And I can already tell you who else likes them - studio and live sound engineers.

There are very few pick-up as easy to make sound great as EMG, even in the shittiest venue. They sound good with wood, they sound good with graphite. I bet they would sound good even on a air guitar. Controls are in line with the look: Vol/Balance/Tone. It doesn't play without battery. This is Sparta.

Living with it.

The neck is actually very thick - Fender addicts should be happy. But the action is fantastic and to find a dead note you'll have to shoot one yourself. I tend to prefer thinner necks, but I have adjusted easily and happily. Even an entire gig with it isn't tiring.

I had an initial resistance to such a small body as I am used to large ones - JayDee, Alembic and so on. To be fair, I never got fully used to it, but it doesn't bother me as much as the rest pleases me. Over time, I discovered that the upper end of the body makes for a very comfortable elbow rest when playing finger-style. Thanks to the boomerang thingy the 24th fret falls in a comfortable playing position. Of course, not having body wings helps too.

The sound is very big, clean and quite neutral, piano-like. It has great definition across the spectrum with terrific attack and longer sustain than a commercial break. It's a fantastic axe for slapping acrobatics, rendering even complex machine-gun stuff with clarity and articulation to die for.

Such a clean sound makes it very easy to personalize with pedals or studio gadgets. The two p-ups provide a fair amount of flexibility.

Some find the sound a bit cold. Frankly I think what they miss in the Steinberger is the Fender sound. The classic punchy, warm and tight sound of the F Jazz. So do I. Which is why the Steinberger is not my only bass. God knows, there is no such a thing like a do-it-all bass. And we like it that way, don't we all?

Leaving with it.

This bass gets into any car trunk easily and it doesn't take much room in the overhead compartment of a plane either! I am thinking of making a special gig bag to carry it on my bike. It travels the world easily in a soft gig bag - which would frighten any other high end bass owner. Wear and tear is a joke. This thing can cross the Middle East and come back alive. It's a nearly indestructible instrument, with a neck that has the arrogance of not even mounting a truss-rod. The one pictured here is a workaholic 1982.

Get off the plane-go to the gig venue-plug it in-whack it. Fuck humidity. Sometimes I even forget to check if it's still in tune.

Double ball-end strings might be a bit tricky to find. You can't just walk into any shop and expect to find them in the exact gauge you like. I buy them in bulk online without a problem - GHS makes them, among others.

Headless basses nowadays have switched to a hybrid string retainer system which allows to use both Steinberger and traditional strings. If I'm not wrong Moses sells the same system for S'berger.

Wrapping it up.

Great ideas are in the air. We all come across them once in a while. Most of us ignore them; few toy with them and eventually give up. For a true idea to see the light it takes someone visionary enough to get it and mad enough to believe in it. If that happens at all.

When you think of it, fitting the tuners at the bottom of a bass, using alternative materials to wood and going headless weren't exactly brand new ideas. Some had tried before, no one successfully. No one really believed they were more than gimmicks obviously.

The Steinberger is not to everyone taste. It never was and probably never wanted to be. But it has opened the door to a brand new approach to bass building, breathing new life into an industry that is paradoxically so wiry of new ideas.

Today, makers experiment with a variety of materials, including metal. The headless system is here to stay - albeit still in a sort of limbo. Would this Renaissance have ever happened without the Steinberger? I believe not.

Thanks for reading

>=)O

ps: It is. In tune. I mean, the bass. When I check.

In a Nutshell:
+ Revolutionary. Perfect action for life. Always in tune. Big sound. Indestructible.
- look and sound not to everyone taste. Hard to find.

Links:
Interview to Ned Steinberger.
Steinberger trivia.
The new official Steinberger website.

Building the uber-J. Part Seven.

A few touches before the plunge.

This is taking longer than I initially anticipated. Considering the five weeks I had given myself when I started this project I am off the mark by just four months. Blame it on work, forcing me to leave the country already twice from the beginning of the year... blame it on this weather, too good to pass a weekend or two by the seaside...blame it on the financial crisis, making us believe that there are more important things to do than building the uber-J. Bollocks.

Anyway, here's where we are now. I have roughly shaped the neck, glued the fingerboard and finally reshaped that hideously bulky heel.

For now I have shaped it slightly more slanted on the lower part, to add extra space for the left hand - I'm really becoming obsessed with this. You'll see from the close-up picture that is still needs some fine sanding. yeah...it never ends....

The three holes are in fact only marking the position of the knobs. Eventually that area will be routed for the rear mounted electronics.

At this stage you can see the truss rod slot, the fingerboard and, more to the point, the binding.
Eventually, I settled on Maple....on a Rock Maple neck...on a Birdseye maple FB....Yeah, it's nearly invisible if you're not the one holding the bass, I know....

But I like its understated nature. It's yet another tribute to the mid '70s Fender Jazz. Only, this one is Maple, not plastic. It ain't a uber-J for nothing

I am shaping the headstock in line with the body style, shaving enough veneer for the maple to show. I will probably work on those curves a bit more than that. But you get the idea.

I have, as you might notice, blended the design of the J's headstock with that of another masterpiece and personal favorite - the Music man Stingray.

I have long admired Leo Fender's ability to stay true to the basics of the original J headstock design - as much as he legally could anyway - while making it more compact and pleasingly balanced with the body.

When I'm done with mine the two designs should be fairly obvious.

I am planning to make a cover for the truss rod slot. I'm still working on it. Any ideas?

The second picture shows what's going to happen to the back of the headstock. I will shape the profile again to match the rounded, soft lines of the front and body.

I regret I didn't take a picture of the neck. How could I forget?? Anyway, it's still a long way to go. It will be a thin, rather flat neck.
In this picture you should be able to see that the neck scarf is more akin to that of a tilt back headstock and more pronounced. I find that very comfortable to 'feel' when I'm getting to the first fret without having to look at the neck.

I have also lowered that point a bit compared to the usual position so as the thumb will feel it when the first finger is near the fret....does that make sense?

Two more weeks away and I'll be back to finish this. From now on I'll get to the very heart of the project, where the biggest departure from the original FJ takes place. It will also be, I believe, the most controversial one. Stay tuned.

The headless conundrum.

Headless is better. Or, is it?

Disclaimer: the following statements reflect my humble (very) point of view. I mean no disrespect to anyone who thinks otherwise. Likewise, I hope to get the same treatment. There. So I won't have to write IMHO or IMVHO every other line.

There are a few unresolved dilemmas in the bass world. Is wood better than Graphite? Is tone a product of wood or electronics? Is passive better than active? I mean, really! These are true evergreens. Makers in particular can get quite emotional about them and argue forever.

Opposing parties have developed a way of building and playing consistent with their belief and - surprisingly? - one can find excellent products on both sides. Which probably explains why these are classics of disagreement.

In the headless vs. headstock debate though, it's not exactly the same. There is an inconsistency out there that strikes me as odd every time I think about it.

When I look at facts purely, it seems that the headless system wins hands down. Here is why.

Tuning reliability.

The evolution of traditional machine heads has chiefly focused on 1. making tuning smoother 2. making tuners lighter 3. keep the tune – providing there is no external interference.

It's a fact that even the best machine heads are prone to lose tuning; put your bass in the gig bag or take it out; drop the gig bag on the car's rear seat or in the boot; leave the bass leaning against the wall. Or, someone bumps into it or fiddles with it. Sometimes it seems like divine intervention. Let's face it: machine heads' design and position just makes accidental de-tuning too easy to happen.

Let me ask you, what's the first thing any bassist does – or guitarist for that matter - when taking his bass out of the case? He checks the tuning.

Good headless bridges on the other hand are extremely reliable. They are small, sturdy and positioned in a way that the body itself prevents accidental de-tuning. My 1982 Steinberger never goes out of tune accidentally.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are cases like this Warwick which seems more concerned with imitating the Steinberger look than understanding its functionality. Placing the tuners right where the bass rests on a stand or on the floor - even in a gig bag - to me just defeats the purpose. With all due respect, do these guys ever play gigs in the real world? Traditional tuners at the headstock would have done a much better job.

Stringing the bass.

Lets face it: no one thinks this is fun. Even Flash Gordon would take at the least 30 seconds to replace one string and get to a somewhat OK tension – still not in tune. The headless system takes perhaps 10/15 seconds per string. The string is locked - either by a double ball end or by a screw. It's a very clean and effective system.

Now, it's not like we've got better things to do than restringing our beloved bass. But the implications of a clumsy system are many. Say, you need to replace a broken string on stage; or you need fresh strings frequently for your many studio sessions; or you play with 6, 7, 8 strings. Or all of the above.

Weight.

Makers can dish out the most exotic material to reduce tuners' weight. But it will never go down to zero. One hundred grams might not sound like much, but in a world where six strings bass and above have become common, a few hundred grams on an instrument that is struggling to keep its total weight down it's a lot.

What you put up there must be counter balanced by the body weight if you don't want your neck to nose-dive.

On-the-fly tuning.

Have you ever tried tuning a string while playing live? Maybe your previous song required a E string tuned to D and you forgot to tune it back. It happened to me once and I had to stretch my right arm across to reach the headstock, because my left hand had to hold the note. It isn't funny. With the tuner positioned at the bridge this operation is a breeze. Again, this might not happen to you everyday, but if it does you'll be happy you had tuners at the bridge.

I'd like to digress a little now. There has been for long time a belief that a headstock contributes to the sound. Some say positively, some argue negatively. Of course, the lack of convincing, definitive conclusions on either sides is the very reason why we're still debating and will continue doing so. Unless of course, we can test two identical basses with and without headstock in identical conditions - which is both impossible and pointless.

I have played both traditional and headless, side by side on stage and I have come to the conclusion that these are as close to 'facts' as it gets.

This should settle the argument once and for all, right? Cool. Lets all go out there then, and grab all headless basses we can get hold of.

Well, here is the oddity. Just walk into a shop and look around. You'll see very few headless basses - if any at all. Why is it so - considering how much better headless basses work? Why is it that in 30 years they haven't replaced the traditional design - and they don't seem any closer to do so today than they were back then. Obviously, something else is missing.

Lets take a look at the real world of headless basses for clues.

One of the most successful makers of headless basses right now is probably Status. They make beautiful instruments which play awesomely. Check their catalog and you'll see that most basses they produce sport a headstock. The headless models – including their classic S2 – come with headstock option. Even their King Bass which started off as a headless design, now comes with a headstock in its latest Mark-II standard version. A headless model is only available as a custom option. See what the market is saying?

Another good example is the work of luthier David King. On his website he makes a case for headless basses, very articulated and competent. Yet, when you look at the basses he makes you'll find that the majority sports a headstock - which says a lot about the type of orders he's getting.

Steinberger is making a comeback in its revamped venture with Gibson with Mr. Steinberger at the helm. We'll see. There are few more headless bass makers out there and they are no exception to this picture.

So it seems that demand for headless basses is very low. Does that mean that most bassists are impervious to new ideas? Maybe so. But in this case I beg to differ. Bassists just want to play an instrument that sounds, feels and looks good to them. Feel, not facts is what inspires us and makes us sound better.

I have noticed time and again how my playing is influenced by the looks and feel of the instrument. A great bass which didn't resonate with me always made me sound clumsy and uninspired. Conversely, I have felt – and hopefully sounded – better on a lesser bass which I was emotionally connected to.

Look is a great component of what we call feel. As human being we have been designed by mother nature to appreciate balance and harmony in shapes and forms and seek comfort in it.

We've grown up with the shape of acoustic guitars, basses and other stringed instruments. It is only understandable that we feel comfortable with their looks. Everybody likes the look of an acoustic guitar – even those who can't play or couldn't care less.

Headless basses represent indeed a revolution. They tick all the boxes in the Facts list. But lets be blunt about this: most of them look quite contrived and disharmonious – which is French for butt ugly.

One of the very few instrument that has ever managed to successfully address this point is still the original Steinberger. That's because the entire bass was designed from ground up around the vision of a headless instrument. From a sheer design point of view I can't find flaw to it. Still, even though it achieved a cult status, it carved only a niche for itself.

Removing the headstock is the rational and the right thing to do. But the design must harmonize the new the neck with the rest of the instrument, otherwise all you get is an amputation.

Look at the Status KB Mark-II with and without headstock and you should feel how much more pleasing and harmonious the one with headstock looks – especially since the body is considerably larger than the Mark-I's.

As a headless, the Mark-I (two pictured below) looks a lot more harmonious, with a smaller body balancing the missing headstock. I find one detail very insightful. Due to its layout the Mark-I works best as a 32" - 34" positioning the first fret very far from the body. Now, 32" is not as popular as 34". And yet the M-I is a very sought after bass. Think about it: scores of bassists have made this bass successful in spite of being a 32". That's a testament to how well beauty sells.

Status has recently introduced a compact headless bass as well, the Streamliner. The Steinbergeresque design is indeed quite pleasing.

Taste is a personal thing and everyone has the right to like and buy what he pleases. But unresolved design is something very visible to those who understand and appreciate good design.

I deeply believe in the superiority of the headless system. But I am as adamant in stating that, traditional basses are immensely better looking than most headless ones. Millions of bassists clearly see it the same way.

What's missing to headless often is great looks. Simply. Headless basses must find a way to look as beautiful as traditional basses, if they want to win bassists' interest. Until then, the headless' many advantages will be just uninspiring cold facts. We don't even buy a car based on rationalization alone. Go figure.

Some makers - mostly luthiers - have recognized this fact and looked for harmony by shaping the body some times with pretty good results.

Others have explored the option of a headstock which simply acts as a string retainer. I too have gotten to the same conclusion. Each has done it in a slightly different way and with probably different motivation. But the idea behind it is the same.

But, does a headstock still make sense when it only serves an aesthetic purpose? It's a good question. To some a tuners-less headstock might still look like a contrived solution. Maybe so. Personally I believe that beauty has a place and a role in this world, even just by itself.

Moreover, unveiling the discomfort with the look of current headless design opens the door to better ideas to come. We'll take that.

Besides, we can still argue that a headstock influences sound and harmonics. Or, does it?

Thanks for reading.

O(=<

ps: Here's the great Kubicky x-factor, another prefect example of how headless features and gutsy design can coexist. Please note the added feature of a drop D at the headstock. Hell of a thing. Thanks to Zuma for pointing it out.

Building the uber-J. Part Six.

Starts looking like a bass, doesn't it?

Here is what is happening on uber-J front. The body is almost done - neck joint being the most visible exception. I'll shape that once the neck it done.

I don't know what you think, folks. But I just love the way the curves on the side show the core wood underneath.



I was a little nervous when I started shaving off the top wood from the sides. If it turned out a lemon I would have spoiled a great looking top. But I had it so clear in my mind and I so wanted to give it a try... I hope you'll also see what i see. To me, those little curves just sum up beautifully what the classic Fender design is all about. Yeah, Yeah, it's bragging time... ;)

Anyway, these are the above mentioned curves. I might need to just sand the body a little more before spraying it. Also, I have to polish the pick-up recess and neck joint that are still a bit rough.





I have also sanded the back and further shaped the two horns. All these shaving and sanding took me about six hours. I had to do almost everything by hand as many corners couldn't be safely reached otherwise. I actually like it and somehow prefer it to using machinery. It's a great way of finding the lines and feeling them under your fingers.





Next week I should be able to dedicate a couple of solid days to gluing the fingerboard, finishing neck, headstock and neck joint and routing the electronics' recess . If all goes fine, I should be ready to spray by week end. I have some wild ideas for the neck and for the finishing, so stay tuned.

ps: I do hope the groovy backgrounds I found for these pictures didn't go unnoticed :)

Building the uber-J. Part Five.

Back to work, with a vengeance.

I've got to say this: it's good to be back. I came back from Europe at the beginning on March and I've been stuck with a lot of work until last week. Then I've been stuck with one week off to the beach ;)

Now I'm finally back and hungry for more sanding, sawing, routing and all that Jazz. er.... ;)

My hiatus wasn't in vain though. I have finally found answers to a few issues I had left pending and I am going to line them up as the project unfolds - I'm sucker for drama, sorry ;)

So, the last few days have been dedicated to reshaping the body a bit. You might not be able to see that in this pictures, but it is slightly smaller.

The lower horn is now starting at around the 21st fret. Which means I had to re-shape the contour of the back.

I am leaving the shape of the neck joint untouched till I am done with the neck. Eventually it will be a lot smaller and less chunky than this.

Now that all the parts are finally here, I will start routing. On the masking paper I have marked down the position of the two p-ups (Bartolini) and bridge for routing.

I am using the same p-up placement as J basses made in the '60-'70 and from '82 onwards, which to me produces a more balanced sound than that of 70s models . I'll leave it there for now and take care of the neck.

Deciding on the shape and size of the headstock gave me headaches. I finally settled on this.

It is considerably smaller than the original J and there are quite a few important (IMHO) touches I am going to add later on.
So bear with me for the time being.

I must confess: sanding the fingerboard radius is not one of my favorite in-door activities. But I always try my best to see the beautiful side of things.

This is the fingerboard with frets' slots, still flat before sanding it to the radius.
As my mentor Jeffrey says: Until the center line is gone.



















So there. One and half hour later, the line is gone. The radius is 14, quite a bit more flat that the old J. For this neck I have settled on a 40mm width at the nut and 55mm at the 22nd fret - which is a lot narrower than the original 70s J.
These are the routing for the truss rod and pick-ups
They just needs to become a little smoother.

I have taken the last picture with the fingerboard sitting on the body, just to see the effect of Birdseye Mable on Macassar Ebony. Even at this rough stage...boy, I love it! :)

Commercial break. Stay tuned. :D