Fender BIG headstock "more resonance/sustain and tone"?

Re: Fender BIG headstock "more resonance/sustain and tone"?

Look of the neck as a mass loaded spring where the spring is also a "wood capacitor." The wood capacitor absorbs some frequencies and resonates/transmits others. Tone woods tend to work in our preferred frequencies but no two pieces are the same. Factor in the body and you have a two spring system with two difference "wood capacitors."

Some pieces of wood are better than others... "a dog is a dog" and you can add weights or shoot bullet holes in the thing and some necks just won't come out and play.

Adding mass - the real place where mass would matter would be in the main part of the neck. Change the shape & wood for a change in mass and the frequency transmission/absorption.

A good neck may still fight with a good body. If you don't like one you can try another.
The size of the headstock becomes an ego preference. The bigger change in resonance will be had from changing string tension - lighter/heavier strings and drop tunings.

For strat lovers changing the number of strings and the mass of the trem block is another factor.

I say find a headstock you think looks cool and if it doesn't make you happy try changing tunings, strings and springs first.

Take my comments with a grain of salt. I'm an idiot as my wife would testify.
 
Re: Fender BIG headstock "more resonance/sustain and tone"?

remember when the nerdy bassists (*cough* billy sheehan *cough*) would put vice grips to their headstocks?

And the irony was: did he ever let a note sustain longer than a half second?
 
Re: Fender BIG headstock "more resonance/sustain and tone"?

So the general consensus is it won't do anything noticeable to sound and is mainly a balance/aesthetic thing?
 
Re: Fender BIG headstock "more resonance/sustain and tone"?

FYI Big Headstocks started in 1966.

The best sounding Strats IMHO are from the early 60's. all of the 61 through 68 or 69 are just killer sounding Strats. The big headstock Strats didn't happen until 69 or 70. For me I would love a 61 slab board
 
Re: Fender BIG headstock "more resonance/sustain and tone"?

Well, a bigger headstock is not a good thing for balance- my guess is that it provided more logo/ advertising space for Fender.
 
Re: Fender BIG headstock "more resonance/sustain and tone"?

You could try cementing the headstock into a concrete wall. All that mass should give it so much sustain that you'd only ever need to play one note. No need to learn all these fancy rhythms and scales and stuff.
 
Re: Fender BIG headstock "more resonance/sustain and tone"?

I currently have a 1966 Strat and a 1962 reissue and a recent MIM. The 1966 sustains like a Les Paul. The other Strats can't touch it. Not only is the headstock bigger, but it's also noticeably thicker (there's less of the tuning peg exposed). The balance isn't thrown off because the body is heavy like a rock compared to the other Strats I own and have owned. Strats don't have the strings going into the body at the bridge or into any massive stop bar, so my guess is more wood anywhere between where the strings are anchored at the bridge and at the tuning machines helps.
 
Re: Fender BIG headstock "more resonance/sustain and tone"?

So the general consensus is it won't do anything noticeable to sound and is mainly a balance/aesthetic thing?

We need somebody to record a big headstock, reshape it and re-record. Who's going first?
 
Re: Fender BIG headstock "more resonance/sustain and tone"?

I currently have a 1966 Strat and a 1962 reissue and a recent MIM. The 1966 sustains like a Les Paul. The other Strats can't touch it. Not only is the headstock bigger, but it's also noticeably thicker (there's less of the tuning peg exposed).

Thin headstocks piss me off. I just thought I'd throw that in here.
 
Back
Top