# Headless Guitars



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 20, 2010)

Is there any advantage to having a headless design, or is it purely cosmetic?


----------



## aslsmm (Nov 20, 2010)

as far as i could tell it was cosmetic. my friend had a stienburger headless. it was his first guitar and he loved it but it is not my thing. i think it looks weird.


----------



## Randy (Nov 20, 2010)

Balance because of the lack of weight on the neck is part of it.


----------



## darren (Nov 20, 2010)

The main reason behind Ned Steinberger's original headless design was to reduce the weight and improve the balance of the instrument. You had 6 to 8 inches of wood plus extra string length plus metal tuning machines hanging out past the nut. Ned's idea was to flip that around and keep the mass on the body. It also eliminated much of the excess string past the nut and behind the bridge saddles, which also improved tuning stability because there was less string to stretch and slip.


----------



## Xiphos68 (Nov 20, 2010)

I really like it because it looks cool to be honest. 


Plus if your doing a neck slide you can just slide your whole hand off the neck.


----------



## morgasm7 (Nov 20, 2010)

i'm a huge fan of the headless design. 
teuffel actually believes it leads to greater harmonic response. 
he says some interesting stuff about it all in a series of videos he did with the youtube channel, 'gourmet guitars'. check it out!


----------



## pink freud (Nov 22, 2010)

While not particularly an inherent part of the headless design, the commonly associated double-balled strings makes changing strings an extremely easy and quick task.


----------



## emperor_black (Nov 22, 2010)

I'd love to own one of them Steinbergers. Do they make 7 string versions? 

Fender's biggest sales pitch was that their HUGE headstocks help with Sustain. But with modern gain-full amps, nobody seems to care that much.


----------



## Justin Bailey (Nov 22, 2010)

Steinberger doesn't make 7's, no. But there are plenty of skilled luthiers that would be willing and able to build a 7 or however many stringed headless.



darren said:


> The main reason behind Ned Steinberger's original headless design was to reduce the weight and improve the balance of the instrument. You had 6 to *8 inches of wood* plus extra string length plus metal tuning machines *hanging out past the nut*. Ned's idea was to flip that around and keep the mass on the body. It also eliminated much of the excess string past the nut and behind the bridge saddles, which also improved tuning stability because there was less string to stretch and slip.



yep, sounds about right.


----------



## willy petro (Nov 24, 2010)

The headless guitar is a great concept.I mean it does make since, less wood and less metal would help out alot. I mean i play'd on some of these crazy looking guitars. And it seems like the do get better sustain and resonance for some reason. It may be just me. But all in all its badass.


----------



## BuckarooBanzai (Nov 30, 2010)

My all-time favorite guitar is my Steinberger... and people are right, it isn't purely cosmetic. In addition to balance it also uses a zero-fret for improved intonation and consistency of sound, and the lack of string behind the headstock means no sympathetic ringing and no pieces of foam in front of the tuners for doing the tight chugga-chugga stuff. If you have one that has an R-Trem or TransTrem you also get all sorts of cool benefits like floating/fixed functionality or transposition (respectively), and if you have one with a graphite neck you get a guitar that stays in tune for weeks at a time (or months if you don't play it... I leave mine at home while I'm up at school for fear of it getting jacked... I tuned it in August and whenever I go home it's in perfect tune still).

Long story short, they rock. The only downside of them is the cost of the strings and the endless comments like "YOUR GUITAR'S BROKEN LOLOL," "The 80s caled..." and so forth.


----------



## Vinchester (Dec 1, 2010)

Mo Jiggity said:


> ...and the endless comments like "YOUR GUITAR'S BROKEN LOLOL," "The 80s caled..." and so forth.



LOL that really made my day 

But seriously I see the Steinberger as pure innovation. We need more of these progressive thinking.


----------



## bones (Dec 19, 2010)

Also they are delightfully tiny, so cheaper cases, and far far easier to lug around esp. when flying.

You get used to the look of anything, and surely that's way less important than efficiency and functionality. The question I'm asking is why do people still make guitars with heads on them?


----------



## GATA4 (Dec 20, 2010)

I wonder if they're good for metal


----------



## xmetalhead69 (Dec 20, 2010)

^Cynic. nuff said.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Dec 20, 2010)

Steinburger might not make 7's but they have a 28.something" scale guitar which would be more than suitable for low tunings.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Dec 20, 2010)

Stealthtastic said:


> Steinburger might not make 7's but they have a 28.something" scale guitar which would be more than suitable for low tunings.


Buy Steinberger Synapse ST-2FPA TranScale Custom Electric Guitar | Extended Range Electric Guitars | Musician's Friend

28 & 5/8"


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Dec 20, 2010)

I really wish more companies would take to doing experimental/progressive things the way steinburger does..


----------



## GATA4 (Dec 20, 2010)

xmetalhead69 said:


> ^Cynic. nuff said.



no shit? Cynic is the bee's knees


----------



## Durero (Dec 20, 2010)

I'm also a huge headless fan. I think they look fantastic and the ergonomics and balance are great as everyone's said.

These basses are a great example:


----------



## Customisbetter (Dec 20, 2010)

are awesome.


----------



## Variant (Dec 20, 2010)

^
That. 

IMHO, they're easier to to tune and restring as well. Another big advantage is you're less likely yo smack someone in the face with the headstock, and/or break it off.  My Synapse is virtually indestructible. The sustain thing is a load of crap too, the thicker (but also comfy) neck on my Strinberger sustains just as well as the thin necked Ibby's I've owned with their headstock. Hanging notes on forever isn't really in my repertoire, anyway... I don't know why so many guitarists are obsessed with sustain. Buy a Ebow.  




I don't understand why it took so long for someone to do this, though: 







If the fucking Floyd Rose was the first call for headless guitars and I don't know what was?  I just can't see why it never happened. When you lock the damn string at the head of the guitar, what's the point of the tuners on the headstock. If they had just given the stupid "fine" tuners on the bridge end enough throw to _*fully*_ tune the instrument, the whole stupidity of dealing with the tuning machines at the head end could have been scrapped.  Think of all the times that you Floyd/Khaler/etc. guys spent wrapping and winding the strings onto the posts, getting them through the nut slot and under the string retainer bar, etc. 

Well, Floyd Rose themselves did finally get it, sorta, with their Speadloader bridge but fall right into the trap that Steinberger did the first time around, that being the necessitation for special strings.  I can put whatever I want onto my Synapse thanks to the combo headpiece.


----------



## Be_eM (Dec 22, 2010)

Variant said:


> but fall right into the trap that Steinberger did the first time around, that being the necessitation for special strings.  I can put whatever I want onto my Synapse thanks to the combo headpiece.



Well, either the combo headpiece (which is also available separately from JCustom for other Steinies) or the string adapter (also sold on ebay) allow to put any single-ball strings onto any Steinberger. The string adapter was already introduced by Steinberger with the GL (1980ies), and today there are other providers. Just the TT will most likely not work without the calibrated double-ball strings.

Bernd


----------



## gremlin (Dec 28, 2010)

There are MANY advantages:
1)Blindingly fast string changes
2)Tune with your picking hand while playing
3)Better balance
4)Midi Guitarists-no headstock means less harmonic warbles, pitch to midi converters catch the fundamental quicker.
5)Purely opinion, but I swear a sweeter tone, I think it has to do with making the mass at the body.
6) If you're not the most careful person, a broken headstock IS in your future, no headstock/no break.
I've done two custom builds myself (quality headless is expensive), and cutting off headstocks of working instruments is scary fun, but if you know exactly what you want/need you have to build it, or have your luthier tailor it to your body (if you're going to pay that kind of money).
Bottom line, music and instruments are for feel; if you're too concerned about the "looks" of your extension, well let's just say you have a few non-musical speedbumps to navigate.


----------

