# Mayones Hydra headless guitar



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jan 18, 2017)

http://mayones.com/guitars/hydra/

Not a fan of that "headstock". Otherwise I'm a fan. Shape-wise, it seems like the closest thing to a modernized Steinberger M-series.


----------



## blacai (Jan 18, 2017)

I do love most of mayones models, but not this one...
At least it is "different".


----------



## kevdes93 (Jan 18, 2017)

Yeah this is about what I was expecting, I like it but I don't like the added bits of design around the bridge


----------



## gabsonuro (Jan 18, 2017)

kevdes93 said:


> Yeah this is about what I was expecting, I like it but I don't like the added bits of design around the bridge



looking at the back of the guitar that design part is held down by screws, so it looks like it can be taken off.... not sure if it affects the bridge or anything


----------



## Ben Pinkus (Jan 18, 2017)

Saw this on Facebook a few mins ago, and went oh thats a cool Duve....OH .... IT's A HEADLESS. 

Certainly looks interesting, dig the cool bits near the bridge. Surprised it is based off the Duvell that much though, thought the back wood may be different or a different cut or something.


----------



## crackout (Jan 18, 2017)

That "thing" behind the bridge looks awful. :s


----------



## cslushy (Jan 18, 2017)

I actually like the stuff behind the bridge but I hate the way the "headstock" looks.


----------



## Zhysick (Jan 18, 2017)

Like it... a lot... want one... check my bank account... continue crying.


----------



## A-Branger (Jan 18, 2017)

I see this as the same new headsless model of Kiesel. The body is too big for it. They adapted a full sized body for the headless instead of creating a new one.

Looks ok I guess, but mostly because I already liked the Duvell shape too much


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Jan 18, 2017)

So, it's just a Duvell with a cutout on the butt of the guitar and the headstock chopped off? Yawn...


----------



## Laimon (Jan 18, 2017)

Almost Carvin-ugly. Jeez Mayo, what are you doing.


----------



## Dyingsea (Jan 18, 2017)

Why does every company think they need a headless now days? Feels completely forced.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jan 18, 2017)

Dyingsea said:


> Why does every company think they need a headless now days? Feels completely forced.



Because Strandberg.


----------



## Rachmaninoff (Jan 18, 2017)

The post-trem monkey grip is ugly...


----------



## Ben Pinkus (Jan 18, 2017)

Emperor Guillotine said:


> So, it's just a Duvell with a cutout on the butt of the guitar and the headstock chopped off? Yawn...



Yeah this surprised me also. From a product perspective thought they would make a new body for a headless (probably a smaller version of the duvell tbf). 

But for ease of shipping them out and 'customization' etc, can see why they've just modified the duvell.


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 18, 2017)

Dyingsea said:


> Why does every company think they need a headless now days? Feels completely forced.



100%. Lazy design (or complete lack of design) by a company riding on the fumes of a good reputation. This is about the stupidest design they could come up with. It's like a satire of itself. Are you guys sure you didn't see this in The Onion?


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Jan 18, 2017)

Dyingsea said:


> Why does every company think they need a headless now days? Feels completely forced.


Because Strandberg. 

Every company and their mother is cranking out a headless guitar because they just want to hop on the headless hype-train in hopes of generating some sales.

I think Mayo may have hopped on too late though. Sure, they will still get some sales just because they are Mayo. But if this came out a mere year or two ago when the headless hype was peaking, it would've probably generated more sales.



Ben Pinkus said:


> But for ease of shipping them out and 'customization' etc, can see why they've just modified the duvell.


Naw. This was just complete and utter laziness.

Oh wait, Hollowway beat me to it.



Hollowway said:


> 100%. Lazy design (or complete lack of design) by a company riding on the fumes of a good reputation. This is about the stupidest design they could come up with.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jan 18, 2017)

i kind of like it, but not enough to spend money on it. pretty much how I feel about most headless guitars except the ones from padalka, overload and skervesen.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Jan 18, 2017)

Is there really a big enough market for so many headless guitars?


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 18, 2017)

So you may say, "Hollowway, how do you know they were being lazy in designing this? Maybe they spent a lot of time on it!" 

And I would say this: If they spent a lot of time thinking about this, would they have named it Hydra? Their first *headless* design is literally named after a creature _*known for having many heads*_. Your honor, I rest my case.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Jan 18, 2017)

Hollowway said:


> And I would say this: If they spent a lot of time thinking about this, would they have named it Hydra? Their first *headless* design is literally named after a creature _*known for having many heads*_. Your honor, I rest my case.


The fact that I can think of ten companies off the top of my head that also have a guitar model named the "Hydra".


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jan 18, 2017)

Lorcan Ward said:


> Is there really a big enough market for so many headless guitars?



the more the merrier I say. BRING BACK THE 80s


----------



## Djentlyman (Jan 18, 2017)

Call me crazy but I actually kind of like it, except for those "bits" near the bridge. The body shape reminds me of Reb Beach's Ibanez a bit.


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 18, 2017)

Emperor Guillotine said:


> The fact that I can think of ten companies off the top of my head that also have a guitar model named the "Hydra".



That's true. It's a go to name for guitars, it seems. Irrespective of anything having to do with the guitar itself.


----------



## A-Branger (Jan 18, 2017)

meh I dont care how many headless guitars other company make. The more the merrier. Its like complaining that why another company makes a 7-8 string guitar when theres already a few doing it.

If the market is there, then why not?


----------



## Jeffbro (Jan 19, 2017)

looks like crap compared to strandberg or skerv

too bulky and traditional shaped, like a fancy kitchen countertop looking vader at 3x the price


----------



## laxu (Jan 19, 2017)

Pretty lazy design. They just lopped off some from the Duvell and I have no idea what the hell is that stuff below the tuners but it seems to serve no function.

I feel Kiesel did a much better job with the Vader and obviously Skervesen and Strandberg headless models are far more distinctive and look like they were built to be like that whereas this looks more like they just made enough changes to fit the headless hardware.


----------



## Fathand (Jan 19, 2017)

IMHO:

I think the logic behind this and other of these "lazy designs" is that the companies know most guitarists are creatures of habit. Someone never get out of the Fender/Gibson/Rickenbacker -mold - some do, and a few people (like in every industry) are on the cutting edge. 

Headless designs, ergonomic shapes (which equal "wonky" to most people), fanned frets, graphite necks/bodies etc. However, you can't sustain a business on these cutting edge people, you need to pull in the masses. Which leads to some designs catering to the masses. That is pretty much a headless superstrat. Someone who's played a strat or a superstrat all their life (and there is plenty of those people), and isn't that inclined to steer out of that box will more likely test that than a Strandberg/Toone/Kiesel Holdsworth/you name it.

And I think the stuff behind the bridge is some artistic freedom.


----------



## JKM777 (Jan 19, 2017)

I wonder how many of the people bashing this will change their opinion once the specs are relieved, I bet there is a USP otherwise, I cant see why Mayo would bother to release a headless. This company seems to have a great rep, and I constantly GAS for their instruments, so why do all of you bashing it all wait to see the specs, remember no one is insisting you buy one =)


----------



## blacai (Jan 19, 2017)

JKM777 said:


> I wonder how many of the people bashing this will change their opinion once the specs are relieved, I bet there is a USP otherwise, I cant see why Mayo would bother to release a headless. This company seems to have a great rep, and I constantly GAS for their instruments, so why do all of you bashing it all wait to see the specs, remember no one is insisting you buy one =)



Don't need to know the specs to say I don't like the design.
I do love Regius and Legend, but Duvell is too pointy for my taste. So a headless duvell is not gonna hit me.

Why do we have to like all what comes from Mayones? I feel relief to dislike it. Money I can save


----------



## JKM777 (Jan 19, 2017)

blacai said:


> Don't need to know the specs to say I don't like the design.
> I do love Regius and Legend, but Duvell is too pointy for my taste. So a headless duvell is not gonna hit me.
> 
> Why do we have to like all what comes from Mayones? I feel relief to dislike it. Money I can save




That wasn't my point at all, I personally have very little interest in a headless, it was more of a wait to see the big picture before slamming it on the internet...


----------



## jephjacques (Jan 19, 2017)

I don't like it but it's extremely silly to accuse Mayones of "coasting on the fumes of a good reputation" or w/e, they build incredibly good instruments.


----------



## jephjacques (Jan 19, 2017)

Also the cutout on the ass end actually looks neat IMO but looks like it would crack/break SUPER easily with the hole going across the grain like that.


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 19, 2017)

jephjacques said:


> I don't like it but it's extremely silly to accuse Mayones of "coasting on the fumes of a good reputation" or w/e, they build incredibly good instruments.



Yes, but that is all the have going for them. They haven't done anything particularly innovative, nor do they offer anything they can't get from another brand. Eventually, making good guitars won't be enough, as there is increasing competition in that area. I'm saying there is no compelling reason why one would have to get a Mayo vs another brand. In any industry, quality is key, but if you don't adapt and innovate, you fall behind.


----------



## jephjacques (Jan 19, 2017)

I dunno, they seem to be doing fine. I think it's HARDER to innovate in the guitar industry than in most places. Look at all of Gibson and Fender's failed attempts to innovate (you can argue that none of them were any *good*, but it still illustrates my point). Yet they're still the two biggest, most recognizable brands in the industry. Guitarists are a conservative bunch, outside of us extended range weirdos.


----------



## bloc (Jan 19, 2017)

I do like it a lot, but it could be just early novelty. The body does seem a bit big compared to the neck though. Or at least it's magnified due to a lack of headstock.


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 19, 2017)

jephjacques said:


> I dunno, they seem to be doing fine. I think it's HARDER to innovate in the guitar industry than in most places. Look at all of Gibson and Fender's failed attempts to innovate (you can argue that none of them were any *good*, but it still illustrates my point). Yet they're still the two biggest, most recognizable brands in the industry. Guitarists are a conservative bunch, outside of us extended range weirdos.



Well, you bring up a good point. I'm judging this as an extended range weirdo, not a normal guitarist.  

This, and the CL sign from Kiesel, may actually appeal to conservative older guys who want to dip their toes into the headless guitar pool, but want to keep a more traditional guitar design. I'm the type that will froth at the mouth for anything that doesn't remotely resemble a Strat or LP, but I'm not the majority of buyers out there. 

So you're right, they're probably going to have way more sales than if they released a design with a significant departure from the guitar they based it on.


----------



## ampjunkie (Jan 19, 2017)

Agree that the post-trem monkey-grip hole doesn't look great. I wonder how fragile it is too.


----------



## mphsc (Jan 20, 2017)

I actually like it, dayum. That piece at the back is for traditional guitar stands, it works in them. It's also bolted into the body I believe. Why compare to the Vader? This has better lines, a complete top and hopefully doesn't feel sterile like Kiesel's do. Opinion only of course.


----------



## Randy (Jan 20, 2017)

What with all the squiggly stuff between the bum cheeks?


----------



## Sumsar (Jan 20, 2017)

Emperor Guillotine said:


> The fact that I can think of ten companies off the top of my head that also have a guitar model named the "Hydra".



The only guitar that should be named the Hydra


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 20, 2017)

Randy said:


> What with all the squiggly stuff between the bum cheeks?


----------



## m107a1 (Jan 20, 2017)

Not a Mayones fanboy here (I only own/like the Duvell) but it seems nobody has mentioned in this thread that the Hydras you're seeing now are *prototypes* as states on Mayones' site. The final product may look a lot better.


----------



## MSUspartans777 (Jan 20, 2017)

I love the body shape and the shape behind the trem. I'm not a fan of the headstock shape though. If they bring multiscale options to this product line then I will be really interested. 

Mayones always has the best tops


----------



## gunch (Jan 20, 2017)

I like it!  The design under the tailpiece might not be REVOLUTIONARY or FUNCTIONAL but it's neat


----------



## Blytheryn (Jan 20, 2017)

Am I the only person here that wonders why headless guitars are even a thing? Not hating at all, Bodens look pretty fly.


----------



## bhakan (Jan 20, 2017)

Fathand said:


> IMHO:
> 
> I think the logic behind this and other of these "lazy designs" is that the companies know most guitarists are creatures of habit. Someone never get out of the Fender/Gibson/Rickenbacker


Pretty much this. People are complaining that this guitar isn't unique, but the other biggest complaint is about the design behind the bridge, which is the one unique design feature. 

Guitarists still overwhelmingly use tubes, which have been obsolete for decades in just about every other field and I bet the overwhelming majority on this site play a guitar that is based on a strat shape. We're not a demographic who has been particularly open to change in the past. Even though this forum is a little more interested in new ideas, we're a small demographic that is fickle and hard to please. It doesn't surprise me that companies are pretty conservative with their products.


----------



## cip 123 (Jan 20, 2017)

I like it, especially the bridge wood parts, its unique.


----------



## laxu (Jan 20, 2017)

Blytheryn said:


> Am I the only person here that wonders why headless guitars are even a thing? Not hating at all, Bodens look pretty fly.



Strandberg started a trend I guess and it certainly helped that all the djent stuff etc got popular where modern designs with tons of strings, fanned frets etc are in vogue. Before Steinbergers from the 80s were pretty much the only options AFAIK and those were perhaps a bit too ahead of their time and some of the models were a bit on the ugly side too.

At the same time Hipshot, T4M and ABM have started manufacturing headless hardware and that is also key in them becoming more widely available as it's quite rare for guitar brands to build their own bridges or tuners.

I think many of the current headless models from Strandberg, Kiesel, Skervesen or GNG nail the combination of headless features with an aesthetically pleasing design. For guitar the headlessness doesn't really result in anything more than a smaller and lighter guitar, but for bass it should help with balance and dead spot issues.

I really want to see more headless multiscale basses on the market. Depending on how nice my Skervesen Shoggie 8 on order turns out I might ask if they would be willing to make one for me.


----------



## MrHelloGuitar (Jan 20, 2017)

These look absolutely killer. Might look into getting one maybeeeeeeeee


----------



## A-Branger (Jan 21, 2017)

I think I figure it out what the wood thing behing the tunners is for

I think it is for when you are sitting down on a classical position, the guitar can rest on your right leg too without you touching the tuning pegs

*mind blown*??


----------



## A-Branger (Jan 23, 2017)

so I was wright about the wood thing behind the tunners. Its for the guitar to rest on your right leg

also he says they put a brass thing at the top of the "headstock" (plus the how tick it its the wood there), in order to compensate the weight for the lack of headstock

so I though the whole point of headless was to eliminate the weight of the headstock? so what purpose becomes to add all that weight back in?


----------



## stretcher7 (Jan 23, 2017)

by "weight" I think he meant "sustain". He corrected himself the 2nd time he said it.


----------



## Grand Rabbit (Jan 23, 2017)

A-Branger said:


> I think I figure it out what the wood thing behing the tunners is for
> 
> I think it is for when you are sitting down on a classical position, the guitar can rest on your right leg too without you touching the tuning pegs
> 
> *mind blown*??



that's a good point... why is it that other headless guitars have yet to address this? Seems like a huge design flaw in others like the vader now that I think about it...


----------



## m107a1 (Jan 23, 2017)

Looked much better on Youtube than prototype pix. Interested to see how this develops!


----------



## MatthewK (Jan 23, 2017)

Looks like a headless RG. I dig it.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Jan 23, 2017)

I think the strandberg has rendered every other headless design insignificant. Anyone close to that design is a copy cat, and everything else almost comes off as lazy. I don't mind the weird tail piece as much as I mind the duvell horns. Just some asymmetrical, non pointy horns could make a huge difference. Especially a stubby lower horn.


----------



## technomancer (Jan 23, 2017)

Wow I thought the wood under the bridge was some fairly slick CNC carving from the body, but it's just another piece bolted on 

I can't decide if I like the design or not... not surprising though because I feel that way about the Duvell too. Sometimes I really like it then other times I look at it and it just seems off.


----------



## lewstherin006 (Jan 24, 2017)

I played this at NAMM and it is amazing. One of the best headless I have ever played.


----------



## gunshow86de (Jan 24, 2017)

technomancer said:


> Wow I thought the wood under the bridge was some fairly slick CNC carving from the body, but it's just another piece bolted on



It would make sense if they bolted the piece on so you could remove it if you don't like the look of it. But they put the strap button through it?


----------



## MSUspartans777 (Jan 24, 2017)

gunshow86de said:


> It would make sense if they bolted the piece on so you could remove it if you don't like the look of it. But they put the strap button through it?



I was skeptical at first but I love the design. I really hope they offer multi-scale options in the future with this model.


----------



## Wildebeest (Jan 24, 2017)

This guitar is gorgeous. I never cared for Mayones's designs until the Duvell, and this is just a more extreme, ergonomic version of that. I don't think I could ever go back to an 8 string with a headstock after having my Vader for so long. I'm happy this exists.


----------



## Grand Rabbit (Jan 24, 2017)

That's exactly why I'm skeptical about going to a headless guitar in the first place... I don't wish to become so habituated to their ergonomics that other guitars, the more traditional headstock style, become unwieldy or uncomfortable. 

That was also a doubt I had about learning to play on a 7 string as well, however I've found that switching back and forth between a 7 and 6 has been rather seamless.


----------



## mphsc (Jan 24, 2017)

I don't own any 7's, love my 8's, play a 6'er at church mostly but like to write on one too. I've owned a Vader 8 it was ok but not on par with my TK FF8, headless as well. Having said that I've sold them both, go to my KxK 8scale more often than not, but I'll let you know how it plays in a few days.


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 25, 2017)

Ugh, I like it even worse seeing that bottom piece close up. The shape has nothing to do with any form or function, and it doesn't look integrated with the rest of the body at all. The cut out and double thickness of it just say "trying too hard" to me. I do like headless guitars, but this year I'm not impressed with the Kiesel CL or this thing. But there's still a lot of active design work being done in these areas, so hopefully someone comes out with something innovative.


----------



## blacai (Jan 25, 2017)

Hollowway said:


> Ugh, I like it even worse seeing that bottom piece close up. The shape has nothing to do with any form or function, and it doesn't look integrated with the rest of the body at all. The cut out and double thickness of it just say "trying too hard" to me. I do like headless guitars, but this year I'm not impressed with the Kiesel CL or this thing. But there's still a lot of active design work being done in these areas, so hopefully someone comes out with something innovative.



At this point, I think shoggies from Skervesen have personality at least, and better prices for what they offer.


----------



## eugeneelgr (Jan 25, 2017)

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Because Strandberg.
> 
> Every company and their mother is cranking out a headless guitar because they just want to hop on the headless hype-train in hopes of generating some sales.
> 
> ...



Even as a Strandberg owner, I have to say, their standard lineup isn't generating much interest in me, so I'm all up for alternatives for other players. While this design seems lazy, it does appeal to the more conservative owner who wants a headless design for compact reasons or non fanned frets. Wish there was a trem option as well as a rounded cutaway on the bottom right area ala strandberg. Resting that position on my right leg to play has been growing on me.


----------



## Casper777 (Jan 25, 2017)

I really don't like it... it's another exemple of a headless that is just a regular design with some chunk of wood that has been erased... 

I would have expected more from Mayones, a headless built from the ground with annovative designs... not just a modified Duvell that looks like a DIY accident 

Strandberg all the way!


----------



## ASoC (Jan 25, 2017)

I dig it. I've wanted a Vader since they came out, but I'm thinking I might rather save for one of these instead, since Jeff is.. well... Jeff


----------



## ampjunkie (Jan 27, 2017)

These recent headless designs look like an afterthought on existing guitar designs. Keep the body almost the same, lop off the headstock, and remove the wood behind the bridge to accommodate the tuners. Not much work. 

Still love the ergonomic Klein Electrics. This and the Steinberger still reign! What makes them still innovative are the TransTrem, balanced body, and solid rosewood bolt-on neck -- with no truss rod!


----------



## cubix (Jan 29, 2017)

Headless designs need different style of body so they don't look weird and out of place... This is something I knew they would do - modify existing guitar. It takes alot more effort and you have to design it from scratch IMO. Everyone goes for headless because people are finally realizing that should've been the way from the get-go, at least for electric solidbody guitars. There is absolutely no drawbacks, only benefits  Lots of hickups of guitars dissapear with the removal of the headstock.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jan 30, 2017)

ASoC said:


> I dig it. I've wanted a Vader since they came out, but I'm thinking I might rather save for one of these instead, since Jeff is.. well... Jeff



he's a bit of a tool at times but kiesel makes pretty nice guitars imo. I've got 2 vaders that turned out great.


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 30, 2017)

gunshow86de said:


> It would make sense if they bolted the piece on so you could remove it if you don't like the look of it. But they put the strap button through it?


 
I just noticed the huge chunk of wood where the nonheadstock is. WTH??

Are you guys SURE Mayones isn't punking us? This is the high end guitar brand we're talking about, and they release a model where they don't eliminate the headstock, they just roll it up and hide it behind the nut. And then they cut some wood out of the back end and bolt on a cheap piece of nonfigured wood with a random, unrelated design. I mean, I don't think they could come up with a worse design if they tried. And this is coming from a guy who is pretty laid back about crazy guitar designs.


----------



## maccayoung (Jan 30, 2017)

Hollowway said:


> I just noticed the huge chunk of wood where the nonheadstock is. WTH??
> 
> Are you guys SURE Mayones isn't punking us? This is the high end guitar brand we're talking about, and they release a model where they don't eliminate the headstock, they just roll it up and hide it behind the nut. And then they cut some wood out of the back end and bolt on a cheap piece of nonfigured wood with a random, unrelated design. I mean, I don't think they could come up with a worse design if they tried. And this is coming from a guy who is pretty laid back about crazy guitar designs.



Not only that, there's metal over the large chunk of wood at the end of the neck. It feels like they made the shape and it was unbalanced so they had to add the wood back onto the end of the neck, then that still wasn't enough so they had to add metal on top of that. I know they say it's for sustain, but that sounds like marketing speak to me. I could be wrong. It might be amazing, but I thought the whole point of a headless was for a lightweight design.


----------



## Ebony (Jan 30, 2017)

maccayoung said:


> I know they say it's for sustain, but that sounds like marketing speak to me.



Sounds like they designed an imbalanced guitar and chose the easy fix. 
That aside, this is the closest Mayones has gotten in making a guitar I find attractive.


----------



## nistley (Jan 30, 2017)

cubix said:


> Headless designs need different style of body so they don't look weird and out of place... This is something I knew they would do - modify existing guitar. It takes alot more effort and you have to design it from scratch IMO. Everyone goes for headless because people are finally realizing that should've been the way from the get-go, at least for electric solidbody guitars. There is absolutely no drawbacks, only benefits  Lots of hickups of guitars dissapear with the removal of the headstock.



I love my Strandbergs, but I would prefer a headstock, like the Tosin sig. I find it awkward to tune and wish it was heavier. The drawback is that the hand I use to hit the string has to stop hitting the string and try to move the tuner. The weight is also a drawback to me. I just like the Strandberg neck shape.

What are the benefits and drawbacks you're talking about, besides preference for weight?


----------



## cubix (Jan 30, 2017)

For example tuning stability? I don't mind the tuners on this end because I rarely have to do massive adjustments. Because the string doesn't wind on the peg or bend at the bridge significantly there is little space for it to move = less tuning problems. It's being pulled in one direction. And yes I had locking tuners before aswell, still not free of tuning issues because of the distance from the nut to the peg. String changes are much quicker for me now. Other thing is comfort, some guitars are really headstock heavy, you constantly use your left hand to hold the neck up instead of just touching the strings. What Mayones did is remove the headstock and add a brass string holder to add the weight again - that's just wrong IMO. I bet Tosin would want that thing to be headless, but Ibanez wouldn't go for it


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Jan 30, 2017)

Metal on the end to add sustain? How much sustain does it add? My vader sustains just fine. Would adding more wood and metal really make it measurably better? Where is the line drawn with adding mass adds sustain? Surely there is a line, since pressing the guitar against a wall adds mass while not drastically (or even noticably to me) adding sustain. Just seems like a lazy explanation of a lazy design. 

Not that I think this guitar looks too bad. I don't mind the shape, or the little hunk of wood used for a leg rest. I just think it's a weird design choice, and a poorly thought out excuse for why it's there.


----------



## nistley (Jan 30, 2017)

cubix said:


> For example tuning stability? I don't mind the tuners on this end because I rarely have to do massive adjustments. Because the string doesn't wind on the peg or bend at the bridge significantly there is little space for it to move = less tuning problems. It's being pulled in one direction. And yes I had locking tuners before aswell, still not free of tuning issues because of the distance from the nut to the peg. String changes are much quicker for me now. Other thing is comfort, some guitars are really headstock heavy, you constantly use your left hand to hold the neck up instead of just touching the strings. What Mayones did is remove the headstock and add a brass string holder to add the weight again - that's just wrong IMO. I bet Tosin would want that thing to be headless, but Ibanez wouldn't go for it



I have better stability on my Prestige RG652 (yes with locking tuners). At the same time I have no problem changing tunings. Somehow, beats me how, if I don't touch Boden, it goes 10-20 cents out in a day, and goes back with play. I don't think tuning stability is inherently greater with headless, because a string still goes over some curve and has to get pulled over it. It's just on the different side.

Also, you could be right about Tosins guitar, but we really have no idea, I wouldn't bet on it.


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Jan 30, 2017)

nistley said:


> I have better stability on my Prestige RG652 (yes with locking tuners). At the same time I have no problem changing tunings. Somehow, beats me how, if I don't touch Boden, it goes 10-20 cents out in a day, and goes back with play. I don't think tuning stability is inherently greater with headless, because a string still goes over some curve and has to get pulled over it. It's just on the different side.
> 
> Also, you could be right about Tosins guitar, but we really have no idea, I wouldn't bet on it.



Nah... Headless, in general, should have more tuning stability. Nuts will bind, tuner gears will have play, and winds around the peg will shift. (though locking tuners get rid of this one.)

With headless, at least in my experience, you don't need to tune flat and then up to pitch. Also, you won't get binding at the nut because there just isn't really any string back there. Tuning fluctuations, like the one you mentioned don't make sense. Temperature/humidity can make necks shift, but playing the guitar should not make it go back in tune. Sounds like a made up problem to prove a point to me.

Keep in mind I'm not a headless fanboy either. The only one that really appeals to me is the Vader, and even it's kind of ugly. I've no desire to get a boden, or any headless for that matter... Headless simply has less room for tunings to go wrong.


----------



## nistley (Jan 30, 2017)

Señor Voorhees;4699827 said:


> Nah... Headless, in general, should have more tuning stability. Nuts will bind, tuner gears will have play, and winds around the peg will shift. (though locking tuners get rid of this one.)



The are moving parts as long as there tuners, on headless or not. Both are under tension, so that doesn't affect stability. Both systems have shorter and longer lengths of strings after going a nut. Yes, headless is shorter distance to the tuner, but that doesn't eliminate the issue. The issue is that a string is stretched with an angle over some metal part. With a head, it's a flat nut, with a headless, it's a saddle. Either way, a string bends there and the string catches there. With both systems, the neck is equally important, no more, and no less. I don't see any huge advantage, and I see an ergonomic disadvantage tuning. 



Señor Voorhees;4699827 said:


> With headless, at least in my experience, you don't need to tune flat and then up to pitch.


I don't have to do that with my fixed bridge locking tuners guitars either. Once I tune it, it stays perfect for weeks or until humidity goes crazy.



Señor Voorhees;4699827 said:


> Also, you won't get binding at the nut because there just isn't really any string back there.



Actually, I have a suspicion the shorter distance of the string behind the headless saddle is more relevant. As the string stretches, the closer it is to the tuner, the more distance the string travels, the maximum is near the tuner. So, logically secondary, but just as relevant is the shape of the saddle, which for me is sharper than the nut, thus creating a sharper bend in the string.



Señor Voorhees;4699827 said:


> What's Tuning fluctuations, like the one you mentioned don't make sense. Temperature/humidity can make necks shift, but playing the guitar should not make it go back in tune. Sounds like a made up problem to prove a point to me.



I wish I was, but I've even emailed Ola about this, and he couldn't help. With some strings it was pretty bad, much less with coated strings, so I'm assuming it's the friction in the saddle. There was also ringing, and that was addressed with the last revision, so there are real issues being worked on, that are not immediately obvious.



Señor Voorhees;4699827 said:


> Keep in mind I'm not a headless fanboy either. The only one that really appeals to me is the Vader, and even it's kind of ugly. I've no desire to get a boden, or any headless for that matter... Headless simply has less room for tunings to go wrong.



Have you owned one? I thought it was perfect at first, but with time I realized it's the same thing backwards, just lighter. I'm not trying to prove anything, just sharing opinion.


----------



## Fathand (Jan 31, 2017)

After a while I kinda like this model. Superstrat with no headstock = cool. And it's better looking than the Kiesel Letchford model (IMO).

...and yes, it looks like I'm one of those grumpy nostalgists that like what's "tried and true". 

The metal on the headstock could be for balance and for the same kind of effect those Fat Fingers (screwed to bass headstocks) are supposed to do - eliminate dead spots and increase sustain. But who knows.


----------



## laxu (Jan 31, 2017)

Fathand said:


> The metal on the headstock could be for balance and for the same kind of effect those Fat Fingers (screwed to bass headstocks) are supposed to do - eliminate dead spots and increase sustain. But who knows.



The Fat Finger clamp does not eliminate dead spots. What it does is add mass to the headstock which may move the dead spot to somewhere where it is not heard or just to another fret. I had a guitar with a bad dead spot on the 12th fret and adding a Fat Finger just moved it to the 10th and lessened it a bit on the 12th.

I really don't see a need to have a metal plate there.


----------



## cip 123 (Nov 23, 2017)

Bit of a necrobump but seeing these coming out now. I was told by someone in a guitar store earlier in the year they've now made that rear bolt on piece part of the guitar instead of bolt on. And Guitar Guitar now have a video on it! Looks pretty cool.


----------



## Ben Pinkus (Nov 24, 2017)

Yeah the more I see of these, the more I like them!


----------



## Smoked Porter (Nov 24, 2017)

Hollowway said:


> So you may say, "Hollowway, how do you know they were being lazy in designing this? Maybe they spent a lot of time on it!"
> 
> And I would say this: If they spent a lot of time thinking about this, would they have named it Hydra? Their first *headless* design is literally named after a creature _*known for having many heads*_. Your honor, I rest my case.



Oh my god 
Was everybody's humor button broken a year ago? This post should've gotten all the likes and lolz


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 24, 2017)

Smoked Porter said:


> Oh my god
> Was everybody's humor button broken a year ago? This post should've gotten all the likes and lolz



Wasn't the Likes button disabled at the time?


----------



## Smoked Porter (Nov 25, 2017)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Wasn't the Likes button disabled at the time?


Oh right. You may be on to something


----------



## curlyvice (Nov 25, 2017)

This is starting to grow on me. If they offer an FF version it would tempt me for sure


----------



## TTWC Ben (Jan 16, 2018)

I think you either dig headless guitars or you don't. I happen to think this thing is beautiful.


----------



## DudeManBrother (Jan 17, 2018)

I’m not going to say I hate the design as I’d take this over a Vader; but I’m not in love with the seemingly haphazard decisions on when edges should be sharp and when they should be rounded and elegant. I get it on the Duvell; sharp horns, standard rounded bout. But here they cut the ass out and added more sharp edges right out of flowing curves. It’s too abrupt for my taste. Comparing to a couple other companies’ double cuts:
I like the shoggie: it’s almost a cartoon character version of a strandberg with its big flowing lines. It is playful but complete. 
I like the Neptune: it’s the opposite approach to Skerv; it’s the architect’s take on a strandberg. Much straighter lines overall. It’s refined and expertly executed. 
Obviously the strandberg started the resurrection of headless guitars: a focused, purposeful redesign of a Stratocaster with an ergonomic approach that blends the “architecture” with classic, familiar lines. Now if only they figure out their manufacturing. My $4k Washburg(now gone) played as well as my $2k OS; yet neither set up as well as my Kiesel(Gasp did he really? Haha)
But in reality, I’m just happy there are more companies entering the 6-8, multi scale, headless arena.


----------



## sezna (Jan 17, 2018)

DudeManBrother said:


> I’m not going to say I hate the design as I’d take this over a Vader; but I’m not in love with the seemingly haphazard decisions on when edges should be sharp and when they should be rounded and elegant. I get it on the Duvell; sharp horns, standard rounded bout. But here they cut the ass out and added more sharp edges right out of flowing curves. It’s too abrupt for my taste. Comparing to a couple other companies’ double cuts:
> I like the shoggie: it’s almost a cartoon character version of a strandberg with its big flowing lines. It is playful but complete.
> I like the Neptune: it’s the opposite approach to Skerv; it’s the architect’s take on a strandberg. Much straighter lines overall. It’s refined and expertly executed.
> Obviously the strandberg started the resurrection of headless guitars: a focused, purposeful redesign of a Stratocaster with an ergonomic approach that blends the “architecture” with classic, familiar lines. Now if only they figure out their manufacturing. My $4k Washburg(now gone) played as well as my $2k OS; yet neither set up as well as my Kiesel(Gasp did he really? Haha)
> But in reality, I’m just happy there are more companies entering the 6-8, multi scale, headless arena.


I agree. The setup, finish, and overall worksmanship was far better on a Vader. So, it makes me wonder, why exactly are strandbergs so expensive? Why are we willing to pay so much? Well, he made a killer design and hardware, patented it all, and charges an arm and a leg for it. Fair game I guess, but the consumer takes a big hit in quality for the sake of their profit margins. That's why strandbergs (MIK Bodens, I should say) are so hit and miss. Some are amazing, some are meh...

edit: and the Padalka Neptune is awesome, I've just never seen one in stock.

What do you think of the Reiver headless? https://reiverguitars.co.uk/project/025-kompakt-6-trem/


----------



## DudeManBrother (Jan 17, 2018)

sezna said:


> edit: and the Padalka Neptune is awesome, I've just never seen one in stock.
> 
> What do you think of the Reiver headless? https://reiverguitars.co.uk/project/025-kompakt-6-trem/


I like it overall. It kinda has the "too wide of a body for 6 strings" going, similar to the new Zeus, from those pictures. Mostly in the electronics cavity area. But I've seen some different angles that show it off better. I think @pott has a couple, so when my Neptune shows up (any day now) we can do some unbiased comparisons of the Padalka, Riever, and Strandberg


----------



## pott (Jan 17, 2018)

Yep, got two Reiver Kompacts. Super cool guitars: comfortable, and sound HUGE.
The wide body actually makes it more comfortable to me, since I tend to play in the classical positions with headless, and it help my forearm rest on the body.

Specifically, these two:
* Burl top: https://reiverguitars.co.uk/project/005ka-kompakt-6/ super heavy in weight and tone
* Okoume top: (custom-ordered) https://reiverguitars.co.uk/project/022-kompakt-6/ much more lightweight and more dynamic in tone, with less-modern sounding pickups


----------



## sergeyeremeev (Aug 10, 2018)

KnightBrolaire said:


> i kind of like it, but not enough to spend money on it. pretty much how I feel about most headless guitars except the ones from padalka, overload and skervesen.


Do you own or have you played any of the overload guitars? Really interested in their instruments but hardly any reviews/opinions on their stuff in the internet


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Aug 10, 2018)

sergeyeremeev said:


> Do you own or have you played any of the overload guitars? Really interested in their instruments but hardly any reviews/opinions on their stuff in the internet


I own an overload rhea, it's an excellent guitar. Very well made for the price, but I bought mine secondhand. Most people I've talked to that own one are quite happy with matteo's work.


----------

