NEW HEADLESS BASS TREMOLO COMING!!!!!

Ok guys, here is a news i couldn't keep to myself.

I Emailed Oli at Strandberg,Because I have heard on Talkbass that would maybe do an headless Bass bridge. So without a moment I E-Mailed him without a moment this.

Quote :

I was wondering since I saw somewhere that maybe you would make a bass bridge.

Would it be possible to make a special order for an headless bass tremolo based on your guitar tremolo?

Thanx in advance.

Matthieu Bouchard

So here is his answer

Quote :

Hello Matthieu,
thanks for your message. I am in the early planning stages of a bass version of the tuners and tremolo together with another luthier. What are your time frames?

Best regards,
Ola

--
.strandbergGuitarworks* - Innovation & Collaboration
http://guitarworks.thestrandbergs.com/
http://elutherie.org/

I think that I'll make some economy

Awesome news! Thank you for sharing, and for following up with Steinberger!

My only concern is what the cost of such a unit will be, but hopefully it won't be too bad. At any rate, if such a system is soon made available, it will still be a leap forward!

Great news...

HOLY ****! I just gave up on getting a transtrem and decided to look into getting a normal headless trem (without the transposing function). I thought I would have to get one custom made. This is awesome news for me!

Edit: Actually, after looking at the ones on the site, there's no way my hohner could be rerouted to fit one. I still haven't called that guy Don Greenwald yet (I've been away for the last few days), so I'll see what he has.

Woah crazy. Who's Strandberg?

He have a question for us guys.

Quote :

Hello Mathieu,
by time frame, I really meant how urgent it is for you to get it. If you can wait for 1-2 years, I am sure I will be able to help you. I will make sure to involve the Bass Tremolo Fanatics in the design process!

What do you think would be best? A design like the current Floyd-Rose inspired design, or something else? Like a Kahler, Steinberger?

Best regards,
Ola

The choice is up to us I think.

Me, I think that a Floyd-Rose design(like Hipshot I think) would have too much routing but a Steinberger or Kahler inspired design would be better.

Also, I think that if he does the bass trem it will cost aproximately as much as his trems(300 euros).

Let's talk on what design you would thin to be the best!

Actually, I think a Kahler style one is a bad idea, because everyone will just buy the cheaper Kahlers anyway.

I say a Floyd style, if he can do a locknut, a Steinberger style would be cool, if your bass didn't have to be headless for it.

I agree with you, Bill. Noob--you should get Eric in contact with this dude!

haddent chimed in here for a bit. i was unsatisfied with the response i was getting from others i interact with and i asked my spiritual advisor about it. he told me that if my expectations were high and i was unsatisified with the results ... then the most logical thing to do was shut the f*** up.

he was right.

anyway ... someone designing a new trem system? this is something i have input for.

i've test drove all three and with the comparisons being quality, machining necessary and price, i've found the kahler to be the best. if price were no object ... steinberger would be my choice; also considering at this point ... i dont know how to install one.

i just dont think i like how much material needs to be removed for an install, the pocket going clean thru the body and just the general overall looks for me to prefer a hipshot. they are decent systems but, as an ameture luthier with limited resources, i just prefer to work with a product that i can install myself and have more control over the finished result and initial set up.

the quality? i've found the steinberger and the kahler to be comprable, the steinberger just having more mass. i've found the steinberger and the kahler to both have more sustain than the hipshot .... mass? .... contact surface? .... overall material of construction? .... the basses they were on?

that being said ... heres the reason to develop a new system that would be marketable. the kahler cam type system works great ... but its just too big. i've found very few basses that a forward saddle kahler would fit on and there are even a lot of basses that a rear saddle kahler wouldnt fit on. forward or rear saddle, i've even had to move pickups to make them fit.

if a kahler type trem system that required minimal routering to install, like the kahler, was as just as good or better quality in regards to tone and sustain, that covered less length and/or width area on the face of the instrument ... then i would definately buy it if it were comprably priced. i'de perhaps pay $100 more for it.

i'de hope iddid be available in annodized black brass.

THERE you are, MadMike! We've missed you, Bro!

I think you make some very excellent points about the different designs, and I agree with all of it.

Me? What do I think? Well...I'm no expert! Just because I run this place doesn't make me grand poobah. Just someone with experience, as all of you are.

BUT...since you guys all know that I'm wanting to cook up my own design, I do have some ideas.

In as much as I love the Kahlers, it isn't practical to replicate their cam/compact spring design. They already do it so well, that it makes more sense to just use theirs instead of trying to copy it IMHO. My plan is to duplicate the Floyd design with full springs in the back. I want it to have fine tuners on the bridge so I can also design a toplock. Now, Jeff/Mo is onto something in suggesting basing a bass trem on a locking seven-string guitar trem.

I recall that Washburn used to make a trem that used what they termed "torsion spring technology", and I haven't the slightest idea what that meant. But I would like to experiment with it to see if it would balance the string tension better.

Wait, so he did make a Steinberger style trem, or at least a prototype? Because if he did, I'd be very interested in buying one.

Kugelspot wrote:

Wait, so he did make a Steinberger style trem, or at least a prototype? Because if he did, I'd be very interested in buying one.

You lost me, KS. He who?

Well, Eric I think he speaks of Ola. As we speaks of this, his already existing guitar trem is designed to fit a Floyd Rose trem system so maybe he could adapt his system on bass and stay with the same design?

Eric,When you say that with a system with a full locking nut I think that's waht he does already with doing trems(and bridge) for headless guitars.

Am I right?

Ah! I see now.

True, except that the toplock set-up on a headless guitar isn't designed to allow the strings to pass through, instead having them anchored at the top of the nut. This is why Steinberger strings have ball-ends on both ends of the string. I even emailed Steinberger to ask them if it were possible to somehow convert a Steinberger toplock to fit a standard bass, and I was told no, it couldn't be done. The toplock design I'm after is one that allows the strings to pass on through to standard tuning keys.

i agree with eric, altho i dont prefer a trem that requires a big hole right thru the body, a trem system that adresses balanced string tensions would be awesome. i just didnt look at it that way.

i been searching high and low for a washburn bantam with a trem. already a washburn player, i've never had the chance to play one of those bantams. i know ... e bay. maybe when i have an extra $1000 sittin around. i think i'm just gonna wait till someone who has one sittin in their basement collecting dust sees me onstage with a trem bass and offers me theirs for $100, just because there one of those people who find it useless. i'm mostly just curious about how the trem from uzbekistan (thats so weird) works.

i also have feelings about a headless bass. i'de played a steinberger years ago (like the 80's) and i didnt like it ... i think that one was a piece of junk or a copy. these basses are prized so i think theres more to it. i'de like to own one and ed roman in vegas is a collector of instruments and parts and has them more reasonably priced than enywhere else. perhaps having one would change my mind.

i just re read erics post above and i dont understand.

compaison ... two different kinds of strings; single ball or double end ball for the steinberger and two different ways of strings being anchored to the instrument bridge to tuning keys or bridge to locking butt end of a steinberger.

i dont know why they told you that it couldnt be done ... example (hypotheticly and nor functionally speaking) .....

you have a steingberger bass. you take the headless neck off and put on a neck with a head and tuning keys. rediculously unbalanced and pretty darn ugly, sure, but it would work ... wouldnt it? the double ball strings wouldnt be necessary now ... is it an issue with the standard ball size not fitting in the trem? with tuning machines at both ends now ... how well would that work with the tensions???

i'm sure there would be a way to make it work if you were really inclined to. i'm not. i think iddid be easier like this thread is adressing ... working with people like us to develop a new trem system.

No, but if you put a standard headded neck on a steinberger, you loose the locking strings, thats the advantage of the headless transtrem, its a working double locking bass trem.

That's true, Bill, but if a headless trem were on a standard headed bass, then it leaves room for the development of an effective top lock.

MadMike, let me clarify. And actually, I was thinking last night that what I said might not be clear.

Please bear in mind that this is just from what I was told, and I grant you that it might not be entirely correct as I have not ever experimented with this before. But from what I understand, the toplock designs on the Steinberger and the Hohner knock-offs are not designed to actually clamp the strings down, but only to anchor them in place. Now, it might be possible to modify the string feed-through point at the top portion that heads towards the tuning keys, but again, I don't know if there is sufficient downward pressure from the clamp to prevent the strings from slipping.

A rep at Steinberger had told me once that the toplock has round holes to seat the upper ball-ends, and that the clamp that sits on them only prevents them from popping out. So you would have to 1) bore through the hole that holds the upper ball end so that it becomes a channel to allow standard strings to pass through to the tuning keys, and 2) modify the clamp so that it not only holds the strings down, but locks them into place.

Jeff/Mo has had one, and he can probably confirm or deny this as being true. And if anyone else can offer any insight, please do.

OK, a little digging on the web has given me these images. It appears that the strings aren't even clamped down, but are simply hooked into place. There might be some sort of set-screw holding them in, but I can't tell from these images. This is the Steinberger bass fiver version:



And here is Hohner's version for four-string:



And just for comparison, here is a Steinberger guitar version:



Now it appears that the whole thing actually caps the entire top of the neck, so I am at a loss how you might even go about putting one onto a standard neck. Any thoughts?

EricHaven wrote:

Now it appears that the whole thing actually caps the entire top of the neck, so I am at a loss how you might even go about putting one onto a standard neck. Any thoughts?

You cut the headstock off, and hope the truss access is at the body end.....

True, you could do that, Bill. But I want to be able to still retain the tuning keys and the headstock.

EricHaven wrote:

True, you could do that, Bill. But I want to be able to still retain the tuning keys and the headstock.

That was my point, I was being a little sarcastic, its one or the other, if you leave the headless setup, and have the strings passing it to the tuner, the headless system is doing nothing, and pointless.

Your time would be better spent thinking on a propper locking nut, this won't work.


Oh, and its purely string pressure holding them in, no set screws.

Ah! Sorry, Bill. I missed your sarcasm.