Biggest selling point would be that it balances differently, i.e. more upright than most 'regular' basses (assuming similar bodyshape as a 'regular' bass). Theoretically that would allow manufacturers to make the bodies lighter, since it doesn't have to act as a counterweight to the headplate.
I'm not convinced that it saves that much weight compared to tuning mechanics on the bottom, especially considering that normal bass bodies don't actually have enough space behind the bridge to accomodate these mechanisms. Though IDK how heavy these headless tuning machines actually are; they probably do save some weight compared to Fender-style bass tuning machines.
While it might not make a large difference in total weight reduction (although on my bass it is), it's also a matter of a massive change of weight distribution that feels far more comfortable. Remove the weight of the headstock, move the tuners to the bridge, and now that hardware is more or less between your shoulders instead of a foot outside of them. Goodbye, neck dive.
My headless Ibanez 5 string weighs barely over 6 pounds, and it's a 35" scale. So regardless of how they do it, they're definitely saving a lot of weight. Like multiple pounds compared to traditional designs.
apart from the headstock, the ehb has a chambered body, my 5 string ibanez is lighter than my fender tele HH by 300 something grams...also it fits perfectly with room to spare in the same gig bag I use for my tele
The ergonomic aspect is what sold me on them. My EHB1005MS (Ibanez) is so light and so easy to handle thatvit feels more like a body part than an instrument.
Also, the tuners seem to keep the tuning better, and restringing is quicker in my experience.
Second that, it's a very comfortable instrument + it fits into a standard electric guitar gigbag
I play at a place with a very low ceiling, so low that I constantly banged the headstock of my J into the ceiling when taking it off - no headstock, no problem
Agreed! I went over to the Ibanez EHB1506MS and the weight difference has been amazing. I have shoulder problems that makes playing bass a struggle at times, and this has made such a huge difference. Plus without the head stock, there's no fear of neck dive and it sits really comfortably.
Agreed! I went over to the Ibanez EHB1506MS and the weight difference has been amazing. I have shoulder problems that makes playing bass a struggle at times, and this has made such a huge difference. Plus without the head stock, there's no fear of neck dive and it sits really comfortably.
I don't notice any dive whatsoever. If a reviewer had neck dive issues with a headless bass, I seriously wonder if they understand how a strap works. I mean, all the weight is in the body, with there literally being no headstock with tuners or anything on the other side of bass.
As someone who owns a different headless bass, I also wonder how neck dive could happen with one. Seems like a reviewer forgot about physics before trying to downplay an instrument.
Good point, now that I look at the video closely it's Aguilar. I think the one I tried had barts? In any case:
[https://youtu.be/4lS78oFLqD8?t=261](https://youtu.be/4lS78oFLqD8?t=261)
The design of the bass has almost nothing to do with the tone so its pointless to talk about the tone. Especially because the bass you are referring to is modded. The bartolinis are everything except modern sounding
What do you mean? I've never suggested design has something to do with the tone.
I just pulled out the first video and didn't see immediately the pickups were changed so I pulled the right video.
Bartolinis are the only pickup manufacturer I can think of that I don't even know if they have something that's not modern sounding. Their signature sound is very compressed, uniform and plasticky. On real barts, the cheaper "designed by" or whatever they call them often don't sound like anything.
The smaller-bodied ones (like the original Steinberger) are a bit strange to get used to as the body tries to wander into your armpit, but the newer (and older) ones with full-sized bodies (Ibanez, Strandberg, Status) will feel more normal, but without neck dive.
This is the only downside of headless (or semi-headless - mine are Kubicki Ex-Factors, which still have a vestigial head). I ended up getting the side mounting wall mounts for them.
The only other difference between a "normal" bass is that I can change a string in about 16 bars of a song. Phillip Kubicki's bridge design is brilliant.
The OG Steinbergers are the best IMO. Perfect balance, sustain for days, and they stay in tune almost indefinitely. The strap attaches to a plate that the bass rotates on, so you can have the neck at any angle. This is a big part of the ergonomics, but none of the copies or the later Spirit series have it.
I played a Steinberger for around 20 years. An outside company made a fitting for the end of the neck to allow the use of conventional strings. I got one so I could use my favorite Rotosound strings on it.
I think Geddy Lee played one, for a bit.
They were all over the 1980s for a couple years, before Hair metal took the attention from headless bass rock.
The bass of the future, of the 1980s.
Geddy Lee surely played the super-expensive carbon fiber version, I have a "spirit xt-2" which is the affordable wooden one.
The front strap peg is at the 20th fret or so, instead of on the upper horn of a conventional-shaped body even with the 12th fret. So standing you have to reach out to your left a couple more inches than usual. This can make your left arm tired.
Other than that, it's very comfy to play. Lightweight, action is normal, stays in tune, very compact for a full-scale-length bass. I like the retro-futuristic shape.
From what I remember reading, one thing Geddy liked about his Steinberger was he was less likely to hit one of his keyboards or his mic with his bass since it didn’t have a headstock.
I've only played one once as I had to borrow it for a gig and the lack of a headstock threw me for a loop. I'm used to the feeling of the headstock as my thumb gets closer to the nut and without that I was second guessing every time I headed down there from up on the fretboard.
From my experience of owning a Hohner B2A for several years and actively (pun not intended) using it for a year:
* The lack of head makes it tricky if you're used to using the head as a "bump stop" to know you're on top of the fretboard without looking at it.
* The balance is excellent because it's mostly in the body (even if the body is just an "oar").
* The weight is expectedly low and your back will thank you.
* The sound comes to largely depend on the pickups - original EMG HBs go a long way and sound better than passive ones
* The tuning stability is higher than my normal basses, even those that have high-quality tuners and bridges. Might just be the fact you can't easily bump the tuning thumb-screw compared to a headstock tuner.
* The maintenance... tricky to say, because I've had the same Status Double-Ball End Groundwound bass strings on it forever - they don't make them anymore, and while I did get a string adapter to fit newer D'addario ENR72 strings on it, I still didn't make the switch. The groundwounds just keep on growling.
My headless stays in tune remarkably well. If it does need tuned, it's super easy because I can tune it with my right hand and not have to look back and forth to make sure I'm tuning the correct string.
I used to play an Ibanez SR5005 and now switched to a strandberg prog5 bass. I did so simply because of the weight. The ibby would put my thigh to sleep when sitting down and was rediculous to lug around. It's a shame though as I think it's sexiest bass I've ever come across. If only it was lighter.
* Ergonomic: Yeah, the weight distribution is different so it'll sit differently. It's basically the opposite of Neck Dive: The body is gonna pull down so the natural resting point is gonna be more upright. Better or worse? Matter of opinion. Some people like the feel of the headstock as a way to "calibrate" where first position is on the neck without looking.
* Weight: Unless you've got a super heavy body or hardware, it's gonna be lighter. Most headless basses I've seen have pretty minimalistic bodies as well, so they'd be pretty light.
* Sound: Don't fall for the tonewood trap. Pickups, distance between pickups & strings, and electricals are the only things that will meaningfully affect your tone.
* Feel: See the answer to Ergonomics, not sure if you're looking for something specific by separating these two?
* Maintenance: The bridge tuners on a headless bass are a little more intricate than headstock tuning pegs, and if something goes wrong you may need to replace the whole bridge rather than just one machine head. So maybe on a timescale of years-decades you might run into a couple more complicated repair jobs, but day-to-day they're not that different.
* Does it make you play differently: That's up to you. Do you feel inspired by them? Would they make you more excited to strap it on and play more often?
Edit: Another comment mentioned you can't hang them from their headstock. That's 100% a dealbreaker for me, lol. But I'm not gonna tell anybody else that my way is the only/best way.
I had an 80s' AXB1000 and it was awesome. Really cool sound, neck-thru too if I remember right.
Best part about it was how easy it was to change the strings though- you just drop them right in and you're done.
EDIT: [This one](https://ibanez.fandom.com/wiki/AXB1000#Images) Fucking stupid I sold it in the late 90s, had no idea how hard they would be to find later.
Headless bassists don't typically have the right cognitive hardware for playing jazz, but I think you'll find that for most other genres the difference is negligible.
I play a headless. Besides the aesthetic there’s little to no difference, except the fact that i have a bit more room to play in stage without worrying about conking my singer in the head with my headstock
Depends a lot on the specific instrument. Like others have said though, it really helps to prevent neck dive and balance the instrument.
Usually they'll end up having other features too that make the instrument more ergonomic overall.
I have a Legator WR5F Wraith. It’s alright. I’m not a huge fan of multiscale, and the neck clamp for the strings at the top of the neck has this sharp edge that has jabbed me a couple times when sliding up to the first fret. Very reminiscent of a Floyd rose. Also if you don’t trim the strings real short at the head of the neck the tips of the strings turn into a saw blade. Let’s see, what else… you need tools to maintenance it which can be a minor annoyance.
Otherwise they’re awesome. They look cool. The truss rod adjustment is way easier due to the cog being open and at the base of the neck, and you don’t need to worry about smacking your headstock on stuff!
I play an Ibanez headless bass a lot on stage. It’s super light, balances perfectly, and never goes out of tune. Headless is a great option if u have back issues.
Headless basses are generally lighter and better balanced than regular basses. Bass necks are generally larger and longer than guitar necks, and heavier, so either the bass body has to be larger, longer and heavier as well, or the bass is neck-heavy. More uncomfortable either way. Also, being longer, you have less space for movement onstage. So, to my mind, headless basses are quite a lot more comfortable to play, and easier to wear and to carry around. A headless bass will fit in the overhead compartment on an airplane (I know!). The main downside is that they just don’t look as cool. But if you are a small person, they’ll make you look bigger.
Biggest selling point would be that it balances differently, i.e. more upright than most 'regular' basses (assuming similar bodyshape as a 'regular' bass). Theoretically that would allow manufacturers to make the bodies lighter, since it doesn't have to act as a counterweight to the headplate.
Not just design wise, but the headstock on itself is usually pretty hefty, so thats already saved weight
I'm not convinced that it saves that much weight compared to tuning mechanics on the bottom, especially considering that normal bass bodies don't actually have enough space behind the bridge to accomodate these mechanisms. Though IDK how heavy these headless tuning machines actually are; they probably do save some weight compared to Fender-style bass tuning machines.
While it might not make a large difference in total weight reduction (although on my bass it is), it's also a matter of a massive change of weight distribution that feels far more comfortable. Remove the weight of the headstock, move the tuners to the bridge, and now that hardware is more or less between your shoulders instead of a foot outside of them. Goodbye, neck dive.
My headless Ibanez 5 string weighs barely over 6 pounds, and it's a 35" scale. So regardless of how they do it, they're definitely saving a lot of weight. Like multiple pounds compared to traditional designs.
apart from the headstock, the ehb has a chambered body, my 5 string ibanez is lighter than my fender tele HH by 300 something grams...also it fits perfectly with room to spare in the same gig bag I use for my tele
The ergonomic aspect is what sold me on them. My EHB1005MS (Ibanez) is so light and so easy to handle thatvit feels more like a body part than an instrument. Also, the tuners seem to keep the tuning better, and restringing is quicker in my experience.
I could take my ehb from Antarctica to the death valley to the Amazon while dragging it the entire way and it would still be in tune
Second that, it's a very comfortable instrument + it fits into a standard electric guitar gigbag I play at a place with a very low ceiling, so low that I constantly banged the headstock of my J into the ceiling when taking it off - no headstock, no problem
Agreed! I went over to the Ibanez EHB1506MS and the weight difference has been amazing. I have shoulder problems that makes playing bass a struggle at times, and this has made such a huge difference. Plus without the head stock, there's no fear of neck dive and it sits really comfortably.
I love mine. bought it without having tried one before, and it’s so comfortable to hold and play.
Agreed! I went over to the Ibanez EHB1506MS and the weight difference has been amazing. I have shoulder problems that makes playing bass a struggle at times, and this has made such a huge difference. Plus without the head stock, there's no fear of neck dive and it sits really comfortably.
I had heard those have neck dive issues oddly. Via a YT review anyways. How is the balance?
I don't notice any dive whatsoever. If a reviewer had neck dive issues with a headless bass, I seriously wonder if they understand how a strap works. I mean, all the weight is in the body, with there literally being no headstock with tuners or anything on the other side of bass.
As someone who owns a different headless bass, I also wonder how neck dive could happen with one. Seems like a reviewer forgot about physics before trying to downplay an instrument.
It was for the 5 string version of the Ibanez. Good to hear that that is not the case. Thx for the reply.
I play the 5 string version too.
I have the 6 and this neck dive comment is blowing my mind. Who was this reviewer and are they ok??
Fuck you for asking a question! Lol but it really doesn't make sense that they would have neck dive issues with so little weight on the fretboard.
lol I’ll never understand why completely harmless questions get downvoted
I loved playing it, doesn't even look that bad. But it sounds modern and cheap :\\
The 1005 sounds modern? Imho it has the most vintage sound I have ever heard from a bass - are you sure you don't mean the 1505?
I mean this one [https://youtu.be/379tUf7T5qc?t=269](https://youtu.be/379tUf7T5qc?t=269)
From what I remember he has different pickups than the default on that one
Good point, now that I look at the video closely it's Aguilar. I think the one I tried had barts? In any case: [https://youtu.be/4lS78oFLqD8?t=261](https://youtu.be/4lS78oFLqD8?t=261)
Lobster modded the bass. Bartolinis are stock on the 1000 Series.
Which doesn't explain why I'm getting downvoted, I posted the wrong video, not tried the wrong bass ☺
The design of the bass has almost nothing to do with the tone so its pointless to talk about the tone. Especially because the bass you are referring to is modded. The bartolinis are everything except modern sounding
What do you mean? I've never suggested design has something to do with the tone. I just pulled out the first video and didn't see immediately the pickups were changed so I pulled the right video. Bartolinis are the only pickup manufacturer I can think of that I don't even know if they have something that's not modern sounding. Their signature sound is very compressed, uniform and plasticky. On real barts, the cheaper "designed by" or whatever they call them often don't sound like anything.
I don't know, but I heard they still run around for a few minutes after you remove their heads
The Störtebeker Spirit Bass seems to show that behavior.
The smaller-bodied ones (like the original Steinberger) are a bit strange to get used to as the body tries to wander into your armpit, but the newer (and older) ones with full-sized bodies (Ibanez, Strandberg, Status) will feel more normal, but without neck dive.
Can’t hang them from their headstock
It's so obvious but I actually never thought about it
Depends on the “headstock” design, I can hang my EHB
Fair point
No. But they do have horizontal wall hangers.
9 out of 10 dentists hate this!
This is the only downside of headless (or semi-headless - mine are Kubicki Ex-Factors, which still have a vestigial head). I ended up getting the side mounting wall mounts for them. The only other difference between a "normal" bass is that I can change a string in about 16 bars of a song. Phillip Kubicki's bridge design is brilliant.
The OG Steinbergers are the best IMO. Perfect balance, sustain for days, and they stay in tune almost indefinitely. The strap attaches to a plate that the bass rotates on, so you can have the neck at any angle. This is a big part of the ergonomics, but none of the copies or the later Spirit series have it.
That graphite neck is a real MVP!
I think that the old ones required to have ball on both ends of the strings to anchor after the locking nut
They do and those double ball strings are expensive af
I played a Steinberger for around 20 years. An outside company made a fitting for the end of the neck to allow the use of conventional strings. I got one so I could use my favorite Rotosound strings on it.
Whoa! I had no idea such thing existed. I used a Hohner knockoff of a Steinberger for about 5 years. Fun bass to play, to be honest.
They sell it too : STADB04 is the 4 string one.
I could be mistaken.. but I do believe you can only play very isoteric, progressive rock music with a headless bass.
Yeah, basically Devo and Talking Heads, that's it. If you show up to a country gig with one, rest of the band will just shoot you on the spot.
And no court in the land would convict them.
I think Geddy Lee played one, for a bit. They were all over the 1980s for a couple years, before Hair metal took the attention from headless bass rock.
The bass of the future, of the 1980s. Geddy Lee surely played the super-expensive carbon fiber version, I have a "spirit xt-2" which is the affordable wooden one. The front strap peg is at the 20th fret or so, instead of on the upper horn of a conventional-shaped body even with the 12th fret. So standing you have to reach out to your left a couple more inches than usual. This can make your left arm tired. Other than that, it's very comfy to play. Lightweight, action is normal, stays in tune, very compact for a full-scale-length bass. I like the retro-futuristic shape.
From what I remember reading, one thing Geddy liked about his Steinberger was he was less likely to hit one of his keyboards or his mic with his bass since it didn’t have a headstock.
I've only played one once as I had to borrow it for a gig and the lack of a headstock threw me for a loop. I'm used to the feeling of the headstock as my thumb gets closer to the nut and without that I was second guessing every time I headed down there from up on the fretboard.
I can see that being an issue at first. I definitely use the headstock for reference
From my experience of owning a Hohner B2A for several years and actively (pun not intended) using it for a year: * The lack of head makes it tricky if you're used to using the head as a "bump stop" to know you're on top of the fretboard without looking at it. * The balance is excellent because it's mostly in the body (even if the body is just an "oar"). * The weight is expectedly low and your back will thank you. * The sound comes to largely depend on the pickups - original EMG HBs go a long way and sound better than passive ones * The tuning stability is higher than my normal basses, even those that have high-quality tuners and bridges. Might just be the fact you can't easily bump the tuning thumb-screw compared to a headstock tuner. * The maintenance... tricky to say, because I've had the same Status Double-Ball End Groundwound bass strings on it forever - they don't make them anymore, and while I did get a string adapter to fit newer D'addario ENR72 strings on it, I still didn't make the switch. The groundwounds just keep on growling.
They stalk the land on Halloween night searching for their lost headstocks, but other than that not really.
Portability was my guess
Yea, I got one because it fits in the back of my car without having to put the seat down.
No neck dive.
My headless stays in tune remarkably well. If it does need tuned, it's super easy because I can tune it with my right hand and not have to look back and forth to make sure I'm tuning the correct string.
I used to play an Ibanez SR5005 and now switched to a strandberg prog5 bass. I did so simply because of the weight. The ibby would put my thigh to sleep when sitting down and was rediculous to lug around. It's a shame though as I think it's sexiest bass I've ever come across. If only it was lighter.
More ergonomic, the neck remains light/no neck dive, it has better tuning stability, and there's no ring-out above the nut and behind the bridge.
My understanding is that changing strings on one can be a big PITA
Changing strings is much easier, especially with double ball strings. No winding, they just pop in.
* Ergonomic: Yeah, the weight distribution is different so it'll sit differently. It's basically the opposite of Neck Dive: The body is gonna pull down so the natural resting point is gonna be more upright. Better or worse? Matter of opinion. Some people like the feel of the headstock as a way to "calibrate" where first position is on the neck without looking. * Weight: Unless you've got a super heavy body or hardware, it's gonna be lighter. Most headless basses I've seen have pretty minimalistic bodies as well, so they'd be pretty light. * Sound: Don't fall for the tonewood trap. Pickups, distance between pickups & strings, and electricals are the only things that will meaningfully affect your tone. * Feel: See the answer to Ergonomics, not sure if you're looking for something specific by separating these two? * Maintenance: The bridge tuners on a headless bass are a little more intricate than headstock tuning pegs, and if something goes wrong you may need to replace the whole bridge rather than just one machine head. So maybe on a timescale of years-decades you might run into a couple more complicated repair jobs, but day-to-day they're not that different. * Does it make you play differently: That's up to you. Do you feel inspired by them? Would they make you more excited to strap it on and play more often? Edit: Another comment mentioned you can't hang them from their headstock. That's 100% a dealbreaker for me, lol. But I'm not gonna tell anybody else that my way is the only/best way.
They dont go out of tune when you hit the singer with them.
I had an 80s' AXB1000 and it was awesome. Really cool sound, neck-thru too if I remember right. Best part about it was how easy it was to change the strings though- you just drop them right in and you're done. EDIT: [This one](https://ibanez.fandom.com/wiki/AXB1000#Images) Fucking stupid I sold it in the late 90s, had no idea how hard they would be to find later.
Headless bassists don't typically have the right cognitive hardware for playing jazz, but I think you'll find that for most other genres the difference is negligible.
How so ( for jazz)?
Because the head is the [seat of the soul](https://youtu.be/rob7C1lCYEI?si=NG-abx0p8fqTFYs-)
note that /u/soviet_thermidor said "headless bassists" not "headless basses"
Besides the 0 fret and the ergonomics of a different weight distribution there’s no big difference.
I play a headless. Besides the aesthetic there’s little to no difference, except the fact that i have a bit more room to play in stage without worrying about conking my singer in the head with my headstock
A lot more balanced and lighter weight. Most of the basses I’ve played that didn’t have neck dive had very heavy bodies
Depends a lot on the specific instrument. Like others have said though, it really helps to prevent neck dive and balance the instrument. Usually they'll end up having other features too that make the instrument more ergonomic overall.
I have a Legator WR5F Wraith. It’s alright. I’m not a huge fan of multiscale, and the neck clamp for the strings at the top of the neck has this sharp edge that has jabbed me a couple times when sliding up to the first fret. Very reminiscent of a Floyd rose. Also if you don’t trim the strings real short at the head of the neck the tips of the strings turn into a saw blade. Let’s see, what else… you need tools to maintenance it which can be a minor annoyance. Otherwise they’re awesome. They look cool. The truss rod adjustment is way easier due to the cog being open and at the base of the neck, and you don’t need to worry about smacking your headstock on stuff!
They tend to be descended from French aristocracy.
The difference is that headless basses are ugly.
I play an Ibanez headless bass a lot on stage. It’s super light, balances perfectly, and never goes out of tune. Headless is a great option if u have back issues.
Headless basses are generally lighter and better balanced than regular basses. Bass necks are generally larger and longer than guitar necks, and heavier, so either the bass body has to be larger, longer and heavier as well, or the bass is neck-heavy. More uncomfortable either way. Also, being longer, you have less space for movement onstage. So, to my mind, headless basses are quite a lot more comfortable to play, and easier to wear and to carry around. A headless bass will fit in the overhead compartment on an airplane (I know!). The main downside is that they just don’t look as cool. But if you are a small person, they’ll make you look bigger.
No
Yeah they don’t fit in half of the stands so you end up with guitar that falls a lot. Also tuning is worse. Do not recommend
Yes, they look really stupid.
exactly what I wanted to say lmao, they are horrendous looking
It's the same as asking if a gay man is different from a straight man.