So, it seems to me, the man who is always right

gaybear · Post by **gaybear** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:09 am

that 3 a side looks better than 6 a side based on y'all's posts.
If you were to design your own new-fangled guitar, what would you go with?

damienblair17 · Post by **damienblair17** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:03 am

I like six on a side. I feel like x+1 only really works on stingrays (3+1).

benecol · Post by **benecol** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:28 am

Nah, I'm six on a side all the way baby.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:34 pm

Overall I'd say I like three on each side because there are many more good looking ones than there are six a side. The only six on one side headstocks that I really like are the CBS Strat, Coronado, Starcaster and Gibson Firebird.

Josh · Post by **Josh** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:52 pm

six on a side for sure. im not a fan of three on a side headstocks.

DGNR8 · Post by **DGNR8** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:13 pm

I have both, and have gotten used to them, but inline 6 are easier to string and tune.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:22 pm

Three a side, probably, and big. I know this isn't fair, but most other six-a-sides look to me like they want to be Fender but can't.

I've always wanted to get a brass plate fitted the back of a headstock to see if it makes any difference. It ought to, working on the same principle as the Fat Finger:

Increases sustain by adding physical mass to the headstock of the instrument. Works on electric and acoustic instruments. Installs in seconds without tools. Will not damage your instrument. Adds tone, sustain, and overall tone balance. Fatfinger for bass is 20% heavier than guitar model. Helps tune out dead spots. Guitar model is 3.2 ounces, bass model is 3.6 ounces.

jcyphe · Post by **jcyphe** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:39 pm

You wrote 5 and 1 as an option and I've seen some and don't like them.

But 4 and 2 like on the old Teiscos and Music Man guitars is a great design, much better than 6 in line, but not as good as 3 + 3.

James · Post by **James** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:45 pm

Fatfinger for bass is 20% heavier than guitar model. Helps tune out dead spots. Guitar model is 3.2 ounces, bass model is 3.6 ounces.

I don't know if I would trust a company that is prepared to lie about something so easy to check.

If the bass model is 120% of the guitar one it should be 3.84 ounces. It's possible there's some mistake with using an out-dated measurement system and 3.2 ounces actually means 3 ounces and 2 nibits, and they are 7 and a half nibits in an ounce. If you calculate it as 120% the number of nibits it then works out to be accurate.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:46 pm

6 inline is a terrible design if you ask me. I usually feel like I'm reaching to tune the highest strings and the angle is never good. string trees sometimes have a adverse affect of throwing off tuning or breaking strings unless you use some snobby rolling graphite string trees or those wank recessed tuning pegs.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:48 pm

God point!

Still though, the principle makes sense to me and I've read that it works well. Granted, that was in the quick review (shameless advertising) sections of magazines about eight years ago.

ekwatts · Post by **ekwatts** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:00 pm

The Batwing and Marquee models are basically the same guitar with a different headstock. I noticed immediately that there was a significant different between the sound of the two, though. Not much, but it was there. But there's also the slightly different bridge to consider (the Batwing bridge had much more contact with the body) and the fact that guitars even on the same production line can differ greatly.

But I always thought the Fat Finger did make sense. And bigger headstocks just look cool.

stewart · Post by **stewart** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:04 pm

Nick wrote:6 inline is a terrible design if you ask me. I usually feel like I'm reaching to tune the highest strings and the angle is never good. string trees sometimes have a adverse affect of throwing off tuning or breaking strings unless you use some snobby rolling graphite string trees or those wank recessed tuning pegs.

some older 60s guitars i've owned have had inline headstocks angled back the way a 3+3 would be to eliminate the need for string trees. my silvertone and framus, to be precise.

personally, i find 3+3s difficult to tune, because i get confused as to which peg is for which string. just doesn't compute with my pea brain.

Ankhanu · Post by **Ankhanu** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:27 pm

stewart wrote:some older 60s guitars i've owned have had inline headstocks angled back the way a 3+3 would be to eliminate the need for string trees. my silvertone and framus, to be precise.

There are a bunch of modern guitars that use 13deg 6-in-line headstocks too. My Schecter Hellcat VI is an example. Gibson/Epiphone Firebirds and Explorers are in this style too, along with a tonne of shredders.

Thom · Post by **Thom** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:18 pm

DGNR8 wrote:I have both, and have gotten used to them, but inline 6 are easier to string and tune.

Agreed.

NickS · Post by **NickS** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:32 pm

6 on each side -

SKC Willie · Post by **SKC Willie** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:48 pm

I think it really depends on the shape of the guitar.

aen · Post by **aen** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:50 pm

SIX ON A SIDE OR DEATH!

endsjustifymeans · Post by **endsjustifymeans** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:56 pm

6 a side, but I oddly prefer reversed headstocks.

So, it seems to me, the man who is always right

Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

So, it seems to me, the man who is always right