One thing I’ve encountered with headless bass necks, and this is an open question to all skilled luthiers out there, is that:

1. What about having a neck made, with INCREASED mass , gradually, as it moves towards the body?

This can probably only be done with graphite necks, where there is a mould construction. But say, Moses necks are hollow and I think that sometimes the density/mass should be graudally going over to complete solid as you go towards the end of the neck. I think there’s a lot of solid mass needed for the screws and anchoring at the neck joint but why not try this for TONE and sustains sake above the twelfth fret. I also think that the neck “wiggling” bit as I have nagged about ad naseum in other threads should be somewhat remedied. The lever effect would be minimized.

I don’t necessarily think that the bodys and hardware weight should be used ALONE to produce a nice weight balance.

The reason for this is that I think the lowest notes on my bass with a Moses neck sustain beautifully, but the highest ones, should sustain and have a greater attack, than it is now. This is just above 12th fret. On other wooden instruments, with headstock, I can hear this difference, they’re much better at it. I’ve encountered this on ALL Steinberger bass instruments as well, so it’s not individual. On guitars, I haven’t noticed this at all though.

On a wooden neck, the heel/end is much thicker/deeper and naturally dense anyway, to accomodate the screws. So there’s always a tiny bit more mass and density anyway.

The flex, relief, and adjustment with truss rods and such things could very well remain the same. The part I am looking for is to have the highest density/mass – or centralized mass as you called it – at where the neck actually connects with the body. Making that the crucial pivot point of the guitar, regarding balance.

I don’t know if I am out on thin ice, or out on a limb on this one, that’s why it’s just a question.

/Mats

I do agree that there needs to be some A/B of this but as you point out the balance and centralized mass is a definite.

With the project you’re looking at, a double neck 12/6 string, it sounds like a headless approach would serve especially well.

I think balance and centralized mass is more valid,i.e., where that weight ‘is’ in relation to the weight distribution of the instrument.

I still cant determine for me if the benefits are of an order commensurate to the cost, but youve given some nice alterantives to explore, so Ill look at those….

thanks!!!