need headstock pics of fretless rays

[Elad_E]

hey,

the used fretless SR4 I just got seems to have a modified nut (filled down to almost fingerboard height) with almost no breaking angle which seems to make tunning a headache and also seems to have caused some deep grooves to the fingerboard's edge.

to verify wether I should be taking it to a luthier or not I'd really appreciate some pics of the headstock of a fretless Stingray.

thanks.

 

[the unrepentant]

No, it shouldn't be that low. Get it replaced.

 

[MrMusashi]

the grooves are there to allow the string to run free from the nut to the tuner. there are grooves like that in my 30th sr4 fretless and i havent lowered the strings on the nut. if the string contacts the wood between the nut and the tuner it can cause buzzes or/and tuning instability. someone must like to have the strings low on their bass and if you dont like that you could have a new nut made
i would not break a sweat over it, just put roundwounds on it and enjoy the mwah!

MrM

 

[oli@bass]

Here you go... ca '88 StingRay

As you can see, nut is filed down very low. You can also see the grooves.

 

[oli@bass]

No, it shouldn't be that low. Get it replaced.

Methinks you should own a fretless SR or two before making such a statment...


BTW, on my 30th FL the nut is even a bit lower...

 

[Elad_E]

thanks for the quick reply.

MrMusashi,
I will probably put nickel rounds anyway but I cant get it tuned at all right now.

Oli,
thanks for the pics, it does look somewhat like mine (the nut on mine is shaped differently though) and the string height looks the same except for the E string on mine which has about 1-1.4 mm clearence from the fretboard on my bass.

the breaking angle on yours seems way steeper (and thus better) than mine and I also have it strung with Chromes.

seem like there no chance other than getting some blanks and fabricating a replacement.

 

[oli@bass]

Could you post some pics of yours? I'd be interested to see how it looks like...

 

[Duarte]

As you can see, nut is filed down very low. You can also see the grooves.

Yeah mine looks like that.

 

[Elad_E]

Could you post some pics of yours? I'd be interested to see how it looks like...

some truss rod tweaking coupled with a medium set of broken in nickel rounds solved the problem and for the record - the Chromes never tuned easily on any of my basses, they seem to have a monstrous neck crunching ammount of tension when tuned to standard EADG and that must have affected the neck stability which wasnt optimal in the first place since I got the bass with the truss rod maxed CCW which means maximum relief and the dry cold weather probably donated to a longer acclimating period.

anyway, here are pics of the nut:

 

[oli@bass]

Glad you could resolve the problem!

Regarding flatwounds: I gotta try EB Group III flats on my '88.

 

[Elad_E]

Oli,

are the EB flats low or high tension?
I seem to prefer low tensioned light guage flats.

btw, I love the matching headstocks pic in your avatar. it could make a beautiful desktop wallpaper.

 

[MrMusashi]

you get them in all kinds of tension.. the group is a tell tale for finding out

ps: fretless basses needs roundwounds.. oh.. did i repeat myself again ghehehe

MrM

 

[Elad_E]

MrMusashi,

try a set of chromes, they sound great, almost like a merge between SS and traditional flats.
however, the tension makes plucking them as fun as plucking the steel cables of a suspension bridge.

 

[oli@bass]

IMO the Group III flats are reasonably close in "feel" to the stanard Super Slinky set (100 - 45). The other brands of flats had higher tension except for Thomastik Infield. I also had the impression that the EB flats have more "character" (for lack of a better word) in the midrange.

About the pic: I thought the same... if you like to have generally white background on the screen. If I get around to do one for myself I'll post it here for everybody.