Cracking the Steinberger?

Random side note - Ned Steinberger now has a company called NS Designs and they make electic Violins, Cellos, Upright Basses etc. I bought a 5 string Wav Cello last week and love it. I have no real frame of reference having never played acoustic cello (or a different electric one) but to me it feels very well made for the money and sounds great (…when I get the bowing right!)

Oh yeah and I had to smile when I realised that one of the tricky parts of playing a Cello is switching strings… just like on that other instrument behind it :slight_smile:

Here’s a post I saw in a Facebook page I’m part of. Troy and this site are tagged in the post. https://www.facebook.com/sebastian.amerise/videos/10155709854991676/
Steinberger guitar like you mentioned in your post.

1 Like

I’ve never seen someone shredding, with a metal guitar tone, with a thumb pick like that before. Very impressive.

I believe that guitar is a Hohner headless guitar. You can see the logo.

1 Like

Thanks for all the input, everyone. I appreciate it.

Steinberger recently re-released a Spirit model, the small-bodied ones with either HSS or HSH pickup formats. As mentioned above, these guitars are wooden, and lack the Trans-Trem and other features of the earlier, more expensive Steinbergers. But my interest in them is not driven by the innovations, but by my need for a decent travel guitar. They go for around $400 new, and reports are that they are much better guitars than the Traveler Speedster or other similar models. I’ve tried out many travel guitars in my price range, and they mostly feel like cheap toys. From what I’ve read, the new Steinbergers are a much better value.

The reason I asked about them here was specifically the forearm anchoring issue. I’m a rotation/flextention crosspicker, and I anchor my forearm heavily, so I was curious if any other heavy forearm-planters have played one and could offer any insight.

I have explored floating my forearm, and found that my string tracking suffers, so I was concerned that the small body might be incompatible with my mechanics. I also notice that many of the other small-body travel guitars have some kind of attachment or other structure on the lower body for supporting the forearm, so I’m obviously not the first person to consider this possibility. On the other hand, most guitars force my right arm into a fairly unnatural position anyway, so maybe this will end up being an improvement.

There a a multitude.

I’ve heard some guitar builders describe the Telecaster, Stratocaster, Les Paul and SG as “the big four,” and it’s fair to say that most electric guitar designs are derivatives of these four designs, so I’ll focus on those designs.

First, the ergonomic limitations of these designs are most noticeable while standing. For most people, these guitars do not hang in the optimal playing position when standing (which should be somewhat similar to the seated classical position).

With the exception of the SG, the placement of the strap buttons on the upper bout or upper horn results in the guitar hanging under the right armpit or flat across the chest. No other positions are stable. The SG usually has a strap button placed behind the neck heel, which results in superior position, but the design is inherently neck heavy and prone to neck dive, so the neck has to be supported by the fretting hand while playing to a much greater degree. Changing strap button position on the other three designs improves playing position, but the result is unstable. Some very heavy Les Pauls aren’t prone to this, but the extra weight is detrimental in other ways.

In order to tune to pitch, a guitar with a headstock must have the headstock back-angled. The Gibson designs incorporate the back-angle and the result is that Gibson guitars are comparatively very fragile, and prone to headstock breakage. The Fender designs don’t use the back-angle and use string trees instead, which are detrimental to tuning stability. The three a side headstock design used by Gibson results in strings binding at the nut, which again is detrimental to tuning stability.

Removing the headstock solves all of these problems at once.

Another issue with most traditional designs is access to the upper registers. The Les Paul is the worst offender, but the others have their limitations also. The lower horn on a single cutaway or double cutaway guitar impedes wide stretches in the upper registers, even if the horn is minimised and the cutaways are made as deep as possible. A better solution is a body design with no horns at all. The Flying V is a traditional design without horns, but that design has a host of other issues.

The blocky Fender bolt-on neck joint is similarly obtrusive. A set-neck or neck-through construction allows for less obstruction, but it is a weaker mechanical connection than bolt-on construction, more fragile and more difficult to repair. Even then, there are plenty of set-neck or neck-through guitars with poor access to the upper registers, like the PRS Custom 22.

Steinberger GLs don’t have the nicest neck to body joint, but it’s less obtrusive than traditional designs. I’m sure Ned would have updated the heel if he was still designing guitars.

Moreover, the original Steinberger GLs are made of moulded graphite. They are basically indestructible, and are incredibly resilient to environmental changes.

Steinberger bridge designs are also marvellous. The double-ball system results in fast string changes and rock solid tuning stability. The vibrato systems go even further. The S-trem (hinge mechanism) and R-trem (knife-edge nechanism) are both excellent systems, and the Trans-trems are an engineering wonder, if a little difficult to setup and perform maintenance on.

With Gibson’s current financial trouble, I hope the Steinberger brand gets sold to some other company that’s actually interested in realising some of its potential.

4 Likes

That looks so… familiar!

3 Likes

Hear, hear. I’ve had my eye on the headless … phenomenon for a while, but can’t bear aesthetically to play a tiny rectangular guitar and would feel dirty giving money directly to Gibson either way. The alternatives tend to be pricey (Strandberg or used Steinies), although I’m interested in Kiesel’s most recent (less spiky) creation.

Missed that post here on the site. Video showed up on a FB group page, too, though. :slight_smile: Headless guitars…

One issue that headless designs seem to cause that I’m not aware has been solved yet is an easy to use tuning system. I tried a Strandberg recently and found the tuners at the bridge were really stiff and just not comfortable to use as you have very little leverage on them compared to a traditional tuner on a headstock.

1 Like

The tuners on my Mayones Hydra are quite free and accurate. They are definitely not stiff.

The only this is that the intonation is a little tricky to adjust but, apart from that, it’s all good.

1 Like

I have no opinion in this because it’s not an area in which I’m knowledgeable but I do have a question: Different woods are known to give guitars different tones. Cheap woods are used in cheap guitars that tend to not sound too great. You wouldn’t make a guitar out of pine, for example. A good wood like mahogany, which is used in Gibson Les Pauls, is known for giving them great sustain. Since Steinbergers are not made from any wood at all, how does the tone and sustain of a Steinberger compare to the tone and sustain of a high quality guitar made from mahogany or alder?

The current Steinbergers are made of maple. A Capital Records studio guy from the 80’s/90’s once let me play his Patrick Eggle guitar, all maple. His theory was you can always add warmth, but you can not remove it. Maple is brighter than mahogany, but mids and lows can be eq’d in, but hard to take out. Wood does has an effect on tone, but then again, John Suhr tells of seeing EVH play a Steinberger with rusty old strings and still sounding like Eddie. Again, wood and materials do play a part in the tone, but the idea of “tone being in the hands” is somewhat true, too. My “tone”, if you will, tends to be brighter regardless of if I’m playing a strat or a PRS or a Strandberg, hums or singles, 6L6’s, EL84’s, EL34’s, 12 or 10" speakers. A good eq always helps me to fatten it up (I currently use Source Audio Programmable EQ), as well as speaker choice (Tone Tubby 40/40’s for me). So many variables come into play. At the moment I’m living in Thailand, and my choice equipment is in the States. I have a headphone rig to practice with., cheap…really cheap. Mooer GE100 for eq, verb, delay, choruses, and a Hotone Legacy Nano British Invasion, at the moment headphones only. Getting a speaker cab this week. Eq’ing everything right, I can still get a fat singing tone. Not for the stage, but that’s not what I’m using this set up for. Much of the tone comes from the hands, I’m more and more inclined to believe.

1 Like

This actually isn’t true.

Pickups are not microphones, and are only sensitive to the overtones present on the strings themselves. There is no mechanism by which any vibration of the neck or body can interfere with the vibration of the strings, since the oscillations on the strings are transverse waves and the vibrations in the instrument are compression (longitudinal) waves.

By far, the biggest factors in the timbre of an electric guitar are the pickups, the design and method of construction, the properties of the strings themselves and how the strings are excited into oscillation.

Even then, the electric guitar is not a harmonically complex instrument, which is easily verified by plugging a guitar directly into a DAW without any amplifier modelling. The non-linearity of guitar amplifiers gives rise to most of the harmonic complexity, by harmonic distortion. I don’t mean distortion in the way guitarists mean distortion here, but in the way a physicist does; the output signal of the amplifier is very different from the input signal. Harmonic distortion happens at all times in a guitar amplifier, even with a “clean” sound.

The bridge and fret materials are most important, since the vast majority of string energy is reflected at the endpoints. Scale length matters, and contrary to “common knowledge,” there is more bass with 25.5" scale of a typical Fender than the 24.75" scale of a Typical Gibson. The neck to body joint must be well constructed or there will be significant losses in string energy.

The solid-body electric guitar was designed to not resonate, as this results in feedback when playing through powerful amplifiers.

While changing the woods used in an electric guitar (keeping the design and all other materials fixed), will change the resonant properties of the neck and body, the change to the resonances is small. Again, pickups are not microphones, and the oscillations on the strings are a transverse wave.

The woods used in electric guitars are not so drastically different, and excepting something bizarre like balsa, most woods would be perfectly acceptable construction materials for guitar-making.

Cheap guitars tend not to sound good because they have poor quality pickups and poor quality bridges.

The majority of woods used in guitar manufacture are cheap, and the few that are not are expensive due to limited supply because of deforestation and cutting caps due to treaties like CITES. Demand has also steadily increased since the the '50s and '60s too.

No woods were prohibitively expensive for use in commercial guitar manufacture when Leo Fender introduced the Telecaster and Stratocaster or when Gibson introduced the Les Paul. Leo Fender, wasn’t even consistent with the species of wood he bought for guitar manufacture in the early years, he just wanted to get suitably dry wood of any species in bulk as quickly as possible.

While mahogany is a suitable wood for guitar building (as most woods are), the primary reason why mahogany was considered a “good wood” for guitar buildng in the '50s and '60s was because large quantities of it were available at the time, and because it was inexpensive.

Gibson Les Pauls sustain because they have powerful pickups and because the heavy body is nearly acoustically dead. Resonance of the body and neck would reduce sustain. A Les Paul sounds and sustains the way it does because of the design, construction and pickups, not because of some special properties of mahogany.

A Les Paul made of alder will sound and behave like a Les Paul, and a Stratocaster made of mahogony will sound and behave like a Stratocaster (and I have, in fact, played all mahogany Strats).

People have, and they sounded just fine. Les Paul’s original “the log,” which he built himself and which was the starting point for the design of the Gibson Les Paul, was made of pine. Many early Telecasters and Stratocasters were made of pine too, as I mentioned, Leo Fender didn’t care what species of wood was used. As an example, Eric Johnon’s “Virginia,” which was his main Stratocaster from the late '80s until the late '90s, was a 1954 Strat with a pine body. The primary reasons pine isn’t commonly used in guitar building are because it dents easily and doesn’t take paint well.

Steinbergers sound different because they’re constructed differently. Most came with active EMGs from the factory, which I’m not the biggest fan of, but I’ve played others that have had the pickups changed and I thought they sounded great. Also, sustain is incredible, far more than a Les Paul.

If an electric guitar is designed to be more acoustically resonant, as in the case of a hollow of semi-hollow guitar, then wood species has more of an effect, though it’s still small, and still not predictable. Acoustic guitars are a totally different conversation.

The idea of certain species of wood being “tonewoods” for electric guitars is a nonsense claim that is not back up by any reputable, repeatable, double-blind testing with sufficient controls. Moreover, it’s not even well supported by physical reasoning.

It’s a sales pitch, and guitar companies have a vested interested in promoting this idea as truth. It is resulting in deforestation and it is the primary reason why insufficient effort has been put into researching alternative materials.

13 Likes

Hey Tom, that was very informative. I appreciate the time you must have put into writing that. Thank you!

1 Like

No problem, it didn’t take that long to put it together. I type quickly.

Glad you appreciate it.

3 Likes

Tom, you seem to know your stuff with the tone wood issue but I had a question about a couple things you said.

My understanding was that resonances in the body would steal energy, albeit possibly very little energy, from the strings and could affect the tone. I think you’re saying that the body can’t affect the tone and then subsequently saying that it can. Could you say a bit more about how the resonances of the body and the strings interact and how the type of wave of each affects that interaction?

1 Like

The assertion that the vibration of the neck or body can’t interfere with the vibration of the strings seems suspect to me. If that were true, vibrations of the strings wouldn’t set the body and neck vibrating, which a very simple experiment should show is false.

Folks pull out knives arguing this point online. In fact they pull out chainsaws and cut up guitars to demonstrate the opposite of the assertion… :slight_smile: I’d suggest leading with a video of an experiment proving your point.

Construction matters. I think it’s our personal experience with resonating guitar bodies that leads us to false general impressions about the materials.

As for “Cracking the Steinberger,” if anybody wants to give me one, I’ll happily give it a home. Was very disappointed that they seemed to disappear after their short lived heyday in the eighties. The transition to Gibson described in this thread explains why the not-so-awesome, “Steinberger-ish,” started to appear. Bump on checking out some of the alternative options out there. Get ready for constant questioning along the lines of, “where’s the head?”

I wonder what the balance was like on the originals. Fwiw, I’d choose a wood to offset the neck weight.

1 Like

No problem. I’ll try to help as best I can.

What I’ve said is that there is no way that the vibrations of the neck and body, which are compression waves (also known as longitudinal waves) can interfere with the oscillations on the strings themselves, which are transverse waves.

The issue is my use of the term “interfere,” by which I’m specifically referring to interference of waves. This wikipedia article gives a basic outline of the physics.

First, we must understand that a vibrating string is a transverse wave, composed of a fundamental frequency and overtones, which are multiples of the fundamental. For example, the A string of a guitar is tuned to 110 Hz, and the overtones are the multiples of these frequencies according to the harmonic series (so 220Hz, 330Hz, 440 Hz). We hear the fundamental of 110 Hz as the pitch.

The amplitudes of the overtones relative to the amplitude of the fundamental is the tone. The ratios of amplitudes change from the point the string begins vibrating to the point when the string stops vibrating, these are aspects of decay. There are attack frequencies not related to the fundamental which decay almost immediately, these are aspects of attack. The timbre of the instrument is the sum total of tone, attack and decay for every note on the instruments range.

Ok, back to the string. When plucked, a string is slightly displaced at a particular point, and when the string is released, a pulse moves from that point in both directions along the string. When the pulse reaches the string endpoints (the bridge, fret or nut), the overwhelming majority of the string energy is reflected back into the string and results in the pulse being returned along the string in the opposite direction.

A small amount of energy is transmitted into the string endpoints which begin to vibrate at the same frequencies as were present on the string. This transmission results in a compression wave in the endpoint, which is transmitted into the neck and body and dissipated into the air.

The amount of reflection and transmission at string endpoints depends on the material and mass of the endpoints. For an electric guitar, this means the bridge assembly and the frets. Electric guitars have heavy steel bridges and nickel steel frets. Reflection is massively favored. Only a small amount of energy can be transmitted to the bridge, and less to the body. The heavy steel bridge isolates effectively isolates the string from the body, and much of the energy transmitted into the frets is absorbed and damped by the player’s hands.

In principle, the resonant properties of the neck and body could slightly alter the decay characteristics, by selectively absorbing some string frequencies more than others. This essentially does not happen in practice, since the bridge isolates the strings from the body so effectively. If it were even perceptible (which it isn’t), it would absolutely not be a primary factor in determination of tone. It would also be extremely unpredictable and in no way characteristically determined by specific choices of wood species.

Essentially no energy moves back from the body to the bridge, or from the bridge back to the strings. The solid-body electric guitar is practically an acoustically dead instrument. It was specifically designed to be acoustically dead.

Eventually, enough energy is dissipated that the string stops ringing. How long this takes, well that depends on construction an materials.

If by some coincidence the endpoints and the neck or body resonate at a particular note, the amount of energy transmitted into the body and air will be much higher for that specific note only, the note will be audibly louder acoustically and it will decay immediately. This is undesirable. It’s also very unlikely to occur for any note, and it can’t happen on every note.

Remember also that a pickup is not a microphone. It only detects the harmonics present on the strings themselves. It cannot hear the vibration of the neck or body at all.

5 Likes

My bad, I didn’t realize you were talking about actual wave interference. There’s clearly a transfer of some mechanical energy from strings to body, which is why I was confused. :slight_smile:

2 Likes