Username: Password:

Author Topic: A Tone-Seeker's Diary (sort of)  (Read 1327 times)

Nadz1lla

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 1465
    • Arcanum Plectra
A Tone-Seeker's Diary (sort of)
« on: May 08, 2009, 05:41:33 PM »
Didn't know whether to post this here or tech, it's more of a "thinking out loud" thing but could be beneficial to others thinking of building their own guitar.

I was thinking of maybe posting almost like a "diary" of research I am doing before attempting my 2nd build. (1st didn't go so well, I think I have messed up the neck pocket and my screwdriver has mauled some of my neck bolts and bridge screws....but I digress..) I thought I'd post it here in public to find out if anyone has any pointers for bits and bobs along the way.

So, getting down to it, things I have found out so far...

I think I have pretty much set my mind on Korina for the main body of the guitar. Not entirely sure just yet if I'm going to use it for the neck too. Until recently I thought I wanted to use Ebony for the finger board, but now I'm unsure (reasons below).

So today I went to Mansons with my notebook. I wanted to try some differently constructed models, first thing I tried was an Epiphone Korina Explorer, which had a Rosewood fingerboard. I was immediately blown away by the gorgeous tone I got from it, for me it was exactly the right kinf of "warm" with a good measure of mids. Even the stock pups sounded really nice, so with a bit of BKP treatment later on I would imagine this would be a lovely sounding Guitar, very close, if not exactly the kind of sound I'm going for. I was already impressed, but having not played through an amp in a while, just made some initial notes in my book and moved on to the next model for a comparison.

Next up was a Gibson Explorer, this time a Mahogany body with Ebony fingerboard. I had high hopes for this one as I had imagined the kind of tne I'd get from these woods to be the next notch up from the Korina Epiphone. I was actually disappointed! Despite this one being somewhere in the region of £800 more expensive, I found the tone a lot thinner, almost abrasive to listen to. Having said that, the assistant who was helping me out did say that the pups on this one were more in-your-face, I am thinking probably the kind of thing Hetfield would have used in the 80's. Good for a thrash axe maybe, but really not for me. Having said I wasn't impressed with the tone of this one, I have the feeling this was mainly attributed to the pups used. I thinking probably they weren't the best choice for getting the best out of the timbers used.

Un-deterred, I will be exploring more models with Mahogany bodies and Ebony boards as I'm sure they have a lot more to offer. Unfortunately for today, this is all I was able to try. The shop was filling up with paying customers and my car ticket was running out, so I duly stepped aside so that the boys could concentrate on those with money to spend. I shall be back though, there are a lot of axes to try and a lot of tones to explore!

Both the models I tried were set-neck. I didn't manage to find out what the neck of the 2nd was made from, but the 1st was Korina throughout apart from the fretboard.

I really wanted to try a Thru-neck but there aren't many around at the moment, and I'd like to try out some PRS bolt-ons too.

One thing I have been researching is tonal affect of the different kinds of necks. Before I researched this properly (and some opinions from the luthiers would be welcome here if possible), I was under the impression that a thru-neck gave the best overall resonance. But after seeing some posts on another forum, I'm getting the impression that, actually, bolt-on has the least detrimental affect on tone. It was argued that, with a neck-thru, laminating several different pieces of wood together to construct the neck and wings can lose some of the tone from the wood, in effect, only the tone from the wood to which the bridge is attached is heard. This would mean that using a nice, expensive tonewood for the wings would almost be a waste. Before I found this post I thought neck-thru was going to be the way I wanted to construct my axe, as in terms of neck construction, it seemed the easiest option. Creating a strong neck pocket and then drilling the appropriate holes for the bolts seems to be a falling-point for me. This is where my first attempt has failed. Here is the main part of the post that got me thinking about how I should now construct the neck:

"R.M. Mottola recently released a very well executed and controlled study on the single aspect of sustain on different neck joints. It's published in issue #91 of American Lutherie, the quarterly journal of the Guild of American Luthiers. I myself approached the study with a healthy skepticism, but he really covered his bases and kept it very well controlled, well documented, well established standard deviations, overall with very very few variables left to chance.

His results showed consistently the bolt on neck joint having greatest sustain, glued joint placing second, and neck through construction placing last. Looking back at his results, it really makes perfect sense. Take a while to study bar vibrations, how waves can be absorbed, transferred, interrupted and reflected, and dampened. It does make perfect sense that any act of interrupting the bar system of neck to bridge, via density or stiffness change of a glue joint, to that plus the mass, transmission through, etc., of metals in a bolt on joint would impede the damping of the neck body system, thereby increasing sustain.

The results were slight enough that no one involved in the study could claim to actually hear a difference, but they showed up consistently in spectrum analysis programs. I would love to see some peer revue studies to confirm or challenge these results, but both the reasoning and the results are both quite compelling. At the very least, this test helps make the idea of the neck joint's effects on sustain as insignificant or negligible harder to contest than before.

Assumptions I've heard to the contrary are based almost entirely on correlation, and have done nothing to eliminate or minimize variables. You can't compare an ash/maple Fender to a mahogany/mahogany/maple Gibson, to a maple/alder Carvin, with their near endless other variables and make a sound conclusion that the neck joint has any effect on their differences in tone or sustain.

As to ease of manufacturing, there are a number of aspects. The bolt on style is hard to beat in both manufacturing and serviceability. Machining, storage, finishing, it's hard to beat. Plus any time a company can make a system more modular, it saves on liability. A pitch pocket pops up in finish sanding, or anything incidental happens to any part of an instrument and all that is lost is that part. Grab another neck and move on.

Glued neck joints loose a bit on being service friendly, but they are still a bit more serviceable than a neck through. I have a 335 in the shop I'm replacing the neck on right now. They also loose something in ease of manufacture and the convenience of modular design, but only in the later half of construction. I know from Roger Fritz when he headed the Gibson repair shop though, that they spent an incredible amount of time and money on new instrument repair, compared to Fender who would simply grab a new neck or body if anything happened.

The other aspect of manufacturing that many don't think of is wood supply and yield. You are going to get a lot more yield and a lot less waste if you only need 26" continuous of clean 4/4 flatsawn maple, as opposed to 40 clean continuous inches of 8/4 maple. This can add up when a company is buying 10,000 board foot loads of rock maple.

If we're talking about why they were never as popular as other styles historically, it's important to remember that we're talking about businesses and factories here. You're more likely to find the answers by looking at convenient and cheap material sources, standard tooling, and market demands of an era or region, than in the ideals of an individual luthier. If there was not a major market demand, or at least a foreseeable niche market to corner, what motivation would a manufacturer have to go this route? Even if it were only a little bit more work, shop space, tooling, and materials cost to make a neck through, and no significant benefit to profit in the end, why bother? There have always been those isolated markets and manufacturers looking for a way to distinguish their product, but they have always been relatively small in relation to the bulk of instruments sold.

And though I'm talking about factories while the main question was about small builders, it's still very pertinent because those large producers set the stage. They create the standard that the majority of players become conditioned to, most buyers hold other instruments in reference to. And since the majority of small and custom builders still don't fall too far from the general market style, small shops don't have a huge motivation to build them either. I've built neck throughs, and I've built bolt ons, and I can tell you I'd rather build bolt ons. If they sell as easily as a neck through (and if I don't have any idealistic attachment to either style), it's a no-brainer. That's the best perspective I can give to the original question.

As to playability issues, I've always been fine with upper frets on a bolt on. I'm not a shredder, maybe I'd think differently if I was. As the market goes however, if you go down the list of all legendary iconic players, listen to what they could play, and count how many played neck throughs, I think you would find many did what they did just fine without. Not saying they're not useful for some styles, but most players don't feel they need it. Most buyers are influenced in their instrument choice at least in part by their idols and influences
."

So you can see now where my concern is, and I am a little confused. Everything I had cnvinced myself of has been flipped upside-down.

My only other pondering is the style of bridge to go for. The Korina Explorer I tried was a normal style stop tail. (Tune-o-matic?) But I'm wondering still what is the best construction at this end to get the most out of my chosen timber. Would it be best to use the Tune-o-matic style, where the strings are fed through the bridge itself and don't go anywhere near the body? Or a Thru-body construction, where the strings are fed through the back of the body and the spools are mounted inside the metal tubing (if you get what I mean...I'm rubbish at explaining this stuff, hehe). So Luthier opinions would also be appreciated here.

Apart from that, sitting down and reading through Hisc--k's book is really opening my eyes where different constructions are concerned, and actually making things seem a whole lot easier and more possible with the tools I have available to me.

Nadz1lla

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 1465
    • Arcanum Plectra
Re: A Tone-Seeker's Diary (sort of)
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2009, 05:46:41 PM »
Oh man, the forum censored Melvyn's surname! :?  :lol:

Another entry here. I was really worried about making my own fingerboard, until I found this puppy:
http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Bodies,_necks,_wood/Electric_guitar:_Fingerboards/Fender_Scale_Compound_Radius_Fingerboard.html

This comes in a variety of scales, so until I find the courage to make my own, I think this is a great solution for us budding axe-makers! Of course, if anyone more experienced here has an opinion on these it would be greatly appreciated!

WezV

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
    • http://wezvenables.co.uk
Re: A Tone-Seeker's Diary (sort of)
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2009, 08:33:18 PM »
stop ya jabbering and build a guitar, then another, then another.... you will soon get a feel for what you need to worry about and what you dont - and you will soon develop your own ideas abotu what works best with your building style

I cant really say whether bolt-ons , through or set necks have more sustain - i can say its hard to make a well constructed guitar that lacks sustain, whichever method you choose

Quote
after seeing some posts on another forum, I'm getting the impression that, actually, bolt-on has the least detrimental affect on tone. It was argued that, with a neck-thru, laminating several different pieces of wood together to construct the neck and wings can lose some of the tone from the wood,


or you could approach it from a different angle... instead of having one overriding flavour you construct a balanced tone from a few flavours.  personally i love doing laminated though necks.  in no way do these lack tone or musicality, although they may lack that specific flavour you associate with one specific wood!!!

Quote
in effect, only the tone from the wood to which the bridge is attached is heard. This would mean that using a nice, expensive tonewood for the wings would almost be a waste.


its true the neck wood is most important in the tone of a through neck - but the wings do have a dramatic effect.   Thats because whatever you stick onto the neck blank affects the way the neck blank vibrates.  Imagine sticking rubber wings onto the neck section - i am fairly sure it would kill all vibration dead.  imagine sticking a heavy dense rings like a bell like peice of wood onto it - is that not going to change the vibration of that centre section ???

Nadz1lla

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 1465
    • Arcanum Plectra
Re: A Tone-Seeker's Diary (sort of)
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2009, 09:01:41 PM »
Aye well that's what I originally thought to be honest. Maybe I didn't read it correctly, but the chap who posted that seemed to think that it was detrimental to the overall tonal quality. I am really tempted to do a thru-neck anyway as they seem, to me anyway, the easiest to construct, but as I say, maybe that's because of my disasterous experience trying to carve out a neck pocket.  :lol:

WezV

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
    • http://wezvenables.co.uk
Re: A Tone-Seeker's Diary (sort of)
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2009, 09:37:52 PM »
there is always personal preference and some people simply dont like a certain construction style...

.. unfortunately some of these people may also be the kind of forum trolls that claim their personal preference is gospel truth.

i like through necks, but they are not for everyone - my second guitar was one and it is an easy way to build guitars... as long as you understand neck angles and how wires are going to travel through a solid block of wood


Oli

  • Lightweight
  • ***
  • Posts: 915
Re: A Tone-Seeker's Diary (sort of)
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2009, 11:27:02 PM »
Aye well that's what I originally thought to be honest. Maybe I didn't read it correctly, but the chap who posted that seemed to think that it was detrimental to the overall tonal quality. I am really tempted to do a thru-neck anyway as they seem, to me anyway, the easiest to construct, but as I say, maybe that's because of my disasterous experience trying to carve out a neck pocket.  :lol:

If you do go for neck-through, then plan everything out way in advance- little things like installing side dots need to be done before you stick the fretboard on really, as once it's on, you can't drill at the correct angle (unless you manage to find a 7" long 2mm diameter drill bit!). Working out what you've got to do turn planks of wood into a guitar can really help the process along :)
Nailbomb, VHII, Warpig 7, MQ, Black Dog, 10th Anniversary

WezV

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
    • http://wezvenables.co.uk
Re: A Tone-Seeker's Diary (sort of)
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2009, 11:34:44 PM »
you know what oli, on almost every neck through i have built i have forgotten to drill the side dots till it was later than ideal.

its never been much of an issue to get a dot in there - but i think i had already done it on a few dotless classical/acoustic/odd & old (hesistant to say vintage) guitars before even building a complete guitar

anyway, the point is that planning each stage will make everything a lot easier!!!