Fender custom shop rumour—is this true?

stonevibe

WezV said:

stonevibe said:

I have often found a lot of lightweight guitars, just don't sustain very well by themselves. Sure, if an amp is turned up and they feedback they will. Just on their own and clean they lack note definition and don't seem to sustain very well, compared to heavier guitars of a similar build.

two approaches for me, with a million different results.  



approach one - build things heavy like an 80's yamaha SG1000.    the solidness means you get a pure string sustaining for longer.   also a faster attack up front and a gradual decay with little colouration

Approach two - build it light.   the strings will vibrate the body more at the start giving a different attack.   As the note decays the body vibrations will feed back into the string, it sustains, but the decay is more complex and coloured.



obviously its a hell of a lot more complex than that, i hope the forum pedants (and  actual physics experts) can except that  

I'd agree with those two statements and it makes sense that a lighter guitar would feed back some of the energy, just it is very weak compared to not losing the energy as quickly in the first place.

But, I only ever bolt together lumps of wood. I don't build guitars from scratch, so my knowledge on building guitars is strictly caveman at best.

ICBM

WezV said:

approach one - build things heavy like an 80's yamaha SG1000.    the solidness means you get a pure string sustaining for longer.   also a faster attack up front and a gradual decay with little colouration

Approach two - build it light.   the strings will vibrate the body more at the start giving a different attack.   As the note decays the body vibrations will feed back into the string, it sustains, but the decay is more complex and coloured.

obviously its a hell of a lot more complex than that, i hope the forum pedants (and  actual physics experts) can except that

I think that's a very good basic generalisation.

guitars4you

Alex2678 said:

Bit of a tangent maybe but I can say for certain I’ve experienced the exact opposite - I had a one of the new (2019) SG standard ‘61s, and returned it because when I hit an E anywhere on the neck the guitar vibrated in a pulsating kind of way, and the note immediately died and left a harmonic ringing. Press the headstock against something hard, problem solved, take it away, problem returned.

Not unusual to get dead spots and or such sympathetic resonant issues - I don't mean it happens all the time - Early PRS Custom 24's with the small body/neck join are renowned for the odd dead spot at the 12th or above - Often on the B string - First time I noticed it I thought it might be a high fret - I raised the action to take the fret out of the equation - I even changed the saddle - The problem was always there - Only later did I find out about the small heel

When you put the headstock against say the table/wall you are adding mass to the guitar - That was the idea of the brass 'Fat Finger' - To help eliminate such issues - Better guys on here than me can say why, but some will tell you the depth of the headstock, as well as the pitch angle, will have an impact on such issues - I've heard stories that original 59 LP's have a variation in this headstock depth and it can impact on the tone/sustain 

fretmeister

Yamaha and Sandberg have been doing this for years.

Yamaha does it on some high end signature model basses and Sandberg do it as part of the 'masterpiece' aging process they offer - on any model a customer orders.

guitars4you

ICBM said:

WezV said:

approach one - build things heavy like an 80's yamaha SG1000.    the solidness means you get a pure string sustaining for longer.   also a faster attack up front and a gradual decay with little colouration

Approach two - build it light.   the strings will vibrate the body more at the start giving a different attack.   As the note decays the body vibrations will feed back into the string, it sustains, but the decay is more complex and coloured.

obviously its a hell of a lot more complex than that, i hope the forum pedants (and  actual physics experts) can except that

I think that's a very good basic generalisation.

Agree but maybe answers why certain 'metal' players like Zakk Wylde like heavy guitars, often LP Customs - Cut thru' more with saturated gain and often more articulation - I know an ebony board also comes into play 

Rock/blues players like a lighter 'Standard' as more going on - More open + warm !

guitars4you

WezV said:

approach one - build things heavy like an 80's yamaha SG1000.    the solidness means you get a pure string sustaining for longer.   also a faster attack up front and a gradual decay with little colouration

I've owned a 78 SG for 42 years now - I've tried every PAF pick-up under the sun to try and get it warmer, more lush and less of that initial 'harsh' attack - With no joy - Obviously it is part of the guitars make up - You can see why some 'punk' based guys liked them at the time - But I want it to be more Kossoff - Yet I'll never sell it, for various reasons - I don't gig now, but in the day, if I did 3 x 40/60 min slots then the SG never came out for the final slot - Just to to heavy 

Philly_Q

ICBM said:

WezV said:

approach one - build things heavy like an 80's yamaha SG1000.    the solidness means you get a pure string sustaining for longer.   also a faster attack up front and a gradual decay with little colouration

Approach two - build it light.   the strings will vibrate the body more at the start giving a different attack.   As the note decays the body vibrations will feed back into the string, it sustains, but the decay is more complex and coloured.

obviously its a hell of a lot more complex than that, i hope the forum pedants (and  actual physics experts) can except that

I think that's a very good basic generalisation.

Without getting into the science - I neither know nor care about the science - that's exactly how it "feels" to me.  Approach two suits me better, but I can understand why people advocate Yamaha SGs and LP Customs.

EricTheWeary

fretmeister said:

Yamaha and Sandberg have been doing this for years.

Yamaha does it on some high end signature model basses and Sandberg do it as part of the 'masterpiece' aging process they offer - on any model a customer orders.

I was just flicking through to see if anyone had mentioned Yamaha; not a new thing. 

Carl Verheyen did something in GP many years ago about his guitars resonating in different keys. So he had a strat that sounded best in G, a strat that sounded best in A, etc, etc. Like many of these things I never really know if it's a failure of my ears or just someone with more money than sense talking bollocks.  

March

That Custom Shop video has brought back memories of a late January day in 2014 over in California going through Ron Thorn's wood tent sorting and eventually picking out pieces of wood for what became my Thorn DeLuxe 90. Ron had been a friend for years, so it was great finally commiting to having him build a guitar for me, but also get his insight into what, for him, works and does not work. With instruments there are many symbiotic relationships going on. Being a nerd, I find it all fascinating.

Philly_Q

EricTheWeary said:
Carl Verheyen did something in GP many years ago about his guitars resonating in different keys. So he had a strat that sounded best in G, a strat that sounded best in A, etc, etc. Like many of these things I never really know if it's a failure of my ears or just someone with more money than sense talking bollocks.  

I think I read that.  He also said something about setting up a Strat's spring claw and tremolo springs in a certain way, and said you could tell a good guitar by playing an open B string and feeling the body resonance somewhere down near the jack socket.

It may all be shite but I took the B string thing to heart.  

WezV

EricTheWeary said:

fretmeister said:

Yamaha and Sandberg have been doing this for years.

Yamaha does it on some high end signature model basses and Sandberg do it as part of the 'masterpiece' aging process they offer - on any model a customer orders.

I was just flicking through to see if anyone had mentioned Yamaha; not a new thing. 

Carl Verheyen did something in GP many years ago about his guitars resonating in different keys. So he had a strat that sounded best in G, a strat that sounded best in A, etc, etc. Like many of these things I never really know if it's a failure of my ears or just someone with more money than sense talking bollocks.  

And this is part of the issue.... do you want a guitar to vibrate best in certain keys or specific notes?

you run a real risk of certain notes jumping out more than others.   But that's part of the science of tap tuning and not really needed in depth here.

this is a great book on the subject, mainly focused on acoustics
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Luthiers-Handbook-Building-Acoustic-Instruments/dp/0634014684


99.999999999% of great guitars were built with no thought about this at all

WezV

this is what i wrote in M&M recently
https://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/191246/potential-partscaster-what-are-the-dangers#latest

WezV said:

ryanverbena said:

I've heard people talk about matching the right neck to with the right body etc, was wondering if anyone had any experience in this or could offer advice 

I'm not going to write the concept off totally, but its definitely at the thin end of the wedge in terms of things you should be worrying about

It totally true that some necks and bodies will resonate better together than others, but its equally true that 99.99999999999% of guitars are put together with no consideration of this.  That makes it true that most great sounding guitars in the world are made without worrying about it.

When building from scratch i do try and match pieces of wood i think will go well together, but any tonal implication of this is pure guesswork on my part.  Weight and appearance are more important factors.  I wouldn't want a heavy neck on light body, or a fretboard colour that does not suit my chosen body colour.  IF you go with classic wood choices its hard to go wrong.   I keep tapping the wood anyway, and hopefully after another hundred guitars or so I may be able to say its guesswork backed up with significant experience. 

If I wanted to tighten that up, I could start measuring resonant frequencies of each wood blank and the completed body and necks they produce, maybe compare it to some great vintage examples.  Then i could use those results to set my matching criteria.   I seriously doubt this is actually happening when a custom shop claims to be matching bodies and necks, be nice to be wrong though.  

TINMAN82

WezV said:

99.999999999% of great guitars where built with no thought about this at all

This is the bottom line.

thegummy

That marketing video definitely seems to have worked with the people on here.

Bork

stonevibe said:

Surely, you want the strings to vibrate and not the body and neck?

A perfectly stiff body and neck make for a characterless instrument.  You can judge yourself on laminated bass necks.  The more laminations there are, the more similar that instruments from different makers sound.   A limited variety of materials, with all the imperfections they carry, offer timbre of varying qualities.  Some which are highly pleasing to the ear and body.  Concrete and metal instruments have been made along with composite and there is such a thing as making an instrument TOO stiff.  It results in something that can sound pretty brittle.  As the other end of the spectrum you can end up with an instrument that sounds muffled or the neck is covered in deadspots.

ICBM said:

If you do that you get essentially a Steinberger... something which works perfectly well - excellently, in fact - but has no 'character' to the sound, you just hear the strings. 

Ah...just spotted this after typing the above - nice to see someone agreeing with me...or am I agreeing with them...?  Anyways,  Alembic based their marketing in the seventies on isolating the string vibration as much from the wood as possible.  Its why the string never actually comes into contact with wood, there's always brass in the way and, indeed, a massive brass sustain block under the string saddle at the bridge.  They even went as far as to offer graphite necked options in the late seventies and early eighties but the QC became a bit hit and miss.

Bork

Alex2678 said:

Bit of a tangent maybe but I can say for certain I’ve experienced the exact opposite - I had a one of the new (2019) SG standard ‘61s, and returned it because when I hit an E anywhere on the neck the guitar vibrated in a pulsating kind of way, and the note immediately died and left a harmonic ringing. Press the headstock against something hard, problem solved, take it away, problem returned.

This is because the resonant frequency of the instrument overlapped with the harmonic content of the note you played.   All materials have a frequency at which they vibrate.  It's why some opera singers can smash wine glasses by yelling in a controlled way...or sometimes, not even opera singers, just loud shriekers.   The trick with building any musical instrument is to raise the resonance peak beyond (either above or below) the point where we are likely to notice it.  Neck stiffness is one way to sort it out and a change in mass (anyone remember Fatheads?) is another.   Even a tweak on the truss rod can sometimes help with moving deadspots around the neck a bit.   

 Pickups have a resonancy peak as well BTW.   The art of building a good guitar is knowing how to exploit this resonancy characteristic in ALL the materials to get a pleasing outcome.   Generally the builder who develops their product with a limited range of materials over a long period is more likely to know how to get a particular timbre.  Paul Reed Smith is a classic case and probably Ken Smith as well.  They've based the core tone of their instruments in the characteristics of certain materials and can vary the others a little for aesthetic impact.  But they don't screw around with the key essentials any more than a chef would screw around with the key essentials for their signature dish.

WezV

Whitecat said:

watched it now.   its a good vid for showing why its important.   But is is a long way from the suggestion in the OP of a resonance machine for matching parts. What we see in the video is educated guesswork on what parts will work well together.   a learnt skill rather than a science.

I think the resonance machine is a fun idea though.   Imagine the ££££ they could add to a historic strat replica if they could say the body and necks resonance accurately matched to the original item.   You have to wonder if they would sacrifice an aesthetic match of similar grain for the tonal match of a similar resonance.  I would be interested purely for the science, but i bet a lot would love, and pay dearly, for something like that.   They still wouldn't sound like their heroes 

thegummy

WezV said:

watched it now.   its a good vid for showing why its important.   But is is a long way from the suggestion in the OP of a resonance machine for matching parts. What we see in the video is educated guesswork on what parts will work well together.   a learnt skill rather than a science.

I think the resonance machine is a fun idea though.   Imagine the ££££ they could add to a historic strat replica if they could say the body and necks resonance accurately matched to the original item.   You have to wonder if they would sacrifice an aesthetic match of similar grain for the tonal match of a similar resonance.  I would be interested purely for the science, but i bet a lot would love, and pay dearly, for something like that.   They still wouldn't sound like their heroes 

There's no resonator machine and there's no talk of specific pitches so it doesn't really validate anything about the bloke down the pub's claim.

It's really doesn't show why it's important at all though - it shows that they claim to sit tapping pieces of wood and choose pieces based on that and that they claim other companies don't do that. It doesn't show anything about how that affects the actual guitar, just some theory he claims.

I see nothing more than a marketing video to make people think they put more effort in to making better guitars than other manufacturers. And I'm surprised how well it seems to have worked.

WezV

I agree about the marketing fluff, and yes, it would be nice to see it translated to finished instruments.   All possible, as is actual resonace matching

fretmeister

WezV said:

I agree about the marketing fluff, and yes, it would be nice to see it translated to finished instruments.   All possible, as is actual resonace matching

I'm a big fan of Sandberg basses and at some point I will no doubt end up with one that has had the full treatment, but whether I'll also have an untreated but otherwise identical one at the same time to A/B...