Fender custom shop rumour—is this true?

soma1975

Have they got the machine yet that proves once and for all whether your vintage trem plate is touching the mounting screws?

CarbonCopy

I'm struggling to get my head around round this! If the necks have different scale lengths how are they interchangeable on the body, unless the bridge is moved and what difference does having an extra fret make?

ICBM said

I don't have much scientific evidence for it, but I do have one very clear example... at one time I owned two vintage short-scale Fenders, a '64 Duo-Sonic II (24" scale) and a '65 Musicmaster II (22.5" scale). You might not realise this but the necks are interchangeable, due to the 24" scale also having an extra fret - Fender did that on purpose to make it possible to mass-produce both sizes with fewer parts.

CarbonCopy

CarbonCopy said:

I'm struggling to get my head around round this! If the necks have different scale lengths how are they interchangeable on the body, unless the bridge is moved and what difference does having an extra fret make?

ICBM said

I don't have much scientific evidence for it, but I do have one very clear example... at one time I owned two vintage short-scale Fenders, a '64 Duo-Sonic II (24" scale) and a '65 Musicmaster II (22.5" scale). You might not realise this but the necks are interchangeable, due to the 24" scale also having an extra fret - Fender did that on purpose to make it possible to mass-produce both sizes with fewer parts.

Ignore me, just worked it out!

ICBM

CarbonCopy said:

Ignore me, just worked it out! 

Yes, it is quite non-intuitive at first, not helped by the position markers confusing things... but as you've now realised, the extra fret is at the other end .

They correlate so perfectly that when I swapped the necks I didn't even have to adjust the intonation on either guitar - not that it would have helped them sound better.

You could actually convert either of them to a 25.5" scale as well, if you had a 23-fret neck - which of course they never made, but they used the same fret spacing calculations for all the guitars and just added or subtracted frets at each end as necessary.

CarbonCopy

ICBM said:

CarbonCopy said:

Ignore me, just worked it out! 

Yes, it is quite non-intuitive at first, not helped by the position markers confusing things... but as you've now realised, the extra fret is at the other end .

They correlate so perfectly that when I swapped the necks I didn't even have to adjust the intonation on either guitar - not that it would have helped them sound better.

You could actually convert either of them to a 25.5" scale as well, if you had a 23-fret neck - which of course they never made, but they used the same fret spacing calculations for all the guitars and just added or subtracted frets at each end as necessary.

Interesting! I agree with your opinion on the neck and body needing to work together to make a great guitar. I've only ever put together one guitar from parts and it sounded dreadful, even though the parts should have combined to make a reasonably good guitar (80s Squier Japan neck, USA deluxe body, Wilkinson trem, Seymour Duncan pickups, Gotoh tuners).

koneguitarist

This is exactly why ‘tone‘ wood is a myth. 

Two maple necks built exactly same way with same materials can sound different. 

I think the most important thing is how does the guitar resonate unplugged, does it feel nice. I went to buy my first Tele almost 40 years ago, seven in the shop, my old man told me not to plug them in but play them acoustically. They all sound different unplugged, get the one that feels right to you. 

Going back to resonance machine, I remember Kaman who made the Ovation guitars, vibrate the wood tops using a machine to make it sound like it’s been played for 20 years. 

If an old acoustic is not played for a long time it will stiffen up and sound lifeless. Guitars are meant to be played and in doing so they resonate, some more than others. 

francer

ThePrettyDamned 

Totally. I pretty much think the neck rules mostly, the recent concrete guitar build indicates a strat will still sound broadly stratty no matter the material of the body. 

Are you sure? Maybe the pickups and electronics have something to with it. Considering Jazzmaster and Tele both have the same scale length as a Strat you are suggesting the character of strattiness lives in the headstock shape?

stratology

koneguitarist said:

This is exactly why ‘tone‘ wood is a myth. 

Two maple necks built exactly same way with same materials can sound different. 

I think the most important thing is how does the guitar resonate unplugged, does it feel nice.

And even that can be changed with the set-up. I heard from a few builders - and verified by trying  - that when you have a bolt on guitar with the neck screwed on as tightly as possible, and loosen the screws by 1/4 to 1/2 turn, the guitar resonates better, comes alive. Totally counter-intuitive. 

Bork

koneguitarist said:

This is exactly why ‘tone‘ wood is a myth. 

Two maple necks built exactly same way with same materials can sound different. 

Actually, the idea that 'tone' is in the fingers is just as much of a myth. 

There is enough variation within one tree in some species  (like swamp ash) for there to be significant differences.  But there again, there are still general differences which can be relied on to a point e.g. maple vs mahogany.    It'll never be possible to scientifically measure those differences but they're prominent to anyone with a degree of sensitivity to timbre.   And yeah we also all know it's possible to change the timbre with fingers too.  It's an open field .  All part of the same whole not two sides. 

WezV

Bork said:

koneguitarist said:

This is exactly why ‘tone‘ wood is a myth. 

Two maple necks built exactly same way with same materials can sound different. 

Actually, the idea that 'tone' is in the fingers is just as much of a myth. 

There is enough variation within one tree in some species  (like swamp ash) for there to be significant differences.  But there again, there are still general differences which can be relied on to a point e.g. maple vs mahogany.    It'll never be possible to scientifically measure those differences but they're prominent to anyone with a degree of sensitivity to timbre.   And yeah we also all know it's possible to change the timbre with fingers too.  It's an open field .  All part of the same whole not two sides. 

For me, "Tonewood" is a very useful way for grading things like acoustics soundboards, where its not just the species, but some defined properties that make it a tonewood.    For a nice bit of spruce that is sold as AAA tonewood i should expect it to quartersawn, straight tight grain, knot free, consistent colour etc.  If its A or AA grade it may have most of those, but not all.


With electrics is important to realise "tonewood" just means the species has been used for guitars at some point in the last 70 years.   it tells you nothing about the grade or properties of an individual piece.    

You can generalize what species might sound like, but there will always be massive variation within that


easy for guitarists, play them and see what you like!

WezV

stratology said:

koneguitarist said:

This is exactly why ‘tone‘ wood is a myth. 

Two maple necks built exactly same way with same materials can sound different. 

I think the most important thing is how does the guitar resonate unplugged, does it feel nice.

And even that can be changed with the set-up. I heard from a few builders - and verified by trying  - that when you have a bolt on guitar with the neck screwed on as tightly as possible, and loosen the screws by 1/4 to 1/2 turn, the guitar resonates better, comes alive. Totally counter-intuitive. 

That often does work, but why is it counter-intuitive that modifying the fit between separate parts can improve (Edit: change) the way a guitar sounds (edit: resonates)?   

The wood its made from is just one factor, fit of parts is another

JayGee

stratology said:

koneguitarist said:

This is exactly why ‘tone‘ wood is a myth. 

Two maple necks built exactly same way with same materials can sound different. 

I think the most important thing is how does the guitar resonate unplugged, does it feel nice.

And even that can be changed with the set-up. I heard from a few builders - and verified by trying  - that when you have a bolt on guitar with the neck screwed on as tightly as possible, and loosen the screws by 1/4 to 1/2 turn, the guitar resonates better, comes alive. Totally counter-intuitive. 

Not at all counter intuitive. Consider the neck and body as two independent resonant bodies coupled by the neck joint, if you loosen and tighten the screws then you are changing how tightly coupled the two parts are, allowing a greater or lesser degree of relative movement, as you loosen the screws you allow them to resonate independently rather than as a whole.

Actually makes perfect sense to me. At the risk of reopening the can of worms which is neck shimming there’s probably a whole bunch of stuff you could do with introducing different materials into the joint to introduce controlled amounts of damping too...

TINMAN82

JayGee said:

as you loosen the screws you allow them to resonate independently rather than as a whole.

Apologies for my cynicism but it seems that this notion and much of the content of this thread is hocus, at least as it applies to the solid body electric guitar. To my knowledge, its pretty well accepted that a strong dovetail or bolt on neck couple is desirable in acoustic guitar build. Yet loosening a couple of screws on a strat neck- where tone is mainly coming from the electronics/ pickups/ amp anyway- will improve the tone in an appreciable, consistent way? I call BS.

Many will espouse that "tone is in the fingers" and largely independent of gear. The same or other commentators will point to anecdotal (ie small sample size) evidence that a strat sounds like a strat if made of concrete.

I've tapped my strat all over the neck or body and the resonance changes depending on where I tap on either part. I assume partscaster builders tapping their prospective bits of wood have decided where to tap and compare. Better still, get some really good sounding pickups....

ICBM

TINMAN82 said:

To my knowledge, its pretty well accepted that a strong dovetail or bolt on neck couple is desirable in acoustic guitar build.

I'm just going to have to post this pic again .



These guitars sound great, and there is no join between the neck and body at all, just the three (brass) points of contact. That doesn't mean that the resonances of the neck and body - which both ends of the strings are attached to - don't interact, but the idea that "tone" is a property of transfer of vibration *through the neck joint* is clearly unrelated to how tightly the two pieces are joined together.

TINMAN82

ICBM said:

TINMAN82 said:

To my knowledge, its pretty well accepted that a strong dovetail or bolt on neck couple is desirable in acoustic guitar build.

I'm just going to have to post this pic again .



These guitars sound great, and there is no join between the neck and body at all, just the three (brass) points of contact. That doesn't mean that the resonances of the neck and body - which both ends of the strings are attached to - don't interact, but the idea that "tone" is a property of transfer of vibration *through the neck joint* is clearly unrelated to how tightly the two pieces are joined together.

This isolated photo (of whatever that is) doesn’t support the notion of loosening the bolts on a strat neck. I could post a photo of Willie Nelsons “trigger” with holes all over the soundboard...that wouldn’t prove much about electric guitars either.

I mentioned “strong” neck joint in relation to acoustic builds (to my knowledge neither of us are luthiers). I have no reason to believe that the neck join in your photo is anything less than strong. A slotted headstock is often stiffer than a non slotted headstock. 

WezV

for me,  I accept the topics of conversation may be the same with acoustics, but the methods and results are not.

TThe standard joins we see are very different neck joints for very different reasons, once you get past simply being strong enough to resist string tension.   

The problem is people want to see this in terms of right or wrong design decisions.   its not that simple.  

There is a strong argument for a decoupled acoustic neck, to allow the sound box to do its own thing



I recently posted a Schorr design, which is an electric version of the acoustics join @ICBM posted above
 


I try to maximize the surface in my electric joins, Schorr go the opposite way.  both approaches will work, but results will be different

Im also making more acoustic style instruments with electric style joins  and i can  tell you the result is very different to a standard acoustic

Jez6345789

I do think there is probably some science to explain the resonance thing if everything attached to the string is a filter that changes or absorbs certain frequencies then it makes some basic sense to have neck and body resonating in sympathy or is that not the winning combination one presumes that if you have a really resonant guitar there is less cancellation of certain frequencies or that cancellation is slowed but the real question is a good guitar one that works in perfect harmony or one that is dampening certain frequencies quicker. 

Also if there was a machine at Fender custom shop the world would know about it. 

I was under the impression that yes they have their own machines in the custom shop which they use for the elite and artist stuff but as so much out of Fender is branded custom shop these days most of it is bodies and necks produced on the line then given a bit of extra fit and finish through the custom shop. Or they will do a run of neck profiles for certain models thru the line. I have not looked for a while but last video I watched there was certainly not the machinery to turn out the number of instruments with Custom Shop stickers being produced. Happy to be corrected by people who know when I did a factory tour in 2012 they had some Jazz Master necks being glued up with fantastic looking rosewood with strong yellow streaks. I asked the guy glueing them up and loading them into the firehose press thing said they are pretty, maybe I need to get a Jazzmaster he happily said all these are for custom shop. 

ICBM

TINMAN82 said:

This isolated photo (of whatever that is) doesn’t support the notion of loosening the bolts on a strat neck. I could post a photo of Willie Nelsons “trigger” with holes all over the soundboard...that wouldn’t prove much about electric guitars either.

I mentioned “strong” neck joint in relation to acoustic builds (to my knowledge neither of us are luthiers). I have no reason to believe that the neck join in your photo is anything less than strong. A slotted headstock is often stiffer than a non slotted headstock. 

It's a Howe-Orme neck joint, which is used by Nigel Forster on some of his very high-end acoustics.

I'm certainly not saying they sound the same or that electric and acoustic guitars need the same approaches, but what both the Forster/Howe-Orme joint and the Schorr joint WezV showed both conclusively prove is that "vibration transfer" through "full contact" in the neck joint is not necessary for resonance or good tone, which it's often claimed to be by electric guitarists.

The Howe-Orme joint is not 'strong' at all, by the way - if there's no string tension the neck simply comes off.

TINMAN82

ICBM said:

TINMAN82 said:

This isolated photo (of whatever that is) doesn’t support the notion of loosening the bolts on a strat neck. I could post a photo of Willie Nelsons “trigger” with holes all over the soundboard...that wouldn’t prove much about electric guitars either.

I mentioned “strong” neck joint in relation to acoustic builds (to my knowledge neither of us are luthiers). I have no reason to believe that the neck join in your photo is anything less than strong. A slotted headstock is often stiffer than a non slotted headstock. 

It's a Howe-Orme neck joint, which is used by Nigel Forster on some of his very high-end acoustics.

I'm certainly not saying they sound the same or that electric and acoustic guitars need the same approaches, but what both the Forster/Howe-Orme joint and the Schorr joint WezV showed both conclusively prove is that "vibration transfer" through "full contact" in the neck joint is not necessary for resonance or good tone, which it's often claimed to be by electric guitarists.

The Howe-Orme joint is not 'strong' at all, by the way - if there's no string tension the neck simply comes off.

Think we’re at cross purposes and in hindsight mentioning the acoustic guitar at all muddies my point about the solid body electric. 

That said, there is an accepted “gold standard” to compare against (relevant for those that keep referring to science and physics). That gold standard is an acoustic with a solid neck join. That’s the sound we‘ve largely enjoyed in recorded music. The design you’ve demonstrated is a niche outlier. A photo doesn’t prove its distinguishable in a blinded listening test.

I’m not suggesting that fundamentally redesigning a guitar (especially an acoustic) with the express purpose of changing its tone won’t make a difference. I don’t doubt it can... I can hear the difference myself between a strat and an ES335 and it’s clearly more than just the pickups.

Im raising an eyebrow at some other issues raised here in relation to “tone”. If nothing else I’d be concerned about mechanical instability and potential for damage to the wood over time (from micro movement unintended by the designer) if a strat neck is left loose.

WezV

generally speaking, acoustics are not built for long sustain, archtops certainly not.

They are built for loudness, and have to give up some sustain to get it.   A banjo is at the extreme end of this, loud but no sustain - comparable string energy to a guitar, but all used up very quickly

Electric guitars are not built for acoustic volume, they sustain differently

My recent mini archtop build has an electric style neck join... it has very good sustain