Fender custom shop rumour—is this true?

TINMAN82

Its not just this forum! Quite an interesting one this (the OPs R9 is gorgeous). 

https://www.mylespaul.com/threads/does-the-back-grain-pattern-have-any-affect-on-resonance-sustain-sound-quality-etc.446483/

WezV

TINMAN82 said:

Its not just this forum! Quite an interesting one this (the OPs R9 is gorgeous). 

https://www.mylespaul.com/threads/does-the-back-grain-pattern-have-any-affect-on-resonance-sustain-sound-quality-etc.446483/

I would say that discussing the coupling between body and neck is very different to discussing the grain pattern on the back of a les paul     

but i wouldn't write it off, just relegate it to insignificant.  the stiffness of the materials will have an impact,  that bit is true.   Wavey grained wood is less stiff than straight grained wood, that is true.   What you cant say is true is that one wavey grainy piece of wood will be less stiff than another straight grained piece of wood... because you cant say all wavey pieces have the same stiffness or all straight pieces have the same stiffness.  take it down to 3mm, and it becomes very significant (acoustics)

stratology

JayGee said:

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...

The reason I find it counter intuitive is that I would assume that a tighter fit between neck and body would allow better transmission of the vibrations.


It also makes me wonder if the same principle applies to other parts of the guitar - like how tightly a Tele bridge is screwed to the body.


Strats and Teles are, from an engineering perspective, super simple designs. Yet, take 10 Strats, even the same model, and compare them side by side, and they all sound different. Complex interactions between the parts.


BTW, I'm not saying tone wood does not matter - it's one part of a complex system. Warmoth has a video comparing the same type of body, with the exact same dimensions, with the same neck, but different body woods. Clearly audible differences, though not as large as I would have assumed.

WezV

stratology said:

The reason I find it counter intuitive is that I would assume that a tighter fit between neck and body would allow better transmission of the vibrations.

The idea of loosening and  retightening neck screws whilst under string tension is that the string tension forces the parts together whilst you tighten the bolts, giving a tighter fit

if everything fits perfectly in the first place it shouldn't make a blind bit of difference, but it often does.  

thegummy

TINMAN82 said:

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.

That's more the type of comment I'd expect to see from a scientific person.

LastMantra

LastMantra said:

I'm going to start making brass neck plates and sell them for £150 a pop 

And a special torque wrench, of course. 

Man, I was only kidding too 

TINMAN82

thegummy said:

TINMAN82 said:

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.

That's more the type of comment I'd expect to see from a scientific person.

Reluctant to go there again dude, but I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get across in that other thread. IMO science can’t be reliably applied to all aspects of what boils down to “taste” in music and art (including choice of instrument). These things don’t need to be 100% emotionally detached and logical..I’m quite glad they arn’t.

I agree that “science” could in theory prove that 2 guitars played by the same person sound close enough to be indistinguishable to the human ear. Especially if they were solid electric guitars with the same pickups. This test could reasonably include a very cheap guitar and a very expensive guitar. 

GoldenEraGuitars

Phew... took a bit of googling mind!

https://i.imgur.com/31N5b0x.jpg

stratology

TINMAN82 said:

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.

The scientific approach would be to try it out - it's easily reversible - and then find a valid, physics based explanation for what you observe.


I can perfectly relate to what you're saying - when I first heard luthiers talking about loosening the neck screws a little bit, my initial reaction was 'really???'.

jimification

I suspect the Resonance Machine is made by the same company that made TV Detector Vans in the 70's.

TINMAN82

stratology said:

TINMAN82 said:

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.

The scientific approach would be to try it out - it's easily reversible - and then find a valid, physics based explanation for what you observe.


I can perfectly relate to what you're saying - when I first heard luthiers talking about loosening the neck screws a little bit, my initial reaction was 'really???'.

That would be tinkering rather than scientific...but I have no reason to do so. If I ever get to the point where I’m loosening structural screws in a last ditch attempt to make a guitar sound better, I’ll be selling the guitar instead.

stratology

TINMAN82 said:

 If I ever get to the point where I’m loosening structural screws in a last ditch attempt to make a guitar sound better, I’ll be selling the guitar instead.

So you offer an opinion on something that not only you have not tried, but flat out refuse to try. OK.

TINMAN82

stratology said:

TINMAN82 said:

 If I ever get to the point where I’m loosening structural screws in a last ditch attempt to make a guitar sound better, I’ll be selling the guitar instead.

So you offer an opinion on something that not only you have not tried, but flat out refuse to try. OK.

Correct. There are quite a few things in life I both have an opinion on and refuse to try.

ICBM

Personally, I think it’s better to shim the neck and raise the bridge so the break angle is increased over the bridge as well, than to reverse the screws which leaves the entire string tension being supported by one screw.

thegummy

stratology said:

TINMAN82 said:

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.

The scientific approach would be to try it out - it's easily reversible - and then find a valid, physics based explanation for what you observe.


I can perfectly relate to what you're saying - when I first heard luthiers talking about loosening the neck screws a little bit, my initial reaction was 'really???'.

Some people seem to think that's scientific but it's pretty much the polar opposite.

stratology

ICBM said:

Personally, I think it’s better to shim the neck and raise the bridge so the break angle is increased over the bridge as well, than to reverse the screws which leaves the entire string tension being supported by one screw.

What I was talking about was the difference between having the screws tightened extremely tight vs. very tight, not about 'reversing'(?) anything. Maybe 1/4 turn change.


My approach:
If a guitar sounds fantastic and plays great, don't mess with it. If there's room for improvement, start with the smallest, reversible adjustments, like pickup height, potentiometer and capacitor values, etc. 

The other extreme - radical changes like removing the finish, reshaping the body, re-frets, etc. can be fun and rewarding on cheap project guitars and partscasters.

stratology

thegummy said:

Some people seem to think that's scientific but it's pretty much the polar opposite.

Not sure what you're talking about. Observing something, and then trying to explain what you observe, seems pretty basic.

Like observing the sky, followed by a hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun, followed by finding means to verify the hypothesis with reproducible tests and measurements.


Regarding guitar set up, the 'trying out to see what happens' part is pragmatic, not scientific. The science part is to measure and explain what was observed. 

thegummy

stratology said:

thegummy said:

Some people seem to think that's scientific but it's pretty much the polar opposite.

Not sure what you're talking about. Observing something, and then trying to explain what you observe, seems pretty basic.

Like observing the sky, followed by a hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun, followed by finding means to verify the hypothesis with reproducible tests and measurements.


Regarding guitar set up, the 'trying out to see what happens' part is pragmatic, not scientific. The science part is to measure and explain what was observed. 

Definitely basic but not what science is.

Science is taking a theory and finding a way to test it without being hindered by completely unreliable human perception or anything else that would get in the way of the truth.

Your suggestion was to try it out, see what you perceive then try to come up with a theory that fits with the perception. It really is the opposite of the scientific method.

An example of how science could be applied to the thing in question would be to make several recordings of the guitar with the screws tightened then make several more after loosening the screws. Whoever is playing it would try to play as similarly on all the recordings but it will vary each time, that's why there would be several of each.

Then a number of people would listen to pairs of recordings, one of each set, without knowing which was which (the most important part really) and choose which was better. As long as there were enough recordings made and enough people doing the test, if either of the sets were preferred a significant number of times then it's evidence that it really does make a difference to the sound. Note; each participant wouldn't have to choose the same setup as each other, they'd just have to pick the same one for most of the sets they rate.

BTW I'm only giving this as an example of a scientific test - I'm with @TINMAN82 in hoping I never get to the point of bothering with this kind of thing.

stratology

thegummy said:

stratology said:

thegummy said:

Some people seem to think that's scientific but it's pretty much the polar opposite.

Not sure what you're talking about. Observing something, and then trying to explain what you observe, seems pretty basic.

Like observing the sky, followed by a hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun, followed by finding means to verify the hypothesis with reproducible tests and measurements.


Regarding guitar set up, the 'trying out to see what happens' part is pragmatic, not scientific. The science part is to measure and explain what was observed. 

Definitely basic but not what science is.

Science is taking a theory and finding a way to test it without being hindered by completely unreliable human perception or anything else that would get in the way of the truth.

Your suggestion was to try it out, see what you perceive then try to come up with a theory that fits with the perception. It really is the opposite of the scientific method.

An example of how science could be applied to the thing in question would be to make several recordings of the guitar with the screws tightened then make several more after loosening the screws. Whoever is playing it would try to play as similarly on all the recordings but it will vary each time, that's why there would be several of each.

Then a number of people would listen to pairs of recordings, one of each set, without knowing which was which (the most important part really) and choose which was better. As long as there were enough recordings made and enough people doing the test, if either of the sets were preferred a significant number of times then it's evidence that it really does make a difference to the sound. Note; each participant wouldn't have to choose the same setup as each other, they'd just have to pick the same one for most of the sets they rate.

BTW I'm only giving this as an example of a scientific test - I'm with @TINMAN82 in hoping I never get to the point of bothering with this kind of thing.

Wow, bizarre. Tell any behaviour scientist, anyone researching psychology, that observation is not part of science.


You talk about scientific method, then follow up immediately by a fundamentally flawed test - recording a human playing guitar. 

To see how the test is flawed: have your test person play the same piece of music 'similarly' twice and record it, reverse the phase of one of the recordings, and do a null test. If the results do not null, the test does not work.

Then you talk about people listening and choosing - exactly the 'human perception' methodology that you dismissed 2 sentences earlier. 


Meaningful methodology would mean that you make measurements of different screw torque values, then make acoustic measurements in a controlled environment - not introducing uncontrollable variables like humans playing. Measuring frequency content, sustain, etc., rather than confirmation biassed humans listening.



Regardless of scientific methodology: if you're not interested in trying things like turning a neck screw a quarter turn, changing pick up height, trying out different string materials (nickel vs. nickel plated steel etc), why start arguing about it?

thegummy

stratology said:

thegummy said:

stratology said:

thegummy said:

Some people seem to think that's scientific but it's pretty much the polar opposite.

Not sure what you're talking about. Observing something, and then trying to explain what you observe, seems pretty basic.

Like observing the sky, followed by a hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun, followed by finding means to verify the hypothesis with reproducible tests and measurements.


Regarding guitar set up, the 'trying out to see what happens' part is pragmatic, not scientific. The science part is to measure and explain what was observed. 

Definitely basic but not what science is.

Science is taking a theory and finding a way to test it without being hindered by completely unreliable human perception or anything else that would get in the way of the truth.

Your suggestion was to try it out, see what you perceive then try to come up with a theory that fits with the perception. It really is the opposite of the scientific method.

An example of how science could be applied to the thing in question would be to make several recordings of the guitar with the screws tightened then make several more after loosening the screws. Whoever is playing it would try to play as similarly on all the recordings but it will vary each time, that's why there would be several of each.

Then a number of people would listen to pairs of recordings, one of each set, without knowing which was which (the most important part really) and choose which was better. As long as there were enough recordings made and enough people doing the test, if either of the sets were preferred a significant number of times then it's evidence that it really does make a difference to the sound. Note; each participant wouldn't have to choose the same setup as each other, they'd just have to pick the same one for most of the sets they rate.

BTW I'm only giving this as an example of a scientific test - I'm with @TINMAN82 in hoping I never get to the point of bothering with this kind of thing.

Wow, bizarre. Tell any behaviour scientist, anyone researching psychology, that observation is not part of science.


You talk about scientific method, then follow up immediately by a fundamentally flawed test - recording a human playing guitar. 

To see how the test is flawed: have your test person play the same piece of music 'similarly' twice and record it, reverse the phase of one of the recordings, and do a null test. If the results do not null, the test does not work.

Then you talk about people listening and choosing - exactly the 'human perception' methodology that you dismissed 2 sentences earlier. 


Meaningful methodology would mean that you make measurements of different screw torque values, then make acoustic measurements in a controlled environment - not introducing uncontrollable variables like humans playing. Measuring frequency content, sustain, etc., rather than confirmation biassed humans listening.



Regardless of scientific methodology: if you're not interested in trying things like turning a neck screw a quarter turn, changing pick up height, trying out different string materials (nickel vs. nickel plated steel etc), why start arguing about it?

To answer your question, I saw your post, thought "that's pretty much the exact opposite of science" but managed to refrain from commenting even though things like that do annoy me. Then I saw your reply to TINMAN82 and your attitude egged me on to point out your error.

Regarding what you've said there - either you know you don't really have knowledge of the scientific method and are just trying to come up with things to "win an argument" or you genuinely think those things for whatever reason; either way there's nothing left for me to say after my last post.