Fender custom shop rumour—is this true?

Seziertisch

The issue with doing any kind of comparison involving unscrewing, partially or otherwise, necks from bodies with
traditional Fender construction guitars is that owing to the nature of the construction (screws into wood) it is impossible to recreate the exact same connection each time. 

Every time you screw and unscrew a metal screw from a piece of wood the threads on the screw hole change and get re-formed. You do it often enough or are unlucky and the screw hole will strip.

I remember reading something from
a reputable enough luthier (Ron Kirn, maybe) where he talked about the sonic impact of simply unscrewing and rescrewing the same neck and guitar combination and how he felt that the simple act of doing this gave a different connection and sound. 

In terms of tightness of fit the trick of unscrewing the neck plate screws with the guitar strung and under tension and then retightening them works as the string tension acts to pull the neck and the body tighter than you could manage just by pressing them with you hand.

There is also a school of thought out there in guitar land regarding the impact that a thicker/heavier/stronger neckplate has on the sound of a Fender-style guitar. There are guys that swear it makes a difference, but again, replacing the neckplate involves unscrewing the neck and a thicker neckplate with the same length neck screws will definitely change the connection when reattaching.

Though it is not impossible that anything that affects the weight/density of the instrument overall might have an impact. I have put aluminium scratchplates onto guitars and found that they gave a different sound. Though that could also be down to changes to the shielding and magnetic fields of the pickups. A good illustration of this can be found here https://youtu.be/uT2sKbdZh50

thegummy

Seziertisch said:

The issue with doing any kind of comparison involving unscrewing, partially or otherwise, necks from bodies with
traditional Fender construction guitars is that owing to the nature of the construction (screws into wood) it is impossible to recreate the exact same connection each time. 

Every time you screw and unscrew a metal screw from a piece of wood the threads on the screw hole change and get re-formed. You do it often enough or are unlucky and the screw hole will strip.

I remember reading something from
a reputable enough luthier (Ron Kirn, maybe) where he talked about the sonic impact of simply unscrewing and rescrewing the same neck and guitar combination and how he felt that the simple act of doing this gave a different connection and sound. 

In terms of tightness of fit the trick of unscrewing the neck plate screws slight with the guitar under strung and under tension and then retightening them works as the string tension acts to pull the neck and the body tighter than you could manage just by pressing them with you hand.

There is also a school of thought out there in guitar land regarding the impact that a thicker/heavier/stronger neckplate has on the sound of a Fender-style guitar. There are guys that swear it makes a difference, but again, replacing the neckplate involves unscrewing the neck and a thicker neckplate with the same length neck screws will definitely change the connection when reattaching.

Though it is not impossible that anything that affects the weight/density of the instrument overall might have an impact. I have put aluminium scratchplates onto guitars and found that they gave a different sound. Though that could also be down to changes to the shielding and magnetic fields of the pickups. A good illustration of this can be found here https://youtu.be/uT2sKbdZh50

This is one of the main reasons I hate the truss rod screw at the heel of the neck - I've had to put cocktail sticks in the holes because the body itself wasn't catching due to having to unscrew and rescrew them so many times.

Only had it a few years as well, how have guitars with the truss rod screw there managed to last since the 60s?

Re: the aluminium scratch plate, I really thought that made a difference to the sound on my bass but brushed it off as being in my head. Maybe it wasn't.

Doesn't matter for me though anyway cause the feeling of my fingernails touching the aluminium is hell.

Bork

Seziertisch said:

Every time you screw and unscrew a metal screw from a piece of wood the threads on the screw hole change and get re-formed. You do it often enough or are unlucky and the screw hole will strip.

There's a word somewhere for near-metaphysical arguments that are hard to dismiss technically.  It's escaping me at the moment.   But it stuff like that which turns into urban myth and before you know it, guitar brokers are evangelising about how many times the neck has come off a particular preCBS strat they're selling before whacking on another thou or so onto the asking price.

crunchman

thegummy said:

Only had it a few years as well, how have guitars with the truss rod screw there managed to last since the 60s?

People find a setting they are happy with and leave it there.  I have an AVRI Strat that probably hasn't had a truss rod adjustment for 10 years or more.  Once a guitar settles in, it's normally pretty stable.  If you like your action really low, you may need to adjust as the seasons change, but mine is fine as is.  Maybe the action varies a little bit through the year, but it's perfectly playable all year round.

On the whole thing of whether something is scientific, it's not wrong to observe something and look for an explanation.  When an abnormally high number of cases of pneumonia started appearing in Wuhan, somebody observed it, and then they investigated and found the new virus.  Is @thegummy saying that isn't scientific?

Or Marie Curie - she started investigating an observed phenomenon.  Becquerel had discovered rays similar to X rays from Uranium salts, and Marie Curie decided to investigate.  The unexplained observation led to the scientific investigation.

If someone says that having the screws slightly less tight changes the sound, then the thing to do is to investigate that.  First, see if you can reproduce that consistently.  If you can, then come up with a hypothesis as to why, and test it.

If you haven't got the time or inclination to investigate, then fine, but it's not good form to go round rubbishing other people's observations if you haven't tested them.  Just because an observation hasn't been tested scientifically, or there isn't an accepted explanation, doesn't make the observation itself wrong.

TINMAN82

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?

I’m with @thegummy here, you’re off piste.

If I loosen a couple of screws 1/4 turn on my strat and then post here reporting a dramatic improvement in my tone (highly improbable), it’s unscientific. Due to being unblinded to what’s going on and with various biases involved (and a sample size = 1) I might hear a difference that doesn’t exist. Or hear no difference when there was a change. 

The whole premise for this was improving the tone and making a strat sound more pleasant to the human ear, player and/or listener. @thegummy suggested a properly conducted blind listening test which, albeit with potential weaknesses like most studies, would at least test the intended hypothesis. Suggesting that the best test would exclude human playing, exclude human hearing then come to any sort of useful conclusion is daft. 

As mentioned earlier I’m reluctant to mess about with neck screws unnecessarily due to potential for damaging wood over time. Given I’m very happy with how my strat sounds, I’d rather not create a looser connection that might cause structural problems.

ICBM

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.

Not sure how this ended up in this thread instead of the Jazzmaster tailpiece one...

TINMAN82

Disclaimer- mention of scientific experimentation in my own posts is purely theoretical. You’d have to be pretty anal to consider a study of guitar screw loosening to be a good use of time and resources!

So it comes back to subjective preference...thankfully. If anyone believes that backing a screw off 0.5mm improves there playing and tone, fantastic. Placebo or otherwise, I guess it’s in line with the other recent discussions about marginal/questionable gains when going CS. If it makes you happier with the instrument, you’ll probably sound better too. Anyway, I’m off to loosen the screws on my pickguard.

WezV

People have totally missed the point of the neck screw thing.   You don't play with them looser.  You loosen them slightly and retughten whilst under tension.   Its the tightening up with string tension that supposedly improves tone.

TINMAN82

WezV said:

People have totally missed the point of the neck screw thing.   You don't play with them looser.  You loosen them slightly and retughten whilst under tension.   Its the tightening up with string tension that supposedly improves tone.

There have been two different concepts mentioned. I take you’re point as described above, the point of which would be to tighten the join. If desirable, it would be in line with the more prevalent theory that body and neck are best joined tightly.

This was the initial comment that sparked the alternative theory:  “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.” As in, that person advocated leaving the screws looser.  

Bork

crunchman said:

If someone says that having the screws slightly less tight changes the sound, then the thing to do is to investigate that.  First, see if you can reproduce that consistently.  If you can, then come up with a hypothesis as to why, and test it.

If you haven't got the time or inclination to investigate, then fine, but it's not good form to go round rubbishing other people's observations if you haven't tested them.  Just because an observation hasn't been tested scientifically, or there isn't an accepted explanation, doesn't make the observation itself wrong.

Unless it's not possible to measure consistently because all the variables can't be isolated. And don't discount the importance of perception and opinion either.  That's pretty much what science is anyway, even with the measurements. 

WezV

TINMAN82 said:

WezV said:

People have totally missed the point of the neck screw thing.   You don't play with them looser.  You loosen them slightly and retughten whilst under tension.   Its the tightening up with string tension that supposedly improves tone.

There have been two different concepts mentioned. I take you’re point as described above, the point of which would be to tighten the join. If desirable, it would be in line with the more prevalent theory that body and neck are best joined tightly.

This was the initial comment that sparked the alternative theory:  “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.” As in, that person advocated leaving the screws looser.  

Never heard it that way before, just that you loosen and retighten under string tension 

Frankly, it sounds like a misquote

stratology

Bork said:

Seziertisch said:

Every time you screw and unscrew a metal screw from a piece of wood the threads on the screw hole change and get re-formed. You do it often enough or are unlucky and the screw hole will strip.

There's a word somewhere for near-metaphysical arguments that are hard to dismiss technically.  It's escaping me at the moment.   But it stuff like that which turns into urban myth and before you know it, guitar brokers are evangelising about how many times the neck has come off a particular preCBS strat they're selling before whacking on another thou or so onto the asking price.

When you get a new car tire fixed, the mechanic uses a torque wrench that clicks once the nuts are fixed with sufficient force. Nothing metaphysical about this.


There seems to be some confusion about the 'science' part. There's the common sense thing to do - try something, like adjusting pick up height - and see if you can perceive a difference. If, and only if, you hear a difference, you can develop scientific methodology to determine why there is a difference. The methodology can establish if there is a difference, but not if that difference makes a guitar sound 'better' - that is purely subjective.

stratology

Never heard it that way before, just that you loosen and retighten under string tension 

Frankly, it sounds like a misquote

He quoted me correctly, but what I was referring to was loosening the screws under string tension - sorry about not being more clear about that.

I've heard several luthiers talk about it, one I remember by name is Ben Crowe from Crimson guitars.


It is true that every time you remove a neck and re-attach it, the screw hole in the neck wears out a little bit.
That's why some guitar builders use metal screw inserts in the neck pocket instead of using wood screws.
And why headstock side truss rod adjustments and other truss rod adjustment options replaced the '50s style body side (no route) truss rod adjustment that requires to remove the neck.

thegummy

crunchman said:

thegummy said:

Only had it a few years as well, how have guitars with the truss rod screw there managed to last since the 60s?

People find a setting they are happy with and leave it there.  I have an AVRI Strat that probably hasn't had a truss rod adjustment for 10 years or more.  Once a guitar settles in, it's normally pretty stable.  If you like your action really low, you may need to adjust as the seasons change, but mine is fine as is.  Maybe the action varies a little bit through the year, but it's perfectly playable all year round.

I think the wearing of the slots on my bass has been sped up because when I switch to a different set of strings, particularly flatwounds, the truss rud has to be adjusted each time because they vary in tension.

crunchman said:

On the whole thing of whether something is scientific, it's not wrong to observe something and look for an explanation.  When an abnormally high number of cases of pneumonia started appearing in Wuhan, somebody observed it, and then they investigated and found the new virus.  Is @thegummy saying that isn't scientific?

Or Marie Curie - she started investigating an observed phenomenon.  Becquerel had discovered rays similar to X rays from Uranium salts, and Marie Curie decided to investigate.  The unexplained observation led to the scientific investigation.

If someone says that having the screws slightly less tight changes the sound, then the thing to do is to investigate that.  First, see if you can reproduce that consistently.  If you can, then come up with a hypothesis as to why, and test it.

If you haven't got the time or inclination to investigate, then fine, but it's not good form to go round rubbishing other people's observations if you haven't tested them.  Just because an observation hasn't been tested scientifically, or there isn't an accepted explanation, doesn't make the observation itself wrong.

The thing I said was the opposite of science and worthless was playing a guitar, changing something on it then playing it again and comparing what you think the difference in sound was.

I don't know what you've taken something I've said to mean that would have any connection to any of the things you ask but I'll give one more example analogy then that'll be the last thing I post here about what is and isn't scientific:

Taking your covid example - a way to test a drug that may cure covid being tested in a way analogous to the "try unscrewing it then play" method would be to give the drug to someone then asking them if they feel any better.

Of course that's not really how they are allowed to test drugs because it's not even a tiny bit reliable. They have to be tested properly using blind tests and in numbers so that meaningful trends can be separated from coincidences.

WezV

stratology said:

Never heard it that way before, just that you loosen and retighten under string tension 

Frankly, it sounds like a misquote

He quoted me correctly, but what I was referring to was loosening the screws under string tension - sorry about not being more clear about that.

I've heard several luthiers talk about it, one I remember by name is Ben Crowe from Crimson guitars.


It is true that every time you remove a neck and re-attach it, the screw hole in the neck wears out a little bit.
That's why some guitar builders use metal screw inserts in the neck pocket instead of using wood screws.
And why headstock side truss rod adjustments and other truss rod adjustment options replaced the '50s style body side (no route) truss rod adjustment that requires to remove the neck.

I have used inserts in some builds, they work fine, but are not needed on maple, which will hold a screw thread just fine for the normal life of a guitar.   I would consider them necessary if the wood doesn't hold a thread well, like say, a mahogany bolt on neck, or if you expect to repeatedly remove the neck.


I won't argue the loosening of screws thing.   If you prefer your guitars that way, thats fine, go ahead.


I'm going to keep mine hand tight, which will vary from person to person and depend on the screwdriver used..... lets not open that can of worms

stratology

WezV said:

I won't argue the loosening of screws thing.   If you prefer your guitars that way, thats fine, go ahead.


I'm going to keep mine hand tight, which will vary from person to person and depend on the screwdriver used..... lets not open that can of worms

We may actually be talking about the same thing. What is 'hand tight' for you may be the exact same thing as tightening the screws to a point just short of stripping the screw hole, then loosening them a little bit. Different method do get to the same point.

WezV

stratology said:

WezV said:

I won't argue the loosening of screws thing.   If you prefer your guitars that way, thats fine, go ahead.


I'm going to keep mine hand tight, which will vary from person to person and depend on the screwdriver used..... lets not open that can of worms

We may actually be talking about the same thing. What is 'hand tight' for you may be the exact same thing as tightening the screws to a point just short of stripping the screw hole, then loosening them a little bit. Different method do get to the same point.

Are you using a power tool?

thegummy

WezV said:

Are you using a powr tool?

Pow R. Toc H.

carlos

"This guitar sounds better to my ears"
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsifiability

stratology

thegummy said:

The thing I said was the opposite of science and worthless was playing a guitar, changing something on it then playing it again and comparing what you think the difference in sound was.

Actually, if you look at the history of this thread, you were the only one here who suggested playing and listening tests as scientific method...