The interaction of neck and body resonance. Warning: tonewood content.

Lebarque

WezV said:

From the acoustic builders point of view, after many years making builders start to develop their own voice irrespective of the wood they use.

This doesn't mean wood is less important, it means they have learnt to control it.  A less stiff top may be left thicker, or bracing tweaked so the sound is shaped as the wood is removed 


It's easier for electrics because it is frankly less important. ... but you still get  a feel for how shaping can affect the way parts resonate and amended as you go if needed... but as long as a piece isn't dead, it's probably going to be fine.

Interesting, many thanks.

joeW

Lebarque said:

No opinions on the pitch of the note when tapping?

I may be wrong, but I thought the classical I have was intended to resonate around A flat to reduce open string resonance and volume peaks.  Could well be sales twaddle tho. 

WezV

joeW said:

Lebarque said:

No opinions on the pitch of the note when tapping?

I may be wrong, but I thought the classical I have was intended to resonate around A flat to reduce open string resonance and volume peaks.  Could well be sales twaddle tho. 

It's called tap tuning and is quite common.  Happened through the process.  The top will be tuned to something  then the frequency changes once its glued to the rims,   you can then tweak braces and top thickness to bring it to the desired frequency.

You avoid common frequencies as they would sound much louder if you tuned the instrument to them.

LastMantra

It seems like people want to apply things from acoustic guitar building to electric guitar but can't think of a good explanation for doing so.

Danielsguitars

You've got to build loads of acoustics to get a tone you like imo, it's ok to tap away first time then you keep going from a starting base 

When I was at college you only get a rough idea of what's needed then it's up to you to take it further, my second acoustic was a cautious build because the wood was expensive, turned out great but no idea how much better it could be

Just build loads of bloody guitars and see what you do and don't like, it's not rocket science, tapping a bit of wood before it's shaped or glued to a neck doesn't tell you much until you've done alot more building

I've taken apart guitar builds before, taken the neck out,changed fretboards and frets then I got to where I wanted because I expected more from the original build, that guitar turned out bloody great btw but took effort.

danishbacon

Danielsguitars said:

You've got to build loads of acoustics to get a tone you like imo, it's ok to tap away first time then you keep going from a starting base 

When I was at college you only get a rough idea of what's needed then it's up to you to take it further, my second acoustic was a cautious build because the wood was expensive, turned out great but no idea how much better it could be

Just build loads of bloody guitars and see what you do and don't like, it's not rocket science, tapping a bit of wood before it's shaped or glued to a neck doesn't tell you much until you've done alot more building

I've taken apart guitar builds before, taken the neck out,changed fretboards and frets then I got to where I wanted because I expected more from the original build, that guitar turned out bloody great btw but took effort.

This is quite interesting @Danielsguitars. In the case if the re-board, would you mind expanding on was ‘wrong’ with it and what the rationale was for addressing it the way you did? 

WezV

Lebarque said:

WezV said:

Lebarque said:

WezV said:

Too many variables, but it doesn't hurt to start tapping bits of wood at various stages so you can get a feel for what does and doesn't work

How do you guage what does / doesn't work? 

By doing it and forming a preference 

I know what I prefer, I know how it has changed over the years and influenced the way I build in different ways.

Is your preference a secret, or hard to explain?

I missed this.   It is hard to explain, and possibly a knowledge of the audience here that prevents me speculating more.  I don't really do secrets and I will freely share warts and all build posts.

There are no "facts" I can give, just thoughts and speculations based on building guitars for the last 20 years.   I don't build a lot, I don't do it as my main job.   Some of those years I have only built a couple, the most is probably about 7 or 8 in a year.

These days I rarely try to actively sell my guitars, so I have very little skin in the mojo selling business.  I simply do what pleases me to build.

What I can say is that when I started building, I built in as many styles, woods, scale lengths as I could.   I very rarely repeat a design, and if I do, I'm usually changing more than just the wood.  I am not aiming to be scientific, I'm aiming to build guitars I like.

I start by tapping wood, and speculating on how it might sound. Sometimes I am totally wrong, sometimes I am right.     That all helps when I start tapping wood and speculating about the next build.   

I have many abandoned projects where I didn't like where it was going, even though the wood had everything I wanted.   I have also been surprised to have wood that didn't vibrate in a pleasing way, but still produced a decent guitar.   All valuable experience that helps the next guitar be a little better

So that's why I say to build.  Built with the bits you think are right, build with the bits you think are wrong.  Just build experience.


One thing that was important to me when i started building was stiff necks.   Surely the aim is to have a neck as stiff and straight as possible.   So I built with laminates and carbon fiber reinforcement and all that. headstocks were small  and thick to avoid flapping about too much and wasting string energy   I avoided one piece, and I avoided weaker woods. This gave very efficient necks, no loss of string energy.  It translates as a direct sound, quick attack, good solid sustain,  even decay.    I still like that style,  but these days much prefer a less stiff neck and bigger/thinner headstocks.  Its not as efficient in pure sound production, but it sure is interesting to the ear and produces guitars that make me want to pick them up more often

Danielsguitars

I'm with wez on a less stiff neck, I want it just strong enough to do it's job no more, I think most of the tone, feel and playability come from a neck, it's what makes you pick it up, I want some vibrational movement or that's how I see it.

Danielsguitars

danishbacon said:

Danielsguitars said:

You've got to build loads of acoustics to get a tone you like imo, it's ok to tap away first time then you keep going from a starting base 

When I was at college you only get a rough idea of what's needed then it's up to you to take it further, my second acoustic was a cautious build because the wood was expensive, turned out great but no idea how much better it could be

Just build loads of bloody guitars and see what you do and don't like, it's not rocket science, tapping a bit of wood before it's shaped or glued to a neck doesn't tell you much until you've done alot more building

I've taken apart guitar builds before, taken the neck out,changed fretboards and frets then I got to where I wanted because I expected more from the original build, that guitar turned out bloody great btw but took effort.

This is quite interesting @Danielsguitars. In the case if the re-board, would you mind expanding on was ‘wrong’ with it and what the rationale was for addressing it the way you did? 

It merely sounded ok nothing great so I set about changing it, another thing is hardware

I had the wrong bridge on it after I'd done everything I noticed it as soon as I changed it the thing came alive.

Like I said you've just got to build alot, I also have part builts etc scattered around, I've got one hanging up without a fretboard because I took it off as it was a braz one

I strummed that guitar up against a real 56 goldtop and mine was nowhere near, didn't have that unplugged jangle and mine was good lol so just hung it up, I'll do something else with it one day.

ICBM

Danielsguitars said:

I'm with wez on a less stiff neck, I want it just strong enough to do it's job no more, I think most of the tone, feel and playability come from a neck, it's what makes you pick it up, I want some vibrational movement or that's how I see it.

This is why I personally believe, from my own experience, that flatsawn necks sound better than the supposedly superior quartersawn. Yes, quartersawn is stiffer and more stable... and from a purist woodworking point of view it *is* better - but all the really good-sounding guitars I've played (at least where I've thought to check) have had almost perfectly flat-sawn necks.

Danielsguitars

ICBM said:

Danielsguitars said:

I'm with wez on a less stiff neck, I want it just strong enough to do it's job no more, I think most of the tone, feel and playability come from a neck, it's what makes you pick it up, I want some vibrational movement or that's how I see it.

This is why I personally believe, from my own experience, that flatsawn necks sound better than the supposedly superior quartersawn. Yes, quartersawn is stiffer and more stable... and from a purist woodworking point of view it *is* better - but all the really good-sounding guitars I've played (at least where I've thought to check) have had almost perfectly flat-sawn necks.

I'd agree with maple flat sawn but when it comes to set necks in mahogany then as close to quatersawn is better imo, I'd also use a 3 piece laminated, I'd like to try a slightly softer 3 piece laminated neck at some point.

Although I did use a quatersawn maple neck on my telepaul and that's a great sounding guitar.

pintspiller

ICBM said:

Danielsguitars said:

I'm with wez on a less stiff neck, I want it just strong enough to do it's job no more, I think most of the tone, feel and playability come from a neck, it's what makes you pick it up, I want some vibrational movement or that's how I see it.

This is why I personally believe, from my own experience, that flatsawn necks sound better than the supposedly superior quartersawn. Yes, quartersawn is stiffer and more stable... and from a purist woodworking point of view it *is* better - but all the really good-sounding guitars I've played (at least where I've thought to check) have had almost perfectly flat-sawn necks.

How the hooting-heck can a chap like me who has had more success effing about with a bow-saw than a fancy hand-saw supposed to tell the difference between flat-sawn and quarter-sawn (I can sort-of tell when I see mahogany, maybe maple, but the others just look the same to me)?

ICBM

pintspiller said:

How the hooting-heck can a chap like me who has had more success effing about with a bow-saw than a fancy hand-saw supposed to tell the difference between flat-sawn and quarter-sawn (I can sort-of tell when I see mahogany, maybe maple, but the others just look the same to me)?

When you look at the back of the neck, a quartersawn one will have multiple grain lines closely spaced, and when you look at the end of the headstock the lines will be vertical. A flatsawn one will have few to no grain lines in the middle of the back, a few more towards the fingerboard, and the end of the headstock will have horizontal lines.

Jazzthat

Interesting discussion chaps .

While I can't add anything , that proves different woods affect the tone on guitar , I can say for sure that on my two guitars ( both Yamaha Pacifica ) electronics have little impact to alter their sound signature played unplugged ! 

ThisThis one for example,  always sounds on the dark side and lacks a sparkle .
I have tried few different pickups and it never goes beyond that sound signature .
Very strange ! 
My theory is , that it has laquer all over and the other Pacifica has some sort of oil finish and rosewood neck .

So perhaps wood choice and finish has its big role in tone ?

danishbacon

ICBM said:

Danielsguitars said:

I'm with wez on a less stiff neck, I want it just strong enough to do it's job no more, I think most of the tone, feel and playability come from a neck, it's what makes you pick it up, I want some vibrational movement or that's how I see it.

This is why I personally believe, from my own experience, that flatsawn necks sound better than the supposedly superior quartersawn. Yes, quartersawn is stiffer and more stable... and from a purist woodworking point of view it *is* better - but all the really good-sounding guitars I've played (at least where I've thought to check) have had almost perfectly flat-sawn necks.

How can one identify a perfectly Flatsawn neck @icbm?

edit, I can see it was answered above, missed it for some reason. 

Cacofonix

Steve Vai in one video talks about one of his favourite guitars as being unusual in that the neck and body have matching resonances.

Zoolooter

Tim Lerch talks about quarter sawn, flat, flame and birdseye necks at 33.30 in the interview below.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wFnxcaBOOZU

GSPBASSES

Zoolooter said:

Tim Lerch talks about quarter sawn, flat, flame and birdseye necks at 33.30 in the interview below.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wFnxcaBOOZU

I watch the video at the point that you mentioned, I do disagree with quite a few things that was said. Comments about flame Maple for instance. Just about every jazz box that’s made has a flame Maple neck, including “Benedetto” Jazz guitars. Most classical instrument violins violas double basses have necks made from frame Maple, flame Sycamore or European flame Maple. PRS use flame Maple on some of their neck’s, a lot of custom bass builders also use flame Maple. I have no hesitation in using frame Maple, either one piece or laminated looks good, sounds good and is very stable. I think it would be very unwise to take the comments of one guitarist no matter how famous he or she is, as gospel. 

WezV

GSPBASSES said:

Zoolooter said:

Tim Lerch talks about quarter sawn, flat, flame and birdseye necks at 33.30 in the interview below.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wFnxcaBOOZU

I watch the video at the point that you mentioned, I do disagree with quite a few things that was said. Comments about flame Maple for instance. Just about every jazz box that’s made has a flame Maple neck, including “Benedetto” Jazz guitars. Most classical instrument violins violas double basses have necks made from frame Maple, flame Sycamore or European flame Maple. PRS use flame Maple on some of their neck’s, a lot of custom bass builders also use flame Maple. I have no hesitation in using frame Maple, either one piece or laminated looks good, sounds good and is very stable. I think it would be very unwise to take the comments of one guitarist no matter how famous he or she is, as gospel. 

funny that he says flamed is unsuitable because its a flaw, but the birdseye is fine....by his argument,  all figuring is a "flaw" in the structure of the wood, all of it can be unsuitable.  he just had a bad experience with one piece of flamed maple

all comes down to understanding the wood in front of you.  I see people get excited about a small patch of flame in an otherwise clear neck.  To me that shows a potential flaw that may lead to instability.

I still get excited about a consistently flamed neck blank, but wouldn't want big wide flame, and definitely no quilt... but there is always CF bars 

One of the reasons flamed wood was available to Stradivarius was because no one else wanted it.  There is a story I remember about a good source being drift wood.  It was used for oars, and the flamed ones were more likely to break.

rlw

Cacofonix said:

Steve Vai in one video talks about one of his favourite guitars as being unusual in that the neck and body have matching resonances.

I remember reading Patrick Eggle saying something very similar about his personal builds.