|
|
Post by geo on Dec 12, 2022 23:53:03 GMT -5
I've got a roasted maple neck with a sap spot on it. Is that going to affect the wood any, or is it purely cosmetic?  |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Dec 13, 2022 6:31:57 GMT -5
Roasting, along with torrefication and pyrolysis, are all accomplished by applying heat in a kiln to remove moisture, oils or other potential contaminants from wood...essentially short cutting or simulating the natural aging process of the wood.
You roast the neck blank, so all of your fret markers and fret slots were all done after roasting. Roasting typically makes the wood more susceptible to chipping or tearout when working...so if all of your fret markers look good, and the fret slot is not compromised...then your problem is only cosmetic.
One thing I've seen on roasted necks is the tendency to sell them unfinished. If that is the case with your neck, you could drag out an arsenal of chemicals...oxalic acid, abrasive powdered cleaners and oil soap cleaners...a bag of 0000 steel wool...and two fingers crossed. From my experience, about the only thing you're going to accomplish is a uneven discoloration much more noticeable than your existing stain...but your mileage may vary. Even if you get the stain out, you just spent a considerable time pushing contaminants back into the wood that you paid extra to have the roasting remove in the first place...
To get back to that "unfinished" state these necks can arrive in...while they have removed most of the existing moisture from the wood by roasting, which will keep it more stable over time, you have nothing to keep contaminants and moisture out of it going forward. It's your call, but a hard finish, commonly lacquer or varnish (poly is a varnish...), is really your best option over time. You can put an oil finish on it, but then you have essentially unroasted it...
Slap some frets on there, screw in some tuners, cut the nut, drill some holes, mount it and play it. Every neck is unique...your's just has a birthmark.
HTC1
|
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 13, 2022 9:32:01 GMT -5
So this spot will not make it any more prone to warping, deaden the sound, or reduce stability? I'm not concerned about the cosmetics; a good looking guitar is fine, but a good sounding guitar is great.
The body is a nitro lacquer, but I don't want to finish the neck, because I'd just look forward to the finish getting worn off to get rid of the stickiness.
|
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Dec 13, 2022 10:49:24 GMT -5
So this spot will not make it any more prone to warping, deaden the sound, or reduce stability? To answer your question, by virtue of baking, or roasting the neck, you have removed the majority of issues regarding the neck moving on you. Warping, bow, backbow...etc...should all be minimized. Sound quality of the neck...I can't believe I said that...will probably only rear it's head in regard to the wood being stabilized....so I don't think you have anything to worry about there, either. Deadspots typically point to a fret or setup issue, but the wood should be fine. The idea of heating wood to remove moisture and stabilize it is nothing new. Acoustic builders have been on to this one for a long while. As I recall, the difference between torrefaction and roasting is temperature and duration...but Google is probably a better resource on learning the intricacies... Essentially, your guitar neck is now 20 years old...and it only took around 24 hours to do it. A gotcha on roasting is it tends to make the wood more brittle. Important to know when installing frets, drilling and installing screws. It's not a night and day thing, but you can strip the neck screws on a baked neck easier than you can on a unbaked neck. Not in the brochure, but there it is. There are more things to it than a baked neck...but I think you'll be happy with the performance of this neck. I would suggest over-radiusing and pressing your frets versus hammering...and go easy when making truss rod adjustments...not like you shouldn't do the same on unbaked necks... The proverbial can of worms...do I finish or leave it natural...? It's your neck and you are completely free to do whatever you want with it with no recriminations. For every argument to finish a neck there is an opposing argument on the natural side. The roasting process, while useful in many ways, does not offer anything impermeable to the wood. It will prolong stability longer without a finish than an unbaked neck would, just because of the purging process roasting offers. If you swet, spill beer on it...whatever...it's just wood against the world. If you tend to gum up a finish...it might just be you. Nothing personal, but some people have a body chemistry that eats lacquer. This body chemistry is generally not any more friendly to bare wood. The point of a hard finish is to offer as much protection to the wood as possible. If you tend to annihilate lacquer, go to a polyurethane. I tend to think most people shy away from putting a hard finish on a neck or body because it can be intimidating. Getting a "factory" finish at home can be challenging. Around here...probably in a handful of places...is how I finish necks. No spray can, no brushes. Polyurethane can be thinned up to 50\50 with mineral spirits and wiped on. After the frets are in, hang the neck and lightly wipe on about 6 thin coats. It flattens like lacquer. Wipe some matte poly on the back, 3M pad or steel wool it and you have a slick neck that never gums up. HTC1 |
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 13, 2022 12:56:55 GMT -5
I should clarify that I'm getting this done by a professional luthier; I'm just not sure how to interpret all of what he's giving back to me. I trust the guy's craftmanship 100%. (Although he has a bit more of a penchant for vintage design than I do.)
|
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Dec 13, 2022 13:16:28 GMT -5
I should clarify that I'm getting this done by a professional luthier... All the better...those guys like to eat, too. If you trust him, stay with him. Ask questions. If something seems different than expected, feel free to ask why. They should be willing and able to explain what and why they're leaning in one direction versus another. Einstein once said, “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” It is your dime. In what way?...just because I'm curious... HTC1 |
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 13, 2022 14:36:26 GMT -5
In what way?...just because I'm curious... He seems to lean towards vintage neck shapes over modern profiles, he works a lot more with nitro than poly, and he was a little reluctant to go to PCB for the switching circuit. |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Dec 13, 2022 16:20:52 GMT -5
He seems to lean towards vintage neck shapes over modern profiles, he works a lot more with nitro than poly, and he was a little reluctant to go to PCB for the switching circuit. A couple of questions for my own education, if you would be so kind: 1.) Did he build the neck? 2.) Did you have a specific profile\radius\compound radius\fret size...etc...nailed down before construction began? 3.) Did you get what you asked for, or take what was recommended? 4.) Who roasted the neck? OK. four questions... I don't know a thing about your luthier, make no assumptions and cast no aspersions. It's a tough business...it gets tougher every year. There is always a balance between expanding your skills and horizons...and eating regularly. Over time someone in the trade accumulates templates, jigs and fixtures, whatever, that allow quick reproduction of neck profiles and shapes. He may have found a niche in the industry where he can make a living. I would bet that anything you order "from the book" comes in quicker and cheaper than a custom. The difference will tell you how much they really want to do the custom work. I confess, most of the jobs I severely underbid were almost exclusively necks. You get snake bit a few times and you just overprice the Hell out of custom stuff so you never have to do one again... The guitar industry is about the last bastion for nitrocellulose lacquer. Without restarting the "Lacquer Wars", the reason everyone in the 50's was using nitrocellulose lacquer was because it was cheap, leveled very well and dried quickly between coats. Pretty much anything with a mirror shine made of wood back then got nitrocellulose lacquer. Eventually the EPA came in and made its use impractical...and expensive. VOCs get a bad rap because they can be hazardous when used carelessly...and without a mask...guilty as charged on that one...just like the rest of you... But the real reason guitar builders still use it is it's easy as falling asleep to use. Once you get your ratios and air pressure down my cat could do it...if she had an opposing thumb... I love it. Nothing else shines like it. Repairs melt into the previous coats...and did I mention how well it shines? Finally, if you have one of those human body chemistry's that melts lacquer, he may have a referral for you to get the job done. Out of curiosity, what type of guitar does this neck go on? HTC1 |
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 13, 2022 16:58:59 GMT -5
The build is a Jaguar with a hardtail Strat bridge, some custom switching, and a single-piece quartersawn roasted maple neck. 1) Yes, he built the neck. Ordered a quartersawn blank pre-torrefied, CNC for frets, shaped it himself. 2) I originally wanted to do a modern Jaguar neck, but with a C-to-D profile. He mentioned that he had been thinking about doing a vintage profile, because he has a friend with a '63 Jaguar he could borrow for reference. 3) I'm going with the recommended. I've played a vintage-style Jaguar neck and loved it, and I don't think anyone's ever made a C-to-D Jaguar neck, so I figured I trust the expert rather than taking a gamble here. 4) Neck was torrefied by the wood supplier who he bought the blank from. This is a weird build for him (he does mostly acoustic stuff, probably 70-30 ratio), and I'm making him do some pretty crazy electrical work. He keeps pretty busy, so I can definitely understand him wanting to save time and money where possible. (Body we just got from Warmoth, less the bridge rout, because I want a hardtail, string-through-body construction. He wanted to do a neck from Warmoth, but for Jaguar necks they only do two-piece and wouldn't do a custom order.) He offered to do a poly finish for the body (or neck, if I'd wanted), but said he could get the nitro thinner, so I figured better to go with nitro. |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Dec 13, 2022 18:27:37 GMT -5
Sounds like a plan. If you like the profile, and he can accurately nail it from an original, that'd be a suggestion I would've taken, too.
I'm gonna kick another can of worms over... Lacquer and this voodoo that arises from the inherent properties of the finish. I like lacquer for all the reasons listed previously. But if you think Fender holds to the voodooo versus the ease of manufacturing, I have one word. Fullerplast. Don't swet the thinness...
From a finisher's perspective, poly or catalyst finishes can be a PITA. Polyurethane is just varnish with plastic as the resin component. That's what makes it so resistant to abrasion. Coincidentally, sanding and polishing a finish uses abrasives...which the poly resists much better than lacquer. It's easy to leave sanding marks and will never polish to a high gloss. The best you get for luster is what it had when you applied it. But it lasts forever and does develop a nice amber patina as it ages.
I'm anxious to see this guitar when it's finished.
HTC1
|
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 13, 2022 19:07:28 GMT -5
I'm mostly worried about a thick finish deadening the vibration from the wood, since it's the body that really sings. (And with the neck, I don't want a sticky nitro finish gluing me in place.)
I'll absolutely share pictures when it's done, but it'll look pretty unremarkable; just a 3-tone sunburst Jaguar (albeit mahogany, not alder) with a hardtail Strat bridge and a quartersawn, roasted maple neck. If you look very closely, you might notice stainless steel frets, the switches have a bit more travel than on a regular Jaguar, or that the volume and tone controls are the metal ones you might see on a Fender bass and that they're hiding S-1 switch.
It's when you pick it up that you'll appreciate that it's a heavy sonofagun and probably the easiest instrument you'll ever play. Short scale, no tremolo, neck should be incredibly stable so it'll be like it was just set up. (I was considering doing a neck-through, but finding a large enough piece of quartersawn maple for that is no easy feat, and with a roasted neck doing a neck-through means you better treat that thing like it's made of glass, because you can't just bolt a new one on. Maybe if I rob a bank someday.)
|
|
|
|
Post by pyrroz on Dec 14, 2022 0:28:29 GMT -5
I'm mostly worried about a thick finish deadening the vibration from the wood, since it's the body that really sings. (And with the neck, I don't want a sticky nitro finish gluing me in place.)
After 12 years into the sustain obsession, I must say, IMHO the tone is in the neck mostly. I had read a german publication from the German ministry of war (ehmm defence) that explained all that in full scientific way. It included theory about dead spots, harmonics, I must have kept it somewhere.
I have an old Aria strat back from 1984, japanese era, hard thick poly, and it sings. So I know first hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 14, 2022 1:19:42 GMT -5
Not really my field, but... pure conjecture:
I would expect if you have a lot of holes routed in the thing (unless they have the right geometry), soft boundaries (e.g. something seeping into the wood), soft-ish boundaries (e.g. interface between the wood and the finish), or boundaries with a bad shape (e.g. you lose the phase coherence of a sound wave as it crosses the interface), you're gonna have problems with resonance. I would expect a thinner finish to mostly just affect the highs, but as you thicken the finish, it'd bleed into the lower notes more. The neck joint is probably the most important part of the neck.
A neck-through sounds like it should increase sustain because it's a solid piece of wood along the vibration of the string, but the neck isn't the heaviest part of the guitar; it won't move the most air, and it's not going to keep all of the energy in it. When those vibrations spread to the rest of the guitar, there's a bigger boundary with the neck so your waves have to go through a lot of boundaries (wing wood -> glue -> neck -> glue -> wing wood), and because the waves are traveling along the length of the neck and will propagate at different speeds through the neck wood, glue, and wing wood, you're going to have some decoherence between the waves that leave the neck into the wings early and the waves that leave the neck into the wings later; they'll be a little out-of-phase. Having a nice, resonant guitar is all about preserving that phase relation.
Edit:
It's worth remembering that losing some frequencies is a desired feature; that's what makes a guitar sound warm or bright. (The guitar body can't add energy to the sound waves traveling through it!)
Edit 2:
I wonder if you could use ellipsometry or interferometry to "image" the guitar at a number of different spots and see where the sound is dying out experimentally, rather than just calculating a theoretical approximation which might poorly approximate the impact of the glue, finish, routs, electrical components inside the guitar, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by pyrroz on Dec 14, 2022 5:10:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Dec 14, 2022 6:50:19 GMT -5
Where to begin...
Body first. Pyrroz gave it away. "I have an old Aria strat back from 1984, japanese era, hard thick poly, and it sings. So I know first hand." That's 38 to 39 years of repeated vibration, drying and stabilizing. Acoustic builders (there they are again) have been pre-vibrating (for lack of the correct term) wood for years prior to fabrication. The theory holds that the repeated vibrations of the strings acts as a stabilizing factor on the wood...which is why, according to said theory, a 70 year old Martin sounds different than one right off the bench.
I believe I mentioned it before, but let me say it again. Don't swet the thinness... You likely have your arm and body making contact with this guitar while you play. Humans are not exactly a bastions of acoustic resonance...so maybe the acoustic properties of solid electric guitar bodies is a bit too over-thought...go figure... There are all sorts of components on a guitar harder than the wood. We look for it in bridges to improve sustain...so how, exactly, unless we're talking acoustic or semi-hollow guitars, does something hard like epoxy or poly dampen vibration by being harder than the wood?
I have preached this so long my hair fell out...come to think of it, the guy who taught it to me was bald, too...
[GOSPEL]
It's the precision of the fit, alignment and execution during layout and construction that determines how long and how "pure" your strings vibrate...and the overall character of the instrument.
[/GOSPEL]
For example, I can buy the sweetest mahogany and the hardest AAAA/AAAAA flame maple for my Les Paul copy...but if I eyeball the shape and join it using a chainsaw...well, you get the idea, right?
Neck. If you have one of those human body types that eats lacquer, then I wouldn't suggest using it for the neck. Don't feel like an orphan. I've seen this over the years...think Stevie Ray Vaughn. If it's just the sticky feel of the gloss finish, and not the nature of your physiology, a 3M pad (better than steel wool as no steel wool debris sticks to your pickups) along the back of the neck tends to take most of that away. It seems to be something you'll do more on lacquer than poly. If your luthier offered to spray the neck, ask him to spray the back with a matte or satin lacquer. Makes a difference.
And there it is. The Holiest of Holy Grail's for a builder..."easiest instrument you'll ever play". Fender estimates there are around 72 million guitar players in the world. That gives rise to a minimum of 350 million opinions on what matters on an electric guitar. One commonality in all this conjecture is ease of playing. When you pickup an instrument and it just melts into your hands and notes just flows from it...that's where all the hyperbole turns to dust and inspiration takes hold.
The best part is...it's different for everyone...and it's predicated on your style of playing, not your ears. The only connection your ears have in all of this is to ensure that what you hear in your head comes out of the amp. Nine times out of ten it's not the finish, wood or components used...it's how it feels in your hands and how easily your inspiration flows from it.
Look, Ma, no wood...hmmmm....
That's why custom builders ask a million questions...and the mass production builders only ask for your wallet.
I have one neck thru instrument. I didn't build it, but I like the feel of it. They require quite a bit more planning on the front end than a bolt on to build...and whether it sustains better than a bolt on...honestly, I never found a problem with my bolt-ons...in fact, my 5 string Ibanez ATK holds a note until Christmas.
But yeah, if a neck-thru does a header your heartache expands exponentially...
Don't rob a bank. Start a crypto currency in a non-extraditable country...GAS Valhalla...
Wood damn near as old as I am, solid construction...and Gary Moore's fingers...no voodoo...no feldergarb.
Not to say there isn't a plethora of research based articles out there on guitars, construction methods and raw materials. More than enough to satisfy the most brazen insomniac. Google is your friend on this one.
One thing I would always do when building an instrument for someone is to have them bring in their favorite guitar or bass. While they're playing it I'll ask you what they like...what they don't like...and what they'd like to see added or improved. This also give me a chance to evaluate their playing style and any ergonomic concerns. (We just called it "feel" back in the day. Funny how time always seems to add syllables to things) Then I'd ask them to leave it with me for a day. This gave me time to measure everything on it. This ensures a replication of what the customer likes...and the reference points to allow me to take it in the direction the customer wanted.
It all comes down to feel and playability. There are standards, certainly, but they are arbitrarily determined for the masses. This is the whole point of a custom guitar. It should fit you and your style...not the other 71,999,999 players.
If it doesn't feel right, it could have the ability to power a city from the sustained energy of its string vibration...but you'll never play it...
Relax, play your guitar. Enjoy. Repeat as needed.
HTC1
|
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 14, 2022 11:03:33 GMT -5
Very cool!! Don't have time to search for a journal article of this right now, but you can see what happens at the neck joint; you have to spread the energy out across a lot more mass, so the vibrations are a lot weaker. (Some of the vibrations will also reflect off of this part and go in the other direction.) I'll have to dig around and see if he did a journal article for this. I'm surprised there isn't more loss where the guitar contacts his body; the only dropoff I see is where the note is fretted, which, of course, is going to be a part that doesn't vibrate in a standing wave. Thinking about this some more, I guess the "sustain" of the note also comes from the guitar body not vibrating, since when it vibrates it's going to do work on the air around it, losing energy. With that in mind, you can think of the vibrations in the neck as storing the energy and slowly leaking it out through the body, since the neck doesn't move much air. (This is basically paraphrasing his conclusion section.) This is especially interesting, because if the motion of the instrument perpendicular to the fingerboard is responsible for dead spots, it may indicate that your neck profile is going to affect the resonance much more than anyone is giving it credit for. (Although I'm pretty certain they'll find it's specifically that motion at the neck joint that matters.) It might be interesting and productive to look into how to maximize acoustic reflection at the neck joint in order to improve sustain. |
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 14, 2022 11:18:53 GMT -5
Where to begin... Body first. Pyrroz gave it away. "I have an old Aria strat back from 1984, japanese era, hard thick poly, and it sings. So I know first hand." That's 38 to 39 years of repeated vibration, drying and stabilizing. Acoustic builders (there they are again) have been pre-vibrating (for lack of the correct term) wood for years prior to fabrication. The theory holds that the repeated vibrations of the strings acts as a stabilizing factor on the wood...which is why, according to said theory, a 70 year old Martin sounds different than one right off the bench. I would expect a 70 year old Martin from storage to sound just about the same as a 70 year old Martin that had been played every day. Vibrating the wood sounds like some folk science to me. (Otherwise we'd all be desperate to lend our instruments out to recording studios to get them played all day!) I believe I mentioned it before, but let me say it again. Don't swet the thinness... You likely have your arm and body making contact with this guitar while you play. I think you're almost certainly right here, and I'm gonna keep that in mind going forward. And there it is. The Holiest of Holy Grail's for a builder... "easiest instrument you'll ever play". Fender estimates there are around 72 million guitar players in the world. That gives rise to a minimum of 350 million opinions on what matters on an electric guitar. One commonality in all this conjecture is ease of playing. When you pickup an instrument and it just melts into your hands and notes just flows from it...that's where all the hyperbole turns to dust and inspiration takes hold. The best part is...it's different for everyone...and it's predicated on your style of playing, not your ears. The only connection your ears have in all of this is to ensure that what you hear in your head comes out of the amp. Nine times out of ten it's not the finish, wood or components used...it's how it feels in your hands and how easily your inspiration flows from it. It may have helped that I was years out of practice when I started designing this thing, so I wanted to embarrass myself as little as possible once I bring it home. Aiming for super low action (and very stable so it stays that low when the instrument is moved to another location!) and that nice 24" scale. Stainless steel frets for super easy bends. I figure omitting the tremolo probably makes it easier to keep the action low, although I guess there are some better designs than a Stratocaster bridge that apply tension more directly along the string, rather than moving it up/down as well. (Opted against those because I was hoping having a solid block of wood would make it warmer.) I have one neck thru instrument. I didn't build it, but I like the feel of it. They require quite a bit more planning on the front end than a bolt on to build...and whether it sustains better than a bolt on...honestly, I never found a problem with my bolt-ons...in fact, my 5 string Ibanez ATK holds a note until Christmas. But yeah, if a neck-thru does a header your heartache expands exponentially... A header is a tragedy, but if you're gonna roast it I'm more worried about bumping a table and chipping it. You can try to patch that, but it's not gonna be the same. Relax, play your guitar. Enjoy. Repeat as needed. HTC1 The greatest wisdom we'll ever find here. |
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Dec 14, 2022 14:45:27 GMT -5
Luthier Ken Parker discussed how vibrating the wood affects the tone. Decades of repeated drying cycles may have some effect, but loosening the grain allows for more resonance. Baking the wood has been shown to open the grain as well as solidify resins. My one baked-Maple neck does seem to resonate more than my other Maple necks. There then may be more midrange resonance damping, and I do think the more brittle grain damps less high-end.
I'd trust Cynical1's advice on finishing the neck. If anything, 6-7 coats of thinned polyurethane or lacquer over the frets will reduce surface fiber damping so there will be better highs. A thick polyester finish might damp more highs, but I'd think the finish would have to be pretty thick on the body to somehow affect how the strings vibrate. Once the vibrations enter the body, probably more at the neck joint than through a thick metal bridge, does it really matter to the string vibrations what happens to the body vibrations? I'd think the issue is how much string vibration enters the body or neck in the first place. BTW, that all glass guitar sounds nice, but it might be pretty harsh with typical high Q SC AlNiCo pole pickups.
Not sure why you chose a 24" scale. It might make the high E sound a tad smoother, while the low E might be more muddy than a 25,5" scale. The Mahogany body may make it more muddy. Les Pauls tend to have more muddy low strings. Heavier bottom strings should help. Wood complexifies things so the result may not be what you expect, but saddle alloy can make a substantial tonal difference.
If you haven't chosen the frets yet, and you don't want Nickel, you might want to go with EVO instead of Stainless. I do notice a harder attack sound with my stainless frets, and your relatively rigid neck will already be pretty bright.
|
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 14, 2022 15:53:11 GMT -5
\Not sure why you chose a 24" scale. It might make the high E sound a tad smoother, while the low E might be more muddy than a 25,5" scale. The Mahogany body may make it more muddy. Les Pauls tend to have more muddy low strings. Heavier bottom strings should help. Wood complexifies things so the result may not be what you expect, but saddle alloy can make a substantial tonal difference. If you haven't chosen the frets yet, and you don't want Nickel, you might want to go with EVO instead of Stainless. I do notice a harder attack sound with my stainless frets, and your relatively rigid neck will already be pretty bright. I picked the 24" scale for playability, choosing the mahogany body wood to compensate for that decision tonally. It's string-through body construction with a hardtail strat bridge, so I expect it to sound like a much larger guitar and I should be able to get pretty good action. I chose the stainless steel frets for playability, not tone. I've never tried EVO frets, so I'm a little reluctant to take that leap. |
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Dec 14, 2022 17:50:03 GMT -5
In what way will a Mahogany body compensate for the shorter scale? Mahogany body guitars tend to have big lows, but less high-end than hard Ash, Maple, and even some Alder, while shorter scale guitars also have less highs, but less defined lows. Certainly, give it a try and see what you think. Hopefully, the lows won't be too ill-defined. Works for Brian May.
EVO frets aren't quite as hard as Stainless. Not as bright sounding, but brighter than Nickel. Either will last very long. Curious to hear it when it's all done.
|
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 14, 2022 18:17:34 GMT -5
As you guessed, I was trying to make up for the lows and warm the sound up a little bit. If the lows are too muddy, I can take it down from 11's to 10's. I'm not too worried about the highs, because I've usually got the treble knocked down a little bit. (Wouldn't compare to Brian May, because this thing sure isn't gonna be hollow!)
Edit: Wait, use thicker strings if it's not bright enough. More tension, not less!
|
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Dec 14, 2022 18:49:50 GMT -5
Only the wings on May's guitar are hollow. The solid center Mahogany is old, and probably pretty hard and dry. The neck is also Mahogany, but I guess he doesn't mind flabby lows with the (9-42?) strings. Thinner strings would make the lows more flabby/muddy/ill-defined. You'd want thicker low strings to tighten the bass, and then lower the pickups a bit on that side. I have 9-42 on my Strats. I wouldn't want anything thinner, but that's just me.
Point is: don't be afraid to change things if it doesn't end up sounding as expected. I just built a 2-piece Austrian Pine body & Wenge neck/SS fret hardtail, and it's hardly as I expected-- super bright attack, yet something lacking in the highs, and not much mid-bass. I thought the Pine body would mellow the attack, but it just seems to drain the mid-bass, even though it's 4.2 lbs! I guess the grain structure somehow does that. I got some thick Brass saddles and impregnated a Brass trem block under the bridge, and tune it to D with 10-46 strings. Sustain is a bit better, but just not like I expected. The attack is still too bright, and the Micro-Coil pickups are relatively mellow SCs. It's not bad with the tone knob down at 7.5. I may replace the neck with something more mellow to balance out the tone. Regular old Maple seems to work really well with Pine.
|
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 14, 2022 19:19:22 GMT -5
It's an entirely different beast from what I've got here. Those resonant chambers are going to feed back something fierce. From what I read in the article someone linked earlier, and a little basic physics, it looks like a key element to having good sustain is to match your woods so that the acoustic impedance of the body is the same or slightly higher than the neck. If the body has less acoustic impedance, you'll get a phase-swapped reflected wave which will kill some of the neck's vibrations. If the body has much higher acoustic impedance, you'll transfer energy from the neck into the body faster, which should mean less sustain, and possibly a sharper attack. The acoustic impedance is based on both the speed of sound in the wood and the density, so it's hard to say what those values are for different woods without clear data, which I haven't been able to find (and I would expect it to vary a bit based on things like how dry or aged your wood is). It might be cool to buddy up with a luthier, gather some data and put this to the test. |
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Dec 14, 2022 21:28:47 GMT -5
It's an entirely different beast from what I've got here. Those resonant chambers are going to feed back something fierce. From what I read in the article someone linked earlier, and a little basic physics, it looks like a key element to having good sustain is to match your woods so that the acoustic impedance of the body is the same or slightly higher than the neck. If the body has less acoustic impedance, you'll get a phase-swapped reflected wave which will kill some of the neck's vibrations. If the body has much higher acoustic impedance, you'll transfer energy from the neck into the body faster, which should mean less sustain, and possibly a sharper attack. The acoustic impedance is based on both the speed of sound in the wood and the density, so it's hard to say what those values are for different woods without clear data, which I haven't been able to find (and I would expect it to vary a bit based on things like how dry or aged your wood is). It might be cool to buddy up with a luthier, gather some data and put this to the test. May's is a very different guitar. I'd think the bass would be muddier than what you get due to the Mahog neck, and possibly from the hollow wings. Feed back acoustically? I can't imagine the reduced energy coming back toward the dense Mahog center would have a significant effect on the string vibrations due in large part to the impedance mismatch. Vibrations would travel out to the lightweight wings, but not much the other way around, like whatever vibrations make it through a heavy alloy bridge won't likely make it back through that bridge to significantly affect string vibrations due to impedance mismatch. Maybe the frequencies that resonate wood fibers right under the bridge will have some effect? The wood's transverse vibration speed that might affect the string vibrations also depends on the thickness, as well as the grain structure, density, and rigidity variances-- likely impossible to calculate. It would make sense that the softer lighter Pine body would allow more of the string vibrations (that are strong enough to vibrate the neck) to vibrate the entire neck more so they get absorbed more. Perhaps the Wenge neck itself absorbs more after the initial attack is reflected back by the overall rigid grain structure? Wenge has alternating hard and soft fibers and large pores. There may be a delay b4 there's enough energy build-up for the wood to start vibrating in a sponge-like manor that kills sustain. That might also be what causes the missing high-end I mentioned, which may actually be somewhere in the 1~3kHz range. A hard Ash neck might have the same sort of response characteristics. Maple doesn't generally have alternating grain rigidity like that, or large pores to allow more internal fiber vibration that can create stronger phase cancelations back through the frets. The neck does seem to have more sustain robbing spots than any other neck I own. Yeah, I'm thinking a tight-grained wood will be better. |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Dec 15, 2022 9:25:03 GMT -5
Tonewood...that science where the minutiae of empirical data tries to create replicable results from an organic raw material...that never got the memo... [RANT] Behold, the humble American baseball bat. Traditionally made from hickory.   Bill Bergen. Lifetime batting average: .170  Ty Cobb. Lifetime batting average: .366 Both men used a hickory bat similar to the one detailed above. Both men played over 100 years ago, so no bat voodoo going on here. Without belaboring the baseball minutiae, it's not the wood...it's what the individual does with it that people notice and remember. [/RANT] No offense intended. Rant now returned to upright and locked position... HTC1 |
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 15, 2022 13:26:06 GMT -5
You're absolutely right that the main factor is the person holding the instrument. Of course, the bat does matter, still; some superior designs such as corked and dimpled bats are banned from the sport for exactly this reason!
|
|
|
|
Post by pyrroz on Dec 15, 2022 17:21:15 GMT -5
All is fine until you hit a technical limitation, I mean science is like God, you go to Him when you are sure you have tried all the rest of options!
|
|
|
|
Post by gckelloch on Dec 15, 2022 22:59:53 GMT -5
At some point in these discussions, someone always states something to the effect of "tone is in the fingers". Sure, but I'd rather not have to alter my technique or the pick I like to compensate for a guitar that doesn't have the response characteristics I like, and one can not control what happens within the note sustain after it has been plucked.
I never mentioned "tonewood", but I did make some generalizations about how certain woods TEND to damp string vibrations. Although the density and hardness of a given wood type can vary a lot, I very much doubt the damping response of a slab of Gaboon Ebony would ever be virtually the same as an equal-dimension piece of Paulownia. "Mileage" will vary a lot, and complexification can completely skew intended results.
Comparisons have been done with body and neck wood swaps that resulted in surprisingly expected results, but I have yet to see tests done with different cuts of the SAME wood types. That would be interesting. One YT guy recorded a Strat with the trem cover on and off, and the results were notably different...same as I have experienced.
Again, I would conclude thus far that major changes may sometimes be needed for desired results. A given piece of wood may even be "hopeless", and the cost of an electric guitar has little to do with how it will sound. I have a $100 SX Vintage (S-type) I'd put up against any randomly chosen custom shop 50's style. I'd bet many players would prefer the SX in a blind test.
|
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 16, 2022 0:34:11 GMT -5
At some point in these discussions, someone always states something to the effect of "tone is in the fingers". Sure, but I'd rather not have to alter my technique or the pick I like to compensate for a guitar that doesn't have the response characteristics I like, and one can not control what happens within the note sustain after it has been plucked. I think you're talking past each other a little bit. They're trying to tell you that a better bat won't make you Barry Bonds, and you're trying to tell them that you don't want to play with a wiffle ball bat. |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Dec 16, 2022 7:53:53 GMT -5
GC hit it on the mark. "...the cost of an electric guitar has little to do with how it will sound. I have a $100 SX Vintage (S-type) I'd put up against any randomly chosen custom shop 50's style. I'd bet many players would prefer the SX in a blind test."I might, too. I have a 1988 USA Peavey Foundation bass I've had for a little over 30 years. It was a $100.00 used bass I bought to take with me on my travels. I've had my hands a more than a few instruments I can't afford over the years, but that beat up black Peavey is the one I'd go back for in a house fire. I can play things on that bass that I struggle with on other basses. It fits my hands and fingers better than a 1974 Jazz bass. I know, because I sold the Fender and kept the Peavey...for a lot less money than it's worth today...but I digress... Blind test. No hyperbole, no feldergarb, no abomenaĵo. It's not just the organic raw material part where this applies, either. Scale length, fingerboard radius, neck profile, neck angle, frets, string spacing, cutaways, body relief...et friggin' cetera...oh yeah, the wood, too... Somewhere around these darkened halls is the story of the hickory veneer guitar. No one ever guessed what it was made of...but no one hated it, either... If asmith wanders in, ask him about Red Project #1. That was a plywood Washburn a friend's dogs had chewed up. I did some heavy routing on the back of the body, rebuilt the neck pocket, then the back from pocket to bridge...which also was routed from the top and all removed material was filled with alder. Like this:   It had a blind test of it's own. Asmith played it at Buddy Guy's Open Mic Night...about 10 years ago... Granted, asmith is no slouch when it comes to players, but everyone else up there were no slouches, either. It wasn't the best sounding instrument that night, but that remnant from a dog fight held it's own, no pedals and straight into the amp...and I know it was the only plywood infused guitar in the place... That guitar cost less than $200.00 to build, tooling and all. So, to belabor the point once again, it ain't what it's made of, it's what you can get out of it and through it that matters. Always tryout a new guitar or bass unplugged first...to see if it fits...then plug it in and see what it has to say. If it doesn't fit, or doesn't speak to you...keep looking... If it fits, but it's not saying the right things...well, that's what this forum is all about. HTC1 |
|
