Chunky Necks

Stevepage

I love chunky necks because of the overall feel, it feels like you really get a grip on the strings. Prs Wide Fat, Fender 50s U shape, Gibsons 50s profile for example. Which is odd as I own guitars with thinner necks (but not super thin)


My hand cramps like mad on a Ibanez Wizard profile.

thegummy

Bizarrely, when I play my chunky neck LP I get a feeling as if the neck is thickening the tone.

Almost certain it's psychosomatic but I definitely get that idea for some reason.

Winny_Pooh

I dont mind thin, however thin and wide are uncomfortable. EG love my narrow and slim Musicman but sold on a Gretsch that was too skinny at 43mm and strained my hand. But a 43mm nut on a pattern regular or med Gibson neck is fine. Amazing what difference a mm makes under the hand. 

Philly_Q

TTBZ said:

Hate the PRS wide fat. It's huge.

Interesting.  I find it annoyingly thin! 

I'd say the PRS W-F neck is actually "pretty wide and not really very fat", although I did think it was a big neck until I tried some of the Fender and Gibson Custom Shop models.

What seems most comfortable for me is a neck which is fairly narrow across, but thick front to back.  I like the Fender 1.65" nut width.  Sometimes the Nocaster U profile seems a bit too big if I haven't played it for a while, but I get used to it.  I also like the 10/56 soft V, but sometimes that feels a bit too small.  My hardtail Strat has a '54 U which I really like, it's about 23mm thick at the first fret and 25mm at the 12th.

TTBZ

@Philly_Q that's odd as the wide fat felt really big on the PRS SE 245s I played. Way bigger and wider than my 50s style Gibson one. Annoying as I really want to like the PRE SE but they all have that. Unless they vary model to model like how the ESP/LTD thin U seems completely different on different styles of guitar.

DrBob

Big necks just seem to fit my admittedly quite big hands. Especially as I get older skinny necks give me cramp in my left hand, like I’m gripping it too hard or something 

earwighoney

Philly_Q said:

TTBZ said:

Hate the PRS wide fat. It's huge.

Interesting.  I find it annoyingly thin! 

I'd say the PRS W-F neck is actually "pretty wide and not really very fat", although I did think it was a big neck until I tried some of the Fender and Gibson Custom Shop models.

What seems most comfortable for me is a neck which is fairly narrow across, but thick front to back.  I like the Fender 1.65" nut width.  Sometimes the Nocaster U profile seems a bit too big if I haven't played it for a while, but I get used to it.  I also like the 10/56 soft V, but sometimes that feels a bit too small.  My hardtail Strat has a '54 U which I really like, it's about 23mm thick at the first fret and 25mm at the 12th.

What model is your hardtail Strat?  Robert Cray?   

Philly_Q

earwighoney said:

What model is your hardtail Strat?  Robert Cray?   

No, although I did once have a Robert Cray - good model.  This one's a CS relic, 1971 style, big headstock, but with a '54 neck profile.

TTBZ said:

@Philly_Q that's odd as the wide fat felt really big on the PRS SE 245s I played. Way bigger and wider than my 50s style Gibson one. Annoying as I really want to like the PRE SE but they all have that. Unless they vary model to model like how the ESP/LTD thin U seems completely different on different styles of guitar.

I've only got one of the early SE models, an SE EG.  I haven't played it for a very long time (took it apart and never put it back together...), but as far as I remember the neck was pretty similar to PRS USA wide-fat necks - they do vary a bit.  Haven't tried any newer ones so they may have changed.  I think sometimes a wide neck can feel "bigger" than a fat neck, and not in a good way.

Have you tried any S2 models?  They have the Pattern Regular profile which is a bit narrower at the nut but, I think, still the same width higher up.

guitars4you

Philly_Q said:

TTBZ said:

Hate the PRS wide fat. It's huge.

Interesting.  I find it annoyingly thin! 

I'd say the PRS W-F neck is actually "pretty wide and not really very fat", although I did think it was a big neck until I tried some of the Fender and Gibson Custom Shop models.

What seems most comfortable for me is a neck which is fairly narrow across, but thick front to back.  I like the Fender 1.65" nut width.  Sometimes the Nocaster U profile seems a bit too big if I haven't played it for a while, but I get used to it.  I also like the 10/56 soft V, but sometimes that feels a bit too small.  My hardtail Strat has a '54 U which I really like, it's about 23mm thick at the first fret and 25mm at the 12th.

Interesting thought pattern here - I think the wide/fat PRS is just about okay - I certainly don't see it as big and I don't have large hands - Yet others see it as to large - It is almost a comfortable mid size neck IMO - I probably play this more than any other guitar neck, on the 3 PRS I play/own, but truth be known I would prefer it if it was an ounce bigger

JDE

I prefer a narrow width but in terms of thickness, I can go as chunky as you like, that doesn’t seem to bother me. Played gypsy jazz on Selmer-style guitars for years and to be honest, that mixed with my job and arthritis and tendonitis has wrecked my hands. I cannot play wide necks at all now. In the past few years I have picked up the bad habit of having my thumb wrapped over 95% of the time, which means wide necks, even skinny ones, don’t jive with me. 50’s style fatter Fender necks (or whatever they market as such) seem to be the most fitting for me, as long as they don’t stray into a “D shape” profile. 

Never tried multiple necks on the same body so dunno about tone. I sound better if I’m comfortable, that’s all I know. 

Fifty9

For me its the feel of the neck in hand and then what I perceive to be overall rigidity which in turn, in my mind at least, gives me a fuller tone as well as giving me a bit more of a challenge to play it. 

TINMAN82

I have large hands and mainly play thumb over the top.

I obsessed about this issue for a while and it even ended up losing me money in an expensive partscaster as I thought no production fender neck was suitable/ big enough. I now fall into the slightly chunkier than average but not huge camp. My CS strat has a 65C profile/42mm nut combo that I used to assume was too thin but it turned out to be perfect and is my favourite neck. My R8 is lovely but slightly too deep at times. My 52AV tele is a nice depth but feels a little to narrow side to side compared with the strat which has wider string spacing. 

Im less sensitive to depth on acoustics, probably as the hand is filled by what are usually wider necks. 

Not convinced there is a noticeable effect on tone really, I think the pickups and body wood are more important.

sweepy

10-52 on a Les Paul is bordering on the Camp in all seriousness I had to fit 9.5’s  my Hamer to achieve the same feel as 10’s on my Les Paul so it’s not all hard and fast out there

ICBM

TINMAN82 said:

Not convinced there is a noticeable effect on tone really, I think the pickups and body wood are more important.

I'm certain that the neck has far more of an effect on tone than the body does. Not necessarily just the thickness, but the type of wood (including fingerboard), the length and then the thickness, probably in that order - the key characteristic is its resonance. There is some interaction with the body resonance, but the neck dominates.

You can prove it fairly easily with a couple of Fenders, if one sounds great and the other doesn't. Swap the necks and see which one now sounds good...

DrJazzTap

I do like chunky necks, I think partly due to some BS about them having more tone. My main squeeze for years was an SG, which supposedly have chunky necks. I played with 11s for years, because I was playing quite a lot it wasnt that much of an issue. The heavier strings were mainly put on to keep the SG in tune better. I also didnt want to become reliant on bending. I tried 12's for a few weeks, but that was way too much

I remember trying friends guitars with tiny necks (Ibanez type things) and being able to fly around on them, but I don't think they sounded that great. Conversely I fully understand the argument of "why make things harder for yourself?" and especially when you have pain your hands. I'm hoping to get back into gigging again, but all my guitars are still strung with 11s and I need to build my endurance up again.

crunchman

Shallow necks have made my wrist sore in the past.  A neck has to have good depth.  I don't like a lot of width though, as I have very short fingers.

I find big necks very comfortable, but they can be cumbersome to play.  I found this out with a Gibson 58 reissue with a huge neck.  It was one of the most comfortable necks I've ever played, but it was just too big.  I was recording something, and I'd done a take with a different guitar (first time).  I thought I'd like to see what the Les Paul sounded like.  It took about 10 takes to play it cleanly.  Despite being incredibly comfortable, the neck was just too big.

Like one or two others on here, I do like V profiles.  You get a decent depth without a huge amount of bulk, and they are very comfortable.

TINMAN82

ICBM said:

TINMAN82 said:

Not convinced there is a noticeable effect on tone really, I think the pickups and body wood are more important.

I'm certain that the neck has far more of an effect on tone than the body does. Not necessarily just the thickness, but the type of wood (including fingerboard), the length and then the thickness, probably in that order - the key characteristic is its resonance. There is some interaction with the body resonance, but the neck dominates.

You can prove it fairly easily with a couple of Fenders, if one sounds great and the other doesn't. Swap the necks and see which one now sounds good...

Not sure your fender quote supports the rest of this arguement. Assuming you’re comparing 2 all maple necks, the scale length will be the same so the only difference would be neck thickness. That’s just personal preference and I’d wager most players will think they “sound” better, and probably do due to technique improvements, on the neck they feel more comfortable with. I can’t see fender modern C vs fender u making all the difference to tone on the same guitar in a blind test.

crunchman

TINMAN82 said:

ICBM said:

TINMAN82 said:

Not convinced there is a noticeable effect on tone really, I think the pickups and body wood are more important.

I'm certain that the neck has far more of an effect on tone than the body does. Not necessarily just the thickness, but the type of wood (including fingerboard), the length and then the thickness, probably in that order - the key characteristic is its resonance. There is some interaction with the body resonance, but the neck dominates.

You can prove it fairly easily with a couple of Fenders, if one sounds great and the other doesn't. Swap the necks and see which one now sounds good...

Not sure your fender quote supports the rest of this arguement. Assuming you’re comparing 2 all maple necks, the scale length will be the same so the only difference would be neck thickness. That’s just personal preference and I’d wager most players will think they “sound” better, and probably do due to technique improvements, on the neck they feel more comfortable with. I can’t see fender modern C vs fender u making all the difference to tone on the same guitar in a blind rest.

It's not the dimensions, it's the piece of wood.   Wood is organic, and different pieces vibrate differently.

What @ICBM is saying is something I've seen reported elsewhere.  I remember reading a piece in a guitar magazine years ago about someone who was swapping necks around on Fenders.  He had a 60's guitar and he took the neck from that and put it on a modern body.  He said the tone followed the neck.

Another example that I have personal experience of is the PRS McCarty. They made some with a rosewood neck (whole neck not just fingerboard) rather than the regular mahogany neck.  I used to own one.  Based on the difference between the rosewood necked version and the regular McCarty, the neck wood has a very large effect.  I might even go so far as @ICBM and say it could even be more important than the body.

earwighoney

Philly_Q said:

earwighoney said:

What model is your hardtail Strat?  Robert Cray?   

No, although I did once have a Robert Cray - good model.  This one's a CS relic, 1971 style, big headstock, but with a '54 neck profile. 

That sounds superb!  I love HT's, they seem thin on the ground though. 

ICBM

TINMAN82 said:

Not sure your fender quote supports the rest of this arguement. Assuming you’re comparing 2 all maple necks, the scale length will be the same so the only difference would be neck thickness.

No - I swapped a 24"-scale Duo-Sonic with a 22.5"-scale Musicmaster, which are interchangeable. (Fender made them so by design.)

The Musicmaster sounded better and was the guitar I wanted to use because it also looked better, but I wanted the longer scale. Unfortunately the good tone remained with the shorter scale neck!

Even if you're swapping the same scale length necks, it's the individual neck that largely determines which is the better guitar, irrespective of dimensions. Try it, I think you'll find the same.