Chunky Necks

TINMAN82

ICBM said:

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.

Hmmm..this thread was specifically about the chunkyness (eg depth) of the neck and it’s affect on tone. I’m not arguing that scale length can make a difference, of course it can. No doubt an all rosewood neck vs an all maple neck too. Separate arguments though I think.

I don’t believe 2 all maple necks with all variables equal except a few mm of front to back depth could be differentiated in a blinded listening test (on the otherwise same electric guitar). That’s snake oil to me. Like I said, if the player “plays” better on one as he prefers the dimensions, that’s a different thing.

thegummy

Pretty much every day on this forum people talk about something being proven or known just by observing.

The scientific method gets shunned as much as it would on a religious forum.

I should probably just ignore it since there's a lot worse people who shun science do than needlessly modifying a guitar.

ICBM

TINMAN82 said:

Hmmm..this thread was specifically about the chunkyness (eg depth) of the neck and it’s affect on tone. I’m not arguing that scale length can make a difference, of course it can. No doubt an all rosewood neck vs an all maple neck too. Separate arguments though I think.

I was specifically responding to your statement that the body wood is more important. In my experience, it isn't.

TINMAN82 said:

I don’t believe 2 all maple necks with all variables equal except a few mm of front to back depth could be differentiated in a blinded listening test (on the otherwise same electric guitar). That’s snake oil to me.

Try it for yourself - when the two guitars sound noticeably different in the first place, obviously if they sound close to the same it probably won't make much difference.

If it's snake oil then the 'good' body will keep the good sound and not the 'good' neck.

TINMAN82

ICBM said:

TINMAN82 said:

Hmmm..this thread was specifically about the chunkyness (eg depth) of the neck and it’s affect on tone. I’m not arguing that scale length can make a difference, of course it can. No doubt an all rosewood neck vs an all maple neck too. Separate arguments though I think.

I was specifically responding to your statement that the body wood is more important. In my experience, it isn't.

TINMAN82 said:

I don’t believe 2 all maple necks with all variables equal except a few mm of front to back depth could be differentiated in a blinded listening test (on the otherwise same electric guitar). That’s snake oil to me.

Try it for yourself - when the two guitars sound noticeably different in the first place, obviously if they sound close to the same it probably won't make much difference.

If it's snake oil then the 'good' body will keep the good sound and not the 'good' neck.

I haven't tested it scientifically, but from first principles a mahogany vs alder body or a solid vs hollow body will contribute more to tone than a couple extra mm of maple in an otherwise identical neck. I also don’t believe that 2 pieces of rock maple could be “organically” different enough...whatever that means...to alter tone on an electric guitar in a perceptible way. 

The pickups and amp will trump all of the above (provided we’re talking solid bodies). Your example of scale length making the difference is a separate topic.

ICBM

TINMAN82 said:

I haven't tested it scientifically, but from first principles a mahogany vs alder body or a solid vs hollow body will contribute more to tone than a couple extra mm of maple in an otherwise identical neck. I also don’t believe that 2 pieces of rock maple could be “organically” different enough...whatever that means...to alter tone on an electric guitar in a perceptible way.

Solid vs hollow is a different argument - but I guarantee you that the neck makes more difference than the species of body wood. If you haven't tried it then you simply don't know.

I'm not talking about the difference a few mm makes - it's the difference in resonance between two different necks, even if they appear to have identical measurements. Changing the dimensions *as well* makes it even more certain that they won't be the same.

For one thing, a quarter-sawn neck is *much* stiffer than a flat-sawn one of the same dimensions, and you haven't even mentioned that... but stiffness is one of the major contributors to resonance.

TINMAN82 said:

The pickups and amp will trump all of the above (provided we’re talking solid bodies).

I don't disagree, but that's not what we're talking about.

roberty

My hands are too small to consider playing thumb over in any practical way. I prefer big necks for thumb behind because you're not squeezing your thumb into your hand, it's a more relaxed position for it. I agree with @Danielsguitars in that the shoulder of the neck is the biggest determiner of feel

guitars4you

^^^^^^^^^^^^^  @the gummy @ICBM ; @TINMAN82 ; - ref the all maple neck chat

Try a Custom Shop 50's Nocaster with the vintage correct big U profile - Then the same guitar that has been spec'd with a slimmer 60's C profile, spec'd so it is easier to handle - The former has a bigger tone - The difference is very audible

As for the scientific approach - As a big overview, most classic guitars have never been designed from the ground up, certainly not by any CAD/CAM process - They have evolved, as required, from an early model that was already in existence, as players demands and changes in music styles equally evolved - ie the big bodied 'archtops' of the 40's and 50's to the slimmer 335 design, as rock n roll arrived and the guitarist wanted to be louder without feedback - Trapeze to stop tail - P90 to humbuckers - Certainly most/many/all changes in the 40's , 50's and 60' s were based on changes that players required   - Today such models and changes still influence the market today

The arch top guitar was essentially influenced by the violin and the mandolin - The 000, 00 and D series Martins evolved from the classical guitar etc - No scientific measurements or design as such - All guitarist requirements based on feel, tone, ease of performance and the requirement to do a 'better' job - The 12 fret acoustic to 14 fret acoustic evolved as guitar players wanted further access to the top frets, as per a banjo player

You can make a strong claim that the Telecaster was designed from no previous model

In the above I say no scientific design etc - But I dare say lots of prototype, trial and error

TINMAN82

Think I’ll leave the argument here. I just don’t buy the “tone correlates directly with neck depth” argument. It’s an electric guitar. The sound comes primarily from the pickups and amp. There are too many variables in play. My ears can’t tell the difference between a few mm of difference in neck thickness and certainly can’t tell the difference between flat sawn and quarter sawn maple!! Sounds like folly to me.

ICBM

TINMAN82 said:

Think I’ll leave the argument here. I just don’t buy the “tone correlates directly with neck depth” argument. It’s an electric guitar. The sound comes primarily from the pickups and amp. There are too many variables in play. My ears can’t tell the difference between a few mm of difference in neck thickness and certainly can’t tell the difference between flat sawn and quarter sawn maple!! Sounds like folly to me.

Sounds like you've never tried swapping a neck, to me.

I agree that tone doesn't correlate directly with neck depth - I never said it did. But if you think that different necks don't sound different on the same guitar then you're just wrong .

ESBlonde

Something in between for me. I remember in the 70s getting my hands on a purple double cut made by John Birch. I remember thinking 'is this what the pros are using, my god it's a very slim neck'.

I didn't buy it. But Over time I've got used to most neck styles but just can't get on with those flat board, slim neck (pointy?) guitars. Medium and a C shape is my preference.

Philly_Q

ICBM said:

TINMAN82 said:

Think I’ll leave the argument here. I just don’t buy the “tone correlates directly with neck depth” argument. It’s an electric guitar. The sound comes primarily from the pickups and amp. There are too many variables in play. My ears can’t tell the difference between a few mm of difference in neck thickness and certainly can’t tell the difference between flat sawn and quarter sawn maple!! Sounds like folly to me.

Sounds like you've never tried swapping a neck, to me.

My only experience was swapping a couple of necks on a '90s Tele Thinline.  Both modern Fender USA necks with bi-flex truss rods, 9.5" radius, sealed tuners etc.  The original was maple with a rosewood board, the replacement was one-piece maple.

I tried it just because I thought the maple would look better, but it totally changed the sound of the guitar, it was obvious immediately.  I put the rosewood-board neck back on.

The maple neck was a slightly chunkier U shape as compared with the original modern C, but I don't think that was what made the difference, or even the different fingerboard wood - I think it was just the fact they were two different necks.

thegummy

guitars4you said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^  @the gummy @ICBM ; @TINMAN82 ; - ref the all maple neck chat

Try a Custom Shop 50's Nocaster with the vintage correct big U profile - Then the same guitar that has been spec'd with a slimmer 60's C profile, spec'd so it is easier to handle - The former has a bigger tone - The difference is very audible

As for the scientific approach - As a big overview, most classic guitars have never been designed from the ground up, certainly not by any CAD/CAM process - They have evolved, as required, from an early model that was already in existence, as players demands and changes in music styles equally evolved - ie the big bodied 'archtops' of the 40's and 50's to the slimmer 335 design, as rock n roll arrived and the guitarist wanted to be louder without feedback - Trapeze to stop tail - P90 to humbuckers - Certainly most/many/all changes in the 40's , 50's and 60' s were based on changes that players required   - Today such models and changes still influence the market today

The arch top guitar was essentially influenced by the violin and the mandolin - The 000, 00 and D series Martins evolved from the classical guitar etc - No scientific measurements or design as such - All guitarist requirements based on feel, tone, ease of performance and the requirement to do a 'better' job - The 12 fret acoustic to 14 fret acoustic evolved as guitar players wanted further access to the top frets, as per a banjo player

You can make a strong claim that the Telecaster was designed from no previous model

In the above I say no scientific design etc - But I dare say lots of prototype, trial and error

Think you misunderstood what I meant by scientific method.

If you played a guitar then swapped the neck and played it again you are comparing your (completely biased) perception of what it sounds like to your memory of what you remember your perception of the sound of the previous neck.

The scientific method is to overcome the problem of humans being as influenced by biases as much as they are by reality. E.g. A blind test sound recording of the of the two guitars playing the same thing a good few times and if the test subjects can identify the correct neck every time, or at least nearly, then we know the difference is really there. If they don't then it shows that when they think they can hear the difference when they know what neck they have it's really just expectation bias.

There could be problems with the test like the neck shape making the player play differently so would be more difficult than, say, pickups where the test subjects could even play the guitars themselves.

A lot of people are completely unaware of how much our perceptions are influenced by many things other than what is actually there so they naturally believe that they hear things because they exist - it makes sense to assume that before learning otherwise.

I think there are maybe also people who dislike the idea of scientific proof; they prefer the arty mystical/magical world rather than the cold logical truth of evidence.

That's probably why I should just let it go and let others believe what they want. Only really clarifying what I mean.

guitars4you

TINMAN82 said:

Think I’ll leave the argument here. I just don’t buy the “tone correlates directly with neck depth” argument. It’s an electric guitar. The sound comes primarily from the pickups and amp. There are too many variables in play. My ears can’t tell the difference between a few mm of difference in neck thickness and certainly can’t tell the difference between flat sawn and quarter sawn maple!! Sounds like folly to me.

I agree any difference between 1/4 sawn and flat sawn regarding the tone is minimal if at all - A difference between the tone will only be the same/similar to the difference between 2 pieces of 1/4 sawn when tried side by side - A bigger neck has more mass and it is this that helps to drive the 'bigger voice'

The pick-up effectively receives the signal from the string - How it vibrates and many other factors come into play here, that all influence the final voice, before the pick-up comes into play - Agree the final package is the sum of all the parts - And yes part of it is marginal gain

But I don't see it as an argument, just my thoughts based on being in a fortunate position where I've played, sold and heard many guitars - But I'm not the be all and end all on it either - But if you don't notice it or hear it, then that is fine and all thoughts are respected - I recall a similar topic of chat with a customer who told me 'I'm glad I don't notice or appreciate any such marginal differences, as it has saved me £2000'

TINMAN82

thegummy said:

guitars4you said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^  @the gummy @ICBM ; @TINMAN82 ; - ref the all maple neck chat

Try a Custom Shop 50's Nocaster with the vintage correct big U profile - Then the same guitar that has been spec'd with a slimmer 60's C profile, spec'd so it is easier to handle - The former has a bigger tone - The difference is very audible

As for the scientific approach - As a big overview, most classic guitars have never been designed from the ground up, certainly not by any CAD/CAM process - They have evolved, as required, from an early model that was already in existence, as players demands and changes in music styles equally evolved - ie the big bodied 'archtops' of the 40's and 50's to the slimmer 335 design, as rock n roll arrived and the guitarist wanted to be louder without feedback - Trapeze to stop tail - P90 to humbuckers - Certainly most/many/all changes in the 40's , 50's and 60' s were based on changes that players required   - Today such models and changes still influence the market today

The arch top guitar was essentially influenced by the violin and the mandolin - The 000, 00 and D series Martins evolved from the classical guitar etc - No scientific measurements or design as such - All guitarist requirements based on feel, tone, ease of performance and the requirement to do a 'better' job - The 12 fret acoustic to 14 fret acoustic evolved as guitar players wanted further access to the top frets, as per a banjo player

You can make a strong claim that the Telecaster was designed from no previous model

In the above I say no scientific design etc - But I dare say lots of prototype, trial and error

Think you misunderstood what I meant by scientific method.

If you played a guitar then swapped the neck and played it again you are comparing your (completely biased) perception of what it sounds like to your memory of what you remember your perception of the sound of the previous neck.

The scientific method is to overcome the problem of humans being as influenced by biases as much as they are by reality. E.g. A blind test sound recording of the of the two guitars playing the same thing a good few times and if the test subjects can identify the correct neck every time, or at least nearly, then we know the difference is really there. If they don't then it shows that when they think they can hear the difference when they know what neck they have it's really just expectation bias.

There could be problems with the test like the neck shape making the player play differently so would be more difficult than, say, pickups where the test subjects could even play the guitars themselves.

A lot of people are completely unaware of how much our perceptions are influenced by many things other than what is actually there so they naturally believe that they hear things because they exist - it makes sense to assume that before learning otherwise.

I think there are maybe also people who dislike the idea of scientific proof; they prefer the arty mystical/magical world rather than the cold logical truth of evidence.

That's probably why I should just let it go and let others believe what they want. Only really clarifying what I mean.

Exactly right. 

ICBM said:

TINMAN82 said:

Think I’ll leave the argument here. I just don’t buy the “tone correlates directly with neck depth” argument. It’s an electric guitar. The sound comes primarily from the pickups and amp. There are too many variables in play. My ears can’t tell the difference between a few mm of difference in neck thickness and certainly can’t tell the difference between flat sawn and quarter sawn maple!! Sounds like folly to me.

Sounds like you've never tried swapping a neck, to me.

I have actually once, but thats irrelevant (as is you're own example) due to the bias and lack of scientific rigour applied to the "test". As a professional scientist I have some understanding of the process!

There is a lot of chat about wood types, scale length etc here. Similarly, the example of guitars4you comparing 2 different nocasters with different neck specs is flawed as (I assume) these were actually 2 different guitars, potentially with different pickup winds etc. The way guitar design evolved is fascinating but proves nothing really. 

The original question was whether thicker necks influence tone. The scientific null hypothesis, as a basis for a proper blind test, would be that neck thickness doesnt influence tone in a measurable way. 

ICBM

TINMAN82 said:

I have actually once, but thats irrelevant (as is you're own example) due to the bias and lack of scientific rigour applied to the "test". As a professional scientist I have some understanding of the process!

There is a lot of chat about wood types, scale length etc here. Similarly, the example of guitars4you comparing 2 different nocasters with different neck specs is flawed as (I assume) these were actually 2 different guitars, potentially with different pickup winds etc. The way guitar design evolved is fascinating but proves nothing really. 

The original question was whether thicker necks influence tone. The scientific null hypothesis, as a basis for a proper blind test, would be that neck thickness doesnt influence tone in a measurable way. 

Yes, but you extended it into saying that the neck makes less difference than the body wood, which I'm certain is simply wrong. And I do think that the body wood affects the tone too - provable scientifically - just not very much.

If you really think that the difference between a quarter-sawn and a flat-sawn neck isn't relevant, then I don't think you understand how much the neck of a guitar vibrates when it's played - and this is why necks don't all sound the same, since no two pieces of wood actually have identical grain structures. If they were made from a uniform material like metal or some sort of plastic then they would.

I have never said that the thickness of the neck has a direct correlation with the tone - I'm sure it doesn't. But I'm completely certain that different necks even of the same basic construction and dimensions do sound different, and if you wanted to test it scientifically then you would find it to be so.

I'm not a mystic believer in tone magic either.

mburekenge

Neck thickness definitely affects tone in my experience. 

TINMAN82

ICBM said:

TINMAN82 said:

I have actually once, but thats irrelevant (as is you're own example) due to the bias and lack of scientific rigour applied to the "test". As a professional scientist I have some understanding of the process!

There is a lot of chat about wood types, scale length etc here. Similarly, the example of guitars4you comparing 2 different nocasters with different neck specs is flawed as (I assume) these were actually 2 different guitars, potentially with different pickup winds etc. The way guitar design evolved is fascinating but proves nothing really. 

The original question was whether thicker necks influence tone. The scientific null hypothesis, as a basis for a proper blind test, would be that neck thickness doesnt influence tone in a measurable way. 

Yes, but you extended it into saying that the neck makes less difference than the body wood, which I'm certain is simply wrong. And I do think that the body wood affects the tone too - provable scientifically - just not very much.

If you really think that the difference between a quarter-sawn and a flat-sawn neck isn't relevant, then I don't think you understand how much the neck of a guitar vibrates when it's played - and this is why necks don't all sound the same, since no two pieces of wood actually have identical grain structures. If they were made from a uniform material like metal or some sort of plastic then they would.

I have never said that the thickness of the neck has a direct correlation with the tone - I'm sure it doesn't. But I'm completely certain that different necks even of the same basic construction and dimensions do sound different, and if you wanted to test it scientifically then you would find it to be so.

I'm not a mystic believer in tone magic either.

We’ve kind of gone off piste. See thread title and word “chunky”! However, I still contend that while the stability of a neck might be affected by the way it’s cut, no study on human beings would prove they could reliably differentiate variously sawn necks (accounting for all other known variables) by sound/tone alone.

guitars4you

Without copy loads of info from above - But based on the chatter with @ICBM @TINMAN82 and @thegummy - I think when you are asking players/listeners to undertake a blindfold test based on audible only, then I think it is far harder, maybe impossible to tell what is going on - You are taking away the 'hands on' emotion that is so much part of why we simply prefer  A to B - I can tell more on a blind fold test when I have access to the hands on option - Even if it is not about better or worse, but more about preference and I'm talking about feel and tone - I think many players agree with this - The hands on option allows you to play different licks, some slow, some with a softer touch, some more when you dig etc - This allows you to see how the guitar responds to the different emotions you are try to put into your playing - Again this is not about being a fantastic player, as I certainly am not, but I can certainly see how a guitar responds and performs to me, my touch and what I expect from it

I've known similar tests via my Dad - A sax + clarinet player for over 70 years - And they will talk, discuss etc the merits of a wood clarinet v plastic - And on an A v B test always easier to tell when you are playing it

Some differences are more subtle than ever - As an overview I don't think you get the best tone from any guitar if you are not comfortable with how it feels and plays - If it is a fight to play it, then IMO it does not enhance your performance - Hence tonal quality suffers

crunchman

As @ICBM said, neck size isn't nearly as important as the material, and no two pieces of wood are identical.

One of the best (maybe the best) sounding electrics I have played was a 50's Telecaster with a heavliy shaved down neck.  That neck was puny, but the guitar sounded huge.

At the same time, as I said above, there is a very noticeable difference between a rosewood necked McCarty and a regular mahogany necked one.  They both have the identical Wide-Fat PRS neck profile so it's material not dimensions.

Fifty9

I think this thread is at risk of heading down a pseudo-science rabbit hole. Clearly guitar neck size is simply a reflection of todger size.

It’s why shredders feel at home holding tiny necks and play like they're trying to compensate for something whereas smirking nocaster players like me don’t have to impress anyone and we know it.

I reckon that’s about as scientific as it gets...