cosmikdebriis Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 This poll relates to my thread entitled "Les Paul Thru Neck" so maybe read that before you vote. A couple things... I'd assume the Thru neck design would be more expensive to produce so, for arguments sake, lets say it would add $300 to the new price. Please take that into consideration before voting. Check out the links on the other thread to have a look at the Japanese alternatives. Just in case you're not sure what the question is all about.... Standard Gib**N and Heritage guitars have a neck that is a separate piece of wood and is glued into the body of the guitar with a tenon joint. This differs from, say a Fender Strat, whose neck is screwed to the body. Most people would argue a glued neck is stronger and gives more sustain than a screw on neck. However the ideal solution (in my opinion) is where the neck runs the entire length of the body of the guitar with the bridge and tailpiece attached to the same piece of wood. This gives maximum rigidity and sustain. With this option the body of the guitar is glued on the sides of the neck as "wings". A (maple) cap could then be added on top of the construction to make the front of the guitar look exactly the same as a fixed neck. Happy voting. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Seacup Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Has anyone objectively demonstrated that through-neck Jackson superstrats resonate better and sustain longer than a bolt-on strat? Not peeing on your parade, but it occurs to me that maybe someone has already investigated this and I wonder what the results are (I'm going to go google in a minute). Also, I remember reading somewhere that Leo Fender disliked glue in guitars, as it formed a barrier of sorts to the propagation of sound waves. He thought that having a glue joint killed the sustain and resonance. I wonder what effect having two long glue joints along the length of the neck (where the wings are attached) really has. Maybe none, eh? Interesting topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmikdebriis Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 Has anyone objectively demonstrated that through-neck Jackson superstrats resonate better and sustain longer than a bolt-on strat? Not peeing on your parade, but it occurs to me that maybe someone has already investigated this and I wonder what the results are (I'm going to go google in a minute). Also, I remember reading somewhere that Leo Fender disliked glue in guitars, as it formed a barrier of sorts to the propagation of sound waves. He thought that having a glue joint killed the sustain and resonance. I wonder what effect having two long glue joints along the length of the neck (where the wings are attached) really has. Maybe none, eh? Interesting topic. There are several ways of looking at this. One is purely marketing. Would it pay economic dividends to produce a guitar more akin to the original design. Is that sufficient angle to change Heritage from being a Gib**n copier to being a market leader Whether it actually makes a better instrument is another issue. I'd certainly argue it's stronger. Also it seems to make sense that, if you argue the glue interferes with the resonance (and I can understand that). Then, on the basis that the thru neck design has the entire string length on one piece of wood, surely it has to be better. Yes, this certainly is an interesting subject. The marriage of science and art ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Seacup Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 One is purely marketing. Would it pay economic dividends to produce a guitar more akin to the original design. Is that sufficient angle to change Heritage from being a Gib**n copier to being a market leader Who is really copying the Gibsons of the 50s and 60s, though? The guys in Kalamazoo who actually built those guitars or the guys in Nashville who own the name but are twice removed from their origins? I think that could be a whole other discussion on its own. Whether it actually makes a better instrument is another issue. I'd certainly argue it's stronger. Also it seems to make sense that, if you argue the glue interferes with the resonance (and I can understand that). Then, on the basis that the thru neck design has the entire string length on one piece of wood, surely it has to be better. Yes, this certainly is an interesting subject. The marriage of science and art ;D I wonder if the glue lines, being parallel to the strings would keep the waves, for lack of a better term, aligned with the strings more by preventing them from dispersing into the wings. Someone had to have studied this, wouldn't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmikdebriis Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 I don't want to get too hung up on glue (God knows there were enough kids on glue back in the Punk rock era) ;D Don't forget the maple cap has a part to play here and this is glued to the mahogany. There would be interference between this and the bridge/tailpiece anyway. some interesting work on tonal response was done by Marc Minarik (I know I often mention these guitars but honestly I'm not shill(ing) (And I remember shillings to all you Uk members) ;D http://www.minarikguitars.com/products.gui...uitarcolorId=19 A fair part of my argument is to produce what Gib**n should have. I see this as chance to produce an historic guitar, part of the... Erm... Heritage ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundersteel Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 http://www.mcnaughtguitars.com/index15.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmikdebriis Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 http://www.mcnaughtguitars.com/index15.htm Another fine example of a manufacturer prepared to step outside of the mold and produce a really exiting design. Problem of course is, I doubt hell sell many :'( Which, yet again, brings me back to Heritage unique opportunity. ??? This is the place it should have been built and it's the place it still could be built. and Gib**n could F**k Off with their mass produced garbage By the way, this is a poll so please VOTE ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Seacup Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I think I read somewhere that McNaught used to work for Hamer. Or maybe that was Thorn. Useless trivia either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PacerX Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Keep the H-150 family a set neck. If there is a need for a new type model, then consider a neck-thru. I don't see the advantage of a thru-neck in this case. One issue with the analysis above regarding robustness - Fender Strats are basically indestructible, even more so than neck-thru guitars in my opinion. The issue centers around the headstock joint and neck to body joint where the unit stress from a bending moment (due to the guitar being dropped) would be at it's greatest. As far as robustness goes, a solid case can be made for bolt-on guitars. "Tilt Back" headstocks are weak at the headstock to neck joint. At the neck to body joint, 4 steel screws + a steel plate a good distance from the neutral bending axis resisting a bending moment > wood with no reinforcement doing the same thing. Finally, one further note... Thru necks are usually made in multiple pieces (5-ply, 7-ply + plus the fretboard) for strength and to resist warpage. A Fender Strat has two pieces (the fretboard and the neck itself), and in my entire lifetime I have never seen a Fender neck come off a body without anything but the most extreme abuse imaginable, and have NEVER seen a headstock snapped off on a Fender. I've seen LOTS of broken tilt-back headstocks on set necks and thru necks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.