The Great Ongoing Guitar Thread

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Also, the style of the neck - bolt on or through neck, with or without a hard-tailed bridge would make a difference to the sound even if the neck material were the same in all those designs.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

I've never done a comparison, but I would think that the type of neck doesn't change the sound of an electric guitar to any noticeable effect. For instance, a one-piece maple neck will sound exactly like a neck with a rosewood fingerboard on a Strat. It seems to me that for the purposes of the sound of a guitar, a string resting on a bone or plastic nut will sound the same whether that nut is anchored to mahogany or teak or whatever. Anyone disagree and/or have any link to a scientific comparision/analysis of different guitar necks?

Gotta disagree. If anything, with solidbodies, neck play a much bigger role in tone generation.

- This assumes you are playing a classic rock guitar - relatively low-output pickups played through an overdriven, preferably tube amp. If you take the nickname for a Telecaster - a "plank with a microphone stuck in it" - sorta literally, then the mic (the pickup) is amplifying the basic vibrations of the guitar.

- In my experience - and I have had a lot of guitars and have specifically dug into neck materials and profiles to figure out my preferences - that if you have a big-necked guitar and a solid, well-made neck joint - bolt on or set neck - with plenty of wood-to-wood contact, you get a better sounding guitar. The whole solid-bodied-and-big-necked guitar vibrates better as an overall unit.

- neck materials and fingerboards matter in my experience. The harder the material of the fingerboard, the brighter the response. Finished maple and ebony are hard and bright; rosewood is softer and takes a bit of edge off the highs. This has been my experience across these varieties.

There is much geekery on neck joint construction, neck beefiness, neck importance, etc., all over teh interwebs at message boards, etc. Try searches at the biggies like The Gear Page, Acoustic Guitar Forum, TDPRI (for Telecasters), etc...

[E-Sabbath]

Hey, Wordman, I just sent you an e-mail about the Creamsicle.

So, how do you feel about tuners and guitar sound? I'm hearing all kinds of weird stuff about mass there.

[River Hippie]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

Hey, Wordman, I just sent you an e-mail about the Creamsicle.

So, how do you feel about tuners and guitar sound? I'm hearing all kinds of weird stuff about mass there.

I have a very nice sounding American Standard Strat. I replaced the stock tuners with Fender locking versions. I think it killed the tone a little. Makes stringing it a lot easier, though.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

Hey, Wordman, I just sent you an e-mail about the Creamsicle.

So, how do you feel about tuners and guitar sound? I'm hearing all kinds of weird stuff about mass there.

I focus on tuners for functionality; never encountered any that made hear a big tone difference. They need to be accurate tuning-wise and help deal with string ends. I like Fender split post tuners; you trim the string end down in a hole and then wrap it around. But heavy tuners and tone? Nah...

EtA: and thanks for the email; just replied...

[Shakester]

Originally Posted by WordMan

- neck materials and fingerboards matter in my experience. The harder the material of the fingerboard, the brighter the response. Finished maple and ebony are hard and bright; rosewood is softer and takes a bit of edge off the highs. This has been my experience across these varieties.

I fully agree with this. Maple and Ebony fretboards are basically the same thing with a different colour scheme, and sound the same. Rosewood tends to be a little less bright. I'd say Rosewood has more of a midrange emphasis, while maple/ebony have a higher emphasis, upper mids and high end. I find that the low end is pretty similar across fretboard types, or at least I've never noted any particular differences.

The other main difference is that almost all bolt necks are maple. I don't have any direct experience of non-maple bolt necks, but what I hear is that maple is brighter than most other common neck woods.

With set necks, the cheaper ones are usually maple-necked and the more expensive ones are usually mahogany-necked. (I'm talking about the neck itself, not the fretboard, which is almost always rosewood or something meant to approximate it). Cheaper Les Paul style guitars with maple necks are generally brighter and lack a bit of the warmth of mahogany set necks. More clarity, less warmth. Which may or may not be a good thing depending on taste.

All of these differences are subtle, and you can't expect the sort of night/day differences that people who hear with their eyes talk about. But the neck has a much much bigger effect on sound than the body. People who talk about body woods and the finish thereon affecting the sound of a solid-body electric are delusional, but the neck does have an effect.

I've heard that headstock mass can have some effect on sound, and that specifically it can bring out more low end and contribute to sustain. So, theoretically, different tuners can make an audible difference. However, more weight at the headstock would also cause more neck-dive, and contribute to the overall weight of the guitar on your shoulder, which can be a big deal.

I do not subscribe to the current "wisdom" that lighter guitars sound better, any more than I agree with the "wisdom" of the 70s and 80s that claimed the exact opposite. I will say that I've played some very heavy guitars that sounded great, and some light ones that sounded great, and plenty of dogs of all varieties. The lighter ones are certainly more comfortable to play, which is a worthwhile thing in itself.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Shakester

All of these differences are subtle, and you can't expect the sort of night/day differences that people who hear with their eyes talk about. But the neck has a much much bigger effect on sound than the body. People who talk about body woods and the finish thereon affecting the sound of a solid-body electric are delusional, but the neck does have an effect.

I mostly agree with this. I think necks, neck mass, and neck joints are critially important to a solidbodies tone (if you aren't overriding their influence with high-output pickups, etc.), and agree that many distinctions made over body woods and weights are way overblown on line.

I've heard that headstock mass can have some effect on sound, and that specifically it can bring out more low end and contribute to sustain. So, theoretically, different tuners can make an audible difference. However, more weight at the headstock would also cause more neck-dive, and contribute to the overall weight of the guitar on your shoulder, which can be a big deal.

The legend is that Jimi picked Strats made new at the time because he liked the (then) newer, bigger headstocks. Meh; whatever. If you are at a point in your playing where you can get that last % of improvement by switching to a neck with a bigger headstock or heavier tuners, you are a better player than me. I can see where it could have more of an effect on an acoustic guitar - open-backed, lightly-built tuners can sound very different from a set of sealed, heavier, better-machined Grover tuners on a well-made acoustic; i have experience with that. What is interesting is that the change is not always for the better - e.g., a bit more sustain on the wrong acoustic can make the notes clash harmonically a bit more. So, different - but not always better.[/quote]

I do not subscribe to the current "wisdom" that lighter guitars sound better, any more than I agree with the "wisdom" of the 70s and 80s that claimed the exact opposite. I will say that I've played some very heavy guitars that sounded great, and some light ones that sounded great, and plenty of dogs of all varieties. The lighter ones are certainly more comfortable to play, which is a worthwhile thing in itself.

I agree. Weight is a factor to tone, but there is no hard and fast rule. Again, I find this to be different with acoustics - I prefer Martins and Gibsons, and as a rule, lighter=better for those particular acoustics (in the 70's when Martin reinforced their guitars more to avoid paying Warranty repairs, the guitars got heavier and the tone died). Having said that, other acoustic makes - I believe Guild is one - have designs that sound great with a heavier guitar.

Bottom line is that you have to invest time, learn what you like and go from there. Hard to do for casual players - but the rules of thumb are just that - at best, rules of thumb...

[Kim o the Concrete Jungle]

I just dropped a pair of Seymour Duncan 59 humbuckers into my dirt cheap Epiphone Dot Studio (the new pickups cost almost as much as the guitar did).

That made a way bigger difference than the mass of the headstock, or just about anything else.

But having said that, I do find that lighter guitars make for a better sound... because you won't hear me bitch and complain about how much my back is hurting.

[Quasimodem]

My 150.00 Galveston bass. It looks like a greenish-blue in the sunlight, more blue indoors.

Sitting behind it is some goof I hired to hold it for 50 cents.

Q




http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f.../Billbass3.jpg

[WordMan]

Some of Les Paul's gear is going up for auction:

http://guitarsquid.com/Latest/sweet-...ls-estate.html

Not the Log or any early tape echo or multi-track units (there better be a museum for those), but one of the first Gold Les Pauls from 1952.

The one that caught my eye:

1951 Fender Nocaster serial number 1751(Est. $40,000 - $60,000). Butterscotch with black pickguard, neck date "5-10-51 T.G.", no body date, with original thermometer case. Guitar has replaced volume and one tone pot but originals are present. This guitar was personally gifted to Les Paul by Leo Fender who signed the back of the headstock "Leo Fender." The guitar is uncharacteristically light weighing only 7.4 pounds.

If that is an accurate description, then the estimate is woefully undershot - something Leo Fender GAVE to Les Paul, and would likely be worth that estimate amount or more just on its own as a '51 Nocaster? I wouldn't even want to guess...

[squeegee]

Originally Posted by Kim o the Concrete Jungle

I just dropped a pair of Seymour Duncan 59 humbuckers into my dirt cheap Epiphone Dot Studio (the new pickups cost almost as much as the guitar did).

I take it you swapped those in to replace the "Duncan Designed" stock pups, right? I have the same guitar with the stock pickups; how would you compare those with your new ones in that guitar?

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by WordMan

Gotta disagree. If anything, with solidbodies, neck play a much bigger role in tone generation.

For the purposes of discussion, let me simplify my original post. I don't see how a one piece maple neck on a Stratocaster would sound any different than a maple (or whatever type of wood is used) neck with a rosewood board, all other things being equal.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

For the purposes of discussion, let me simplify my original post. I don't see how a one piece maple neck on a Stratocaster would sound any different than a maple (or whatever type of wood is used) neck with a rosewood board, all other things being equal.

That is a YMMV thing, then - in my experience Strats with RW fingerboards DO sound different vs. ones with a maple fingerboard, in the ways that I and Shakester describe above. This assumes that that other features are more or less the same...

Are you basing this on thinking it through or have you played a ton of both types of Strats and drawn this conclusion?

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by WordMan

That is a YMMV thing, then - in my experience Strats with RW fingerboards DO sound different vs. ones with a maple fingerboard, in the ways that I and Shakester describe above. This assumes that that other features are more or less the same...

Are you basing this on thinking it through or have you played a ton of both types of Strats and drawn this conclusion?

I'm certainly not basing this on actual experimentation. I have done no head-to-head comparisons. The mass, weight, density, whatever you want to call it, to me, just doesn't seem to be different enough in the two neck types I mention to be noticeable to the human ear.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

I'm certainly not basing this on actual experimentation. I have done no head-to-head comparisons. The mass, weight, density, whatever you want to call it, to me, just doesn't seem to be different enough in the two neck types I mention to be noticeable to the human ear.

Okay; cool. I can definitely attest to the fact that fingerboard materials matter - that's been my perception after living with a RW Strat for over a decade and a maple-necked Tele and a RW-necked Tele that I built (but which has a different fingerboard scale length, so isn't directly comparable).

My comment/hypothesis/belief - you are mentioning mass, weight and density. I don't think those are the right factors - I think it is the "efficiency" of the fretted note. Meaning: ebony and maple are relatively harder, so your fretting finger is squeezing the string against a harder surface - so more high frequencies are retained = brighter tone. RW is relatively softer, so when you fret you are pushing the string against a surface with slightly more "give," and a few of the highs get absorbed.

[Kim o the Concrete Jungle]

Originally Posted by squeegee

I take it you swapped those in to replace the "Duncan Designed" stock pups, right? I have the same guitar with the stock pickups; how would you compare those with your new ones in that guitar?

The new ones are a little bit hotter (but not high gain, by any means).

Other than that, there are two things I've particularly noticed so far. I always had trouble recording this guitar, because the stock pickups made this kind of whiny noise when you boosted the treble. With the 59s that's gone -- and I don't have to boost the treble so much anyway, because it already sounds a bit brighter than stock.

The other thing is that the bass is way tighter and much less woolly. That really stood out when I took it to band practice. For the first time, I was actually able to use the neck pickup on this guitar playing in the band. With the stock pickups, it would almost entirely disappear in the mix. It also made a much more impressive sound through the high gain channel on my Marshall amp.

So yeah, buying the new pickups was well worth it. It's made the Dot Studio one of my best guitars (although it's a slightly more conventional sound than the quirky original).

[squeegee]

Originally Posted by Kim o the Concrete Jungle

The new ones are a little bit hotter (but not high gain, by any means).

Other than that, there are two things I've particularly noticed so far. I always had trouble recording this guitar, because the stock pickups made this kind of whiny noise when you boosted the treble. With the 59s that's gone -- and I don't have to boost the treble so much anyway, because it already sounds a bit brighter than stock.

The other thing is that the bass is way tighter and much less woolly. That really stood out when I took it to band practice. For the first time, I was actually able to use the neck pickup on this guitar playing in the band. With the stock pickups, it would almost entirely disappear in the mix. It also made a much more impressive sound through the high gain channel on my Marshall amp.

So yeah, buying the new pickups was well worth it. It's made the Dot Studio one of my best guitars (although it's a slightly more conventional sound than the quirky original).

Thanks for the rundown. I totally hear you on the bass response -- weird and boomy, or "woolly" as you said. I think I'll try the same set, your experience is encouraging. I assume you got these, right?

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by WordMan

I don't think those are the right factors - I think it is the "efficiency" of the fretted note. Meaning: ebony and maple are relatively harder, so your fretting finger is squeezing the string against a harder surface - so more high frequencies are retained = brighter tone. RW is relatively softer, so when you fret you are pushing the string against a surface with slightly more "give," and a few of the highs get absorbed.

That's something I never thought of, since I generally think of the string touching the fret, and not the fingerboard so much. This gives me a great excuse to swap my maple neck on my Strat for one with rosewood.

[Kim o the Concrete Jungle]

Yup, those are the ones.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

That's something I never thought of, since I generally think of the string touching the fret, and not the fingerboard so much. This gives me a great excuse to swap my maple neck on my Strat for one with rosewood.

As a Jeff Beck fan, if I ever go back to a Strat, it would be an Olympic White, White pick guard and RW fingerboard. I prefer RW anyway, and JB likes chunky necks, so right up my alley. I am also a warmer-beats-brighter tone-wise so lean towards RW anyway.

And anything I do that encourages you to have fun and experiment - yay. A neck swap is 100% reversible and a great way to learn your way around a guitar. Go for it.

[Shakester]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

That's something I never thought of, since I generally think of the string touching the fret, and not the fingerboard so much. This gives me a great excuse to swap my maple neck on my Strat for one with rosewood.

You will hear a difference, but it'll be a subtle difference. Don't expect night/day.

The main way that the neck effects the timbre of the guitar is that it vibrates along with the strings. Holding the string onto a fretboard between the frets makes no difference, what affects the sound is the rest of the neck/fretboard vibrating away a millimetre or so away from the string.

That, plus the nature of the bridge (the other end of the string) is what creates the "acoustic" sound of an electric guitar. Neck and bridge affecting the strings plus the pickup(s) is the sound of an electric guitar. Oh, and the strings themselves definitely make a difference, I've swapped around between brands, and for my money different brands can make as big a difference as different pickups.

Any other factors will have little or no effect on timbre.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Shakester

You will hear a difference, but it'll be a subtle difference. Don't expect night/day.

The main way that the neck effects the timbre of the guitar is that it vibrates along with the strings. Holding the string onto a fretboard between the frets makes no difference, what affects the sound is the rest of the neck/fretboard vibrating away a millimetre or so away from the string.

That, plus the nature of the bridge (the other end of the string) is what creates the "acoustic" sound of an electric guitar. Neck and bridge affecting the strings plus the pickup(s) is the sound of an electric guitar. Oh, and the strings themselves definitely make a difference, I've swapped around between brands, and for my money different brands can make as big a difference as different pickups.

Any other factors will have little or no effect on timbre.

I don't know that I agree with all of the absolute-ness of the statments, but I hear you. I think you are dismissing "Holding the string onto a fretboard between the frets" too easily; a lot of technique goes on behind that fret, and the way you manage your finger pressure influences sustain, vibrato, intonation, etc. Since the fingerboard is the thing you are contacting, it would be part of that equation.

We both agree that fingerboard material influences tone - so you are saying that this is due to how the different f-board materials vibrate as part of the neck and whole guitar system? I totally agree that neck mass and overall vibration matters - I favor chunky necks and in my experience that added neck mass effects tone, along with a solid, big body joint. But the brightness I hear from ebony (and agreed, it is not life-changing; it is a small impact on the overall tone) happens regardless of the size of the neck behind it...

[E-Sabbath]

Now, what about the difference between through-body and bridge stringing? Because through-body guitars seem to sustain a bit more. I've strung Trouble both ways, and going through the body adds a lot more sustain, and a bit more, eh, depth to it. (remember, telecaster bridge)

PS: How do you guys feel about barnwood for a guitar? Specifically, 50+ year old sweetgum?

[WordMan]

Through-body vs. string bridging is something you have to live with.

For those that don't know, use the Telecaster to illustrate: Telecasters, as a rule, have the strings pass over the bridge saddles then through the body - so when you string up the guitar, you start feeding the string through a hole in the back of the body, up through the bridge, over the saddle and then to the tuner.

The one exception were Top-Loaders from, I think 1959 or so - those Teles simple had holes at the end of the bridge plate that the bridge was affixed to - so you threaded the string through the hole, over the saddle, etc. (see here for a link to a TDPRI (Tele) Message board; post #7 shows both.)

So standard vs. Top-Loader is a good test case for this. The general consensus is that the standard Teles have a sharper, ballsier tone, and the Top Loaders have a little less edge to the tone - and the Top Loaders have a more "slinky" feel - the strings don't feel under as much tension vs. the through-bodies. Now, Jimmy Page's Led Zep 1 Tele was a Top Loader, so please don't hear that I am saying one is better, only that they yield a somewhat different tone and feel.

[WordMan]

Regarding the whole Tone thing, and the cork-sniffing geekiness prevalent on the web:

- The only thing that 99.99% of guitars players need to care about with regard to their tone is whether it pleases them enough to encourage/inspire them to play. In other words, to use cork-sniffing language, for most meals, a solid, drinkable Table Red or White is more than sufficient.

- The ONLY thing that matters is what you bring to the guitar. That is why players "sound like themselves" on any playable guitar they pick up.

- Some guitars help you hear and play things differently because of their playability and tone. Sometimes it is because they are great guitars and sometimes simply because they are different and open a different door to your ears and/or hands.

- However, once you have that door open - i.e., you hear something differently and it impacts your playing, or learn a new technique - you end up "bringing that with you" to other guitars. I have some excellent guitars that make me sound decent when I attempt jazz chords; as I get more comfortable on them, I find I can play the same chords on other guitars - guitars that I wouldn't have played jazz on before - and make them sound decent.

- From my POV, then, if you have an active guitar life, then if you are a newish player - first 10 years or so - you are well-served trying a bunch of guitars; pure and simple. Focus on getting different experiences, without investing a lot, so you can start to get a feel for what tones and guitar designs work for you. Don't immediately focus on cork-sniffing holy-grail tone characteristics. A newish acoustic player does NOT need Brazilian Rosewood for their guitar, and a newish electric player doesn't need scatterwound, deGaussed, formvar 42 authentic PAF pickups. Make sure you have 1 - 2 interesting guitars in your stable, and take the time to enjoy yourself at guitar stores, trying different guitars for 15-minute snapshots.

- Within that context, if you want to experiment with factors that vary tone, do so in a way you can reverse. Swapping pickups or necks are excellent examples - lower cost and totally reversible.

Nothing beats experience. Find ways to gain that experience that fit your budget and manage your risk (i.e., doesn't commit you to modifying a guitar irreversibly or having to get rid of a guitar you don't think you are ready to move).

Just some thoughts.

[Jack Batty]

My new/old Les Paul is being put through its trials tonight.

Here's the story (which I may have told before) ... years ago, my cousin gave me his Les Paul. He told me it was a gift from a girlfriend with a rich daddy, and when they broke up, she wanted it back. So, instead of giving that satisfaction he gave her some line about how it had been stolen and he gave it to me. Truth be told, it seems one of the reasons for his largesse toward me was because the thing was fucked up.

So anyway ... it is a Studio model (although my cousin gave me some line about it being a Custom, but with a Studio plaque, but that doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny). When my cousin first got it, it was this awesomw pearl white gloss type finish. He promptly went to town on it and slapped electrical tape and spray paint all over it, in an effort to Van Halen-ize it. So when I got it, I handed it over to my dad for a re-finishing (he likes doing stuff like that). The plan was to give it a deep cherry red finish; the result ended up being basically a bubble-gum pink finish, but whatever.

Now when I got it back from him, I wasn't really jamming with anyone, so I just knocked around with it around the house. Then when I hooked up with the guys I'm playing with now, I took up to the studio, plugged it in and it sounded great ... except that it wouldn't stay in tune. So I basically threw the thing in the closet.

A couple of weeks ago I decided to see if it was fixable, so I brought it in to my local shop for a set up. As it turns out the neck was severly bowed. I don't know if that was because of my dad's wrestling with it, or if that's how I got it.

Long story short (I know, too late), the guy at the desk wrenched on the tension bar but it didn't quite do the trick, so they put it through a "heat press," which I'm led to believe loosens the fret-board so that the wood of the neck can be wrenched on even harder. $135 later and, apparently, I have a fully operational and stay-in-tuney Les Paul in my arsenal.

Tonight is band practice, at which time I shall plug it into my shitty little Marshall 50-watt and I'll see what I can melt with it.

[Kim o the Concrete Jungle]

About guitar collecting...

I never wanted to be one of those guys with the fifty near identical Les Pauls all lined up along the wall. It's pointless doing that. There's no possible reason for it except pure self-indulgence.

So when I started to buy more than just the three guitars I began with, I decided that every new one I bought should be different from anything I already owned. And I've stuck to that. It was a good way to keep it real, and I knew when I was done. Eventually, none of my original three guitars were still playable, and that was a good excuse to replace them (and to make better decisions now I'm older, wiser, and more cashed up), but I'm not looking at new guitars all the time now.

I don't suffer GAS anymore, because my collection is more or less complete. I've got a strat and a tele. I've got a hollow-body and a semi-acoustic. I've got a 12 string Rickenbacker (lucked into that one). I've got a nylon string acoustic, a steel string, and a resonator. I don't own any Gibsons (because the prices in Australia don't represent good value for money), but I've got the Epiphone Dot Studio and a Maton Mastersound (which covers the same sort of territory a Les Paul would). I've even got a lap-steel.

I like to look at it as an entire collection. I know now that I can look into any situation and choose the best tool for the job. And I'm only interested in new guitars if they can fill some sort of gap in my collection. I have a lot of guitars, but the "one of everything" rule means I'm not just hoarding. I've allowed myself to be satiated.

That's a good thing, because I'm not sitting around thinking "Hey, I wish I had a Tele," (because, hey, I've got one). Instead, I can think a bit more about what I do with my spending money, and use it much more effectively.

[WordMan]

Jack Batty - cool; look forward to the report. And yes, if a guitar is left in the wrong situation for too long - full tension strings with a lot of weather variation and no maintenance - then the neck can get bowed past what the rod can adjust. That repair either takes in a great way or doesn't - you should know after playing it for a while over the next week or so.

Kim - I totally agree; my goal has been to arrive at the best toolset for me. I collect stuff - grew up with antique-dealer parents, collected first-edition books myself - and I have no interest in "collecting" guitars. I want as few as possible that cover the most ground for me. I have brought my "collecting mindset" to the situation a bit - I love a good haggle: get a guitar, learn from it, use it as trade fodder for the next acquisition; repeat. Also, I think my mindset has kept me focused on resale value - I try to go after guitars that are good tools first, but also retain their value.

But beyond that, playability and inspiration is all that matters. I have four acoustics which vary in good ways and sit along a spectrum of playability and uses; and a couple of electrics that I built. It's all good.

[Quasimodem]

Jack Batty

I totally enjoyed reading about your Les. You ought to give it a title, such as "Resurrection: The Death and Life of a Les Paul". Or something.

Q

[squeegee]

Originally Posted by Kim o the Concrete Jungle

Yup, those are the ones.

Ordered online. Will report back, once I have time to solder them in.

[Shakester]

Originally Posted by WordMan

We both agree that fingerboard material influences tone - so you are saying that this is due to how the different f-board materials vibrate as part of the neck and whole guitar system? I totally agree that neck mass and overall vibration matters - I favor chunky necks and in my experience that added neck mass effects tone, along with a solid, big body joint. But the brightness I hear from ebony (and agreed, it is not life-changing; it is a small impact on the overall tone) happens regardless of the size of the neck behind it...

I don't think the wood behind the fret, where it may or may not be in contact with your finger, matters. I think it's the wood that the fret in question is embedded in that matters. But, either way, we're only disagreeing over small details, we both agree that fretboard wood matters.

(I've mostly been playing my Ashbory bass lately, where the strings are rubbery silicone, the fingerboard is plastic over wood, and there are no frets at all. And it sounds great. Interestingly, there are a couple of different types of string available apart from the stock strings, and I'm now on my third different set of strings: they all sound notably different.)

Anyway, if I think about the best sounding electric guitars I've played, one was my late 70s Yamaha SG1500 which had a sort of medium chunky neck-through "hippie sandwich" construction (layers of wood, in this case maple and mahogany). That guitar sang. Once I got a good fret-dressing done to it, it played really well, too. However, it weighed a lot, and after a few gigs using it where my neck and shoulder were very painful the next day, I retired it and eventually sold it off. It was a bit hard to sell it, because it really did sound great, but it was unusable except when sitting, and I don't keep guitars I can't use.

I'm reminded of another guitar: a friend of mine bought a bunch of mixed used guitar parts for practically nothing, and asked me to assemble a guitar out of them. The neck was a skinny Charvel superstrat pointy headstock thing, and the body was a Kramer superstrat, made of Basswood. The neck and body were quite mismatched, and the only way I could get a usable neck angle was by shimming it. So I added layers of thick paper to the neck joint at the body end till it was built up quite a bit. It took a few tries to get an angle that I liked, with my paper shim, and when I finally liked the look of it, I strung it up.

Amazing. The damn thing just about played itself, and it sounded great, a really warm but raunchy rock and roll sound that worked clean or distorted. It looked terrible, but it sounded great. Everyone who played it was amazed at how well it played and how nice it sounded. I borrowed it to use at gigs instead of my uber-heavy Yamaha.

Sadly, it was ugly, and my friend eventually pawned it for a stupidly small amount of money and lost it. I and several other guitar players who'd used that guitar were really upset that it was lost for so little money - we'd have all paid more for it. Ugly and all wrong, yet somehow that guitar was magic.

Just to recap: skinny Charvel neck, rubbish amateur (I freely admit) neck shim to get a workable angle, and a basswood body which was no doubt soaked in polyester finish. That thing sounded great. It remains, to me, the standard of what a really good solidbody electric guitar sounds like. The pickups, by the way, were an unidentified bridge humbucker and two strat-types. Nothing special, as far as I could tell. The bridge was a Floyd knockoff that I set up to be non-floating.

The moral of the story? That there are no rules to getting a good sounding guitar, and that whatever anyone says is "wrong" or "bad" in guitars is, at best, a set of guidelines that real world conditions will on a regular basis cheerfully disprove.

[Kim o the Concrete Jungle]

Originally Posted by squeegee

Ordered online. Will report back, once I have time to solder them in.

I feel all responsible now.

I'll cross my fingers and hope you don't hate them.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Shakester

I don't think the wood behind the fret, where it may or may not be in contact with your finger, matters. I think it's the wood that the fret in question is embedded in that matters. But, either way, we're only disagreeing over small details, we both agree that fretboard wood matters.

<snip>

The moral of the story? That there are no rules to getting a good sounding guitar, and that whatever anyone says is "wrong" or "bad" in guitars is, at best, a set of guidelines that real world conditions will on a regular basis cheerfully disprove.

First part - embedded in. Hmm - sure; that makes sense. Stainless steel frets also have a brighter tone (and last longer) vs. standard frets, which I think are nickel.

Last part - yep. That is why I refer to any tone things as "rules of thumb" - at best they are tendencies. There is no replacement for playing and listening to a guitar first hand. Cool story about your mongrel guitar; sorry to hear how it got away.

[WordMan]

Time-Lapse of a Strat being made in the Corona, CA Fender factory:

http://devour.com/video/a-strat-is-born/

The vid seems to emphasize the human element - lots of manual steps. Must be a high-price-point guitar; they even hand-shape the neck - to my knowledge that is done via CNC computerized routers for most price points. Big headstock - must be a 70's reissue Strat...

[phungi]

Originally Posted by WordMan

Time-Lapse of a Strat being made in the Corona, CA Fender factory:

http://devour.com/video/a-strat-is-born/

The vid seems to emphasize the human element - lots of manual steps. Must be a high-price-point guitar; they even hand-shape the neck - to my knowledge that is done via CNC computerized routers for most price points. Big headstock - must be a 70's reissue Strat...

Watching that is 4 minutes well spent!

[Jack Batty]

The jury is still out on The Resurrection.

When I got to the studio last night, I broke out Candy (which is what it (and I, by extension, (thanks bandmates)) was dubbed last night and we all poked it and prodded it and oohed and aahed and all that dopey stuff that musicians do when someone presents a new intstrument. I regaled them with stories of Van Halen paint jobs and heat presses. Then I plugged it into my little Marshall for a little test run -- and it sounded great. I cranked it right up and riffed and diddled around for a minute or two and I was happy. So, I put it down, giddy with anticipation for when we actually started jamming.

Then we actually started jamming. My Marshall - the one I spoke of last year suffering from a horrible buzz - started buzzing again. Worst then it ever has. I still don't know what the deal is on that. The only thing I can think of is a bad circuit board or something (it's solid state, not tube), because all winter long I had no buzz. As soon as the warm weather rolls around .... buzz. That and some of the boys were goofing around in the studio over the weekend and did ... something, I don't know. I still think there's a bit of bad wiring afoot.

Anyhoo ... as usual, we fiddled and farted around with the amp, but we couldn't lose the buzz. Fuck it, the only other amp to play through - and we wanted to jam - was our bass player's spare bass cabinet. It was not optimal. Way too bassy, no effects, the amp was positioned badly so I couldn't really hear it until I was way too loud for the rest of the room.

Couple that with the 30 minute argument we had over the form of a song, and I'm beginning to think that Candy is cursed.

In the meantime, I'll be shopping around for a new amp (that I can't afford).

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

Then we actually started jamming. My Marshall - the one I spoke of last year suffering from a horrible buzz - started buzzing again. Worst then it ever has. I still don't know what the deal is on that. The only thing I can think of is a bad circuit board or something (it's solid state, not tube), because all winter long I had no buzz. As soon as the warm weather rolls around .... buzz. That and some of the boys were goofing around in the studio over the weekend and did ... something, I don't know. I still think there's a bit of bad wiring afoot.

Best of luck with Candy - but w/r/t your Marshall - argh. Hmm - could be bad wiring /outlet in the building, could be something inside the amp - and from the sound of it, could be warm-weather related, like a wire is justhisclose to another wire, and in warmer weather, the wires expand a bit, touch and you get a buzzy short. I assume you are plugging it into a surge protector? Or, put it another way, does it buzz when you plug it in at other locations? That would be the easiest way to tell if it is the amp by itself, or the amp at that location...

[E-Sabbath]

Originally Posted by WordMan

Through-body vs. string bridging is something you have to live with.

For those that don't know, use the Telecaster to illustrate: Telecasters, as a rule, have the strings pass over the bridge saddles then through the body - so when you string up the guitar, you start feeding the string through a hole in the back of the body, up through the bridge, over the saddle and then to the tuner.

The one exception were Top-Loaders from, I think 1959 or so - those Teles simple had holes at the end of the bridge plate that the bridge was affixed to - so you threaded the string through the hole, over the saddle, etc. (see here for a link to a TDPRI (Tele) Message board; post #7 shows both.)

Some Squier teles are top-loaders. And all Xaviere Tele-variants have the potential for doing both. Including the Creamsicle telemaster I have.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

Some Squier teles are top-loaders. And all Xaviere Tele-variants have the potential for doing both. Including the Creamsicle telemaster I have.

Yes, sure; sorry. Up through the 80's or so, when reissues started to appear and a bunch of other makers jumped on the "let's build T and S style guitars" bandwagon, the Top Loader had mainly just surfaced on the late 50's Teles. Now that every Tele variation ever made is being reissued (and plenty that were NEVER made before, like your Telemaster or those Fender Pawn Shop hybrids they came out with a year or two ago) I am sure that option is on a variety of Fender and non-Fender makes, and that parts suppliers like StewMac or Allparts offer top-loader variants...

[squeegee]

Originally Posted by WordMan

Time-Lapse of a Strat being made in the Corona, CA Fender factory:

http://devour.com/video/a-strat-is-born/

The vid seems to emphasize the human element - lots of manual steps. Must be a high-price-point guitar; they even hand-shape the neck - to my knowledge that is done via CNC computerized routers for most price points. Big headstock - must be a 70's reissue Strat...

The sticker on the pickguard reads "American Special Stratocaster", like this. So actually one step below the American Standard Strat.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by squeegee

The sticker on the pickguard reads "American Special Stratocaster", like this. So actually one step below the American Standard Strat.

Hmm - interesting; as always, you are very observant sir. I bet the vid shows a neck getting some final sanding, then, after a CNC does the bulk of the shaping...

[BigShooter]

So I got the collection out for some pics (insurance reasons) and I figured some of you might be interested. In order of how often I play them:

Esquire Parts-caster:

http://i39.tinypic.com/34eakxi.jpg

Assembled from spare parts and a double bound Classic Vibe Deluxe Tele body I found on ebay for cheap. The parts came together to make a great guitar. I use it most often because it's tone fits with a lot of my band's songs.

Body: Alder
Neck: Maple/Rosewood
Pickup: Seymour Duncan bg1400

Homemade Korina Strat:

http://i41.tinypic.com/2qi7fyp.jpg

One of the first guitar bodies that I shaped myself from scratch. I really love this guitar. Really versatile and great tones all around. Use it whenever I need that glassy strat tone.

Body: Black Korina
Neck: Canary/Ebony
Pickups: Seymour Duncan JB Jr. in the bridge / Fender Texas Specials in the neck and middle

'72 Gibson Les Paul Deluxe:

http://i41.tinypic.com/i5zord.jpg

This is the guitar that I'll never EVER part with. I've had it so long, I'd be lost without it. It actually has my DNA embedded in the fretboard wood from me bleeding on it a few times. For my current band, I use it for slide work mostly and have it tuned to open G.

Body: Mahogany (pancake)
Neck: Mahogany/Rosewood
Pickups: Gibson PAF's

Homemade Telemaster:

http://i40.tinypic.com/5mbgwp.jpg

Another body that I shaped myself. Probably the best finish job I've ever done considering the tools I had at my disposal. Great for country licks as well as that early Zeppelin tone. Really well balanced when strapped on

Body: Alder
Neck: Birdseye Maple/Rosewood
Pickups: Bare Knuckle Yardbird set

Homemade Cabronita Tele:

http://i43.tinypic.com/274p3.jpg

Originally made this as an Esquire but when I played my first Fender Cabronita I was hooked and decided to make my own version. Turned out well, I guess. Decent blues and rock tones.

Body: Walnut
Neck: Goncalo alves/Pau ferro
Pickups: Filtertron Classic Plus

'96 Fender Loanstar Strat:

http://i42.tinypic.com/hrwp3b.jpg

This guitar brought me back to Fenders after many years as a Gibson man. Bought it new and haven't changed a thing on it. Just a great playing and sounding guitar

Body: Alder
Neck: Maple/Rosewood
Pickups: Seymour Duncan Pearly Gates in the bridge / Texas Specials in the neck and middle

Black Partscaster:

http://i39.tinypic.com/34pm49f.jpg

This is actually the guitar I've owned the longest, in a way. The body is from a Japanese Squire strat that was my first real guitar back in '84. I sold it in college to a friend and a couple of years ago got it back from him in horrible condition. A new neck, homemade pickguard, and a little elbow grease and it's back. I made a superstrat out of it - my "EVH" guitar. I can even do divebombs on the tremolo without it going too far out of tune.

Body: Basswood
Neck: Maple/Ebony
Pickups: Seymour Duncan Pearly Gates in the bridge / SH-5 in the neck

Ibanez Artcore:

http://i39.tinypic.com/vxmfbs.jpg

This was an impulse buy. One of those times when you pick up a guitar and it just feels right - plus it was relatively cheap. It's got some decent jazz tones and gets ok dirty blues tones as well.

Body: Spruce top / Maple back and sides
Neck: Mahogany/Rosewood
Pickups: Ibanez ACH1 and ACH2

Taylor 614-CE:

http://i40.tinypic.com/34j39y0.jpg

My one acoustic is a good one. It cost a pretty penny when I got it back in the mid 90's, but it was worth it. Sounds better and better the older it gets. The tone really fills a room nicely.

Body: Spruce top / flame maple back and sides
Neck: Maple/Ebony
Fishman electronics

[WordMan]

BigShooter I am at the airport - early leave for a Sprimg Break family trip. I looking forward to checking your post out when I get back...

[Kim o the Concrete Jungle]

Originally Posted by WordMan

The vid seems to emphasize the human element - lots of manual steps. Must be a high-price-point guitar; they even hand-shape the neck - to my knowledge that is done via CNC computerized routers for most price points.

To be honest, I don't really understand why hand-shaping is supposed to be superior to CNC. It's not like a violin, where you're tuning the body as you shape it. It's a Fender big ol' slab of wood with some holes routed into it.

[Kim o the Concrete Jungle]

Originally Posted by BigShooter

Ibanez Artcore:

http://i39.tinypic.com/vxmfbs.jpg

This was an impulse buy. One of those times when you pick up a guitar and it just feels right - plus it was relatively cheap. It's got some decent jazz tones and gets ok dirty blues tones as well.

Body: Spruce top / Maple back and sides
Neck: Mahogany/Rosewood
Pickups: Ibanez ACH1 and ACH2

I've got one of those, except in orange (Kim w. AF75DTOR). When I first saw it, I was immediately drawn to it because it was the best looking guitar in the shop. Since then, I've discovered it's a pretty versatile guitar. The sound might not immediately grab you (and lots of people swap out the stock pickups), but it sits nicely with pretty much anything. It was my number one guitar for a while.

[squeegee]

Originally Posted by WordMan

Hmm - interesting; as always, you are very observant sir. I bet the vid shows a neck getting some final sanding, then, after a CNC does the bulk of the shaping...

You can see the whatchamacallit at :34. The two slabs of wood that were picked out at the beginning are magically a blank neck and body after that.

BigShooter nice collection! Thanks for sharing. I especially like the Esquire, that is a handsome guitar.

[squeegee]

Originally Posted by squeegee

BigShooter nice collection! Thanks for sharing. I especially like the Esquire, that is a handsome guitar.

Hey, Shooter, one thing I just noticed was the knobs on that Esquire. Why the amp knobs? They seem to fit in, but I saw the usual barrel knobs on your other homebrews, so it begs the question.

[Kim o the Concrete Jungle]

Originally Posted by squeegee

Hey, Shooter, one thing I just noticed was the knobs on that Esquire. Why the amp knobs?...

Fender quite often uses those kind of knobs. They're on the Telecaster Deluxe, and most of the Blacktop series.

[squeegee]

Originally Posted by Kim o the Concrete Jungle

Fender quite often uses those kind of knobs. They're on the Telecaster Deluxe, and most of the Blacktop series.

[googles] Wow, so they do. I'd never noticed that type of knob before on a Fender. Thanks for pointing that out.

[BigShooter]

Originally Posted by squeegee

Hey, Shooter, one thing I just noticed was the knobs on that Esquire. Why the amp knobs? They seem to fit in, but I saw the usual barrel knobs on your other homebrews, so it begs the question.

I just like the look of 'em...