Les Paul neck angle??
- Thread starter lex666
- Start date
JeffB
Let it B
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
Yes, they did. It enables them to produce more consistently on a production level withiut resorting to a long neck tenon and longer build times due to letting necks and boards settle properly or necks to glue up longer.
The resulting need for sky high tp and bridge is the result. Some people wont care, but it has a marked effect on tone and playability due to lack of coupling.
No thanks.
Yes, they did. It enables them to produce more consistently on a production level withiut resorting to a long neck tenon and longer build times due to letting necks and boards settle properly or necks to glue up longer.
The resulting need for sky high tp and bridge is the result. Some people wont care, but it has a marked effect on tone and playability due to lack of coupling.
No thanks.
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
Ramped up neck angle eh?
I haven't noticed this, but i don't like the idea.
Another brilliant move by Gibson's engineering idiots....able to save money while simultaneously ruining the company/brand. Bravo.
Like i said - I'm not giving Gibson 10 cents again. There is enough awesome goodness on the markety already, and it's cheaper.
Ramped up neck angle eh?
I haven't noticed this, but i don't like the idea.
Another brilliant move by Gibson's engineering idiots....able to save money while simultaneously ruining the company/brand. Bravo.
Like i said - I'm not giving Gibson 10 cents again. There is enough awesome goodness on the markety already, and it's cheaper.
ImmortalSix
John Mayer's Mankini
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
Perhaps you're not familiar with engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering
Perhaps you're not familiar with engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering
JeffB
Let it B
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
No argument from me on efficiency, and resulting money saved, and need for less builder skill. But its stupid from the perspective of building a higher quality instrument. Nobody else resorts to this when utilizing the TOM and stop TP system, whether its chinese budget stuff, or high end booteek or anything inbetween. Nobody.
No argument from me on efficiency, and resulting money saved, and need for less builder skill. But its stupid from the perspective of building a higher quality instrument. Nobody else resorts to this when utilizing the TOM and stop TP system, whether its chinese budget stuff, or high end booteek or anything inbetween. Nobody.
sosomething
Seymour Duncan Customer Support
I didn't think they technically changed the spec on the angle, they just went to a rounded "rocker" bottom on their tenons to relax their tolerances, and so their production associates could "eyeball" it when they were setting the neck.
I saw it all on a Gibson special on TV. They don't even measure those angles in Nashville.
I saw it all on a Gibson special on TV. They don't even measure those angles in Nashville.
JeffB
Let it B
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
They have been doing that for years, and thus why the neck angles were all over the place. Now they have changed to a specific hard angle that is easy to replicate over and over due to a new.process. They have not t been very open about how its done, but Id wager some new machine/tech they paid alot of $ for.
It doesnt make any sense cos even the Epiphones are far closer to correct. And of course the historics are too. IDK why they just dont change the top carve back to a historic spec and do it the right way, but I suspect its all about eliminating a very skilled and labor intensiveprocess, as well as having to put far less effort and time into building necks and keeping them and the fingerboard straight, and just plekking to "even everything out".
They have been doing that for years, and thus why the neck angles were all over the place. Now they have changed to a specific hard angle that is easy to replicate over and over due to a new.process. They have not t been very open about how its done, but Id wager some new machine/tech they paid alot of $ for.
It doesnt make any sense cos even the Epiphones are far closer to correct. And of course the historics are too. IDK why they just dont change the top carve back to a historic spec and do it the right way, but I suspect its all about eliminating a very skilled and labor intensiveprocess, as well as having to put far less effort and time into building necks and keeping them and the fingerboard straight, and just plekking to "even everything out".
Last edited:
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
I don't understand either. There are other builders out there that make set-neck guitar kits (such as Precision Guitar Kits) that go together like a puzzle. My SG Jr.'s neck angle is 2.5 degrees. Their LP Custom kit has a 4.4 degree neck angle. Some of the Gibson USA LP models say to be 5 degrees (+/- 15 seconds) and the few Custom Shop models I looked at say 4 degrees (+/- 15 seconds). Just from putting my SG Jr. together, I don't see how it can be that difficult to make the angle shallower by a degree. It's all CNC anyway, just make the adjustments and test it out.
Looking at the specs of the SG Classic Faded (pretty much same as my non-faded Classic), the neck angle is 5 degrees (+/- 15 seconds).
I don't understand either. There are other builders out there that make set-neck guitar kits (such as Precision Guitar Kits) that go together like a puzzle. My SG Jr.'s neck angle is 2.5 degrees. Their LP Custom kit has a 4.4 degree neck angle. Some of the Gibson USA LP models say to be 5 degrees (+/- 15 seconds) and the few Custom Shop models I looked at say 4 degrees (+/- 15 seconds). Just from putting my SG Jr. together, I don't see how it can be that difficult to make the angle shallower by a degree. It's all CNC anyway, just make the adjustments and test it out.
Looking at the specs of the SG Classic Faded (pretty much same as my non-faded Classic), the neck angle is 5 degrees (+/- 15 seconds).
Last edited:
the guy who invented fire
Fuzzy. Guitars
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
In the 50's and early 60's it was different than it was in the late 60's which was different than the 70's and again a change in the 80's...same thing wiht headstock angles...
Who gives a crap...if you like the guitar then play it no need to over think stupid crap about the neck angle, fretboard radius, fret size, etc...
If someone doesn't want to buy new Gibsons that's fine, they don't care and neither do we...
FWIW, Gibson is building some of the best guitars they've built since their golden age IMO and I'm glad to it!
In the 50's and early 60's it was different than it was in the late 60's which was different than the 70's and again a change in the 80's...same thing wiht headstock angles...
Who gives a crap...if you like the guitar then play it no need to over think stupid crap about the neck angle, fretboard radius, fret size, etc...
If someone doesn't want to buy new Gibsons that's fine, they don't care and neither do we...
FWIW, Gibson is building some of the best guitars they've built since their golden age IMO and I'm glad to it!
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
+1. I like angled necks, but I don't pay attention to what the angle is. Some seem shallower than others (SG's in particular), but it doesn't effect the way I play.
+1. I like angled necks, but I don't pay attention to what the angle is. Some seem shallower than others (SG's in particular), but it doesn't effect the way I play.
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
How new is this development? I have an 09 Trad Pro that feels absolutely great. It was the guitar that turned me onto LPs, again, and it's bridge isn't sky high or anything.
Agreed. If I had more disposable income, I'd be loaded up with them. Traditionals/Traditional Pros are fantastic and I want one of these new Jr DCs with the baked tajunkarangie wtf-ever board.
Holy ****...a post in which I agree with both TGWIF AND Blueman. The end is nigh.
How new is this development? I have an 09 Trad Pro that feels absolutely great. It was the guitar that turned me onto LPs, again, and it's bridge isn't sky high or anything.
Agreed. If I had more disposable income, I'd be loaded up with them. Traditionals/Traditional Pros are fantastic and I want one of these new Jr DCs with the baked tajunkarangie wtf-ever board.
Holy ****...a post in which I agree with both TGWIF AND Blueman. The end is nigh.
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
^ This...they have changed it a bunch of times already and I haven't seen any piles of '53 Les Pauls at the dump lately.
^ This...they have changed it a bunch of times already and I haven't seen any piles of '53 Les Pauls at the dump lately.
crusty philtrum
Vintageologist
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
I built a LP-based guitar last year and had to calculate the neck angle. It's a complex thing and something that really needs to be done for each individiual instrument because fretboard thickness, fret height and several other things come into the equation. In my particular case, i felt that having the bridge up high would mean less threads contacting the body ferrules so i tried to set the neck in a way that would keep the bridge low to the body while still allowing enough downward adjustment.
4 1/2 degrees was not enough, 5 degrees was too much. I probably ended up with an angle of about 4.7 degrees and it worked out perfect for my guitar. Half a degree can make a lot of difference in height at the bridge.
While i was deep into all this, making full-size drawings, measuring the bridge height, fretboard thickness, fret heights etc., i got thinking about how this would have been if i had to make not one but many guitars like this. After all, fretboard thicknesses could end up varying to some degree due to how much sanding was done, and fret heights could vary once fret dressing was completed. So obviously a compromise would have to be reached as way too much time and effort would be wasted addressing the guitars one-at-a-time.
Following on from that, the bridges would have to be set high enough so that none of them ever found themselves in the position of needing the bridge lowered but the bridge was already as low as it could go. So favouring a slightly high bridge setting would be the only way to ensure that there would always be some downward adjusment room available despite veriables in the geometrical equation.
So it's a compromise to avoid running into set-up problems. In the case of my guitar, it was a one-off and i had the luxury of taking my time and creating the ideal angle that would provide the best transfer of tone into the wood (most of the bridge posts' threads contacting the body) while still allowing the action to be lowered to the point of unplayability.
I built a LP-based guitar last year and had to calculate the neck angle. It's a complex thing and something that really needs to be done for each individiual instrument because fretboard thickness, fret height and several other things come into the equation. In my particular case, i felt that having the bridge up high would mean less threads contacting the body ferrules so i tried to set the neck in a way that would keep the bridge low to the body while still allowing enough downward adjustment.
4 1/2 degrees was not enough, 5 degrees was too much. I probably ended up with an angle of about 4.7 degrees and it worked out perfect for my guitar. Half a degree can make a lot of difference in height at the bridge.
While i was deep into all this, making full-size drawings, measuring the bridge height, fretboard thickness, fret heights etc., i got thinking about how this would have been if i had to make not one but many guitars like this. After all, fretboard thicknesses could end up varying to some degree due to how much sanding was done, and fret heights could vary once fret dressing was completed. So obviously a compromise would have to be reached as way too much time and effort would be wasted addressing the guitars one-at-a-time.
Following on from that, the bridges would have to be set high enough so that none of them ever found themselves in the position of needing the bridge lowered but the bridge was already as low as it could go. So favouring a slightly high bridge setting would be the only way to ensure that there would always be some downward adjusment room available despite veriables in the geometrical equation.
So it's a compromise to avoid running into set-up problems. In the case of my guitar, it was a one-off and i had the luxury of taking my time and creating the ideal angle that would provide the best transfer of tone into the wood (most of the bridge posts' threads contacting the body) while still allowing the action to be lowered to the point of unplayability.
Wattage
High Voltologist
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
Custom Shop makes a reduced neck angle, regular production is really getting crazy these days. Checked out 4 regular production LPs today that had bridges and tailpieces near their max, that isn't right. All the CS were fine, tails down and bridges low with plenty of adjustment in either direction as it should be IMO.
Custom Shop makes a reduced neck angle, regular production is really getting crazy these days. Checked out 4 regular production LPs today that had bridges and tailpieces near their max, that isn't right. All the CS were fine, tails down and bridges low with plenty of adjustment in either direction as it should be IMO.
MetalManiac
Li'l Junior Member
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
Obviously people do care. Why bring up anything about not caring about about buying new Gibsons? This issue is about neck angles and the way they are streamlining the process in a negative way in order to cut costs to make guitars that used to be built in the traditional way, which I believe is the proper way.
If your Gibson, you can't win. With the rising costs of production,You have to cut corners to make guitars as affordable as they can be , or people start *****ing about prices going up.
So now, you can buy a Custom Shop for premium price, or pay the same price as usual for a guitar with a less refined neck joint.
By the way, would these be more vulnerable to headstock break?
Obviously people do care. Why bring up anything about not caring about about buying new Gibsons? This issue is about neck angles and the way they are streamlining the process in a negative way in order to cut costs to make guitars that used to be built in the traditional way, which I believe is the proper way.
If your Gibson, you can't win. With the rising costs of production,You have to cut corners to make guitars as affordable as they can be , or people start *****ing about prices going up.
So now, you can buy a Custom Shop for premium price, or pay the same price as usual for a guitar with a less refined neck joint.
By the way, would these be more vulnerable to headstock break?
MetalManiac
Li'l Junior Member
Re: Les Paul neck angle??
If I find out my Paul has the wrong kind of neck angle, its not gonna sound near as good as it did before.
If I find out my Paul has the wrong kind of neck angle, its not gonna sound near as good as it did before.
ErikH
Well-known member
You make valid points in your case since a lot of hand work was done (and came out fantastic, I might add). With Gibson, all of that is cut using a CNC machine with everything pre-set to cut the same way every time. The fretboard planing is set to be the same thickness every time. It's modern machinery making what used to be a very labor intensive process much more simple. They shouldn't have to change things that much unless there is a valid reason from a design or efficiency standpoint that we don't know about.
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Similar threads
