Quartersawn vs non quartersawn necks?
- Thread starter BloodRose
- Start date
L
Little Pigbacon
Guest
Re: Quartersawn vs non quartersawn necks?
jimijames
New member
Chocklit_Thunda
New member
Re: Quartersawn vs non quartersawn necks?
I didn't say I can't hear the difference. I said its minimal. A fraction in a fully assembled guitar. Your string choice, pickup choice, bridge material and body and neck woods make much more of a difference. The added brightness is about the same as turning up the treble on your amp 2 notches.
I think we're getting too hung up on preconceived ideas and their importance.... Like when they tell you a pickup with an AII magnet WILL be warm to woofy.... Then comes a Mr. Seymour Duncan with a pearly gates and blows everyone's brains out....
I've said this like 5 times on this forum already, but here we go again, wood is unpredictable. It comes from a living thing as unique as you or I. In general it will share the basic characteristics with the next piece but You are going to get some dull/warmer sounding maple, or very light mahogany.
I didn't say I can't hear the difference. I said its minimal. A fraction in a fully assembled guitar. Your string choice, pickup choice, bridge material and body and neck woods make much more of a difference. The added brightness is about the same as turning up the treble on your amp 2 notches.
I think we're getting too hung up on preconceived ideas and their importance.... Like when they tell you a pickup with an AII magnet WILL be warm to woofy.... Then comes a Mr. Seymour Duncan with a pearly gates and blows everyone's brains out....
I've said this like 5 times on this forum already, but here we go again, wood is unpredictable. It comes from a living thing as unique as you or I. In general it will share the basic characteristics with the next piece but You are going to get some dull/warmer sounding maple, or very light mahogany.
vinta9e
New member
Re: Quartersawn vs non quartersawn necks?
Here's an ugly pic, with the little paw of mine holding a stick:
Looks flatsawn. 17mm thin at the nut, yet still, stupidly rigid for what it is - a neck that feels as if it weren't there at all. Too thin for me, hence gone. For the record, the Dinky it was a part of, did boast quite impressive sustain. The plank must have come from one badass alien maple tree on steroids. Wood is quirky. Unpredictable and fascinating. If it weren't, why would anybody want to keep dozens of guitars?
A thick, generous slab of cocobolo bears little resemblance to an indian rosewood veneer, yet oddly enough they both appear by the name of "rosewood fingerboards". The former's sonic impact is anything but subtle (read: bucketloads of oomph). The latter felt like a rosewood topped one, but sounded like a one piece maple neck. Hardly surprising once I thought about it for a second.
I don't mind such a quartersawn neck, where the growth rings meet the fingerboard boundary at right angle. They sound and work just fine for me, and are pretty, too. But I like 80s shredders and you might not. I find these QS necks a bit on the tighter and dryer side tone-wise, which works alright for high gain, as well as fusion, perhaps.
Flatsawn necks, on the other hand, seem a hair spongier, as if they had a bit of give built-in. The tone they make is a bit richer and sweeter, "bloomier", for the lack of a better word.
Sustain? That's totally overrated. Well, it's only as good as its shortest - an open string taking the better part of a minute to reduce its volume by 60dB means nothing if a note in the top octave dies a little too soon, killing your solo and your inspiration. Don't know about you, but I'd have a hard time loving a fiddle that ever disappointed me like that. Other than that, a fifteen second long note is about as much as I'd ever need, so anything beyond 20, is completely useless in a musical application. Well, that's just my opinion.
Here's another example: I don't think the HM Strat was built with acoustic sustain in mind. Mine doesn't do the Steinway grand piano thing unplugged. So, is it dead wood? Nope, it can't be, cause every note sounds resonant. "But I want more sustain!". Well, then - crank up that mofo. This guitar totally comes to life when supported with a roaring halfstack behind your back. The small, lightweight basswood body picks up the sound waves gushing from the cab. Now, thanks to the feedback, you can hold a note for as long as you want, all in a deliciously controllable manner.
Now when a die hard Gibson, PRS, neck-through-and-tune-o-matic-only fan tells me my funky Fender lacks sustain I respond with a funny gesture like that: :nana: and explain: "it's an electric guitar". By the way, it's the only flatsawn neck in my arsenal.
Laminated necks can be yet stiffer... well, unless it's a cheapo ibenhad. These feel about as tough as a tea-soaked biscuit. It seems the creators noticed the problem, given how they now brag about those titanium rods buried in the neck shaft of some slightly upscale models. It's a nifty gimmick, giving the neck-through some of that clang I love about bolt-ons. Hey, I am hearing things, I'll now go print myself the Eric Johnson award! Another point of view might see it as an effort to make a good guitar out of "moderately resonant" wood which, more or less, resembles the art of sculpting in turd. It's as amazing as it is disgusting. Grumpy-grump, as much as I yuck at them, Ibanez must be doing something right, as these sticks offer a lot of features for the buck they're going for, and retain a high percentage of their new price on the used market, which in return makes more people buy new. And they find lots of happy owners. And they balance damn well for a pointy (oh, it's a Jackson rip off of a BC Rich rip off, designed by Mr. Rick Derringer who probably never imagined he'd play a role in creating death metal). And the headstocks don't break off "by themselves" anymore. And they are actually quite playable out of the box, and they make complying patients when in for a pro setup that makes them play effortlessly.
In the grand scheme... the direction a plank is cut before it's made a into a neck, is just one part of the recipe. There are hundreds more factors, and lots of them are mutually dependent, so there can't really be a "best for all and everything". Guitar building is as much science as it is art. It's at its best when all the little things like that work together towards a goal envisioned by the creator.
Here's an ugly pic, with the little paw of mine holding a stick:
Looks flatsawn. 17mm thin at the nut, yet still, stupidly rigid for what it is - a neck that feels as if it weren't there at all. Too thin for me, hence gone. For the record, the Dinky it was a part of, did boast quite impressive sustain. The plank must have come from one badass alien maple tree on steroids. Wood is quirky. Unpredictable and fascinating. If it weren't, why would anybody want to keep dozens of guitars?
A thick, generous slab of cocobolo bears little resemblance to an indian rosewood veneer, yet oddly enough they both appear by the name of "rosewood fingerboards". The former's sonic impact is anything but subtle (read: bucketloads of oomph). The latter felt like a rosewood topped one, but sounded like a one piece maple neck. Hardly surprising once I thought about it for a second.
I don't mind such a quartersawn neck, where the growth rings meet the fingerboard boundary at right angle. They sound and work just fine for me, and are pretty, too. But I like 80s shredders and you might not. I find these QS necks a bit on the tighter and dryer side tone-wise, which works alright for high gain, as well as fusion, perhaps.
Flatsawn necks, on the other hand, seem a hair spongier, as if they had a bit of give built-in. The tone they make is a bit richer and sweeter, "bloomier", for the lack of a better word.
Sustain? That's totally overrated. Well, it's only as good as its shortest - an open string taking the better part of a minute to reduce its volume by 60dB means nothing if a note in the top octave dies a little too soon, killing your solo and your inspiration. Don't know about you, but I'd have a hard time loving a fiddle that ever disappointed me like that. Other than that, a fifteen second long note is about as much as I'd ever need, so anything beyond 20, is completely useless in a musical application. Well, that's just my opinion.
Here's another example: I don't think the HM Strat was built with acoustic sustain in mind. Mine doesn't do the Steinway grand piano thing unplugged. So, is it dead wood? Nope, it can't be, cause every note sounds resonant. "But I want more sustain!". Well, then - crank up that mofo. This guitar totally comes to life when supported with a roaring halfstack behind your back. The small, lightweight basswood body picks up the sound waves gushing from the cab. Now, thanks to the feedback, you can hold a note for as long as you want, all in a deliciously controllable manner.
Now when a die hard Gibson, PRS, neck-through-and-tune-o-matic-only fan tells me my funky Fender lacks sustain I respond with a funny gesture like that: :nana: and explain: "it's an electric guitar". By the way, it's the only flatsawn neck in my arsenal.
Laminated necks can be yet stiffer... well, unless it's a cheapo ibenhad. These feel about as tough as a tea-soaked biscuit. It seems the creators noticed the problem, given how they now brag about those titanium rods buried in the neck shaft of some slightly upscale models. It's a nifty gimmick, giving the neck-through some of that clang I love about bolt-ons. Hey, I am hearing things, I'll now go print myself the Eric Johnson award! Another point of view might see it as an effort to make a good guitar out of "moderately resonant" wood which, more or less, resembles the art of sculpting in turd. It's as amazing as it is disgusting. Grumpy-grump, as much as I yuck at them, Ibanez must be doing something right, as these sticks offer a lot of features for the buck they're going for, and retain a high percentage of their new price on the used market, which in return makes more people buy new. And they find lots of happy owners. And they balance damn well for a pointy (oh, it's a Jackson rip off of a BC Rich rip off, designed by Mr. Rick Derringer who probably never imagined he'd play a role in creating death metal). And the headstocks don't break off "by themselves" anymore. And they are actually quite playable out of the box, and they make complying patients when in for a pro setup that makes them play effortlessly.
In the grand scheme... the direction a plank is cut before it's made a into a neck, is just one part of the recipe. There are hundreds more factors, and lots of them are mutually dependent, so there can't really be a "best for all and everything". Guitar building is as much science as it is art. It's at its best when all the little things like that work together towards a goal envisioned by the creator.
Peter Crossley
Active member
Re: Quartersawn vs non quartersawn necks?
If I can chime in here.........
as a Luthier..
everytime i have conducted a blindfold test...
I have smacked my nose really hard on my bandsaw......
as a result....
I dont do blindfold tests anymore....
they just hurt waaaay too much..
If I can chime in here.........
as a Luthier..
everytime i have conducted a blindfold test...
I have smacked my nose really hard on my bandsaw......
as a result....
I dont do blindfold tests anymore....
they just hurt waaaay too much..
Re: Quartersawn vs non quartersawn necks?
what Gil Yaron said irks me.
Why would 1/2 the guitar neck respond differently than the other 1/2 because of the wood underneath it? Before you even hit the neck wood, you have a fret that vibrates through glue, into a fret board, which then vibrates into more glue, and into the neck itself. It's one unit, and for some reason, I don't think one side of the neck would be more exclusive to a type of wood cut than the other.
Think of it this way:
when you remove a fret you use a soldering iron to heat up the glue underneath to make it easier to pull out right? Now when you touch the iron to the fret, does it heat up only one section or the whole fret...
what Gil Yaron said irks me.
Why would 1/2 the guitar neck respond differently than the other 1/2 because of the wood underneath it? Before you even hit the neck wood, you have a fret that vibrates through glue, into a fret board, which then vibrates into more glue, and into the neck itself. It's one unit, and for some reason, I don't think one side of the neck would be more exclusive to a type of wood cut than the other.
Think of it this way:
when you remove a fret you use a soldering iron to heat up the glue underneath to make it easier to pull out right? Now when you touch the iron to the fret, does it heat up only one section or the whole fret...
Last edited:
Myaccount876
Amira-Maker
Re: Quartersawn vs non quartersawn necks?
The whole tone debate thing is beyond stupid.
No one on either side (especially the ones that say it DOES make a difference in tone) has ever heard the terms falsifiable or hypothesis.
Falsifiable means you are open to your suggestion being proven wrong through experimentation. A hypothesis is an inference that is supposed to be based around fact and is invalid if it is not testable.
The whole tone debate itself is completely unscientific and far from logic (both sides). Rarely does anyone on an internet forum such as this ever make their claims falsifiable, and their hypotheses are at times not testable. It is impossible to test a hypothesis such as "a sounds better than b", so don't claim it is even a theory which is supported strongly by evidence through multiple testing, and is only not a law because it remains falsifiable.
It is also impossible to prove a factor does not make a difference because it is impossible to prove a negative, such as "There isn't this-, That doesn't happen-, That is false-" etc. The only hypothesis that has a chance of being testable in the debate is "a sounds different from b", but the problem is it is incredibly difficult to isolate the extraneous variables in this case, especially considering if we are talking about electric guitars through amplification. The differences can only be reviewed from a recording, and the recording often changes something. Sometimes it is big, sometimes it is small, but it still is an extraneous factor influencing the dependent variable which makes an invalid test.
Finally, making arguments such as "I can but you can't so my hearing is superior" is extremely juvenile and disregarded to the scientific mindset. Human hearing in itself is extremely complex, and without a doubt we all hear things differently, so that adds another extraneous variable extremely hard or impossible to isolate.
Me personally, I do not believe there is a difference in quartersawn vs flatsawn, but I will not claim it as anything beyond an untestable hypothesis of mine. I do believe wood makes at least some difference, but I am not sure how much, and I know it cannot truly be tested. It is all in principle that does not matter nearly as much in application as we make it out to be. There are so many factors in the sound of a plugged in electric guitar, it is extremely difficult to isolate what-causes-what. All we have are correlations, which only show relation, not cause-and-effect which is what proves or disproves hypotheses.
It is generally accepted by a few, and is a theory that quartersawn is generally more stable, but there are always outliers for both quartersawn and flatsawn lumber.
The whole tone debate thing is beyond stupid.
No one on either side (especially the ones that say it DOES make a difference in tone) has ever heard the terms falsifiable or hypothesis.
Falsifiable means you are open to your suggestion being proven wrong through experimentation. A hypothesis is an inference that is supposed to be based around fact and is invalid if it is not testable.
The whole tone debate itself is completely unscientific and far from logic (both sides). Rarely does anyone on an internet forum such as this ever make their claims falsifiable, and their hypotheses are at times not testable. It is impossible to test a hypothesis such as "a sounds better than b", so don't claim it is even a theory which is supported strongly by evidence through multiple testing, and is only not a law because it remains falsifiable.
It is also impossible to prove a factor does not make a difference because it is impossible to prove a negative, such as "There isn't this-, That doesn't happen-, That is false-" etc. The only hypothesis that has a chance of being testable in the debate is "a sounds different from b", but the problem is it is incredibly difficult to isolate the extraneous variables in this case, especially considering if we are talking about electric guitars through amplification. The differences can only be reviewed from a recording, and the recording often changes something. Sometimes it is big, sometimes it is small, but it still is an extraneous factor influencing the dependent variable which makes an invalid test.
Finally, making arguments such as "I can but you can't so my hearing is superior" is extremely juvenile and disregarded to the scientific mindset. Human hearing in itself is extremely complex, and without a doubt we all hear things differently, so that adds another extraneous variable extremely hard or impossible to isolate.
Me personally, I do not believe there is a difference in quartersawn vs flatsawn, but I will not claim it as anything beyond an untestable hypothesis of mine. I do believe wood makes at least some difference, but I am not sure how much, and I know it cannot truly be tested. It is all in principle that does not matter nearly as much in application as we make it out to be. There are so many factors in the sound of a plugged in electric guitar, it is extremely difficult to isolate what-causes-what. All we have are correlations, which only show relation, not cause-and-effect which is what proves or disproves hypotheses.
It is generally accepted by a few, and is a theory that quartersawn is generally more stable, but there are always outliers for both quartersawn and flatsawn lumber.
Last edited:
crusty philtrum
Vintageologist
Re: Quartersawn vs non quartersawn necks?
It seems to be generally acknowledged that the different grain orientation affects the stability of the neck. Therefore it would be quite likely to also affect the sound. Some people can hear it.
It's just like pickups ... to some people, they're just wire coils and magnets, and changing the wire or magnet wouldn't make any audible difference. But i'd guess almost everyone on this forum would claim that changing the wire or magnet does indeed make differences that can be heard.
But who cares. You know what you do and don't hear, regardless of what anyone else thinks or hears. Some people hear things that others don't. But blanket statements by individuals are ludicrous, none of us know what others see and hear, or if they percieve things the same way as we do. Fortunately in my own case, i do know what i hear, when i hear differences and when i don't. It's not a competition, it's just the facts as they are for me ... the way they are for you may be different, so i'm not going to make blanket statements and i don't think others should either. I don't think i've ever seen a ghost, but I'm not going to say nobody has ever seen a ghost and nobody ever will. I only know what i know and what i've experienced ... so far ..... and that can change as life progresses.
It seems to be generally acknowledged that the different grain orientation affects the stability of the neck. Therefore it would be quite likely to also affect the sound. Some people can hear it.
It's just like pickups ... to some people, they're just wire coils and magnets, and changing the wire or magnet wouldn't make any audible difference. But i'd guess almost everyone on this forum would claim that changing the wire or magnet does indeed make differences that can be heard.
But who cares. You know what you do and don't hear, regardless of what anyone else thinks or hears. Some people hear things that others don't. But blanket statements by individuals are ludicrous, none of us know what others see and hear, or if they percieve things the same way as we do. Fortunately in my own case, i do know what i hear, when i hear differences and when i don't. It's not a competition, it's just the facts as they are for me ... the way they are for you may be different, so i'm not going to make blanket statements and i don't think others should either. I don't think i've ever seen a ghost, but I'm not going to say nobody has ever seen a ghost and nobody ever will. I only know what i know and what i've experienced ... so far ..... and that can change as life progresses.
Ashurbanipal
Well-known member
Re: Quartersawn vs non quartersawn necks?
Wow, this thread's really taken off!
Anyway, I guess one way to test this theory is to make a FS and QS neck from the same tree and test them mated to the same fully loaded body. There might be a difference, there might not. However, in theory, the amount of 'give' a neck has (based on its inherent rigidity) will probably have an influence on sustain.
Guitars are complicated - so many parts working either in harmony or against one another in one entity, the end result being the tone one hears when hitting a string. So there's doubtless no reliable way to test some things.
Wow, this thread's really taken off!
Anyway, I guess one way to test this theory is to make a FS and QS neck from the same tree and test them mated to the same fully loaded body. There might be a difference, there might not. However, in theory, the amount of 'give' a neck has (based on its inherent rigidity) will probably have an influence on sustain.
Guitars are complicated - so many parts working either in harmony or against one another in one entity, the end result being the tone one hears when hitting a string. So there's doubtless no reliable way to test some things.
Ashurbanipal
Well-known member
Re: Quartersawn vs non quartersawn necks?
^^ I agree, though it's probably the best you could to eliminate glaring variables for the purpose of testing.
^^ I agree, though it's probably the best you could to eliminate glaring variables for the purpose of testing.
MrTondo
New member
Re: Quartersawn vs non quartersawn necks?
You gotta love passionate people, especially when they are playing guitar (althought when they are discussing gear with that same passion you'd better watch out
)
These discussions are so much fun to me. Everybody seems to know something about everything, while some really do, some really don't. I'm probably one of the latter type... That being said:
To me it is evident that every difference in one guitar compared to the other guitar is just that, a difference. It means no two guitars are the same, they may sound the same, feel the same, respond the same, yet they are not. Like twins, you'd better be able to tell them apart if one of the two is your girlfriend... Sometimes you can and sometimes you can't, getting to know these girls will alert you to their differences, to their own personal peculiarities and preferences. Once you get to know them well enough and maybe eventually are married to one of the two, you cannot but tell them apart, you get to know the one you love so well, everything about this other woman seems to be different then your wife. Sure, you can still see they are both pretty blondes, and they bare some resemblance, but you need just one look, perhaps one little bit of sound to tell them apart without the slightest doubt in your mind. Such is the fate of a guitarplayer who is married to his guitars.
You gotta love passionate people, especially when they are playing guitar (althought when they are discussing gear with that same passion you'd better watch out
)These discussions are so much fun to me. Everybody seems to know something about everything, while some really do, some really don't. I'm probably one of the latter type... That being said:
To me it is evident that every difference in one guitar compared to the other guitar is just that, a difference. It means no two guitars are the same, they may sound the same, feel the same, respond the same, yet they are not. Like twins, you'd better be able to tell them apart if one of the two is your girlfriend... Sometimes you can and sometimes you can't, getting to know these girls will alert you to their differences, to their own personal peculiarities and preferences. Once you get to know them well enough and maybe eventually are married to one of the two, you cannot but tell them apart, you get to know the one you love so well, everything about this other woman seems to be different then your wife. Sure, you can still see they are both pretty blondes, and they bare some resemblance, but you need just one look, perhaps one little bit of sound to tell them apart without the slightest doubt in your mind. Such is the fate of a guitarplayer who is married to his guitars.
LReese
Sausage Gravy
Re: Quartersawn vs non quartersawn necks?
Its not worth geeking out over. A good guitar is a good guitar no matter the cut type. And such a small difference.
My favorites soundwise tend to be flat sawn. Its one of those things that you notice when you play a guitar for a longish period of time and begin to notice some of its subtleties.
I can compare it to getting a new set of noiseless pickups - 1st impression is that they are bang on then after playing a while (getting through the honeymoon period) you start to notice a difference over the pickup its meant to duplicate.
Its not worth geeking out over. A good guitar is a good guitar no matter the cut type. And such a small difference.
My favorites soundwise tend to be flat sawn. Its one of those things that you notice when you play a guitar for a longish period of time and begin to notice some of its subtleties.
I can compare it to getting a new set of noiseless pickups - 1st impression is that they are bang on then after playing a while (getting through the honeymoon period) you start to notice a difference over the pickup its meant to duplicate.
MrTondo
New member
Re: Quartersawn vs non quartersawn necks?
On a more technical note, as a physicist I wonder how the sound is transferred both to and in the neck wood. Without a doubt the density of the wood has influence on the transfer of the sound through the wood (mind you I do not know how large it is). That means the orentation of your neck wood compared to you fingerboard and frets matters. This can be measured. Take a long square rod of maple, about the length and width of a neck and use a source of sound (something like a tuning fork) on the flatsawn surface of it, listen to the sound of it, record it, if you so desire. Then turn the rod over and repeat. When you use a tone generator as a sound source and go through this procedure for every frequency (while recording the response in amplitude or harmonic content etc.) you get what we call a frequency response curve. This will show you visually how the wood responds to the tones that get to it, at which frequencies it might respond stronger or weaker. When you compare the quartersawn to the flatsawn you will see some differences, these may be small, they may be big, I do not know I did not do these measurements. But if you want to be sure beyond what you can hear and care about if the difference is really there, be my guest and try.
For speakers and pickups this frequency response curve is a standard thing manufacturers do. When seymour does this to his pickups he notes the frequency that gives the highest response and call this the peak or resonance frequency, which is often mentioned. For pickups and speakers this is also a substantially easier thing to do then for wood, on pickups and speakers you just apply the electrical signal and measure its response, no sweat. When any mad scientist like manufacturer of necks would want to include this as a standard procedure there are many more things to consider: Where do I place my tuning fork/frequency generator output, on the nut? at which string position? On a fret? Which one? at the bass or treble side? Or maybe on the tuners? I guess you can see why this is no standard procedure and why there is no clear data whatsoever about how this neck you just bought sounds when they sell it to you. It's then all in the ears and fingers of the one installing and using the neck. That is until the say one mad scientist will forever solve the riddle and do the experiment I just proposed, oh the day of shattered dreams and perceptions, the day guitarist will still do what they do best, pick up a guitar and get passionate!
On a more technical note, as a physicist I wonder how the sound is transferred both to and in the neck wood. Without a doubt the density of the wood has influence on the transfer of the sound through the wood (mind you I do not know how large it is). That means the orentation of your neck wood compared to you fingerboard and frets matters. This can be measured. Take a long square rod of maple, about the length and width of a neck and use a source of sound (something like a tuning fork) on the flatsawn surface of it, listen to the sound of it, record it, if you so desire. Then turn the rod over and repeat. When you use a tone generator as a sound source and go through this procedure for every frequency (while recording the response in amplitude or harmonic content etc.) you get what we call a frequency response curve. This will show you visually how the wood responds to the tones that get to it, at which frequencies it might respond stronger or weaker. When you compare the quartersawn to the flatsawn you will see some differences, these may be small, they may be big, I do not know I did not do these measurements. But if you want to be sure beyond what you can hear and care about if the difference is really there, be my guest and try.
For speakers and pickups this frequency response curve is a standard thing manufacturers do. When seymour does this to his pickups he notes the frequency that gives the highest response and call this the peak or resonance frequency, which is often mentioned. For pickups and speakers this is also a substantially easier thing to do then for wood, on pickups and speakers you just apply the electrical signal and measure its response, no sweat. When any mad scientist like manufacturer of necks would want to include this as a standard procedure there are many more things to consider: Where do I place my tuning fork/frequency generator output, on the nut? at which string position? On a fret? Which one? at the bass or treble side? Or maybe on the tuners? I guess you can see why this is no standard procedure and why there is no clear data whatsoever about how this neck you just bought sounds when they sell it to you. It's then all in the ears and fingers of the one installing and using the neck. That is until the say one mad scientist will forever solve the riddle and do the experiment I just proposed, oh the day of shattered dreams and perceptions, the day guitarist will still do what they do best, pick up a guitar and get passionate!
