There are some things I just don't understand.
- Thread starter youngthrasher9
- Start date
Re: There are some things I just don't understand.
or..... doesnt play well.... or is ugly.......or isnt reliable......
or..... doesnt play well.... or is ugly.......or isnt reliable......
jcthejester13
member
Re: There are some things I just don't understand.
I will play any guitar anybody puts in my hands if it sounds great. But that's just me...
I will play any guitar anybody puts in my hands if it sounds great. But that's just me...
jcthejester13
member
Re: There are some things I just don't understand.
Word. All the guitars I own are guitars that in some way appeal to me aesthetically, but I will play any guitar that "rides well".
Word. All the guitars I own are guitars that in some way appeal to me aesthetically, but I will play any guitar that "rides well".
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: There are some things I just don't understand.
But, will it sound great in your hands? :14:
But, will it sound great in your hands? :14:
jcthejester13
member
J
Jessie's ghost
Guest
Re: There are some things I just don't understand.
I used to think the same way, and I think it's because:
1.) Many, many guitars -- including a lot of the least expensive ones -- are Strat copies. Go figure.
2.) Many of the remaining cheap guitars are copies of Les Pauls, Soloists, and other guitars known for set-neck or neck-through construction. Often, these inexpensive instruments use bolt-on necks.
Then I started seeing $2k JEMs and USA Dinkys, and $3k ESPs with bolt-on necks. Hmmm… It got me thinking that bolt-on construction isn't always chosen just to hit a price point. That there was more to it.
As far as sustain goes, it's already been mentioned that sustain itself shouldn't be a goal for a guitarist, and certainly not at the expense of things like playability, comfort, tone. Besides, of the guitarists I listen to regularly, the two who are most likely to let single notes sustain for ridiculously long periods -- Steve Vai and Yngwie Malmsteen -- both use bolt-ons. Personally, if I cared that much about sustain, I'd try one of the active sustainer systems on the market, or just kick in a well-adjusted compressor.
The topic of gluing in a neck has come up often in these discussions. I've done it four times on different (inexpensive) instruments, and in each case there was a marked difference in feel and tone. I cannot speak to how this gluing in of the neck would affect the feel and tone of a very finely crafted bolt-on guitar, and I won't pretend that I can. But on the three guitars and one bass that I did this to, it made each instrument feel more like a single piece of wood, and it made the lower midrange more prominent. Call BS all you want; I'm not going to argue with you. I'm simply reporting what I felt and heard. Sustain? I can't say it made a difference that I could tell.
I used to think the same way, and I think it's because:
1.) Many, many guitars -- including a lot of the least expensive ones -- are Strat copies. Go figure.
2.) Many of the remaining cheap guitars are copies of Les Pauls, Soloists, and other guitars known for set-neck or neck-through construction. Often, these inexpensive instruments use bolt-on necks.
Then I started seeing $2k JEMs and USA Dinkys, and $3k ESPs with bolt-on necks. Hmmm… It got me thinking that bolt-on construction isn't always chosen just to hit a price point. That there was more to it.
As far as sustain goes, it's already been mentioned that sustain itself shouldn't be a goal for a guitarist, and certainly not at the expense of things like playability, comfort, tone. Besides, of the guitarists I listen to regularly, the two who are most likely to let single notes sustain for ridiculously long periods -- Steve Vai and Yngwie Malmsteen -- both use bolt-ons. Personally, if I cared that much about sustain, I'd try one of the active sustainer systems on the market, or just kick in a well-adjusted compressor.
The topic of gluing in a neck has come up often in these discussions. I've done it four times on different (inexpensive) instruments, and in each case there was a marked difference in feel and tone. I cannot speak to how this gluing in of the neck would affect the feel and tone of a very finely crafted bolt-on guitar, and I won't pretend that I can. But on the three guitars and one bass that I did this to, it made each instrument feel more like a single piece of wood, and it made the lower midrange more prominent. Call BS all you want; I'm not going to argue with you. I'm simply reporting what I felt and heard. Sustain? I can't say it made a difference that I could tell.
AudioWonderland
New member
Re: There are some things I just don't understand.
I would submit that back in the day, most set necks had humbuckers which drove the amps much harder than the single coils in the bolt on neck guitars. As such they had more sustain because of the compression/drive of hitting the amps harder.
I would submit that back in the day, most set necks had humbuckers which drove the amps much harder than the single coils in the bolt on neck guitars. As such they had more sustain because of the compression/drive of hitting the amps harder.
Powdered Toast Man
New member
Re: There are some things I just don't understand.
Where?
I can't believe I'm still reading this thread. You know what this is?
Where?
I can't believe I'm still reading this thread. You know what this is?
sosomething
Seymour Duncan Customer Support
Re: There are some things I just don't understand.
But I will what anyway?
Did you think I was bothering to argue with you about this?
You just made a statement and I figured "I appreciate him saying that, but I can't accept it on the bare face of it without some data." That's all.
I think a tight neck joint is a tight neck joint. If you have a solid, static joining of two pieces of wood, I think any difference in frequency filtering introduced by the method of attachment by bolts or by glue is negligible in the final amp-filtered product. That's my best educated guess. If I'd just pulled it out of my ass, I'd be more easily swayed. Since it's based on my experience, I'd need something more concrete than someone else just saying the opposite to change my mind..
..which you've already stated you're not inclined to provide. That's OK, man. We can still get along. This is hardly a deal-breaker.
But I will what anyway?
Did you think I was bothering to argue with you about this?
You just made a statement and I figured "I appreciate him saying that, but I can't accept it on the bare face of it without some data." That's all.
I think a tight neck joint is a tight neck joint. If you have a solid, static joining of two pieces of wood, I think any difference in frequency filtering introduced by the method of attachment by bolts or by glue is negligible in the final amp-filtered product. That's my best educated guess. If I'd just pulled it out of my ass, I'd be more easily swayed. Since it's based on my experience, I'd need something more concrete than someone else just saying the opposite to change my mind..
..which you've already stated you're not inclined to provide. That's OK, man. We can still get along. This is hardly a deal-breaker.
Last edited:
crguti
Active member
Re: There are some things I just don't understand.
The second graph displays a stronger amplitude in the 0-1kHz frequency range, shown as the red lines. Furthermore, the amplitude seems stable above 1 second for that frequency range where the first graph shows no signal between 0 and 500 hz. Second harmonic is the same for graph 1 and 2.
If you ask me, the 2nd graph shows 'better' response. It has stronger amplitude and more consistent sustain. What kind of neck joint represents the 2nd graph?
First of all, the frequency axis is represented in a lineal scale which is not the way our ear 'listen'. Ii MUST BE displayed in a logarithmic scale.
The second graph displays a stronger amplitude in the 0-1kHz frequency range, shown as the red lines. Furthermore, the amplitude seems stable above 1 second for that frequency range where the first graph shows no signal between 0 and 500 hz. Second harmonic is the same for graph 1 and 2.
If you ask me, the 2nd graph shows 'better' response. It has stronger amplitude and more consistent sustain. What kind of neck joint represents the 2nd graph?
Last edited:
crguti
Active member
Re: There are some things I just don't understand.
^upps, my bad. I didn't notice that.
Well, kinda strange. I always assumed that neck-thru would have more sustain. Anyway, been myself an Enginner, I'm skeptical about this results. More measurements are needed. You cannot propagate this conclusion only based in 1 measurement.
edit: btw TC, that girl in your sig is HOT !
^upps, my bad. I didn't notice that.
Well, kinda strange. I always assumed that neck-thru would have more sustain. Anyway, been myself an Enginner, I'm skeptical about this results. More measurements are needed. You cannot propagate this conclusion only based in 1 measurement.
edit: btw TC, that girl in your sig is HOT !
Last edited:
Edgecrusher
Well-known member
Re: There are some things I just don't understand.
Of course its not conclusive evidence but at least its evidence beyond people passing on things they've heard. At minimum what says is that people should question what they think they "know" more than they do
oh and the girl.. thats Kate Upton google image her
Of course its not conclusive evidence but at least its evidence beyond people passing on things they've heard. At minimum what says is that people should question what they think they "know" more than they do
oh and the girl.. thats Kate Upton google image her
Last edited:
ItsaBass
New member
Re: There are some things I just don't understand.
All other reasons aside (such as the fact that people don't make any sense anyhow, and the fact that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a blind test, probably yourself and myself included), you are assuming what people like and what they want. And on top of that, your general statements about set necks vs. bolt necks are not necessarily true. Set necks are not the be all and end all. They are not better or worse than bolt necks, just different; it ain't like any idiot would take a set neck over a bolt neck if they had the choice of one or the other, but that is how you seem to think it is. Re: sustain; first you assume that everyone wants as much as they can get, and then you attribute great sustain to a set neck design. In fact, sustain comes largely from setup, technique, and style of play. I can categorize my guitars into almost infinitely more meaningful categories based on how they are set up as opposed to by how the neck is attached.
All other reasons aside (such as the fact that people don't make any sense anyhow, and the fact that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a blind test, probably yourself and myself included), you are assuming what people like and what they want. And on top of that, your general statements about set necks vs. bolt necks are not necessarily true. Set necks are not the be all and end all. They are not better or worse than bolt necks, just different; it ain't like any idiot would take a set neck over a bolt neck if they had the choice of one or the other, but that is how you seem to think it is. Re: sustain; first you assume that everyone wants as much as they can get, and then you attribute great sustain to a set neck design. In fact, sustain comes largely from setup, technique, and style of play. I can categorize my guitars into almost infinitely more meaningful categories based on how they are set up as opposed to by how the neck is attached.
Last edited:
Re: There are some things I just don't understand.
Also, regarding sustain, I'd say the amp and playing volume has a lot to do with it moreso than how your neck is joined to the body. If I've got a Mark IV running at a pretty high volume I'll get much more sustain than when I'm at home playing through my computer. Gain has something to do with it, but not as much as actual sheer volume, I'd say.
Feedback, pickup output, among other things are also a lot more important IMO. You've gotta remember our instrument is the entire friggin signal chain.
I don't think I've ever seen someone get more sustain live than Santana (I know many dislike him, but he's got his own thing for sure), and IIRC when he's setting up during soundcheck he'll stand with his guitar all over the stage marking spots where he gets the best feedback and sustain, and well, it works.
No problem man! I had to zoom in to see it. Pretty small letters.
Kate Upton.
Also, regarding sustain, I'd say the amp and playing volume has a lot to do with it moreso than how your neck is joined to the body. If I've got a Mark IV running at a pretty high volume I'll get much more sustain than when I'm at home playing through my computer. Gain has something to do with it, but not as much as actual sheer volume, I'd say.
Feedback, pickup output, among other things are also a lot more important IMO. You've gotta remember our instrument is the entire friggin signal chain.
I don't think I've ever seen someone get more sustain live than Santana (I know many dislike him, but he's got his own thing for sure), and IIRC when he's setting up during soundcheck he'll stand with his guitar all over the stage marking spots where he gets the best feedback and sustain, and well, it works.
No problem man! I had to zoom in to see it. Pretty small letters.
Kate Upton.
