What's up with the bass upper horn being fused to the neck?

[ICTGoober]

I would think you could easily alter the scale length of a Les Paul just by moving the tune-o-matic posts and pickups back while keeping the neck the same length.

You would quickly discover that your Les Paul would no longer play in tune if you moved the posts of the bridge.

The main playing difference I notice with Les Paul style guitars besides scale length is how much closer the bridge pickup is to the strings on an arch top guitar vs. a flat guitar.

You don't understand what scale length is at all, do you? It's not about the pickups or where they are located, or even arched or flat. It's the distance between the nut and the bridge. That's ALL.

 

[Inflames626]

ICTGoober , Les Pauls tend not to stay in tune anyway because of the shorter scale length. Just ask Ed Roman, who hated them for having "short, stubby necks."

1) In my comment about pickups being close to the strings, I was referring to pickup HEIGHT, not scale length.

2) I know scale length is between the nut and bridge, hence moving the bridge posts BACK because of all the unused space on a Les Paul body behind the bridge.

3) I never said scale length had anything to do with pickup location placement. The logic here is, if you move the bridge posts back, you will probably also have to move at least the bridge pickup back to compensate so you don't have a bridge pickup in the middle position. The gap between the pickups would increase if you left the neck pickup the same.

My point was to do with a Les Paul what has been done with the 2000s Ibanez Destroyer below except instead of by shaving a good part of the body off it is done by moving the bridge posts back.

Imagine a Les Paul with the same body dimensions and the tune-o-matic tailpiece near the rear most potentiometer. That's what I'm thinking.

As far as what I know, this man taught me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCIwyIhQs9E

His shop is here:

https://www.carruthersguitars.com/

His bio is here:

https://www.carruthersguitars.com/page-3/

And guitar luthiers are now expanding scale lengths out to as long as 28" per this German luthier, Hapas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7VrS3QYpZ8

Here is a 27 3/4" Les Paul Studio baritone guitar. I am thinking of something like this but by moving the bridge back, not lengthening the neck.

https://www.guitarcenter.com/Gibson...-Electric-Guitar-Honey-Burst-1292606662103.gc

Les Pauls with longer scale lengths are possible and they will stay in tune. Perhaps not by moving the bridge, but it's worth a try considering how many knockoffs of Les Pauls have come out out over the years and slightly tweaked things to avoid getting sued.

I know you tend to be a little inflammatory in your threads.

I'll say this. I remember you saying once that you had trouble keeping Floyds in tune in your shop in the 80s. All my respect to you for being in the trenches when I wasn't yet.

But as long as I've had a good quality bridge (OFR, Schaller) I. Have. Never. Had. That. Problem.

 

[Seashore]

Speaking of long scale guitars, you can still find Steinberger's Transcale baritones floating around used sometimes. 28.625 scale. There are a few things I don't like about mine for what I play, but it's a really good guitar and super stable.

FWIW I do not think 24.75" guitars are inherently more prone to going out of tune because of their scale length. LPs have those annoying string angles through the nut but enough graphite helps immensely. 24.75" is my favorite scale length to play on, over time I've realized I prefer the feel and sound of the Gibson scale with thicker strings to longer and thinner strings in the same tuning.

Here's my (heavily modified) Steinberger, I know I've posted it before but check out that scale length and upper fret access.

 

[Inflames626]

Super cool, Seashore ! I always considered Steinbergers to kind of be the IKEA of late 80s early 90s guitars in that they're the plastic-y looking high tech things but that is cool.

Rewiring? There are no pots.

I like short and longer scale for different things. I grew up playing 25.5" and 9 gauge strings. Later went to 10. 24.75" is more comfortable for things like bends and vibrato but I don't like the relative lack of tension.

I use 10s on a 24.75" EC256 tuned DGCFAD, so the strings are fairly thin and loose. I'm pondering going up a gauge.

Meanwhile one of my Jackson Kellys is 25.5" CFBbEbGC and has 11s. It feels about right.

I have a Peavey Rotor (rare Floyded Explorer) that is 24.75" and tuned to B standard with 12s. I can do 2-3 step bends on that thing. I may move it up to Db standard tuning, as I have a Charvel Desolation Floyded LP copy that is 25.5" B standard with 12s and much more forgiving on the tension.

I think the key for me may be thicker bottom strings and lighter top strings (something I tend not to do because they are harder to find in shops on short notice than whatever a company's usual gauge sets are), or multiscale with longer low strings and shorter high strings.

Not sure anyone has done a 25.5"/24.75" multi scale guitar, with the low strings getting the longer length and the high strings getting the higher length, but I think it would be interesting to try.

 

[Rex_Rocker]

Also, on my EC 256 (which I got over the 1000 because the 256 is passive), there seems to be a slight belly cut or tilt back on it. Looking at pics of LP Standards and Customs the body looks straight. Just thought I'd confirm this. Maybe the belly cut prevented more lawsuits.

I've only played a Les Paul Custom for a few minutes I think. A good friend bought a slightly beat up one used for about $1200 maybe 5-10 years ago. I remember it being nice but I didn't think it was worth it when other competitors were offering something similar for a cheaper price.

That said, I'd probably take a genuine Studio if I wanted to buy one. Their stripped down look suits metal a bit more, IMO.

Yep, LP's don't have a belly carve.

I like Studios as well. Especially with black hardware. They do come with good pickups, tho (498T), but I'd probably swap them out anyways, LOL. They also come with the thinner 60's neck nowadays. The only real "downside" to a Studio is they're marginally thinner than Standards in body depth.

 

[ICTGoober]

I know you tend to be a little inflammatory in your threads.

Some folks can't handle the truth. That's their problem.

[/QUOTE]

This Destroyer is the scaled down body (like a Dean Baby), not full sized. So what you're saying is make the bodies smaller to suit your understanding of scale lengths, and pickup placement?

 

[Rex_Rocker]

I used to think I preferred really flat fretboards, but I like a little bit of relief, especially between 5th and 12th where most of your bending and vibrato are going to be. My vibrato is ****, so I always feel like I'm digging in too deeply and my fingers slip off the string. A little relief helps that.

I'd say I prefer a C or D shaped neck, but not ultra thin. When they are super thin there is too much air between my hand and the back of the neck. I feel like I have to arch my hand way over not because the neck is thick but because it's so thin and there's nothing there. Thumb joint and muscle take all the strain. With some more wood to fill up my palm I feel a little more secure.

Oh, no, I meant as in the radius of the fretboard and frets are at. Like how curved they are. I like straighter frets ala classical guitar, except classical guitars have no radius at all, LOL. They're completely flat. Shreddy guitars tend to have flatter radii, or sometimes compound. But I've never found a more curved fretboard helped me with bar chords whatsoever.

I also like very little relief myself, but that's a whole other can of worms.

And as far as necks... I'm kinda picky, but honestly, I've never played a neck that cause me so much discomfort as to actually feel pain. I can't imagine what it's like. But honestly, I tend to stay away from the fatter necks. They just feel clunky to me. I'm a small dude, but I have average-ish hands, but I'm sure that really has nothing to do with it. It's just that the first real nice guitar I ever owned was the Ibanez I just mentined, so I just tend to associate thin necks with good guitars partly subconsciously, parly consciously.

That, and I don't really play much "boomer bends", LOL. I don't play lead like almost whatsoever, TBH.

 

[Inflames626]

+1 for "boomer bends." Sounds like a Rick Beato-ism.

 

[Inflames626]

Some folks can't handle the truth. That's their problem.

This Destroyer is the scaled down body (like a Dean Baby), not full sized. So what you're saying is make the bodies smaller to suit your understanding of scale lengths, and pickup placement?

[/QUOTE]

There's no "truth" there and no problem to overcome. Merely a consistent, perhaps deliberate misunderstanding of what is being stated in order to appear right in front of other people, gain attention, and thus feel better about one's self over a minor issue.

No, I said exactly the opposite. Keep the body the same size and move the bridge back to gain a few inches.

That said, your midpoint will shift along the scale length. 12th fret will no longer be at the midpoint and intonation will probably suffer. I'm sure the neck would need some adjustment and fret widths probably altered. But I'm all for less mass on the back of an LP for a longer scale length and shorter neck if possible.

Let me reiterate: keep the LP the same size, but make its bridge look like the Ibanez's in placement.

Perhaps intonation is what you meant when you said out of tune because 12th fret would no longer be midpoint. I was thinking open strings. I apologize if I misunderstood. I am imagining the frets being adjusted to compensate for changes in the string length.

The Destroyer is 25.5" scale length despite the body being smaller. MIK 00s. I find it rather elegant but I prefer the fuller sized versions from the 1980s.

 

[Inflames626]

Edit due to 403 error: I own two of these, a red one and a black one. Very comfortable even though I'm not normally an Ibanez player.

 

[Rex_Rocker]

+1 for "boomer bends." Sounds like a Rick Beato-ism.

I think it's from the dude that cross-dresses from Polyphia on a Rick Beato intereview, yeah, LOL.

 

[Seashore]

Super cool, Seashore ! I always considered Steinbergers to kind of be the IKEA of late 80s early 90s guitars in that they're the plastic-y looking high tech things but that is cool.

Rewiring? There are no pots.

I like short and longer scale for different things. I grew up playing 25.5" and 9 gauge strings. Later went to 10. 24.75" is more comfortable for things like bends and vibrato but I don't like the relative lack of tension.

I use 10s on a 24.75" EC256 tuned DGCFAD, so the strings are fairly thin and loose. I'm pondering going up a gauge.

Meanwhile one of my Jackson Kellys is 25.5" CFBbEbGC and has 11s. It feels about right.

I have a Peavey Rotor (rare Floyded Explorer) that is 24.75" and tuned to B standard with 12s. I can do 2-3 step bends on that thing. I may move it up to Db standard tuning, as I have a Charvel Desolation Floyded LP copy that is 25.5" B standard with 12s and much more forgiving on the tension.

I think the key for me may be thicker bottom strings and lighter top strings (something I tend not to do because they are harder to find in shops on short notice than whatever a company's usual gauge sets are), or multiscale with longer low strings and shorter high strings.

Not sure anyone has done a 25.5"/24.75" multi scale guitar, with the low strings getting the longer length and the high strings getting the higher length, but I think it would be interesting to try.

That guitar is one of two that I keep with the bridge pickup wired to the jack. It came with a nice active EMG and piezo setup that had lots of cool sounds and didn't work for me at all. I had a 498T in there for years, loved it, might go back in. Right now it has an Elysian Trident II, which also sounds great.

Funny enough, along the lines of the noises that Teuffel Tesla makes, I was thinking about wiring in the guts of a pedal like that ridiculous Mattoverse "Air Trash" with a blower switch for bypass, but I'm not feeling ambitious right now. I like having one good sound and then doing everything else with amp and pedal settings.

I found that I actually like the Ernie Ball Skinny Top Heavy Bottom 52-10 set for E standard even though the tensions are all out of whack, so on the 7 string LP I've been using those with a separate .070 for the low B. Nobody widely available makes a 7 string set or even a baritone set that's balanced well for me. For drop B on a 6, I used to buy the D'Addario baritone light set and toss the low .062 in favor of a single .064 or .068, when I was stuck with what I could find locally. I've discovered that I like somewhere around 22 lbs of tension on my wound strings - 20 feels too light, 24 gets a bit heavy - and between 15-17 lbs on the plain strings. I have a few custom sets laying around for various lower tunings. It matters more with those, it's pretty easy to get the guitar to sound and feel good in E standard. Kalium makes the best low strings IMO.

The slight fan idea sounds cool, it would be nice to get the bell-like tone of a 25.5 on the low end with the feel of a 24.75 for leads. So many custom guitars built in my head.

 

[Inflames626]

Seashore , how do you measure string tension? Is there a special scale for that?

How do you find an LP guitar to work for 7 strings? I've seen LTDs that look pretty nice on Reverb but since they're about 25" I thought the string tension might be insufficient on the low strings.

If I am imagining my modified LP correctly in my head, if the scale length midpoint is no longer at 12th and is higher up the neck due to the bridge being moved back a few inches, all the upper frets will have to be moved back and compressed if you want to keep the neck the same length.

You'd end up with lower frets the same size and very narrow upper frets. I think all the fret locations would have to be redrawn to redistribute the 22 frets along the (I'm guessing) 27" or 28" scale length.

Considering this is an LP and a single cut, we might end up with a huge lower cutaway to access those upper frets and end up something resembling that ugly bass I commented on in the original post.

Oh, the irony.

I think the inconsistent fret width/intonation issue would be a much bigger problem than tuning.

Then again, did lutes and other such instruments have a consistent fret length? My understanding is Gibsons and Fenders have different scale lengths because they took inspiration from different historical ratios used to design instruments--the Rule of 18 in Gibson's case. It's explained below.

Yeah, I'm thinking my idea might not be so feasible. But, if you are fan fretting a guitar, at least on the lower strings, aren't you moving the bridge back?

Lots of stuff would have to be recalculated, anyway. And that doesn't include how a longer scale length might affect the sloping string angle going into the nut.

Maybe the neck would have to be made longer.

Rule of 18 info:

https://www.strangeguitarworks.com/...ext=The “Rule of 18″ is,nut to the first fret.

We're way off topic but I'm having fun. Thanks for your patience, all.

 

[Seashore]

Seashore , how do you measure string tension? Is there a special scale for that?

How do you find an LP guitar to work for 7 strings? I've seen LTDs that look pretty nice on Reverb but since they're about 25" I thought the string tension might be insufficient on the low strings.

I use the Kalium and Stringjoy online tension calculators. Took most of the guesswork out of putting the right set together for myself. Find a string set you like at a given scale length and then try to match those tensions at other lengths and tunings.

I love this Gibson 7-string LP. Like, I love love it. It's my new number one after almost 25 years of having that Explorer be my favorite guitar. Of course it's an LP with all the "drawbacks" if one doesn't like LPs, but for me it's perfect. I started using lower tunings on 24.75" so I guess I write and play with that chunky sound in mind. I think if you gauge up to get the tension right for you, you'll be fine, but the feel and response is different from a long scale with thinner strings, so it won't be exactly what you're used to. But tuning, intonation, clarity? No problem.

If I am imagining my modified LP correctly in my head, if the scale length midpoint is no longer at 12th and is higher up the neck due to the bridge being moved back a few inches, all the upper frets will have to be moved back and compressed if you want to keep the neck the same length.


You'd end up with lower frets the same size and very narrow upper frets. I think all the fret locations would have to be redrawn to redistribute the 22 frets along the (I'm guessing) 27" or 28" scale length.

Considering this is an LP and a single cut, we might end up with a huge lower cutaway to access those upper frets and end up something resembling that ugly bass I commented on in the original post.

Oh, the irony.



I think the inconsistent fret width/intonation issue would be a much bigger problem than tuning.

Then again, did lutes and other such instruments have a consistent fret length? My understanding is Gibsons and Fenders have different scale lengths because they took inspiration from different historical ratios used to design instruments--the Rule of 18 in Gibson's case. It's explained below.

Yeah, I'm thinking my idea might not be so feasible. But, if you are fan fretting a guitar, at least on the lower strings, aren't you moving the bridge back?

Lots of stuff would have to be recalculated, anyway. And that doesn't include how a longer scale length might affect the sloping string angle going into the nut.

Maybe the neck would have to be made longer.

Rule of 18 info:

https://www.strangeguitarworks.com/...ext=The “Rule of 18″ is,nut to the first fret.

We're way off topic but I'm having fun. Thanks for your patience, all.

I'm not totally sure I understand your idea correctly here, but if you're talking about moving the bridge back away from the nut, then yeah, all the frets would have to move along with it, and if you wanted any kind of fan the bridge and frets would all have to fan. The midpoint between the nut and the bridge is the octave so it's where the 12th fret goes, wherever that midpoint happens to be on any given string. I think you'd very quickly get into weird beluga-head-shape territory.

Not sure about historical instruments, I know I've seen lots of museum pieces that were all over the place in terms of scale and several with tied frets, but I don't have any real background on it.

 

[Inflames626]

Seashore , to put it more simply I'm thinking just a regular Les Paul with the bridge moved back a few inches because there's so much space back there--say the rear of the tune-o-matic lines up with the rear pot. Everything else stays the same (unless you want to change pickup placement by moving the bridge pickup back and increasing the distance between the pickups).

The idea is to keep a relatively short neck guitar in a Gibson Les Paul but obtain a longer scale length by altering the bridge placement. I think this would necessitate a redoing of fret placement the more I think about it. I wouldn't fan fret this one, but I'm guessing you could at most get 28" out of it while retaining the same neck length.

If I ever have a real Les Paul again I'll have to measure how much space is back there behind the bridge to the edge of the guitar.

 

[Aceman]

Ugly as sin. Hard pass on the body/neck fuse.

 

[Inflames626]

Ugly as sin. Hard pass on the body/neck fuse.

Aceman , once again you are almost always right and in good taste. I appreciate your being one of the most helpful and knowledgeable forum members here. Always a pleasure to see you in threads, especially mine.

 

[Aceman]

Aceman , once again you are almost always right and in good taste. I appreciate your being one of the most helpful and knowledgeable forum members here. Always a pleasure to see you in threads, especially mine.

I don't care if it helps. Never had a problem with 4/5 strings. Don't really know anyone who did.

Maybe it is a cool helpful thing for 6 strings. Not in my band!

 

[Aceman]

ICTGoober , Les Pauls tend not to stay in tune anyway because of the shorter scale length. Just ask Ed Roman, who hated them for having "short, stubby necks."

Whoa whoa whoa....

#1 Ed Roman was a lying scumbag dooshnozzle (RIP).

I have 5, count'em, 5 Les Pauls that all stay in tune. The short stubby neck has nothing to do with it. The neck on a Les Paul and 21 fret Start is about 18 3/8" +/- and 1/8 or so.

#2 Les Paul's do not stay in tune because of the lack of alignment at the nut. The strings break right or left so many degrees, and in addition, down because of the pitch of the headstock

This causes the strings to bind on the nut edges. THAT is why they do not stay in tune.

This is EASILY remedied by
a) Making sure the nut edges towards the tuners are smooth
b) Tuning UP to pitch, not down

My Aged Budokan had an issue with the 3rd string for a hot minute - until a did a little smoothing by running a wound D string through the slot applying pressure right/left a couple of times. Works perfectly now.

My #1 - with the insanely stable 3 piece maple neck and Gotoh 22:1 ratio tuners stays in tune like a beast.
- I want to say it is the Barbarian Klusons, but my 1973 stays like a champ.
- I'd say the thin mahogany necks are more the problem or a factor. But I only have one Mahogany neck LP, and it is a thicker neck with Klusons that...wait for it....stays in tune just fine.

 

[Inflames626]

Whoa whoa whoa....

#1 Ed Roman was a lying scumbag dooshnozzle (RIP).

I have 5, count'em, 5 Les Pauls that all stay in tune. The short stubby neck has nothing to do with it. The neck on a Les Paul and 21 fret Start is about 18 3/8" +/- and 1/8 or so.

#2 Les Paul's do not stay in tune because of the lack of alignment at the nut. The strings break right or left so many degrees, and in addition, down because of the pitch of the headstock

This causes the strings to bind on the nut edges. THAT is why they do not stay in tune.

This is EASILY remedied by
a) Making sure the nut edges towards the tuners are smooth
b) Tuning UP to pitch, not down

My Aged Budokan had an issue with the 3rd string for a hot minute - until a did a little smoothing by running a wound D string through the slot applying pressure right/left a couple of times. Works perfectly now.

My #1 - with the insanely stable 3 piece maple neck and Gotoh 22:1 ratio tuners stays in tune like a beast.
- I want to say it is the Barbarian Klusons, but my 1973 stays like a champ.
- I'd say the thin mahogany necks are more the problem or a factor. But I only have one Mahogany neck LP, and it is a thicker neck with Klusons that...wait for it....stays in tune just fine.

Wasn't this Graphtech's whole original selling point? Lubricated graphite nuts?

I always thought mahogany being softer than maple caused some slight neck shift, hence the tuning instability.

Also, I thought longer necks = more tension = more stable tuning.

I'm on the fence about headstock pitch. It looks cool sometimes, and I realize there are reasons for doing it and not doing it. But I think I prefer a straighter headstock with a string retainer behind the locking nut.

I used to not like string retainers. But I've found my OFRs/Schallers stay in slightly better tune if the string retainer is tightened down correctly.

I always feared doing this as I was afraid it would break strings between the tuners and nut when strings were tuned to pitch. But my retainer equipped LTDs, which may have a small degree of headstock tilt, are holding tune a bit better than my retainer-less Jacksons.