necks: bolt-on vs. dovetail?
JD BLACKWELL
Ed wrote in message <3700C14D...@bigfoot.com>...
I was wondering if anyone out there can enlighten me on the advantages and disadvantages of both processes? Thanks much! :)
SteveYetter
Then there's the Tacoma system as found on Chief and Roadking models.
They're mounted in what looks like Fender electric guitar screw-on
fashion, but there must be more to it than that because they won't come
apart when you take the screws out.
Should be user friendly at angle reset time. Looks a little unusual,
but seems to sound fine. I can't tell if they would have more sustain
otherwise, but they don't seem to need more to MY hearing, suspect as
that is.
-SY-
SteveWLB40
> From what I've read from the Santa
>Cruz website..says that generally dovetails have a 'warmer' 'rounder' tone
>over bolt-ons?
Old wives tale. Tell James Goodall that. There are no facts to back this. All
other things being equal, no guitarist on this planet can pick up a guitar
blindfolded, & tell the difference between the two. This is assuming all other
factors are identical; same maker, model, etc. The important thing is that the
joint is "correct" whatever type it is, to allow the tone transfer from neck to
body.
Steve Barker
Norman Draper
SteveYetter
had only two guitars that needed resets out of perhaps 15 flat-tops,
over the years. I rarely buy a used flat-top however, because so many
seem to need resets! Too many car truck bake jobs, I think.
-SY-
Ed wrote:
>
> ed> Do neck reset have to be done often? From what I've read from the
> Santa Cruz website..says that generally dovetails have a 'warmer'
> 'rounder' tone over bolt-ons?
>
Matthew Larrivee
shrimer
"At Larrivee the neck
“Final Fit” stage is done by someone with a minimum 8 years experience.
Today two people who have both been building guitars
for over 12 years final fit our necks to the bodies."
I recall during one of my visits to the factory, that one of those two
people doing the neck-to-body fit was Jean Larrivee himself. It seems
it's just one of many tasks he likes to 'have a hand in'.
And Matt, if you're free next Tuesday, you can buy ME lunch! :-)
Fred
Larry Pattis
<mat...@larrivee.com> wrote:
> I'm going to argue with you on this one based on a set of tests we have =
> run in the past. Both Dovetail and Bolt-on have their purposes, but the =
> key difference is what we call "sound transmission". We have tried the =
> bolt on system in the past (Both on few acoustics and electrics) and the =
> reason we don't do use the bolt-on is because of the way the sound =
> travels through the instrument. The dovetail system creates a much =
> greater area of contact between neck and body. It is also connected via =
> Friction & Glue, not by bolts and glue. Part of the magic of a guitar =
> with a dove-tail is how you can feel the music you play all the way =
> through the neck, because of the contact. Many people think that the =
> neck doesn't play a large role in the tone of a guitar, however that is =
> false.
>
<<snip>>
Gosh, I'm going to have to send back my Jumbo Goodall for "repairs", since
with it's bolt-on neck it seems to have very good "sound transmission". I
expect that James will (somehow) correct this "problem" very quickly...8-)
....as has been proven (in the pudding) by Goodall, Collings, Froggy
Bottom, Bourgeois, Ryan (I think), and a host of other builders, PLENTY of
vibration is transfered to the neck of non-dovetail built guitars.
Larry Pattis
Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com
Liberal Palette Records
http://liberalpalette.com
"Music Without Borders"
Matthew Larrivee
vibration transference through a properly executed dovetail than through a
bolt on.
Matthew
Matthew Larrivee
First makes me show him around, then I have to by him lunch... Geesh! :>
Actually Both Jean Larrivee Sr. and John Larrivee Jr. final fit necks daily.
although they are not the only people.
Matthew.
shrimer <ftsh...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3703B618...@bc.sympatico.ca...
>Matthew Larrivee wrote:
>
>"At Larrivee the neck
>"Final Fit" stage is done by someone with a minimum 8 years experience.
>Today two people who have both been building guitars
Larry Pattis
<mat...@larrivee.com> wrote:
> I didn't say that there was none, just that in general there is more
> vibration transference through a properly executed dovetail than through a
> bolt on.
>
> Matthew
>
What you said was,
"based on a set of tests we have =
> run in the past. Both Dovetail and Bolt-on have their purposes, but the =
> key difference is what we call "sound transmission". We have tried the =
> bolt on system in the past (Both on few acoustics and electrics) and the =
> reason we don't do use the bolt-on is because of the way the sound =
> travels through the instrument. The dovetail system creates a much =
> greater area of contact between neck and body. It is also connected via =
> Friction & Glue, not by bolts and glue. Part of the magic of a guitar =
> with a dove-tail is how you can feel the music you play all the way =
> through the neck, because of the contact. Many people think that the =
> neck doesn't play a large role in the tone of a guitar, however that is =
> false."
The implication, since you choose to not use a bolt-on neck, is that the
sound with a bolt-on is unsatisfactory to you. Apparently you have some
test results that prove that sound travels through a guitar differently
with different neck mount systems, and that the results are quantifiable.
I'm sure that the group would like to see your scientific data supporting
this claim, as well as the methodology, equipment used, etc. I sure would.
Then I would honestly feel as though I have been educated and possibly
corrected about something that builders using the other methods would say
is "generally" not true at all. I respect the fact that the company
philosophy about building a certain way is strong at Larrivée, it is
certainly reflective of the quality and longevity of your father's
business. It is difficult for me, as one with some experience in the
industry, to see this philosophy presented as fact. Pardon me for
mentioning this, but Collings is (IMO) usually regarded as the "gold
standard" in the small production shop world, and as you know, they do not
use a dovetail neck assembly.
Having been a retailer of many different handcrafted builders, Larrivée and
Goodall included, I would have to say that my personal listening and
playing experience does not at all agree with the implication that the
dovetail joint is superior tonally to some of the other methods being used
by a host of other builders. It is simply one way to build a fine guitar.
And I do know that the neck does have a large role in the sound/tone of a
guitar. There is no "magic" inherent in a dovetail joint, however. Again,
your direct implication is that I won't "feel the music" I play all the way
through the neck on a bolt-on neck guitar. I am a bit incredulous that you
can make this comment in the company that you know reads this newsgroup.
Larrivee makes a fine guitar, and they happen to use a dovetail neck joint.
Goodall builds a fine guitar, and they happen to use a bolt-on neck. And I
own other guitars with both types neck attachment methods from other
builders (other than Goodall), and while these guitars all sound different
from one another, 25 years of playing experience does not allow me to
observe that one system has the "magic," and that the other does not. Far
from it.
I didn't mean to launch into this long diatribe, especially since this
topic has been well-abused in the past on rmmga. It is important to me,
for some sick and twisted reason, that the "information" presented on this
forum be based in reality, however. Subjective issues like "tone" cannot
be adequately discussed or evaluated, and most of us shy away from these
inconcludable disagreements. I am always ready to be corrected or further
educated, even on topics that that I believe I already know about. It is
discouraging to me to have to stand up for an "opposing" position in a
small debate with someone that publically represents a guitar company.
Matthew, I respect what your father has created, and I respect what you do
here for the Larrivée Guitar Co. I also think that you have done a world
of good on rmmga for a large number of customer service issues relating to
Larrivée guitars, and you have also made a lot of friends. You deserve the
respect that you have earned in this regard. Please keep up the good
work....but if you want to state "company philosophy," please an attempt to
identify it thusly, and not present this as scientific fact.
Larry Pattis
mcagu...@aol.com (Mcaguitars) wrote:
> Touchy subject at best, but let's forget tone transference for a second (much
> too subjective)
> and let's talk about craftsmanship.
<<snip good stuff>>
> So I think the issue is; would you buy a guitar because it is easier to
> service? Consider the
> amount of time you will be playing the guitar versus how long it will having
> its' neck
> re-set. To base your purchase on the convenience to the repair person has
> always struck
> me as an odd criteria.
>
<<snip more good stuff, go to Deja News to read it all>>
>
> -Roy McAlister
> www.mcalisterguitars.com
Roy,
Thanks for this. Aside from snipping a lot of good commentary, I wanted to
agree with you about the "purchasing" issue you bring up. Silly to base a
choice on this, either way. I proudly own guitar(s) built by Bozo
Podunavac who will clearly NOT be around to do neck re-sets (dovetail) on
these guitars when they will eventually need such treatment. Didn't stop
me from falling in love with the sound he gets with his particular building
methods.
I also wanted to make few points.
A) Hopefully all of us make the primary choice of a guitar based on
tone/sound. An individual and subjective topic, my choice is ultimately no
one else's business!
B) I own different guitars built with both dovetail and bolt-on systems (I
guess I already made that point). I would never base a purchase decision
of an instrument on this difference.
C) Lastly, I pray that the bolt-on ones are the guitars that need resets
over time...8-)
JD BLACKWELL
Matthew Larrivee wrote in message <7e0bpt$dpv$1...@newsfeed.smartt.com>...
Al Carruth
<<in general there is more vibration transference through a properly executed
dovetail than through a bolt on.>>
:-)
Alan Carruth / Luthier
SteveWLB40
ab...@127.0.0.1 (Larry Pattis) writes:
>Gosh, I'm going to have to send back my Jumbo Goodall for "repairs", since
>with it's bolt-on neck it seems to have very good "sound transmission". I
>expect that James will (somehow) correct this "problem" very quickly...8-)
>
>....as has been proven (in the pudding) by Goodall, Collings, Froggy
>Bottom, Bourgeois, Ryan (I think), and a host of other builders, PLENTY of
>vibration is transfered to the neck of non-dovetail built guitars.
>
>Larry Pattis
This divide in guitar technology rears it's ugly head every 6 months or so.
Everyone seems to be in one camp or the other. I think the truth is somewhere
in between. When choosing a guitar, (if new), the neck joint shouldn't be a
major factor, but the guitar & builder should be. Both types of neck joints can
be great or poor, depending on the quality of work. I'm not a builder, but I
understand both points of view. Matthew claims in the dovetail joint, there is
more surface area of each piece in contact with each other, resulting in better
sound transfer. But only if it's a perfect fit. On the other hand, in Bob
Taylor's words, "The bolt-on neck has easy, no stress, complete contact with
the body. It couldn't possibly make more contact by going inside the body;
physically speaking, it just can't." Again though, only if it's a clean, tight
contact. I tend to lean toward the bolt-on (removeable) neck for three reasons.
1.) If the joint is correct, the sound transfer (& vibration) is just as good
as that of a dovetail. I can't believe otherwise after some of the Goodalls &
Collings etc. I have tried. 2.) Ease of correction (& cost) in case of reset,
adjustment, etc. 3.) Precision. With this type of joint, the neck angle &
height can be adjusted precisely within 5/1000 of an inch,(about the thickness
of a sheet of paper) resulting in consistent & accurate intonation all over the
neck. With a dovetail reset you have to chisel, shim the other side, chisel,
shim, until you get "close". If you can find someone who will do it, & if you
can afford it, the joint will be compromised after a reset, because the joint
can no longer be precise as before, with gaps after chiseling & shimming,
etc.That complete contact will be lost. In favor of the dovetail, you have 1.)
good sound transfer, if it's a good joint; 2.) tradition; and 3.) years of
being the only way. I don't mean to offend anyone, & I would buy a guitar with
either joint if the sound was right. But in today's technology, I would lean
toward the bolt-on (removeable) if I had my druthers.
Steve "garning his flame-retardant garb" Barker
Mcaguitars
too subjective)
about transferring
the approximately 150-180 foot pounds of torque from the neck to the body.
Those of you
that have had the opportunity to see a guitars dove tail joint can appreciate
the fact that as the
torque load from the neck to the body is applied, the suface area of the dove
tail will not
allow any room for play (given that the joint is correctly fit). This is a wood
on wood joint
that wedges the neck and body tighter together at the joint. On the other hand,
a bolted neck
to body joint (technically not a joint at all but a "fastener") is dependant on
the holding power
of the threads of the bolts. I have never met a crasftsman that would ever call
this a superior
"joint".
Now, having said that, I seriously doubt that anyone is going to have a
problem with their
Collings or Goodall. These are outstanding guitars that will no doubt last one
a lifetime of
playing enjoyment. Most luthiers who use a bolt-on neck system have engineered
there
joinery in such a way that they are confident with their longevity and
integrity. If there
ever is a problem, most of these builders have lifetime warrantees on their
guitars so superiority
is almost a moot point. Bolt-on neck builders usually use this method for
convenience
of service and expedience. Dove tail necks are definetly more labor intensive
to service,
but these builders also offer lifetime warrantees.....again moot.
So I think the issue is; would you buy a guitar because it is easier to
service? Consider the
amount of time you will be playing the guitar versus how long it will having
its' neck
re-set. To base your purchase on the convenience to the repair person has
always struck
me as an odd criteria.
I am a craftsman and I just can't bring myself to (imo) compromise the
integrity of
craftsmanship for convenience. I am not saying my guitars are better because
they have
a dove tailed neck, I am saying as a craftsman that I won't stray from hundreds
of years
of proof in structural integrity for convenience. I should also add that, as an
individual
luthier, I am building only 25 guitars a year and my overhead is nowhere near
that of
Collings or Goodall, so I need not consider profit margins and expedience in
the same
manner. I also don't use plastics or any materials that end with "oid" on my
guitars,
this is not necessarily to make a better guitar, it's simply my choice as a
craftsman and
a luthier.
-Roy McAlister
www.mcalisterguitars.com
SteveWLB40
>A) Hopefully all of us make the primary choice of a guitar based on
>tone/sound. An individual and subjective topic, my choice is ultimately no
>one else's business!
>
>B) I own different guitars built with both dovetail and bolt-on systems (I
>guess I already made that point). I would never base a purchase decision
>of an instrument on this difference.
>
>C) Lastly, I pray that the bolt-on ones are the guitars that need resets
>over time...8-)
>
>Larry Pattis
Agreed.
Steve Barker
SteveWLB40
> Bolt-on neck builders usually use this method for
>convenience
...... AND PRECISION.
>of service and expedience. Dove tail necks are definetly more labor intensive
>to service,
>but these builders also offer lifetime warrantees.....again moot.
.......... NO, NOT SO MOOT. MANY BUY THESE USED, THEREFORE THERE IS NO
WARRANTY, THEREFORE THEY GET STUCK WITH THE BILL.
>
> So I think the issue is; would you buy a guitar because it is easier to
>service?
..... IN A WORD, YES. IF THE SOUND & STRUCTURE WERE NOT COMPROMISED, WHY NOT?
WOULD YOU BUY AN EDSEL THAT ONLY A HANDFUL OF MECHANICS IN THE WORLD COULD WORK
ON & GET PARTS FOR?
Consider the
>amount of time you will be playing the guitar versus how long it will having
>its' neck
>re-set.
..... IRRELEVANT.
To base your purchase on the convenience to the repair person has
>always struck
>me as an odd criteria.
.... NOT CONVENIENCE TO THE REPAIR PERSON, BUT TO THE WALLET.
>
> I am a craftsman and I just can't bring myself to (imo) compromise the
>integrity of
>craftsmanship for convenience.
..... WHY ARE YOU COMPROMISING INTEGRITY OF CRAFTSMANSHIP FOR CONVENIENCE?
YOU ARE SAYING DOVETAIL JOINTS ARE CRAFTSMANSHIP, WHILE REMOVABLE NECKS ARE NOT
CRAFTMANSHIP, ONLY MERE CONVENIENCE? YOU BETTER CALL JAMES GOODALL, KEVIN RYAN,
BOB COLLINGS, AS WELL AS THE OTHER COUNTLESS LUTHIERS OUT THERE USING THE
BOLT-ON METHOD, & LET THEM KNOW THEY ARE NOT CRAFTSMEN, BUT ONLY CHEAP
CONVENIENCE MANUFACTURERS! I'M SURE THEY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. YOU HAVE MADE SOME
STRONG CUTTING STATEMENTS HERE. I HOPE YOU HAVE THE FACTS TO BACK THEM UP.
I am not saying my guitars are better because
>they have
>a dove tailed neck,
.... OH YES YOU ARE, & YES YOU DID. YOURS ARE THE WORK OF A "CRAFTSMAN."
THOSE WITH BOLT-ONS ARE THE WORK OF CONVENIENCE. SORRY, YOUR OWN WORDS.
I am saying as a craftsman that I won't stray from
>hundreds
>of years
>of proof in structural integrity for convenience.
.... WHAT PROOF? THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO SEE. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE SO
MANY "CRAFTSMEN" AS YOU CALL YOURSELF, ARE SO CLOSED MINDED ABOUT OTHER NECK
JOINTS OTHER THAN "THE ONE YOU USE."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting anyone down here. It just pisses me off
when someone makes irresponsible statements (as you did many in this post).
It's obvious you subscribe to the "my way is the only way" theory. Reminds me
of the old world candle craftsmen, when first hearing of the sacreligious
rumors of something called electricity.
Steve Barker
P.S. NewsFlash! Columbus discovers the world is ROUND!!!!!
Mcaguitars
Why all the hostility? You have obviously misunderstood my original post. My
point
is that *I* as a craftsman choose to use a dove tail joint instead of a bolt-on
neck. I never
suggested that *I* am the *ONLY* craftsman that exists, I simply can't speak
for other
craftsman and their reasons for doing what they do. If you read again, I say
that it is doubtful
that anyone will ever experience problems with there bolt-on necks. The
builders that choose to
use a bolt-on neck have done their engineering homework to assure you that will
not have
a problem.
>> Bolt-on neck builders usually use this method for
>convenience
> ...... AND PRECISION.
I use an extremely accurate jig to machine my dovetails and they are
every bit as precise as a motise and tenon joint.....NOT BETTER, but
easily as precise!
>>of service and expedience. Dove tail necks are definetly more labor intensive
>to service,
>but these builders also offer lifetime warrantees.....again moot.
> .......... NO, NOT SO MOOT. MANY BUY THESE USED, THEREFORE THERE IS NO
>WARRANTY, THEREFORE THEY GET STUCK WITH THE BILL.
Is a repair person going to re-set your used bolt-on neck for free??
Another fact that you may be over looking is that bolt-ons can vary
in design greatly. a Taylor bolt-on is drastically different from a
Collings and a Bourgeous (sp) and so on. Have you seen all the different
variations of bolt-ons? A repair person isn't always going to know
what's inside the joint. Where as a dove tail is a bit more universal,
they are all mostly like that of a Martin dove tail.
>> So I think the issue is; would you buy a guitar because it is easier to
>service?
> ..... IN A WORD, YES. IF THE SOUND & STRUCTURE WERE NOT >COMPROMISED, WHY
NOT?
>WOULD YOU BUY AN EDSEL THAT ONLY A HANDFUL OF MECHANICS IN THE >WORLD COULD
WORK
>ON & GET PARTS FOR?
Are you trying to tell me that only a handful of luthiers know how to
re-set a dove tail neck? How did those Martins ever make it this far?
Re-setting a dove tail neck is one of the most basic procedures
that a repair person needs to know.
>To base your purchase on the convenience to the repair person has
>always struck
>me as an odd criteria.
.... NOT CONVENIENCE TO THE REPAIR PERSON, BUT TO THE WALLET.
Tell me Steve, how much did your last neck re-set cost you? And what,
if any, was the difference in price from a dove tail to a bolt-on neck?
Now calculate the re-set price difference on a $3000.00 guitar over
a lifetime of enjoyment.
> I am a craftsman and I just can't bring myself to (imo) compromise the
>integrity of
>craftsmanship for convenience.
> ..... WHY ARE YOU COMPROMISING INTEGRITY OF CRAFTSMANSHIP FOR >CONVENIENCE?
>YOU ARE SAYING DOVETAIL JOINTS ARE CRAFTSMANSHIP, WHILE >REMOVABLE NECKS ARE
NOT
>CRAFTMANSHIP, ONLY MERE CONVENIENCE? YOU BETTER CALL JAMES >GOODALL, KEVIN
RYAN,
>BOB COLLINGS, AS WELL AS THE OTHER COUNTLESS LUTHIERS OUT THERE >USING THE
>BOLT-ON METHOD, & LET THEM KNOW THEY ARE NOT CRAFTSMEN, BUT >ONLY CHEAP
>CONVENIENCE MANUFACTURERS! I'M SURE THEY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. YOU >HAVE MADE
SOME
>STRONG CUTTING STATEMENTS HERE. I HOPE YOU HAVE THE FACTS TO >BACK THEM UP.
Again Steve, this is my CHOICE as a craftsman and I have made it clear
that these craftsman have gone to great lengths to insure you a
problem free neck to body joint. And I don't need to call any of them,
I have spoken to most of these craftsman personally about this subject and we
all share an incredible amount of respect for each other *and*
our guitars.
>I am not saying my guitars are better because
>they have
>a dove tailed neck,
> .... OH YES YOU ARE, & YES YOU DID. YOURS ARE THE WORK OF A >"CRAFTSMAN."
>THOSE WITH BOLT-ONS ARE THE WORK OF CONVENIENCE. SORRY, YOUR >OWN WORDS.
Exactly how old are you Steve? I'm finding this conversation very
futile. Convenience does not equate into inferiority, look it up.
I am saying as a craftsman that I won't stray from
>hundreds
>of years
>of proof in structural integrity for convenience.
> .... WHAT PROOF? THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO SEE. I FIND IT HARD TO >BELIEVE SO
>MANY "CRAFTSMEN" AS YOU CALL YOURSELF, ARE SO CLOSED MINDED >ABOUT OTHER NECK
>JOINTS OTHER THAN "THE ONE YOU USE."
Craftsmen for years (even before there was such a thing as guitars)
have been using dove tails for joining wood together. We have furniture
that is nearly 1000 years old that have dove tails cut into them and
they are still intact.
I am not at all close minded about alternative joinery, I have several
bolt-on neck guitars. Hell, I don't care if it is duct taped together, as
long as it stays set and sounds and plays well. But when I build *my*
guitars, I get satisfaction from a well fit dove tail joint.....no big
deal, this is simply how I choose to build guitars based on my experience.
>Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting anyone down here.
Oh no, of course not!!
>It just pisses me off
>when someone makes irresponsible statements (as you did many in this >post).
Which statement is that?
>It's obvious you subscribe to the "my way is the only way" theory. >Reminds me
>of the old world candle craftsmen, when first hearing of the >sacreligious
>rumors of something called electricity.
Read my post again Steve, I do subscribe to "this is my way" but
I also make it clear that this is just one of the ways. I suppose
I made the mistake of posting *why* this is my way and you
came unglued. Take a deep breath, Steve.
If I was coming across arrogantly, then I apologize. But I assure you, that
is not what I was setting out to do, just a different perspective.
-Roy McAlister
xyzj...@primary.net
difference in tone can be significant.
Jeffrey
remove xyz to reply
Onan
> Touchy subject at best, but let's forget tone transference for a second (much
> too subjective)
> and let's talk about craftsmanship. The neck to body joint on a guitar is also
> about transferring
> the approximately 150-180 foot pounds of torque from the neck to the body.
Roy,
I don't think 180 foot pounds of torque is correct. I agree that the
strings put a combined tension of 180 lbs of force on the guitar, but in
order to produce 180 foot lbs of torque, the strings would have to be
more than 12 inches at the fourteenth fret! As the strings are less than
1/4 inch above the frets at the neck/body junction, and the depth of the
joint is only 4 or so inches, the torque could only be 45 foot pounds or
so at a maximum, probably much less. Still very significant torque, but no
where near 180 foot pounds.
*___Thomas "Onan" O'Neill____...@gl.umbc.edu___________________*
Mcaguitars
>strings put a combined tension of 180 lbs of force on the guitar, but in
>order to produce 180 foot lbs of torque, the strings would have to be
>more than 12 inches at the fourteenth fret! As the strings are less than
>joint is only 4 or so inches, the torque could only be 45 foot pounds or
>so at a maximum, probably much less. Still very significant torque, but >no
>where near 180 foot pounds.
You're right, my mistake. I was thinking of combined string tension
and not the torque at the joint.
-Roy McAlister
John John
since it makes the guitatr closer to a fully "solid" onepiece instrument
where as you loose, probably not a noticeable difference to beginners,
much of the sustain.
Larry Pattis
John <aeb7...@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote:
Your "understanding" is, ummm, incorrect.
We have fully thrashed this subject, yet another time. You should go to
Deja News and search on this header, you will find more opinions than you
can imagine.....
Bob Alman
neck?
Bob Alman
gus sonic net
@ .
Larry Pattis
Finally, we get some hard facts for this thread.
LeachGuitars
>
>> Actually, wasn't Victor Frankenstein the pioneer of the bolt-on
>> neck?
>>
Close Bob, it was C.F. Frankenstein. He also wrote the book: "1000 things
you can do to a guitar that will make a bigger difference than the neck
joint"
Harv
--
Visit Leach Guitars http://www.netshel.net/~leagit
dunwell...@dorje.see-my-organization
>In article <7eg167$m6m$2...@ultra.sonic.net>, no-...@sonic.net wrote:
>
>> Actually, wasn't Victor Frankenstein the pioneer of the bolt-on
>> neck?
>>
>> Bob Alman
>> gus sonic net
>> @ .
>
>
>Finally, we get some hard facts for this thread.
>
>Larry Pattis
>
>Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com
>
>Liberal Palette Records
>http://liberalpalette.com
>"Music Without Borders"
Was that an ACME or SAE thread?
Alan(oooooooogggg)dunwell
JD BLACKWELL
dunwell...@dorje.SEE-MY-ORGANIZATION wrote in message
<7egcs4$1...@peabody.colorado.edu>...
>>> Actually, wasn't Victor Frankenstein the pioneer of the bolt-on
>>> neck?
>>>
>>> Bob Alman
>>> gus sonic net
>>> @ .
>>
>>
alive, it's alive".
JD
charles...@alliedsignal.com
> How about the vibration through a Spanish heel?
>
> :-)
>
> Alan Carruth / Luthier
>
HEY!!!! What are you trying to do - set back guitar making even further with
that hard to make pain in the ass thing???? Don't even mention it!!! ;-))))
(Actually, I use it on all of my cutaways, cause there's no room for a
dovetail or similar joint.)
Charles Tauber
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
charles...@alliedsignal.com
steve...@aol.com (SteveWLB40) wrote:
> This divide in guitar technology rears it's ugly head every 6 months or so.
> Everyone seems to be in one camp or the other.
No, it's probably not a question of technology. It's a question of religion
and aesthetics.
On the other hand, in Bob
> Taylor's words, "The bolt-on neck has easy, no stress, complete contact with
> the body. It couldn't possibly make more contact by going inside the body;
> physically speaking, it just can't."
Bob and the folks at Taylor make some fine instruments. But, I hate it when
this kind of marketing nonsense comes out of Taylor Guitars. It just aint
true. "No stress"? Only if Taylor has redefined the term "stress". The
stresses imposed on any standard acoustic neck/body are such that the neck
will try to separate from the body at the heel and compress the body at the
fingerboard. The presence or absence of bolts don't change this. For a
bolt-on, this means *space* at the heel, *if* the bolts/wood combination
moves at all. So, yes, it *could* "possibly make more contact" under certain
(not too uncommon) circumstances. For a dovetail, the applied stresses means
*more* wood on wood pressure, not less.
I aint sayin' that one's better than the other, but one should try and stay
with the facts, rather than attempt to prove one's particular opinion by
attempting to sound scientific while having little grasp of the science
involved.
William H Mauel
>(snip)
>Was that an ACME or SAE thread?
>Alan(oooooooogggg)dunwell
Alan,
It was Whitworth, by jove.
Hank
Bob Alman
: I aint sayin' that one's better than the other, but one should try and stay
: with the facts, rather than attempt to prove one's particular opinion by
: attempting to sound scientific while having little grasp of the science
: involved.
This isn't the first time this has been said, but it's still just
as true as the first time. And it doesn't only apply to neck
attachment techniques either!
SteveWLB40
writes:
> How about the vibration through a Spanish heel?
Depends how hard she kicks.
Steve Barker
SteveWLB40
> Actually, wasn't Victor Frankenstein the pioneer of the bolt-on
>> neck?
>>
>> Bob Alman
Yes, but he had a hard time keeping this one a "low profile."
Steve Barker
R & A Whitaker
neck to the guitar since they don't have to spend time trimming and fitting a
perfect dovetail. That's the way I took the statement.
Ray W.
charles...@alliedsignal.com wrote:
> In article <19990401222514...@ngol04.aol.com>,
> steve...@aol.com (SteveWLB40) wrote:
>
> > This divide in guitar technology rears it's ugly head every 6 months or so.
> > Everyone seems to be in one camp or the other.
>
> No, it's probably not a question of technology. It's a question of religion
> and aesthetics.
>
> On the other hand, in Bob
> > Taylor's words, "The bolt-on neck has easy, no stress, complete contact with
> > the body. It couldn't possibly make more contact by going inside the body;
> > physically speaking, it just can't."
>
> Bob and the folks at Taylor make some fine instruments. But, I hate it when
> this kind of marketing nonsense comes out of Taylor Guitars. It just aint
> true. "No stress"? Only if Taylor has redefined the term "stress". The
> stresses imposed on any standard acoustic neck/body are such that the neck
> will try to separate from the body at the heel and compress the body at the
> fingerboard. The presence or absence of bolts don't change this. For a
> bolt-on, this means *space* at the heel, *if* the bolts/wood combination
> moves at all. So, yes, it *could* "possibly make more contact" under certain
> (not too uncommon) circumstances. For a dovetail, the applied stresses means
> *more* wood on wood pressure, not less.
>
> I aint sayin' that one's better than the other, but one should try and stay
> with the facts, rather than attempt to prove one's particular opinion by
> attempting to sound scientific while having little grasp of the science
> involved.
>
charles...@alliedsignal.com
R & A Whitaker <vin_d...@ftc-i.net> wrote:
> Perhaps he meant "no stress" as in no stress on the individual that had to fit
the
> neck to the guitar since they don't have to spend time trimming and fitting a
> perfect dovetail. That's the way I took the statement.
>
> Ray W.
>
Perhaps you're right. If so, it's certainly an ambiguous statement. Possibly
that was it's purpose, to be ambiguous. That's an often employed marketing
technique.
David Neely
David Neely
SteveWLB40
<dan...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>I've got that book and I'm planning a tour of the factory!!
>David Neely
>
Huh? What book & what factory?
Steve Barker