Bolt-on Acoustic Guitar Neck vs Dovetailed Neck?

[Sergy V]

You are viewing a re-constructed thread by the ANZLF recovery team. For more information click here.

"Originally Posted on:Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:49 pm"

Hi guys,
I am a beginner builder and this my first post on your forum...
Say, please, what influences upon sound of the guitar Bolt-on Neck and as Dovetailed Neck?
Attack, tap tone, etc... About traditional Fender and LP I know, but how it for Acoustic guitars?
Thanks.
Excuse me for English, I from other country...

[Nick]

Welcome to the forum Sergy, I hope we can help you and feel free to post pictures once you start building.
I've only ever used Dovetailed necks but as far as I know, there isn't any difference in the final sound of the guitar. If there is it would be so small we couldn't hear any difference. Others may think differently and may care to comment. I know Allen McFarlen on the forum here makes some very good bolt on necked guitars, he may wish to comment.

You're English is better than some English speaking people too!

[Allen]

Welcome to the form Sergy.

I would find it very hard to believe that anyone could pick the difference in tone between an instrument built with a Dovetail neck, Spanish Heel, or Bolt-On. I think it comes down to personal preference on what style suits your needs and design goals.

On my ukuleles, I use a Spanish Heel design, as it's far easier for me to do rather than a bolt-on in such a small instrument.

On my acoustic guitars I use a bolt on mortise and tenon, or an adjustable neck that is also a modification of the bolt on mortise and tenon design. I use these designs as they are far easier to work on should the guitar need a neck reset, and they all will need a neck reset sooner or later.

The adjustable neck negates the necessity of a neck reset, as it's just a matter of turning the bolt to accomplish this adjustment.

[Kim]

Hello Sergy welcome to the ANZLF.

I too feel that the neck joint has little effect on the sound of the instrument, as long as the joint is a good firm fit to allow good transfer of the strings energy, i think you have achieved the most you can for this area of the build.

Cheers

Kim

[Sergy V]

Thank you very much for all answers.
Simply I want to build very interesting guitar, and this information is important for me.

[Rick Turner]

I don't even particularly buy into the "transfer of energy" theory of neck joints. I believe most (by far) of the transfer happens at the bridge. Certainly a good fit is needed, but that is as much to prevent wasting of string energy as to transfer it from one place to another in the guitar.

[Kim]

Rick Turner wrote:
Certainly a good fit is needed, but that is as much to prevent wasting of string energy as to transfer it from one place to another in the guitar.

That is what i thought i said, 'good transfer of energy' would infer that the available energy is being used most efficiently where needed IE; with minimal waste.

Cheers

Kim

[Nick]

Rick Turner wrote:
I don't even particularly buy into the "transfer of energy" theory of neck joints. I believe most (by far) of the transfer happens at the bridge. Certainly a good fit is needed, but that is as much to prevent wasting of string energy as to transfer it from one place to another in the guitar.

Also we do tend to play the guitar using a dirty great energy absorber on the back of the neck, namely our hand which must surely act as a damper if there is that much energy coming off the strings and travelling down the neck that some seem to think.
If we wish to get that anal about string energy transfer then playing without anything touching the neck would be the way to go .

And yeah Kim, I think you and Rick are reading from the same page, certainly makes sense.

[kiwigeo]

What of the part the neck plays in sustain? If density of the neck wood affects sustain then this suggest that there is a not insignificant amount of string energy being transmitted to the neck either via nut and or neck joint.

That said I also dont believe the type of neck joint makes much difference to the sound of the guitar unless the joint is such that the neck and body are not in physical communication.

[Rick Turner]

I build guitars with just about the least amount of physical connection between neck and body as can be done. There is considerably less than 30 sq. mm of contact in total with the bolts used in the joint, and there is no wood to wood contact whatsoever. Ditto on the Howe Orme guitars from the late 1800s from which I got my inspiration. There is no lack of volume or tone from this.

I see the neck as being partially damping of vibration and partially reflective. Density counts, but so does "Q". You can have high density and high damping...think of lead. I just do not see or hear a lot of transmission down through the neck and into the body via the neck block or even the fingerboard as glued to tops in the normal fashion.

I know that the idea of transmission into the body via the neck is deeply ingrained in lutherie lore, but it's another one of those things that I think should be critically re-examined.

As for the type of joint...I think that Collings, Bourgeois, Taylor, and many small shop luthiers have proven that a bolt on neck can result in guitars that rival dovetailed necks for tone, and when the eventual neck reset time comes, it is just so much easier to deal with a bolt-on that it becomes no contest.

I guess the only way to prove this would be to take two dovetailed neck guitars that sound as much alike as possible, and then convert one to being a bolt-on while at the same time resetting the neck on the other just so there would be an equal amount of work done on each guitar. Then compare volume and tone again. Whew...

[kiwigeo]

Rick Turner wrote:


I guess the only way to prove this would be to take two dovetailed neck guitars that sound as much alike as possible, and then convert one to being a bolt-on while at the same time resetting the neck on the other just so there would be an equal amount of work done on each guitar. Then compare volume and tone again. Whew...

If only I had the time. Maybe when I finish my lute.....

[Nick]

kiwigeo wrote:
If only I had the time. Maybe when I finish my lute.....

Then you could build two lutes, one dovetailed & one with a bolt on and compare the renaissance quality of each

I believe Ken Parker is building his archtops with minimal contact at the neck joint also......
Here we go: Hope he doesn't mind me reproducing an image from his website. It infact looks like a block of brass or anodised aluminium between the neck and neck block

ken_parker.jpeg (8.74 KiB) Viewed 23786 times

ken_parker2.jpeg (11.68 KiB) Viewed 23786 times

Although I must admit the MP3's do sound a little 'thin & Banjoey' , nothing like a traditional archy, but then the whole guitar is different so you couldn't say it was the neck joint alone responsible for this. It is also interesting to note the difference in sound between this one (Mrs Natural) where the soundhole is placed in the upper bout and "The Olive Branch" which has it's soundhole/port in the lower bout, the Olive branch is closer to the traditional sound. But then that's another subject/can of worms altogether I guess

[Rick Turner]

Yeah, Ken has taken minimalism to another level there. BTW, that's a veneered neck...the core is carbon fiber. And, no, you really can't compare that guitar design with anything based just on the neck joint! As I recall, the article in the New Yorker suggested that the music for Ken's new guitar hasn't been written yet. He needs this generation's Django, Eddie Lang, or Charlie Christian.

[Rick Turner]

That "brass" block is, I believe, gold leaf over carbon fiber.

[Nick]

Rick Turner wrote:
That "brass" block is, I believe, gold leaf over carbon fiber.

Good lord! Bit over the top (or through it in this case ) isn't it? Personally think I'd like to see the CF but that's just me.

Rick Turner wrote:
As I recall, the article in the New Yorker suggested that the music for Ken's new guitar hasn't been written yet.

I can't think of the company (or find the link)two brothers owned it I seem to remember, but they were making flatops with only a top projecting soundport, nothing forward facing and I remember that too sounded a little "Banjoey" in it's tone.

Sorry, bit off topic.

[jeffhigh]

There is a commonsense belief that maximum contact area at a neck to body joint is better.
I do not subscribe to that.
I would prefer a smaller area in firm contact than a large area distributing the load

[kiwigeo]

Now let me see (jotting up latest Stewmac order).....5lbs of hide glue, five classical rosettes.....5lbs of gold leaf.

[jeffhigh]

That would be Batson Guitars Nick

[Nick]

jeffhigh wrote:
That would be Batson Guitars Nick

Them's the ones! Cheers, Jeff.

[Rick Turner]

The way I do it is much like a tripod which pretty much guarantees good contact at each of the three points. The coupling between neck and body is just fine that way.

[J.F. Custom]

Off topic here I apologize.

Perhaps it's just me but, does anyone else question the strength in that small strip left on the side of Ken Parkers archtop? Inherent weak point?

I mean I realize it appears to be a remnant of the side itself, and is laminated with solid linings, very probably with carbon fiber in the mix - but it just seems that a good knock to it would potentially damage it, or the sides it is attached to? Perhaps I am underestimating the strength of the laminate... It just seems a little avant-garde for the sake of it rather than for any particular benefit. But I am speaking without experience in either trying it personally or having seen one in person so accept I may be very much misguided.

Oh and Nick, you can see the carbon block left 'au natural' in other shots on his site.

Back to the discussion

Jeremy.

[Rick Turner]

These are guitars taken to an extreme in build. Ken is fascinated by high performance racing sailboats, and I think it shows in his designs. These are not guitars for bar fights, though! Especially at 30 K USD a pop...




This is the final re-constructed message of this topic posted by the ANZLF help team.