Before You Make A Guitar, Consider This
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- This video addresses the question; if it's so great, why isn't everyone doing it?
If you would like to help support my channel and get something cool in return, please consider the following:
www.eguitarplan...
/ highlineguitars
I think most choices we make when building guitars are aesthetic choices. Except for color. Red clearly has the best tone!
Dilly Dilly! Candy Apple Red!
😂
Red is okay but I find sometimes the tones are a bit too "hot" and "demonesque". My color preference is generally blue, which gives me that air and water "flowing" and "fluid" and "oxygenated" tone. To each his own. p.s. Gray works best for heavy metal
Red is guaranteed to get you speeding tickets.
Totally agree. Further more, if these newer technologies are so great, why are Strats and Les Pauls from the 50's so crazy expensive/desirable now given their rudimentary tech.
Once I met a man who made himself a headless-bodyless guitar. It was just a neck going to the other end, the "body" was only wide enough to accomodate a no name humbucker and the bridge. When plugged into the amp, it had the sound of my Les Paul de Luxe! I came to the conclusion that what we are paying and playing is just what pleases the eye. And myths.
That is similar to what my father said about a lot of products. If something is so great, the big manufacturers would be doing it. Thanks for the reminder.
It’s just like racing. It’s fun trying out different combinations and seeing how it stands up. There is no end all be all. If there was every race car would be exactly the same.
Excellent point. I think it is the combination of things that makes the magic. And the player. Him too.
It's like buying a new suit or anything else for that matter, it's looks and feel.
If something feels good in your hand you'll play better, if something looks great in your eyes you'll connect better and so on.
There have been tests that show bolt-on guitars have the most sustain and neck-thrus have the least. It may sound like bolt-ons have less sustain because of how the high-end drops off compared to neck-thrus which generally have less high-end to begin with via increased damping, but there's also body thickness, density and rigidity to consider. It does make sense that the increased neck joint pressure of a bolt-on would reduce damping.
for me it's an aesthetic choice, I love the look of through necks, and the higher fret access is great as well.
I really like the common sense tone of your videos. I am trying to learn guitar finishing, and you have helped a lot. Remember, no matter what you do, someone is going to come along and tell you it is wrong.
I've owned several PRS & Ernie Ball Guitars, some neck through, set-in, others bolt on. I've found several bolt-on guitars have better sustain than neck thru. When I got my neck thru I was SO disappointed!! So what you said makes total sense...it's really the quality of build and wood that is more important, and that neck thru does not mean more sustain.
Let's talk about thе guitar parts that became an industry standard for most of the builders (excluding the retro-vibe guitar brands like Fender and Gibson) and every modern high-quality guitar must have. For example:
- locking nut (on the guitars with Floyd Rose or Kahler type tremolo),
- the truss rod (yep, the first Fender guitars had no truss rod), the 2-way truss rod for the top-level guitars,
- open truss rod nut (not like on the old-fashioned Fenders),
- independently moving saddle bridge (the first Fenders had 3-saddle bridges, and the first LesPauls had just a stopbar),
- carbon reinforced neck,
- quartersawn wood neck,
- PU or PE or whatever durable finish,
- glue-set frets,
- stainless steel frets (for the top-level guitars),
- locking machine heads (for the top-level guitars).
What about the roller nuts, I think they are cool, but they can't be used on the guitars with the 6-in-line Jackson/Gibson Explorer-type heads or Gibson LesPaul-type heads cause the strings aren't parallel there. The roller bridges are cool as well, but they can't be used on the guitars with bigger radius fingerboards, cause it's impossible to change the radius of the such type of a bridge.
Always consider advice, thanks Chris.
Very worthwhile video. I have been disassembling, reassembling, swapping out necks, changing pups and components and building from cheap 'kits' then upgrading for years and years and have to agree with much of what you say. The completed electric guitar is just one part of the signal chain including fingers/picks, to strings, to pups to pedals and amps. All have an effect on the eventual sound and all interact with each other in every different chain . The electric guitar is a tool in a tool box and any dogmatic statements of neck joints to hardware choices being BETTER than something else is very subjective. Which is BETTER really ? Longer or shorter sustain ? Which is BETTER brighter or warmer tone ? Its all down to what the player wants ! How do you say one sound is BETTER than another.? These discussions mean nothing to the listener, gigger, record buyer, they just like the FINAL SOUND. Just look at the variations in Strats from 1962 or Les Pauls from 1959. Some bangers and some bombers even from same woods / constructions / components from the same line and year. Just enjoy your building, experimenting, playing. I say forget the snake oil and just build and play and if you are just a buyer/player, then just listen to the guitar, if it does what you want it to, it's right for you, forget about the rest...................enjoy !
Seems to me that variety is also simply fun!
I like the bolt on neck.
I think the bolt on neck is best.
And i think Leo is a genius...🙋♂️👍
Thanks for sharing your knowledge, I'm new on modifying Guitars and building them.
For as long as I remember, the through neck construction has always been said to have better sustain when compared to other methods of construction. Years ago we put this to the test with a few friends and found the results to be the opposite. On average bolt-on guitars sustained the longest, followed by set and though necks. Differences between set and through neck seemed to vary more based on the guitar being tested.
I thinks it bears mentioning that a lot of the theories surrounding the electric guitar's design and function have been championed by teenagers who spent more time playing their guitars and less time in a physics classroom.
Yes absolutely. And i am feeling that you do not completely discredit the entire desire to use such products or influences on desired outcome and i am is well pleased with how tactful you have explained the design decisions. It is a pleasure to watch your videos as you are very relaxing and even mildly a.s.m.r. If you will. No offense, i love guitars and how to build guitars by real lutes doing the actual work.
Thanks for a splendid job of it. Have some questions also. ...
.....Note some Latin monikers are included, for science.
Would like to build this= 6, 7, or 8 string, or 9, 10, 11, or 12 string. Note those others would use a Kahler tremolo and, the tuning intervals would be closer on some strings.
1) Extreme metal shape with large footprint yet thinner. And inline reverse Xtreme headstock. So decided it shall be neck through for this.
2) Indian Rosewood or Dalbergia Latifolia for the NECK through. Alternative = Walnut, or Juglans Nigra.
3) Fretboard is bird's eye maple. Alternative = Ziricote. 25 stainless steel frets. Zero fret.
4) Body shall be = Swamp Ash with book matched Flame maple BACK. No top just a flame maple veneer on top.
5) Pickup DiMarzio D Activator X bridge. And Super Distortion S in the neck. With a Sugar Chakra in the middle position. Assortment of color.
6) Ratio tuners and Schaller Floyd Tremelo with big brass block and titanium posts.
7) Finish is dye and, maybe a small paint pen and, airbrushing, with thinner satin clear to seal in.
A. lot of things go into and effect tone,but the main factors,as I see it are amp ,settings,and the skill of the player,all things are important, but add or detract only slightly but it mostly comes down to the skill of the artist. A similar would be building a winning race car,each part may add,a second or two,but the cubic dollars add up much quicker,in the end it comes down to the skill of the driver and a bit of luck
Excellent points. I have a beautiful '06 Japanese made ESP neck through and currently my $80 Harley Benton Strat has more sustain in the upper frets... now, could be an issue with the ESP like a Ski Jump condition but that's where I'm currently at. I love neck through and have several, but I'm starting to come to the realization they might not be "the best" as I've been lead to believe by marketing materials.
Finally a non-snob luthier who talks like everybody in the industry should. I subscribed just for that.
Hi Chris, thanks for the good points. I find that the choice of components and woods comes down to what I am excited about in the moment - what I think is cool and not necessarily what is objectively better. But I think that to a curtain degree that’s fine as long as my choices aren’t totally bad … and that’s where you and your channel comes in. I research and come up with a strategy based on channels like yours and hopefully the end result is as exciting as I imagined. Until now it has been pretty good. So thanks for the advice and opinions 👍🏼😃
At the moment, my choices, are what have I got in the shed :) So to learn it is the plywood neck for me :) (And the plywood body - and I tried to make plywood keys, but they wooden work :)
Just like ice cream, you need to choose your flavor. Great video, thanks.
I 'love' when people say "X, Y, and Z will give you better tone" 🙄 Tone is subjective. Tone is arbitrary and contextual. Different construction methods and components will sound different and behave different ways, and will affect the tone in certain ways. But none make "better tone" because there's no such thing as objectively better tone. For every tone that one person loves, there's someone who hates it. For every tone that works for one genre or song or arrangement, there's gonna be genres and songs and arrangements it doesn't work. For every player who wants the sound of a neck-through, there's another who prefers an instrument with a bolt-on or set. None of these tones or techniques or components are wrong. They just achieve different goals for the instrument. The only people who are wrong are the ones who are claiming a specific method is correct because it's how you get 'better tone'.
PS. Love your videos. I've been thinking about building my own bass for years now and have really learned a lot from your channel. Not sure how i'll swing building one in my NYC apartment, but i'll figure it out eventually!
I think, the things in the guitar building business are a bit more complicated. Those big guitar builders like Gibson and Fender tried to use some more advanced guitar building technologies, like compound radius fingerboards, two-point tremolos (instead of traditional 6-point ones), thinner modern C or U-chape necks, graphite reinforced necks, reinforced neck heads, noiseless hum-canceler pickups, locking tuners, roller nuts, etc. However, the more modern and advanced were their guitars , the less they were bought. That's because the musicians, who want to play on a Strat or on a LesPaul want the sound they heard on their favourite records of 60s or 70s, and they think they need to have exactly the same guitars to get that "genuine" Strat or LesPaul sound. I meet such kind of musicians pretty often.
The same time, the more modern guitar builders like Jackson and ESP had no such limitations. So they made the most innovative guitars to those days and got the big army of young guitar players to love their guitars.
Another issue of using more advanced technologies is their cost. For example, the locking tuners are about 30% more expensive than the regular ones of the same brand. That's why they are generally used for the more expensive guitars.
I think what you are saying about musicians wanting the sounds they heard on their favorite records from the 60s and 70s is true to a point. That generation is declining in numbers. Younger players who are the primary guitar-buying demographic today could care less about that music.
I just love bolt on guitar. It has that snappy attack, I can shim it and have more floyd pull up range. With rear mount locking nut , I can easily add and remove shim. When sending for refret, my luthier have easier time working on it. I can remove the neck and body, put it in my travel bag and take a flight.
Thank you for this well thought out response. I am learning a lot from you about guitar. I don’t play, but I need to know to help advise my 13 year old Grandson. He is amazed that we can talk about this subject.
It's a grandpa's job to know everything. Or at least be good at faking it!
Chris, I totally agree with you! Modern guitar construction is reduced to selling not a guitar as an instrument, but to selling a work of art. And the more sophisticated the guitar is made, the more expensive it is sold. Modern musicians are not as concise as they used to be...
Great points. I know of a guy who has played all over the world and he has a tele that fell off stage and cracked. He swears it made it sound better so he’s never repaired it… kind of how each guitar has its own characteristics? Thanks for the great videos.. n
What's good for the goose ,isn't always good for the gander, some say you get more sustain from a bolt on ,but I think you pinned the nail on the donkey ,when you said it all comes down to the craftsmanship, and the right component selection , thank you for another great video ,highline !!
A little late on this video…I just finished my first build! Tele/strat hybrid with a thin walnut body. Sounds great and I learned a ton about what really matters!
Mostly trends. Brass parts in the 70s. EMG pickups in the 90s. Locking nuts on everything now with or without a tremelo/vibrato. Etc.... .
More to your point, Chris, if components or build features and techniques were actually widely considered superior, the large companies, while not choosing to retool their factories to manufacture to those things, would at least be offering those features as highly premium products. After all, these companies are regularly selling limited editions with odd finishes and features and wood choices to capitalize on the players and collectors who are attracted to owning things that people will find interesting or better. Gibson and Fender custom shops, for instance, don't offer a neck-through guitar at any price. If it were truly superior, there would be interested buyers, just as certainly as there are enough customers willing to pay for replicas of famous players' guitars at many times the price of a normal production model.
The fact is we all have things we whope-heartedly believe makes a guitar better, for all kinds of reasons. I think, if someone wants a guitar built a certain way, then they should it build it, or commission one. But I think it's a little inappropriate for anyone to offer unsolicited advice to anyone, especially someone with the kind of experience you've got.
(BTW, when I hear people talking about sustain, I can't help but think about Christopher Guest's character in This Is Spinal Tap, in the famous "This amp goes to eleven" interview, as he held up his favorite Les Paul and said something like "And listen: this guitar's sustain is incredible, even when it's not being played." I gotta watch that again.
With modern manufacturing technology, retooling is much easier than it was in the past.
@@HighlineGuitars Yes, and a lot of retooling may be reprogramming computers.
Way back in the early 80s when I was in college, a dorm mate had an amazing Charvel neck-through with a then mysterious Floyd Rose. I was more-less new to guitar playing so had no way to tell if it was really better than my MIJ Strat (with the now dreaded System 3 tremolo). But it sure seemed spectacular and that neck through did feel different. Later in life when I had the money to buy one.....none to be had this side of Mars. Neck through came and went.
The bottom line is that the best guitars are the one's that stay in tune and are built to last. And inspire you to play. A great player can make a $200 guitar sound awesome with the right amp...
Thanks for this. I love a bolt on neck for various reasons, and I have always believed there was little difference, so long as the workmanship is good. Sure, a through neck is beautiful, but better?
Well said. Construction, components, electronics,…just “different”, not “better”. It would be pretty dang boring if all guitars were the same in any of these.
When a guitar beginner asks me a question, I answer that.
There is no "best", there is only " choices".
For example, it is said that a through-neck is easier to play and sounds better.
However, if that neck breaks, it will require extensive repair.
A bolt-on neck is simply a matter of replacing the neck. (Provided, of course, that you are not attached to that neck.)
All guitars are made up of such " choices". Advantages and Disadvantages. We, the players, choose the " choices".
In recent years, more than a few professional players are using Squier and Epiphone guitars. They have chosen them because they have the sound they want and the quality they need.
IMO, think for yourself and find your ideal. I think guitar players need to be calm and wise like that.
..it all has to do with the quality of the craftsmanship..i would say 90 percent..the rest is materials..you cant tell me that a sloppy tuning machine with 15;1 ratio is going to be as good as a well built tuner with 19:1 ratio (and in this sense we are coming back to craftsmanship on the hardware level..) ..also a floyd bridge plate made out of copper is not going to give the performance of one that is made of steel..which adds cost to the machining in the former of harder tools, etc..and what about steel versus common copper/nickel frets?..sure out of the box two guitars might be as good, but a few months down the road depending on the use of the instrument is going to show some differences..but for the majority of products today..in almost any sector of the consumer world today, the majority of the difference depends on marketing, consumer awareness, and the innate need for humans to appear better than others by the 'quality' (and the well-known related price) of those products..Gibson has a tradition, and when somebody in the later stages of building a gibson screws up and the whole guitar body included is thrown into the dumpster, then it is a much bigger loss than when a fender body doesnt match with the neck..and only the body is thrown into the dumpster...hence the extra price of gibsons..and one of the reasons that fender could produce cheaper guitars..
All great points.
Sometimes, the Juice just isn't worth the Squeeze.
As far as bolt-on, through and set necks, each provides its own tonal profile, advantages and disadvantages.
For myself, I try to approach guitars like they are people, each can be uniquely different and should be evaluated on an individual basis.
I'm glad guitars are different and the selection is almost unlimited.
Great Content and Insight, Thank You.
I believe it all comes down to cost on labor and materials to build each type of guitar.
Your videos are top notch and informative. Thank you for the outstanding videos and information, Always a pleasure to watch.
What you're talking about generally speaking here is something that frankly scares me about the prospect of building guitars for people to buy. I'd hate to get to the point where I make really nice solid body electric guitars with quarter sawn maple necks and an awesome bolt on neck pocket and setup, really nice fretwork and fingerboard work, awesome neck shapes, nice hardtail bridges, but....I'm hearing from lots of people that bolt ons are cheap, or that laminated necks are better, or that tune o matics are better or something. Or that I should be using crazy expensive swamp ash bodies because they resonate better. I guess if I somehow ended up with a good enough reputation that people were interested in what I make and trust my choices, I could avoid that. But starting out? I dunno.
None of this was an issue before the internet.
If it were possible it would be interesting then to construct 3 of the same guitar with the same wood, hardware and electronics but only changing the type of neck construction: bolt-on, set, neck-thru. Then doing diagnostic tonal analysis to compare major differences or lack thereof. I realize that different pieces of the same wood species might even introduce some differences that would be confusing to the analysis. But still interesting.
Chris:
As always, I watch your videos with admiration and gratitude. This one was particularly interesting because it gets into the "philosophy" of instrument building, so to speak.
Question: So, for necks, I've seen you do (1) a combo of CNC carving and adding a scarf joint, (2) an "inline" Fender-style headstock, and (3) an angled headstock on a maple neck carved from a single deep slab.
Along the way, you've made convincing points about the virtues (and drawbacks) of each approach (e.g., avoiding the issue of "short-grain" construction that the scarf joint approach allows).
So I'm wondering what you think of a "hybrid" version of number (2), an inline Fender-style headstock, but with more depth in terms of the overall profile seen from the side.
In other words, if I'm working with a six-string bass neck whose heel has a depth of about 20 mm, could I plunge the headstock (about 15 mm thick) to maybe 30 mm?
So the headstock would be 10 mm lower (or higher, depending on how you look at it) than the heel, which would translate to a steeper angle for the strings after they come off the nut and go to the tuners.
I know the Fender design was above all economical, so the heel depth and headstock depth relative to the fretboard correspond.
But with a CNC design, I could see making the headstock about 10 mm lower than the heel and maybe avoiding string trees and similar compensations?
I don't see any reason not to try this.
I never understood the concept of asking for someone's opinion, then getting upset when they give it to you.
It doesn’t really matter what construction or material you use… if it’s inspired you and it works for you it can be even piece of MDF with rope! Just make a music!
playability and good pickups! After that, I'd say it's hard to improve on a simple strat / tele design. I am sure there will be some notable improvements in the future but the basic formula works pretty amazing as is.
I’d say PRS has perfected the art of copying Fender and Gibson while improving upon both. Best wood dyeing in the business!
And there are luthiers who make better copies of PRS guitars.
The answer to all those "why isn't everyone doing it" question is money.
Manufacturers, especially when producing at scale, seek to cut cost at every corner. So, even if, say, neck-thorugh construction is objectively better, the cost involved in overhauling a whole production line is prohibitive. Same for any component - the cost for the component itself, and the re-tooling and re-design, may prove to make a real dent in revenue. So they're not going to do it. Especially when the majority of instruments sold are essentially made to "classic" or "vintage" spec, because that's what sells.
Money is definitely a factor. However, it can work in the opposite direction. If a production technique or a component choice is demonstrated to be clearly superior, the big guitar companies have to find ways to adopt them to stay competitive. The reason many of these companies won't adopt a lot of these choices (roller nuts, neck through construction, etc.) is because their advantages are subjective rather than objective.
How true. I always enjoy the design and construction process in itself. Like they say "it's the journey, not the destination that's important". I learn a great deal regardless of the choices I make with every custom jazz guitar I build. It's always fun to experiment, regardless of the outcome.
As always nice vidro and perspectives.
If I remember right, Ron Wickersham of Alembic used thru neck construction because it was easier to do than set neck. At least for what they did: small volume high end guitars and basses.
I tend to agree. As long as you have nice strsight wood in long enough pieces, thru neck is easier than set neck to make. Thru neck is easier to glue up and get the neck angle right.
Bolt on is the easiest, then thru neck finally set neck, at least to me. YMMV
Sound wise the tonal qualities and sustain only have negligible differences in most cases when amplified given the same electronics and hardware.
Hi Chris. Thanks so much for making these comments. As you have pointed out numerous times, there are so many variables that can impact the final output that its really hard to quantify any specific aspect of the consruction. I've been playing guitar for about 46 years and have had p!entry of experience To support this. For example, the simple notion that there are "good" Les Pauls and bad ones, even though they were built in the same factory on the same day with the same methods proves this out. You talk about better tone, but even that doesn't really mean anything. I've built a coup!e of guitars now, but unlike you, I'm not building them for sale and so I'm just hoping for something that fits me. There is no greater feeling than playing your own instrument so if any of your subs are reading this, I would say build what you like and you will never fail.
A lot of good points in this video. What do you think is the easiest construction is to build between set neck, neck through and bolt on?
I think bolt-ons are the easiest construction. Set-on necks need to be glued at the exact size and angle. A through neck requires machining a long piece of wood. If a mistake is found, set-on and thru necks require a great deal of work to correct it.
What’s often overlooked about roller nuts and bridges, is that they have to be VERY finely engineered if they’re not going to introduce slop and/or unwanted friction at the two most crucial contact points for the string. If you paid less than $75 for that component, you probably just made things worse…
From my perspective it seems that the friction between string and roller is typically lower than the roller/centerpin friction.
As far as sustain, does it matter what the wood is? The string is resting on point A (nut slot) and point B (saddle slot) and the string vibration doesn't change between those points. The string only makes contact at a very minute place. It would be an issue of the pickup being able to pickup the vibration.
I don't think that neck-thru has a better tone or sustain. I have neck thru, set neck and bolt-on guitars and I couldn't say that one type of construction stands out. If you care about tone and sustain, think more about the placement and build quality of the bridge, the cut of the nut, the pickups and the exactness of construction and assembly. None of those things in isolation will do any wonders, but they are things that certainly add up.
A Fender Stratocaster Is the most iconic Guitar on Earth, it is not neck through, (as far as neck through guitars having better sustain, or any other better tonality claims) here are a few players to prove My point: Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Eric Gayles, Christone "Kingfish" Ingram, Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck, David Gilmore, John Mayer, Mark Knopfler, Rory Gallagher, H.E.R, Orianthi Penny Panagaris, Eddie Van Halen, Eric Johnson, Nile Rodgers, Robin Trower etc.........
really? it about the sound your looking for. Its about how the instrument fits you.
I have a 600 dollar guitar with a bolt on neck, and another guitar that cost 3 times as much with a neck through. The 600 dollar guitar sounds better in every Amp, and speaker I've put it through and the more expensive one collects dust.
I do disagree that tone woods or neck through make that much difference in the solid body guitar world. Acoustic and semi hollow yeah it can matter, but magnet types in pickups, the coils (possible caps and pots make a difference), fingers, technique make the guitar sing. Does a real bone nut vs. carbon fiber vs plastic, vs. Tusk make a difference in tonality? Maybe if one has ears of a dog. I don't believe the human ear can hear that much nuance. I've been playing bass over 30 years and I feel my experience with the instrument does have merit when it comes to this topic. I do believe that the gimmick of tone woods comes from sales and marketing departments. Again this is my take.
The idea that neck through give better sustain and tone is a myth.
there are downsides to many of the "advanced features".
boards for neck through design have to be longer and have perfect grain. as a one man small shop luthier you cannot adjust neck angle which you may need because you make unique instruments and want to experiment. as a big brand you cannot stockpile standard necks at the factory to use in different models. as a player you cannot swap them.
locking tuners usually weigh a lot and make the guitar neck heavy unless it has a massive body or a heavy bridge (and at the same time they're useless with floyd rose style bridges).
roller bridge makes no sense without a tremolo and only steals a bit of sustain in that case. roller nut - well, i haven't seen one that does its job well because the roller size is too small (unlike the weight and the cost). i stick to simple nuts made of hard materials with low friction against steel and nickel. a good headstock design is also important.
a tremolo only makes sense for someone who uses it. otherwise it's just added weight and cost which will most likely complicate the tuning process and bending.
this list could be endless. besides, simple designs tend to look and feel better and age better than overengineered ones.
I don’t know. I know my set neck guitar has great sustain but my bolt on necks aren’t inhibiting it. If I’m planning a note that long as to time the difference I’m well past comical note hang time. Just sayin. Lol
David Gilmore stacks compressors. No one knows if his strats actually have much sustain. Lol
Sorry if this is at all off-topic, but this video got me thinking about something that has been bugging me a bit lately. Why do (GENERALLY SPEAKING) 25.5-scale guitars generally kinda look like...other 25.5 guitars? Why do 24.75 scale guitars generally....kinda look round and les paulish or SG-ish and have a tune o matic bridge? What if someone likes the look of say, an ESP LTD M1 (shreddy looking), but wants 24.75 scale? I know there are outliers here, I know there are some rare examples of les paul looking type guitars with a 25.5 inch scale or an ibanez GAX (SG style body) with a nice hardtail bridge (I have one) but they're the exceptions that kinda prove the rule. I'll come right out and own up to the fact that I honestly don't understand why tune o matics are still use, aside from just "someone wants it". Okay, in the interest of this not turning into a rant about bridges I'm just gonna stop
Tradition, or more accurately, the Boomer Effect. Fortunately, the effect is waning.
@@HighlineGuitars I'm a Boomer. (And I'm waning.)
I have kind of a Strat type guitar that has 24 frets and that is not that common. That is why I built it.
@@bobbys4327 You mean a strat shaped guitar with 25.5 scale length? I feel like the entire Ibanez RG line is basically a strat-shaped 25.5 and I think they all have 24 frets. Sorry, not trying to be contrary, just not sure what you mean.
people who demand more sustain in the way of neck-thru are just scared of a compressor pedal.
Do you draw up wiring diagrams? I'm looking to see if I can get a superswitch, push/pull pot wiring scheme to work but I'm not sure exactly how to wire this concept I have
No, but these guiys do: guitarelectronics.com/
@@HighlineGuitars thanks for the lead!
Open is still 10 dB hotter than the show audio. 🙄
That's exactly the way I like it.
Jim Lill - Where does tone come from? ruclips.net/video/yiFcw-H5DN8/видео.html
You are leaving out the aspect of tradition and expectations by a lot of the customers. Indeed f.e. Gibson has experimented with some stuff over the decades. But at the end of the day they always have to go back to the old concepts - because that's what the customers ultimately demand from Gibson. Only a minority actually wants "improvements". Take the Fender Telecaster as another example. It always goes back to the old design. It's hard to argue against the benefits of a belly cut compared to a sharp-edged object pressing against your ribcage. Yet, here we are. Your arguments are logical and make perfect sense. But guitarists don't really operate on logic.
People are generally stubborn lol.
i think a neck through constructed around a hollow body would be an interesting experiment.... sort of like a throat with lungs....
Check out Les Paul's Log guitar. guitar.com/features/opinion-analysis/how-les-pauls-log-guitar-changed-everything/
Very well put