[ ]
From: Ross
Remote Name: 76.101.10.136
Date: 29 May 2007
Time: 08:19:54 -0400
Luthier’s Weblog 5/29/07 Full of ambition and Starbucks coffee this morning. Not necessarily in that order. I’ve found from long experience that ,when feeling this way, I’m most likely to formulate groundbreaking hypotheses based on laughably insufficient empirical data. Conclusions become more elusive later in the day. Reviewing completed design work with my robot friend, I see that he has not discussed neck cross section profile, except for noting a rather flat radius. Another nice thing about a flatter radius is that it allows a thinner fingerboard. This is an important consideration when he intends to rout his truss rod slot .440” into the neck blank at it’s deepest point. He likes to leave at least a tenth of an inch between the back of the neck and the truss rod channel. Preferably a bit more. The cross section of the neck must be some sort of irregular ellipse. Using the arc of a circle would be most regular, but would result in an acute angle at the junction of fingerboard surface and side of the neck. Preferring a very slightly oblique angle, he sharply curves the radius away from the fingerboard toward an evenly increasing radius reaching maximum at the centerline of the back of the neck. The cross section is oval, with no Vee-ing or points of sharp transition. The object is to avoid presenting any distinctive features of feel that may distract the player. The builder has no particular preference regarding laminated vs. solid neck blank construction. His main concern is economic, and his choice is often decided by weighing cost of materials against cost of labor. Laminated construction does, of course, make more frugal use of materials. It is, however, more labor intensive. Laminated necks are usually stronger and more stable, but for guitar-scale instruments with their relatively short distances from tuners to heel, solid construction is certainly equal to the task, especially with the assistance of the truss rod and carbon fiber inserts . The luthier must constantly remind himself to avoid the sin of over-engineering components. Designing parts to handle more than the required load generally requires more material and labor. Besides that, it is…..inelegant. One is led to consider the ill-thought excess of most tuning machines. Incorrectly assuming the tuning machine to be the cause of most tuning ills, Modern Industry turned it’s might toward creating great, massive castings housing precision cut gears designed to be anchored to the headstock (in the long respected belt/suspenders tradition) by screw and threaded bushing. The result? Powerfully precise tuning with the same number of tuning ills. The nut, of course, is usually the offender, and the player is left to look for yet another brand of superior tuners, all the while straining his left hand in a futile attempt to support his newly ill balanced guitar. Modern Industry soon turned it’s attention to Improving the Lowly Nut, but that story is for another day. You know, I’m not the only one to formulate groundbreaking hypotheses on laughable data. Ross Teigen 8:55 am