Official Luthiers Forum!

I posted a simular question of at the MIMF in the archtop section, but wanted to ask it here too.

Why is the neck joint at the 12 fret on flatops, 14 fret on archtops and 16th fret on most electric (solidbodies)? I would assume that the design would change a little if you chose to attach the neck at a different interval, but would that change tone/playability or what?

I noticed that my Archtops all join at the 14th fret. One reason I don't play the archtops as much is because of this. I prefer the neck joint at the 16th fret simular to a Les Paul or 335. So why not? In this case, it would move the neck about 1" outward and give more access to the upper frets. It would also cause the bridge to move forward too. So what? Why not?

Same goes on an accoustic. Why the 12th fret? Does moving the bridge 1" forward really alter the overall tone of that guitar? Wouldn't a change in the bracing placement compensate for that?

Just a friendly discusion on why the world has standardized on these settings.

Thanks,
Joe

_________________
Joe

12 because it is half scale point, 14 because it makes the 12th more accessible. 16 is an electric thing (high scale lead playing access)

By the way ther are a lot of flat tops with 14 at the joint and a few with 13 at the joint. and a few electrics with 14 and 12 at the joint though not many.

I have made two acoustic guitars with a 16th fret join to the neck. One of them has been in service for a year, and the carbon-reinforced neck has remained straight.

The other has been in service for a month and also seems to be bearing up well.

There are pros and cons to this; Access to higher frets is easier, however you have to design the upper bout to be "flattened" a little so that the bridge is set well into the lower bout for a balanced bass response.

It's mainly because I like symmetry, and dislike cutaways, although I am willing to create them. I also like the appearance of a long, slim neck.

16th fret joins on acoustic guitars are uncommon.

I wonder where you got that idea from Sam

Stefan Sobell has made a few with 16 frets clear of the body. Here's one of mine:



And this is "Nancy" - the first guitar I ever made, again with 16 frets clear:

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

So is the only design change the placement of the bridge? Well I guess that would also change the placement of the bracing too...right?

J

_________________
Joe

Dunno mate...this guy called Dave White, I think...

Not necessarily - you can design them how you like. On the two I've shown here - like Sam said - it's the shape of the upper bout that has changed most, the bridge is more or less where it always is in my other guitars in terms of the lower bout. The bracing goes with your design and the usual things you have to take into account to make guitars work. This debate also goes on about 12/14 fret clear differences - the bridge can stay in the same relative position here if you want it . . . or it can move. People who design their own instruments and bracing patterns will have lots of fun here, those that look for Martin/Gibson "bible" examples could well struggle

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

Ok, now I think I get what your saying...I think. That is, leave the bridge in the same place but have the upper bought close an 1" earlier in the radius. Another words, the upper bought would be about 1" shorter from the waiste line to the neck joint so that the bridge stays the same. Yes?

I guess I didn't think of it that way. I have a standard cutaway body shape I made the mold for. I am thinking of using a 16 fret neck on it while keeping it looking somewhat traditional. That would move the bridge in that case. But I see what your saying as well.

Thanks,
Joe

_________________
Joe

well I guess I would approach such a design change in a different light. I would want to keep the bridge in the prime location for the best influence on the lower bout and redesign a upper bout and sound hole location to accommodate the longer neck. this also requires a close look at bracing.

To me such a change requires an inclusive design not just an adaptation.

Joe,

You could quite easily put an insert into the upper part of your mold to allow for a change in upper bout shape. You are definitely going to have to review and possibly re-design the bracing whichever route you go. Also check for case sizes and fit if you are going to stick a 16 frets clear neck on your standard body - the guitar will be an inch or so longer.

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

I have also read that changing the " frets to the body " will also change the instruments tone, as supposedly this is the main reason a Gibson dread ( 12 frets to the body) sounds mellower than a martin dread ( 14 frets to the body ). I am curious how a guitar with 16 frets to the body would sound! Jody

Mine sounds like this.

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010