Angleless Neck Pocket

[verhoevenc]

Ok, we had a discussion about an easier way to angle a neck pocket that a jig. But I just got the dimensions for the bridge I wish to use (the Hipshot Baby Grand from StewMac) and the thing, although on posts like the nefariously tall tune-o-matic style bridges, it only rises up a mere half an inch from the top if I lay it flat on the top:

http://www.hipshotproducts.com/babygrand%20dia.htm (sorry, wouldn't let me link for some reason, something about the %20 in the URL i think)

So I thought, perhaps I don't need to angle my neck pocket after all. Fenders don't (I think...). So what do I need to do? Merely make sure that the fingerboard also rises half an inch above the top, and then use the posts to raise the bridge accordingly so that all the hieghts work out correctly.

Is the fingerboard rising a half an inch above the top too much? Too little? (ie: will it be unstable for a set neck, or on the other end of the spectrum not be ENOUGH above and not allow for space for the pickups under the strings?).

Chris

[westhemann]

again...try drawing out a full scale plan.it will tell you all you need to know

[Mickguard]

Aren't there are couple of other pieces in the equation to consider?

That is, one would be a question of string tension--doesn't the angled neck help to give the proper tension over the headstock? (I don't know, but it makes sense to me that it would be so)

The other one is a question of personal preference-- do you prefer angled necks or straight necks?

Personally, I prefer angled necks.

[verhoevenc]

Anyone know the angle on a PRS CE 22 with tremolo, or a Parker fly classic? Cause I don't know those. But I like them. I have a Fender tele which I know to be not angled, and I Know I hate the feeling of a Les Paul's neck, and how the bridge is SO high up. So yeah, I want something like the PRS or Parker Neck... and NOT like a Les Paul (which I know to be angled).

Chris

PS: Just as a little added question (since I'm doing up my drawings at the moment) would you have to angle back the low E string side of a Hipshot Baby Grand bridge just like you would have to for a tune-o-matic?

Edited September 3, 2005 by verhoevenc

[Mattia]

Anyone know the angle on a PRS CE 22 with tremolo, or a Parker fly classic? Cause I don't know those. But I like them. I have a Fender tele which I know to be not angled, and I Know I hate the feeling of a Les Paul's neck, and how the bridge is SO high up. So yeah, I want something like the PRS or Parker Neck... and NOT like a Les Paul (which I know to be angled).

Chris

PS: Just as a little added question (since I'm doing up my drawings at the moment) would you have to angle back the low E string side of a Hipshot Baby Grand bridge just like you would have to for a tune-o-matic?

←

Eh? Each bridge does its own thing, and the baby grand is an all-in-one design, so don't worry or think about break angles. Not relevant. As for the angle PRS guitars have...depends on the model, and what bridge is on them, methinks. The McCarty's with the top stailpiece probably have a gibson-esque 2-3 degrees back angle. Honestly, while the height of the bridge affects the 'feel' of the guitar greatly, I've never seen anyone complain that a back-angle (which I would think the PRS trem guitars and Parker Flys have, only less. 1-2 degrees or so) feels 'bad'. It brings the neck a little further back, so you don't have to hold your hand forward. Different feel to a strat, for sure. My bet is you don't like the feel because the strings are floating about above the top of the body by a lot, rather than that the neck back angle's causing you to dislike the feel. The last PRS-style guitar had a 3 degree back angle and a trem (3 degrees back relative to the plane of the body blank; the top itself was angled back by about 1.5 degrees, and the neck needed to go a further 1.5 or so to line everything up properly). Feels good to me and everyone else who's played it. Very different from a bolt on guitar because the playing position shifts. Matter of taste, though.

idch: neck back-angle has absolutely nothing, zero, nada to do with string tension. String tension is always the same for any given string at any given pitch. Always. It might affect the break tension over the bridge (downward pressure), if we're talking tunomatic, but it's unlikely, but the headstock end? The strings are always pulling on the same plane, same distance over the fretboard, so the back tension and the downward pressure on the nut are constant, no matter the neck angle. Think of the bridge, fingerboard, headstock and strings as a 'unit' that has to maintain a certain relationship. That never changes, or the guitar becomes unplayable. At what angle this whole is 'placed' in the guitar's design affects the look, feel and construction, but the relationship between those factors does not shift for any given scale length/headstock angle/tuning machine layout.

[Mickguard]

idch: neck back-angle has absolutely nothing, zero, nada to do with string tension.

←

Actually, I meant the tension of the string into the nut -- I was thinking of how Fenders use string trees to accomplish that, and Gibsons have the angled headstock, and I was wondering if the angle of the entire neck is part of that equation.

Didn't meant the tension of the string over the neck, should have been clearer!

[thegarehanman]

it's not. The only thing that's determines the pressure on the nut(besides the tension on the strings) is the break angle of the strings on the nut...I think.

[Mattia]

What garageman said, and I tried to explain (apparently without much success.)

Trying again:

neck angle is pretty much irellevant to any tension or pressure anywhere, except in some cases where you have bridge/tailpiece combos that may not be mounted at 90 degree to the strings (ie, design flaw in my book). Headstock angle defines downward tension, string trees do. All the neck angle defines is, well, how the neck/string path sits in relation to the rest of the guitar body, really.

It's all relative, really. The 'easy' way to look at it is to have your body design, with it's 'flat' horizontal plane, you pick a bridge of a certain height, so to fit the neck with the bottom of the fingerboard flush to the top, while keeping the strings where the have to be (hovering just above the fretboard) you need to introduce a bit of an angle, or simply leave the whole thing standing proud of the top, like on a Fender.

Looked at another way: the geometry between neck and strings is fixed, and must be maintained. It's the heart of the guitar. The rest of the guitar is positioned so that this 'fixed block' (fingerboard-strings-bridge) is in the most aesthetically pleasing/construtionally sound position in the whole design.

How you place this 'functional unit' in your design doesn't affect the downward string pressure (or shouldn't, if you do things right). Hoever, this placement is tied with proper fret spacing for 'thing that defines whether your guitar will be playable or not', IMO.

There. Clear as mud now, I'm sure.

[Mickguard]

There. Clear as mud now, I'm sure.

←

Gotcha

[thegarehanman]

What garageman said

Haha...hey, just because I spend most of my time in a garage doesn't mean I'm a "garageman." garehan=my last name.

[Mattia]

Heh. Oops. Sorry 'bout that. I'm terribly lazy when it comes to reading names. Ahem.