Neck break.... angle

[mistermikev]

so got my gotoh bridge... working out the angle for my 'les flaws'.  It occurs to me that there are a lot is a lot of 'slop' that depending on how you do it you could choose many angles... so I am a bit unsure of myself due to this.  Let me try to illiterate that:

I could counter sink my studs... this will make perhaps a 1mm dif.

I could change the break point... I hear folks talk about this a lot... on a lp it looks to me like they shave off material up to halfway in between the two pickups.  iow, I could make the back of my fretboard even with the existing top right at the end of the fretboard, or I could lower the fretboard and take off more material as shown in my drawing below with the grey bar.  I've opted to do this in my design. 

the gotoh bridge is 15mm at center saddle if I include the .5mm of the adjustment wheel that sits below the lowest point on the bridge.  However, these saddles aren't really grooved yet.  I could probably do anywhere from a .5mm slot to a 2mm slot depth.

in my drawing below, I'm doing a 4.5deg angle, I'm figuring 16mm for my gotoh bridge, and I've figured in a .75" top, and figuring I would end up with a top thickness of .42 after planing at the sm 4.5deg angle 5.837" into the body.  May have to revise as I contemplate at least 1mm slot in the saddle... but tell me anything you can think of about this, how you navigate the items I've mentioned, and anything I'm missing.

breakangle.pdf

[Bizman62]

Make a full size drawing from the side. Start with the body, draw the 16 mm high bridge and the end of the fretboard. Take a long ruler and draw a line from the bridge over the end of the fretboard including the height of the frets and the clearance. That line will take you to the nut as a string would. Draw another parallel line excluding the frets and clearance and you'll get your fretboard.
 

Like so:

Edited December 26, 2019 by Bizman62

[ADFinlayson]

This is how I do it. A 6mm-7mm flat piece of wood stuck to the bridge position, then plane down the front, gradually bringing the blade out until I'm taking material up to the back of the neck pick up route, then replace the block with one half the thickness and plane between the neck and bridge pickup to do another ramp 1/2 the angle of the first, then I round them over so it's nice a smooth. a 6-7mm block will give you a 2 - 2.5º angle which is plenty for a tunomatic or wraparound bridge. I also recess the studs as you mentioned above. The whole process only takes about 10 mins or so when the top is already carved because there is very little material to remove.

[mistermikev]

42 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

Make a full size drawing from the side. Start with the body, draw the 16 mm high bridge and the end of the fretboard. Take a long ruler and draw a line from the bridge over the end of the fretboard including the height of the frets and the clearance. That line will take you to the nut as a string would. Draw another parallel line excluding the frets and clearance and you'll get your fretboard.
 

Like so:

thank you for the reply.  while I do appreciate your drawing... see above - full size drawing - is that not showing up?  You should see a scaled full size drawing sideview of my tele neck. 

 

My issue is not that I can't determine an angle... it's that I believe one could make any angle from 2.5deg to 5 degree work... so which one?  Indecision... depending on how deep I want to set my neck into the guitar, where I want to make the angle start, I have played with my drawing and seen that there really isn't ONE answer.  

the way you are doing above... means your fretboard will be flush with the body at the end... but it doesn't HAVE to be. (EDIT - in other words the fretboard will be flush with the unplaned body height)

 

[mistermikev]

14 minutes ago, ADFinlayson said:

This is how I do it. A 6mm-7mm flat piece of wood stuck to the bridge position, then plane down the front, gradually bringing the blade out until I'm taking material up to the back of the neck pick up route, then replace the block with one half the thickness and plane between the neck and bridge pickup to do another ramp 1/2 the angle of the first, then I round them over so it's nice a smooth. a 6-7mm block will give you a 2 - 2.5º angle which is plenty for a tunomatic or wraparound bridge. I also recess the studs as you mentioned above. The whole process only takes about 10 mins or so when the top is already carved because there is very little material to remove.

thanks AD, I appreciate the reply.  What I'm gathering from both your posts is you chose this method because it's the least amount of work according to how you do it.  That's a solid reason. 

For me... it's not going to be more more/less work to do 2.5deg vs 5deg as I'm going to remove all material with my router.  So I wonder... is 4.5 deg more comfy?  does 2.5 sound better because the pickup sits further in the body?  who knows.

 

do either of you counter sink the lip on your studs? (sorry, you recess the studs AD)

[ADFinlayson]

4.5º - 5º IMO is not comfortable at all (it feels like playing with your right hand way out in front of you), and is really not necessary, you only have to see how high the tunomatic sits on a les paul. Yes I said above I tend to recess the bridge studs for that extra 1mm of adjustability, but I think it looks neater too. The reason (as I see it) for why Gibson have such a huge break angle, is because the fretboard sits directly onto the body, Fender, PRS etc have less angle because the fretboard sits slightly above the level of the body, reducing the need for the angle. 

If you're using your angle-router-jig-thingy, you could start with a shallower angle, offer up a straight edge and the bridge and see how it looks, and go up slightly until you get an angle you're happy with. 

[mistermikev]

3 minutes ago, ADFinlayson said:

4.5º - 5º IMO is not comfortable at all (it feels like playing with your right hand way out in front of you), and is really not necessary, you only have to see how high the tunomatic sits on a les paul. Yes I said above I tend to recess the bridge studs for that extra 1mm of adjustability, but I think it looks neater too. The reason (as I see it) for why Gibson have such a huge break angle, is because the fretboard sits directly onto the body, Fender, PRS etc have less angle because the fretboard sits slightly above the level of the body, reducing the need for the angle. 

If you're using your angle-router-jig-thingy, you could start with a shallower angle, offer up a straight edge and the bridge and see how it looks, and go up slightly until you get an angle you're happy with. 

interesting.  I understand that later les pauls use 5 deg... earlier used anything from 2.5-3.5.  I have a modern one and like it a lot... but I'm not sure how much of what I'm liking is the angle! 

also, interesting - sounds like you are saying (AD) that you are putting a secondary unknown angle on after... to smooth the transition between flat and the angled neck. 

On a les paul -they often do the back of the guitar in red (will do on mine)... pretty sure it would not only be hard to finish but look wonky to have that red carrying on to the front of the guitar below the binding on the neck.  Perhaps a contributing factor to how they do it  as you've mentioned

agreed on the countersink.  think I'll do that.

food for thought... have to go measure the angles on a few of my guitars.  thanks again for the replies.

[ADFinlayson]

yes I put in a second angle between to smooth that transition, but it's not an unknown angle, it's half of the first angle, whatever that is  

[mistermikev]

4 minutes ago, ADFinlayson said:

yes I put in a second angle between to smooth that transition, but it's not an unknown angle, it's half of the first angle, whatever that is  

I'm not good with words.... and numbers... or concepts... or retention... it's not MY fault.  for the record... I assume after you blend it in it is less of a known angle and more of a unknown radius... so that must have been what I meant?  hehe.

[ADFinlayson]

1 minute ago, mistermikev said:

I'm not good with words.... and numbers... or concepts... or retention... it's not MY fault.  for the record... I assume after you blend it in it is less of a known angle and more of a unknown radius... so that must have been what I meant?  hehe.

yeah it's a combination of the stepped two angles and rounding them over with sanding that makes it look like more of a gentle slope when you're looking at the side profile. 

Funny thing is, I struggle more with flat tops and flat neck pockets, because it feels more like a one-shot deal that creeping up on the right angle with carving. 

[mistermikev]

i could see that. 

[Bizman62]

1 hour ago, mistermikev said:

see above - full size drawing - is that not showing up? 

It doesn't show as a full size on my monitor. Only 20" or so. Would real size be better wording?

1 hour ago, mistermikev said:

the way you are doing above... means your fretboard will be flush with the body at the end... but it doesn't HAVE to be.

You're right, the fretboard part is sloppy drawing. I should have added that the fretboard part includes the part of the neck you want to be sticking above the body. Thus before cutting the angle to the body the fretboard could even be recessed.

Anyhow, continuing the string line from the bridge to the last fret plus clearance will indicate the angle.

Edited December 26, 2019 by Bizman62

[mistermikev]

1 minute ago, Bizman62 said:

It doesn't show as a full size on my monitor. Only 20" or so. Would real size be better wording?

 

Clearly I'm making a 20" full scale instrument - you gotta problem with that?  I have very small-large hands.

" should see a scaled full size drawing " it's full size and scaled what's the confusion?  jk - kind of a contradiction huh?  it was full size but I scaled it down as it's a rather large space soak otherwise but the jist is... I def layed out my stuff full size. 

pretty sure the real size is still going to be bigger than 20" - but if you are more comfortable with that - ok by me!  haha!

I appreciate you reading between the lines, and your response - so thank you.

[Bizman62]

1 hour ago, ADFinlayson said:

The reason (as I see it) for why Gibson have such a huge break angle, is because the fretboard sits directly onto the body, Fender, PRS etc have less angle because the fretboard sits slightly above the level of the body, reducing the need for the angle. 

Right so. If the last fret (plus clearance) is as high as the bridge, there's no angle like on strats and teles.

One could even make the angle the other way, tilting the neck away from the player. That would be very uncomfortable but regarding low string action even that would be doable. Don't do that!

 

[Bizman62]

If we take the string line as our secondary goal and the line 2 mm below that, and imagine the bridge as a hinge... Wouldn't drawing that give us any neck break angle? The lines could then be measured and transferred to any means of cutting the angle to a plane top. The method can as well be a slat slanting a plane as a slanted router jig. Very basic graphics, just moving a line a certain amount upwards.

[mistermikev]

1 hour ago, Bizman62 said:

If we take the string line as our secondary goal and the line 2 mm below that, and imagine the bridge as a hinge... Wouldn't drawing that give us any neck break angle? The lines could then be measured and transferred to any means of cutting the angle to a plane top. The method can as well be a slat slanting a plane as a slanted router jig. Very basic graphics, just moving a line a certain amount upwards.

funny, I started to write exactly that at one point, obviously some angles are more use-able than others... as your pickups would all of the sudden be too far below the strings... or on the other side, your neck would be thru the bottom of the guitar... but yes... this is exactly what I was getting at originally - really ANY angle CAN work... so what are the reasons to choose one over the others?

so far I've heard the argument for 'easier ie remove less material', and for 'max adjustment ie 4.5deg'.  Perhaps someone out there would feel that a 5degree is more ergonomic... I'm not sure.  Perhaps one would chose the corresponding break to be historically accurate... and those are all the reasons I can think of.

so... thank you bizman, and you ad for your input.  I'm going to play with my drawing tonight and factor in a slightly lower  bridge for the countersunk studs and deeper slots for strings... and add the typical action and refigure.  also going to measure some guitars... then I'm going to put all the possible angles in a hat and randomly draw one (hehe).

thanks again.

 

 

[Bizman62]

10 hours ago, mistermikev said:

really ANY angle CAN work... so what are the reasons to choose one over the others?

The reasons are pretty simple as they're mostly based on the parts you're using. Mostly, because the design of the neck join plays an important role as well.

Even a high bridge can be used without any angle if your neck heel is high enough to raise the fretboard close enough to the bridge level. However, that wouldn't look good and might also raise strength issues in the neck join area. Plus it wouldn't be ergonomic. An angled neck adds some clearance under the strings at the strumming area while it also brings the lower frets closer to the player for better ergonomics. The ideal neck would be curved all the way around the player but as it would be impossible to play, the neck break angle is the closest equivalent.

So the angle by itself is not a stone carved value as any angle can work. It's all about how close to the body you want the highest frets to be. If the end of the fretboard is flush with the body you'd need a steeper angle and vice versa.

 

[mistermikev]

right on... well... within the range of angles possible for my parts... and considering what I have found comfy on my own guitars... I'm going to try 4 deg.  There may be some merit to a steeper angle being more comfy esp on a baritone... as IME it seems to bring the headstock end a little 'closer'.  at least that's how it feels to me. 

Incidentally, looking around at pics of les pauls - contrary to what I would have thought... there are some where the neck/binding sits proud of the body with a sort of 'wedge' of material visible under the binding.  Seems fairly rare as the majority have the binding flush with the top... but I suppose like any rule - made to be broken.  Building guitars is turning out to be more like jazz in that respect!

[Andyjr1515]

The above conversations are heading closer where I am coming from - that is, the reationship between the bridge and the fretboard is fixed geometrically...but the top and back of the body around that can be any shape you want

So when I am designing for some of the more...er...'unusual' requests that folks challege me with from time to time,  I don't really think about it as a neck angle, as such.  I am thinking more about 'where does the player want to rest their picking arm'; 'does the back want to wrap round the player's body'; 'where will the instrument sit on the strap - will the fretboard sit at a comfortable angle in all three planes?'.  The shape of the top behind and above the bridge, the shape of any carves at the back, the weight distribution and the positions of the strap buttons will all effect those.

So, rather than starting with, say, a telecaster, in my head - its design being more about the manufacturing convenience of using a slab of body wood (that just happened to sound great) - I'm more intrigued with what those designer's of the 50's did about playing comfort.  If you were going to start with a fixed thickness of timber in the 50's, then how do you make it more comfortable to play?  You could carve the wood away around and behind the bridge (sound like a Les Paul?)  Or you could get the back to feel less like a table top and wrap round you a bit (sound like a strat?)

So a neck angle, as such, relates more to a convenient way of changing the feel of play if you are starting with a 'telecaster' concept of how a guitar should look and feel where the back and tops are a straight line that you can relate to the straight line of the fretboard. 

But, as a custom, hand builder, you have the freedom to unshackle yourself from this - you can think curves

 

 

[mistermikev]

2 hours ago, Andyjr1515 said:

The above conversations are heading closer where I am coming from - that is, the reationship between the bridge and the fretboard is fixed geometrically...but the top and back of the body around that can be any shape you want

So when I am designing for some of the more...er...'unusual' requests that folks challege me with from time to time,  I don't really think about it as a neck angle, as such.  I am thinking more about 'where does the player want to rest their picking arm'; 'does the back want to wrap round the player's body'; 'where will the instrument sit on the strap - will the fretboard sit at a comfortable angle in all three planes?'.  The shape of the top behind and above the bridge, the shape of any carves at the back, the weight distribution and the positions of the strap buttons will all effect those.

So, rather than starting with, say, a telecaster, in my head - its design being more about the manufacturing convenience of using a slab of body wood (that just happened to sound great) - I'm more intrigued with what those designer's of the 50's did about playing comfort.  If you were going to start with a fixed thickness of timber in the 50's, then how do you make it more comfortable to play?  You could carve the wood away around and behind the bridge (sound like a Les Paul?)  Or you could get the back to feel less like a table top and wrap round you a bit (sound like a strat?)

So a neck angle, as such, relates more to a convenient way of changing the feel of play if you are starting with a 'telecaster' concept of how a guitar should look and feel where the back and tops are a straight line that you can relate to the straight line of the fretboard. 

But, as a custom, hand builder, you have the freedom to unshackle yourself from this - you can think curves

 

 

thank you for responding - some good thoughts there.  I guess the original motivation for gibson was just that they have a 1/2" bridge to overcome... but then it could be that they designed the bridge to be that thick because, as I understand it, acoustic guitars and perhaps even violins and more - had neck angles and they wanted to match that?  Def seems to be ergonomic... but perhaps more by chance/circumstance originally? 

It is an interesting perspective to flip it and think that they carved the body away as opposed to putting an angle on the neck.  I have often thought about starting with a thicker body, and doing a straight neck pocket... but then cutting the body away at 5 degrees... but after carving my tele top that was enough work for me!  Not to mention how much more wood would be wasted.

afa tele... seems at odds to talk about comfort there as it should be an uncomfy guitar, what with the 1/8" radius edge, and no belly cut or forearm relief... yet they feel quite comfortable to me.  I have great respect for the 'lines' of the strat and tele as they ooze that sloping design style of the 50s/60s. 

I get the theme of your post is that the determining factor for you is mostly comfort - a solid goal.  Something we should all consider more as we build. 

so... do you countersink your studs?

[komodo]

Seems like everything has been discussed. Have you seen the Tundraman neck angle calculator? Google that.

Not to turn this back to ME, but in my current build using the Trisonic pickups, this has been a huge deal for me as they are surface mounted. The neck and middle pickup height has to be dead on. I could make the pocket deeper and add shims to bring it to height, which I have somewhat done, but also tried to get it as close as possible.  I'm still not 100% sure until it;s together with strings on. Point is, added to all the variables, consider pickup heights also.

[mistermikev]

5 minutes ago, komodo said:

Seems like everything has been discussed. Have you seen the Tundraman neck angle calculator? Google that.

Not to turn this back to ME, but in my current build using the Trisonic pickups, this has been a huge deal for me as they are surface mounted. The neck and middle pickup height has to be dead on. I could make the pocket deeper and add shims to bring it to height, which I have somewhat done, but also tried to get it as close as possible.  I'm still not 100% sure until it;s together with strings on. Point is, added to all the variables, consider pickup heights also.

right on... I have heard of that angle calculator but have not used it... I guess because it appeals to me a bit more to lay it out... play with it a bit and see how the pieces interact, the ultimate goal being a better understanding.  There are some other one's as well... on mlp a spread sheet version... and of course ultimately we are just dealing with a triangle so... could just do some trig. 

certainly pickup height would be something to think about.  In my case, and in most cases with an overwound bridge... there's probably a 1/2" of play so I can't imagine it being an issue but I'll def keep that in mind and take a look at it before I finalize my neck thickness.  thanks for the suggestion.

[komodo]

This probably isn't a factor in your build - but look at the Red Special. Because they are surface mount pups, he has routed each one progressively deeper as you go towards the neck. The neck does have a shallow angle though, around 1.5 degrees. Les Pauls do this in a way by having the bridge pup in a taller ring than the neck pup.

 

[Andyjr1515]

3 hours ago, mistermikev said:

so... do you countersink your studs?

Well, that depends...

Have I?  Yes - fitting a ToM-type bridge to an existing through-neck where there were no pickup rings involved, then the low sit of everything sometimes means that the bridge needs sinking.  A tune-o-matic bridge is a mightily high piece of kit!  Usually, though, the stop-tail then needs sinking in as well to get a decent break-angle over the saddles - and that's a bit of a bummer. 

Normally, with a ToM-type bridge?  No.  For the same reason ref the break angle over the saddle, and because pickup rings, where fitted, can bring the pickups pretty high, then I would normally fit the bushes flush with the top.

But for a 'flat' style hardtail bridge - especially if the strings are through-body - then for aesthetic reasons nowadays I tend to sink the whole bridge into the top so that is looks integral rather than just a lump of metal bolted on top

 

As a player, back to your original discussion, and if I am playing a conventional flat bodied guitar, then - all other things being equal - I prefer a modest neck angle of around 2.5 - 3 degrees.  I find that zero or near-zero neck angle (like most Fenders) can cause my arthritic wrist to start objecting after too much playing.

The other factor is, of course, player's preferences to how high the strings lie above the guitar top and that will sometimes depend on the style of player they are.  I reckon this is as big a factor of how a guitar feels to play as the neck angle.  It is especially important to bass players where they are often supporting their playing fingers with a thumb on the top itself.

I'm sure I've said before that everything affects everything when it comes to guitar design and that a project build is often a series of compromises held together by hope...

[mistermikev]

"series of compromises held together by hope" - I like that.  good one!