Official Luthiers Forum!

No real opinion on fretboard woods other than I've heard people say that RW bridge plates and bridges sound better than ebony. I will agree that necks with 'static' rods, either CF or metal glued tightly into mortices sound better when you tap on them than the necks I've made with adjustable rods.
Not saying that translates into a superior sounding guitar, but if you like to smack the neck it does ring mo bettah.

I hope you aren't doing that with a glass slide on Mike.

Andy, you smell voodoo. Fair enough. If you had said I smell doodoo I might have been offended.
Let me try to restate my point, and I will hasten to admit there are no scientific tests that I have conducted to eliminate the possibility of the supernatural:
There is one point of the string's anchoring I want to remain stationary. (Peghead, nut and even neck.)
I don't want it to move, since I don't want to dissipate any of the string's energy. What seems most imperative to me is moving the top, and goodness knows it is difficult enough to overcome the inertia at the bridge and make that top move.
My thoughts on this were augmented by a lecture that Steve Kaufman gave at a GAL convention. He was lecturing on the use of carbon fiber in guitar construction, and stated that he laminates a sheet of carbon fiber at the peghead to stiffen that area, so that it does not vibrate and thus squander the string's energy. OK, one cannot totally eliminate all the vibration, but one can reduce it. And his point was well taken...at least by me.
As I have built my necks stiffer and stiffer, the sound has only improved, and I feel that it is a very important part of my overall strategy. What does this have to do with our current topic? Only this--that to me, the voodoo is in saying that rosewood, because it rings better than ebony, is of necessity, a better choice for the fretboard. That IT is contributing to the overall voice of the guitar.
To me, there are places where I want that "ring", and there are others where I do not. (By the way, I love the look of rosewood as fretboard material. I think it is more attractive than ebony, except for Macassar. And I would use it for that reason. But not a sonic one.)

Now, have I built a cast iron neck? Ooooh, that IS tempting.
However, having zero metalworking skills, no foundry, and a deplorable lack of iron ore, that style of neck has not been attempted. But as soon as LMI offers one, I'm in.

Steve

_________________
From Nacogdoches...the oldest town in Texas.

http://www.stephenkinnaird.com

I'm 100% with Steve on that one.
IME a guitar with a very slender/light neck tends to lack in sustain, power and clarity. One can clearly feel the vibrations going through the neck and peghead. I do believe this is detrimental and "robs" energy from the top.
My experience with CF rods in the neck (I've not laminated CF on the peghead though) is of more stiffness, a slight increase in high harmonics but not necessarily less vibrations.
I believe this is achieved with more mass. And a FB material with more damping, like ebony.
I also use a fairly thick fretboard, about .275" before radiusing, and that goes toward more mass/damping.
Another point is not all mahogany is created equal (if mahogany is used for the neck), some is denser, some lighter etc.
BTW Stefan Sobell is offering a solid Madagascar RW neck as standard on some models, to talk about mass…
I can't see on the video what kind of RW the builder is using, but he's building Maccaferri type guitars, and the design is obviously different than anything else. So is the tone.
Damping and mass can be good in places.
A lot of mahogany or maple B&S material can sound like (wet) cardboard and still make outstanding guitars. So I think the argument about "tap tones" is lost…
I've used cocobolo and Honduran RW for fretboards with great results, those are I think on the same abrasion resistance level as ebony. And for cocobolo have some obvious damping.

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/

I totally understand the theory, it's just the lack of the scientific tests that make me call voodoo. It makes sense that making everything else rigid except the bridge would provide the er...'most' sound. Even with a cast iron neck it's still going to vibrate, just at different frequencies and amplitudes.

As to the cast iron neck, is it possible to get a Steinberger neck separately? Plopping one in an acoustic would certainly be an interesting experiment. Especially if the design had one of them adjustable necks that could be fully removed and replaced with wooden ones. That would certainly do a good job of illustration what's going on.

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

There are scientific studies that have been done including those that test the neck deflection based upon the various densities and elasticities of the woods used in the neck. Part of the neck structure is the fretboard. Part of the testing of the wood is how it responds to vibrations. A more elastic material will respond more to sound than a less elastic material. Therefore the more elastic the material, the more deflection under string tension. String tension varies as the instrument is played, therefore the neck will deflect more and less as the string is vibrating. The less elastic material will provide a more stable platform for the string to vibrate, thus giving the instrument better sustain and thus more sound to project from the box that is the body of the instrument. Therefore a more dense and less elastic wood used for the fretboard will produce more sustained vibration. As it also colors the sound less, one might consider that better, I'm not sure, but you can find information about this in "Left Brain Lutherie, by David C. Hurd, Ph.D." The conclusions are mine, not his, but the research is his and very well documented in his book. The math can be daunting for those of us years out of school, but I've spent quite a bit of time absorbing his stuff and come to the conclusion that a fretboard that "sings" better than another doesn't make a better fretboard for the reasons stated above. Now one could counteract the differences between the two with other design features, but one for one I think that ebony would produce a better sounding instrument because of its density and resistance to deflection. It would add to the rigidity of the neck which is, in my opinion from all I've read, a good thing.

When it comes to sound better it all depends on what sound one likes and is after once again. I guess it depends on what your after then. And I guess it depends on what combination you use for your neck then too. The sum off the parts again. Seems like another way to shape the sound to a degree. Interest discussion.

IMO the fretboard material influence on sound on a steel-string is greatly overrated. I mostly use ebony, and when using cocobolo or HRW as FB material I really can't hear what it does.
Bridge material has a much more discernible effect.
For various reasons it is different for a solid-body guitar.
As for the "scientific" testing and math formulas that have been done (and will be done again), I wouldn't take it too seriously. That's usually where the voodoo lies.
People spend their lives proving or disproving theories, but that has nothing to do with successfully building an actual instrument.
Three centuries later "scientists" are still arguing and discussing Stradivarius "secret"… I'm waiting for the day where they find and finally exhume his body and take a DNA sample.

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/

If your objective is to maximize the sound produced by a guitar,it may make sense to minimize vibrational energy 'lost' in the neck.I am of the opinion that,even if you were able to harness all of this "lost' energy,the results may be disappointing.There is no doubt IMO that resonances interact,including those from the neck,and give us a pallet of sounds which our brain either likes or dislikes.This subjective evaluation will continue to evolve as the guitar continues to change with different construction techniques and materials.Segovia called his 1937 Hauser, the guitar of the century.If he were alive would he make the same statement today?

Interesting anecdote: I actually have my first commission for a bandura. I'm only going to charge for material costs but that's another story. Anyhow, the customer (who's a friend) came over this weekend to begin discussing design details. Because I've never built this style of instrument, he brought his current instrument for me to trace and take some measurements from. The question of necks came up and in the process of discussion, I grabbed a cam clamp (which weighs about 1.25lbs) and clamped it to the head stock of his instrument. There was an immediate and distinct improvement in the volume and 'fullness' of the bass strings. I clamped it on my instrument and there was a change in tone but it was neither here nor there.


hmmm....

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

I've read in the past where Alan Carruth has discussed the neck freq. and there have been improvements to tone in some guitars by changing the weight of the head. But that is a little different then this issue I think. But I could be wrong, I get a bit loss when they start getting into a lot of the science stuff as I haven't studied and read up on that. There's only so much time in the day.

Hi Everybody, first time on this forum but couldn't resist posting my thoughts on this topic as there have been some interesting and good comments made by people far more knowledgable than me! Firstly to quote Chris Paulick "That doesn't look like a classical neck to me or one sitting in the background." the guitar & neck in the vid are a good old copy of a Selmer gypsy jazz guitar. I specialize in making this style of guitar and also Archtops and they both traditionally used ebony for their boards so I've kept up this 'tradition' mainly for asthetics and sale-ability to the jazz guitarists I'm aiming at.
You will have to excuse me if it sounds like I'm trying to point out the obvious to most of you in the following but it's just the thoughts I have floating around in the cavern I call a head!
Every maker usually has a "reason" for using the specific materials or methods that they employ but I am puzzled by the video makers reasons somewhat. Every piece of timber has a resonant frequency, so by the very nature of being a wooden instrument, every piece of wood on that guitar must impart some resonant frequency that gives the guitar it's 'colour' (the sum of all it's parts). He taps FB blanks at a node and it rings at it's natural frequency, after that,everytime he machines or removes wood from it, it's frequency surely would change then you have the added variable of gluing it to another piece of (usually) dis-similar timber that has it's own frequency of resonance, so the amount of colour the FB on it's own adds has surely been watered down. The other point I cannot work out is that he taps the neck and it resonates to a frequency of top E, but surely as soon as he glues (as he's using the dovetail joint) it to the body, the neck looses its individual ring tone and the structure as a whole resonates at a frequency completely different than the fingerboard's individual frequency or the tuned E of the whole neck because you are stopping one end of the neck from vibrating with the rest of the neck?
I know that when I made electric guitars, the choice of FB material did have an effect on the overall sound. It was only a small amount and you had to listen closely to hear it, Ebony & Maple gave that cutting, more toppy,'trebley' sound and the rosewoods a more mellow sound (the beauty of electrics! you could change out the necks & everything else remained the same). But I find it hard to imagine that a different FB on an acoustic instrument (that relies solely on wood resonating to produce sound) would make a noticable difference. If it does, then he would be better off using Ebony instead of Rosewood as a gypsy jazz guitar was always intended (and was the whole intention of the instrument design) to be a loud and cutting instrument to cut through the rest of the orchestra/band.
Just some thoughts I had, I'm always open to other opinons and thoughts tho.

Great post Nick and welcome to the OLF!

Thanks Hesh for the welcome, looks like a very informative and active forum. Hope to learn or pick up lots of info from the experts that are posting on the forum, and hope I can contribute something to discussions.
Now back on topic................

_________________
Nick Oliver

http://www.oliver-guitars.com

I would agree with Nick.
My personal experience has led me to believe that ebony is brighter with better string to string definition, while rosewood yields a mellower 'blended' sound. It is interesting to note that, by and large, in most manufacturing situations, producers use rosewood on lower price point instruments. Of course it's cheaper, but they're 'only' putting ebony on higher models. And yes, I know that that is a very very very broad generalization, but I think it has some merit.