Why a Jazzmaster?
Moderator: jingle_jangle
Fair enough.
I would guess that Rickenbacker's quality control is relatively good. That being said one would expect that similar model guitars that come out of the factory would sound fairly similar (pickup resistance et al being similar, etc).
Leaving aside for a moment that there was some handwork that went into shaping the neck and body, installing the hardware etc, it is surprising then that two similar models with the same pickup arrangement can sound so different. I know that at least on two of mine that I am comparing here, the wood used is the same species and the guitars are of similar age.
That said,I have one that sounds very different to the others. I have measured the thickness of the neck, pickup resistance and it is all extremely close. The pickups are humbuckers.
The only obvious difference that is left is that the different sounding one has an oil finish whereas the others don't.
The Dakota is a different animal, no matter what strings and amp settings I use. The 650C jetglo I am referring to was basically a Dakota that was engulfed in paint (at least I have seen that the body is walnut that has had solid paint applied to it).
As I said previously, it also sounds weird to me that a finish on a solid body guitar would affect it's sound quite so much (to my ears anyway), although I can appreciate that a thick finish will overall increase the mass of the instrument. The fact is that in my case with the many guitars that I own and play it has struck me that perhaps there is something to a thin finish on a good solid body, all other things being relatively equal.
I would guess that Rickenbacker's quality control is relatively good. That being said one would expect that similar model guitars that come out of the factory would sound fairly similar (pickup resistance et al being similar, etc).
Leaving aside for a moment that there was some handwork that went into shaping the neck and body, installing the hardware etc, it is surprising then that two similar models with the same pickup arrangement can sound so different. I know that at least on two of mine that I am comparing here, the wood used is the same species and the guitars are of similar age.
That said,I have one that sounds very different to the others. I have measured the thickness of the neck, pickup resistance and it is all extremely close. The pickups are humbuckers.
The only obvious difference that is left is that the different sounding one has an oil finish whereas the others don't.
The Dakota is a different animal, no matter what strings and amp settings I use. The 650C jetglo I am referring to was basically a Dakota that was engulfed in paint (at least I have seen that the body is walnut that has had solid paint applied to it).
As I said previously, it also sounds weird to me that a finish on a solid body guitar would affect it's sound quite so much (to my ears anyway), although I can appreciate that a thick finish will overall increase the mass of the instrument. The fact is that in my case with the many guitars that I own and play it has struck me that perhaps there is something to a thin finish on a good solid body, all other things being relatively equal.
To scientifically compare finish effects on sound, it would logically be best to refinish the same guitar to each criteria to properly evaluate this theory.
I'll admit, it's not very practical, but I think this would be the only way to lay this one to bed.
Mythbusters, anyone?
Besides, Kari Byron's hot!
I'll admit, it's not very practical, but I think this would be the only way to lay this one to bed.
Mythbusters, anyone?
Besides, Kari Byron's hot!
Plus five minus five!
Every piece of wood is unique, even if cut from the same tree, so every guitar will sound at least slightly different.
Interesting isn't it?
And likewise following that line of thought, it wouldn't be too far fetched to say that applied finishes will vary in mass "so every guitar will sound at least slightly different".
-
sir_andrew_of_left_coast
- Veteran RRF member
- Posts: 729
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2000 6:38 am
Did you walk into the "being hit on the head lessons" room? (see the 3:58 mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk
Or is it more internal... as in "my BRAIN hurts!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQgF0pRkjMc
(Just inserting some levity...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk
Or is it more internal... as in "my BRAIN hurts!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQgF0pRkjMc
(Just inserting some levity...)
Member #03
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Not just for bolt-ons.
The more contact between the neck and body in {any} stringed instrument, the greater the transfer of sound energy throughout the instrument.
This is, of course, especially evident where acoustic instruments are concerned. Notoriously difficult in the past, has been the joint between neck and body on acoustic guitars; the advent of CNC machining of the critical neck dovetail has helped this matter tremendously. I have noticed, with hand-cut dovetails, upon disassembling the neck joints of some, that there can be voids or air pockets where glue never took hold, or in extreme cases, larger voids that require filling in order to both strengthen the joint by replacing lost gluing surfaces and to optimize energy transfer. I have a technique that I use with acoustic dovetails that gives 100% contact between neck dovetail and body pocket.
Another area that is shockingly passed over in acoustic guitar building, is the joint between bridge and body. Many luthiers will mark off the bridge footprint and scrape the finish in the marked area off after it's dried, then glue the bridge into place. This gives far less than optimum adhesion and energy transfer. No wonder lifting bridges happen!
I mask this footprint off before finishing, then carefully cut around it through the finish and peel off the masking, exposing bare wood to which the bridge--with roughened backside--is glued and clamped. It's important in both cases--neck and bridge joint to body--that the glue film be as thin as possible, as some glues--Titebond specifically--can actually dampen vibration somewhat if the film is too thick.
Lastly, bridge wood material is a factor in acoustic sound. The denser the wood, the better the energy transfer once again. Ebony or very dense rosewood are preferable.
What does all this have to do with a JM? In acoustic guitars, everything you can do to maximize energy transfer pays off in final sound in very easy-to-hear ways. George and I have discussed the whole thin skin vs. thick issue with regard to Jazzmasters. His JM has a thin skin finish (built by Bill Nash), and is more resonant and "alive" feeling than my own mass-produced Fender Japan JM, just playing them not plugged in.
Once plugged-in, however, differences in sound evaporate.
The more contact between the neck and body in {any} stringed instrument, the greater the transfer of sound energy throughout the instrument.
This is, of course, especially evident where acoustic instruments are concerned. Notoriously difficult in the past, has been the joint between neck and body on acoustic guitars; the advent of CNC machining of the critical neck dovetail has helped this matter tremendously. I have noticed, with hand-cut dovetails, upon disassembling the neck joints of some, that there can be voids or air pockets where glue never took hold, or in extreme cases, larger voids that require filling in order to both strengthen the joint by replacing lost gluing surfaces and to optimize energy transfer. I have a technique that I use with acoustic dovetails that gives 100% contact between neck dovetail and body pocket.
Another area that is shockingly passed over in acoustic guitar building, is the joint between bridge and body. Many luthiers will mark off the bridge footprint and scrape the finish in the marked area off after it's dried, then glue the bridge into place. This gives far less than optimum adhesion and energy transfer. No wonder lifting bridges happen!
I mask this footprint off before finishing, then carefully cut around it through the finish and peel off the masking, exposing bare wood to which the bridge--with roughened backside--is glued and clamped. It's important in both cases--neck and bridge joint to body--that the glue film be as thin as possible, as some glues--Titebond specifically--can actually dampen vibration somewhat if the film is too thick.
Lastly, bridge wood material is a factor in acoustic sound. The denser the wood, the better the energy transfer once again. Ebony or very dense rosewood are preferable.
What does all this have to do with a JM? In acoustic guitars, everything you can do to maximize energy transfer pays off in final sound in very easy-to-hear ways. George and I have discussed the whole thin skin vs. thick issue with regard to Jazzmasters. His JM has a thin skin finish (built by Bill Nash), and is more resonant and "alive" feeling than my own mass-produced Fender Japan JM, just playing them not plugged in.
Once plugged-in, however, differences in sound evaporate.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
Once plugged-in, however, differences in sound evaporate.
Well, that's true, once plugged in AND the drummer comes in AND the distortion kicks in, who gives two hoots about a long tenon, bolt on or set necks, or a thin finish.
Still, my kids hear things that I can't anymore and, dammit, I really like the sound of a light, responsive bit of wood.
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
"...dammit, I really like the sound of a light, responsive bit of wood."
I won't touch that one, Manuel...
I won't touch that one, Manuel...
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
Paul,
I need your help:
I ever thought that the air is the medium which
brings the energy of the vibrating string to the resonance body and then to our ears. I thought, the nut or played fret and the bridge do not vibrate because the string does not move at exactly these points (there is a knot). So a not moving bridge can not deliver energy to the guitar's body. I thought, the bridge's purpose is only to fix this "knot" to stabilize the scale lenght of the vibrating string (a problem for the JM design).
(But if it does, then this should lead to an acoustically louder sound but to a shorter decay time of the played string.)
The guitar's body together with its neck is a kind of bow, which delivers the needed tension to the strings, but over the complete used string length and not only for the used scale lenght.
Please give me a hint how it works.
I need your help:
I ever thought that the air is the medium which
brings the energy of the vibrating string to the resonance body and then to our ears. I thought, the nut or played fret and the bridge do not vibrate because the string does not move at exactly these points (there is a knot). So a not moving bridge can not deliver energy to the guitar's body. I thought, the bridge's purpose is only to fix this "knot" to stabilize the scale lenght of the vibrating string (a problem for the JM design).
(But if it does, then this should lead to an acoustically louder sound but to a shorter decay time of the played string.)
The guitar's body together with its neck is a kind of bow, which delivers the needed tension to the strings, but over the complete used string length and not only for the used scale lenght.
Please give me a hint how it works.