#1
I have some questions before i get a guitar made for me. Im looking for something with the tone of a prs and gibson and a schecter or ibanez playability. Set neck one piece mahogany back, one piece rosewood neck, bubinga top. PRS style design


1) If i get the neck really thin ala a schecter c1, will this reduce the tone quality dramatically?

2) Does headstock angle have a big impact on sustain or resonance? Is it normally best to go as far back as possible?

3) In terms of body, what makes the tonal difference? Someone said that the guitars tone is determined by the center parts so the wings or the thickness of the body are less important

4)Do one piece bodies and necks increase resonance and sustain as well as give more defined tone?

5) If i have rosewood neck mahogany back and bubinga top, will this be bright enough (playing through a bugera 6262 and VHT deliverance)

6) Is there a difference in tone between thru body or stoptail bridges?

7) Do carved tops affect tone?
Last edited by Atomik1 at Jul 9, 2009,
#2
Quote by Atomik1
I have some questions before i get a guitar made for me. Im looking for something with the tone of a prs and gibson and a schecter or ibanez playability. Set neck one piece mahogany back, one piece rosewood neck, bubinga top. PRS style design


1) If i get the neck really thin ala a schecter c1, will this reduce the tone quality dramatically?

2) Does headstock angle have a big impact on sustain or resonance? Is it normally best to go as far back as possible?

3) In terms of body, what makes the tonal difference? Someone said that the guitars tone is determined by the center parts so the wings or the thickness of the body are less important

4)Do one piece bodies and necks increase resonance and sustain as well as give more defined tone?

5) If i have rosewood neck mahogany back and bubinga top, will this be bright enough (playing through a bugera 6262 and VHT deliverance)

6) Is there a difference in tone between thru body or stoptail bridges?

7) Do carved tops affect tone?



I don't have a lot of experience with this, but I can answer a couple of those.


1. dunno
2. dunno, but I kinda doubt it
3. dunno
4. you mean a neck through the body? yes, I've played a few and the sustain, resonance, and tone was generally better than bolt ons
5. dunno
6. string thru the body tend to have better tone, sustain, etc from what I've experienced.
7. probably, but I don't know if it would make much difference.
#3
Quote by The4thHorsemen
I don't have a lot of experience with this, but I can answer a couple of those.


1. dunno
2. dunno, but I kinda doubt it
3. dunno
4. you mean a neck through the body? yes, I've played a few and the sustain, resonance, and tone was generally better than bolt ons
5. dunno
6. string thru the body tend to have better tone, sustain, etc from what I've experienced.
7. probably, but I don't know if it would make much difference.



No, i mean one piece bodys/backs and necks.
#4
1. Very thin necks CAN affect the tone, but it's usually pretty marginal compared to the difference the neck joint provides
2. Headstock angle affects intonation and only intonation in any real way, basically by pulling the strings further into the nut
3. Very vague
4. One piece bodies DO make a tonal difference in theory, since there is no wood to hamper resonance, but in reality the difference is mostly cosmetic and the actual tonal difference marginal
5. I'd say that's rather middy-ish focused. Maybe change the neck for wenge? Not sure how bright you actually want the guitar to sound
6. There is a difference in sustain, it's not particularly drastic comparing a TOM with a string thru, but it is there. It makes physical sense, since the string is passing through the vibrating medium it would HAVE to make a difference, but whether you can detect it is something else
7. To my knowledge carved tops don't have any effect on tone
Quote by fleajr_1412
You have amazing taste in men.


Are You a PROG-HEAD? I am.
#5
Quote by Dopey_Trout
1. Very thin necks CAN affect the tone, but it's usually pretty marginal compared to the difference the neck joint provides
2. Headstock angle affects intonation and only intonation in any real way, basically by pulling the strings further into the nut
3. Very vague
4. One piece bodies DO make a tonal difference in theory, since there is no wood to hamper resonance, but in reality the difference is mostly cosmetic and the actual tonal difference marginal
5. I'd say that's rather middy-ish focused. Maybe change the neck for wenge? Not sure how bright you actually want the guitar to sound
6. There is a difference in sustain, it's not particularly drastic comparing a TOM with a string thru, but it is there. It makes physical sense, since the string is passing through the vibrating medium it would HAVE to make a difference, but whether you can detect it is something else
7. To my knowledge carved tops don't have any effect on tone


2. So why is it only some guitars that have this

3. what i meant was why not have a steinberg guitar with tiny body and no headstock if these guitar parts dont affect tone

7 Why do jazz guys all want arch tops then?
#6
2. Tilted headstocks were designed as a solution to a problem which didn't really matter. Pretty sure Gibson were the first to use them but at the end of the day string trees on Fenders achieve the same end
3. The overall mass of the body does affect the tone, but Steinberger make their guitars because the ergonomic advantage in their opinion outweighs the tonal disadvantage
7. Most jazzers play hollowbodies, most hollowbodies are carved top and its a nice aesthetic touch
Quote by fleajr_1412
You have amazing taste in men.


Are You a PROG-HEAD? I am.
#7
well for #6 i can tell you the string through has more sustain simply because your increasing the length of the srtings themselves. If you want maximum sustain got for a string through with a very large headstock. Such as a dean ML or Gibson Flying V style headstock. The more wood you have over the 4 crucial tone areas (tuning pegs, nut, bridge, holster,) the better the sustain and deeper the tone. Tune-o-Matic and string through are my favorit configuration for deeper sustain. My least favorite would have to be the floyd rose system. Even though i have original floyd rose systems installed in the majority of my guitars, it really sucks alot of tone and sustain with it. But it adds quite some flexibility, so its a totall Trade-off.

Hope this was Helpfull!
-Eric
#8
TS, it seems you are reading way too much into tone.

Everything a guitar is made of affects tone. The body, neck, and fretboard woods, whether or not it's carved top, the shape of the body, even the hardware. Whether or not you'll notice this is another story entirely.

Jazz guys all want archtops because they look classy and nice. That's how jazz players are. Just like metal players always want a guitar that looks like it'd kill you if you fell on it.

Some guitars have tilted headstocks because it looks more professional and eliminates the need for retainers, string trees, etc. Titled headstocks suit some guitars better than straight headstocks. A tilted headstock would prolly look pretty bad on a tele, but suits a Les Paul perfectly, and vice-versa.

Steinberg make tiny headless guitars because they are different and look cool to some people. I happen to think they are ugly as holy hell.

Notice the common thread here? Looks.
#9
Quote by Dopey_Trout
2. Tilted headstocks were designed as a solution to a problem which didn't really matter. Pretty sure Gibson were the first to use them but at the end of the day string trees on Fenders achieve the same end
3. The overall mass of the body does affect the tone, but Steinberger make their guitars because the ergonomic advantage in their opinion outweighs the tonal disadvantage
7. Most jazzers play hollowbodies, most hollowbodies are carved top and its a nice aesthetic touch


2. What the heck? Tilt headstocks have been around as long as guitars have. Wait, hold up, lutes were made with them for centuries.

3. Yep. Ergronomics of low weight and easy tuning, plus completely BA looks.

7. Yeah, aesthetics. And because Jazz players have always played archtop since jazz started.

And Jim is right too.
Last edited by cedricsmods at Jul 9, 2009,
#11
Quote by cedricsmods
2. What the heck? Tilt headstocks have been around as long as guitars have. Wait, hold up, lutes were made with them for centuries.



Touche
Quote by fleajr_1412
You have amazing taste in men.


Are You a PROG-HEAD? I am.
#12
"Touche, that means I win, right?" (e-cookie for where quote is from)

Sorry Jim, I didn't mean it that way, hahaha. I just shy away from absolute statements sometimes.
#13
Quote by Invader Jim
TS, it seems you are reading way too much into tone.

Everything a guitar is made of affects tone. The body, neck, and fretboard woods, whether or not it's carved top, the shape of the body, even the hardware. Whether or not you'll notice this is another story entirely.

Jazz guys all want archtops because they look classy and nice. That's how jazz players are. Just like metal players always want a guitar that looks like it'd kill you if you fell on it.

Some guitars have tilted headstocks because it looks more professional and eliminates the need for retainers, string trees, etc. Titled headstocks suit some guitars better than straight headstocks. A tilted headstock would prolly look pretty bad on a tele, but suits a Les Paul perfectly, and vice-versa.

Steinberg make tiny headless guitars because they are different and look cool to some people. I happen to think they are ugly as holy hell.

Notice the common thread here? Looks.



thats why im posting. i really couldnt care less how it looks i just want a great playing guitar with great tone
#14
Jim's point is that you probably won't be able to tell a difference. If looks are not important, decide on feel.
#15
Quote by cedricsmods
Jim's point is that you probably won't be able to tell a difference. If looks are not important, decide on feel.


I might as well get a schecter c1 and get someone to satin finish the neck in that case.