LsL Neck pocket ? worth a try ?

Hi , my name is Mark , i am new to this forum i built a Stratocaster once so now it time for the Tele . I got a one piece blank swamp ash ready for neck and pickup routing .

Yesterday i read that the LSL guitar that have great review , and really sound amazing apparently use a shallower neck pocket to achieve a greater break angle at the saddle , if i compare it to my telecaster there as to be something else , i play slide so my saddles are already really high but really far from the lsl break angle , the only explanation i can think of is the bridge is also closer to the neck .

The second picture is for looking at the break angle , i know fender lowered there neck pocket at some point and had to cut the bottom of the saddles .

Pickup can do allot , a great piece of wood is a great piece of wood , but how to consistently produce ringers like lsl dose .

Any tough on this from any of the great builders around here would be greatly appreciated .

Mark

The bridge cant be closer to the neck without a different scale length being used.
The way that a shallower neck pocket creates a more acute break angle at the saddles, is by allowing/requiring the saddles to be cranked much higher.
The only other change that might be necessary are longer height adjustment grub screws for the saddles.

Take for example your guitar which you mention.
If your neck pocket was magically made shallower (with no adjustment to the saddle height), it would result in lower action.
If you then raised the saddles until the action was the same as it is now, that would result in a more severe break angle.

The location of the string thru-holes also factors in, so the break angles may be a little different between the various types of tele string thru body bridges (vintage, modern, import, etc.).
Also top loader bridges will have a less severe angle than a thru body bridge.

EDIT:
I also noticed, that between the two guitars I looked at on the LsL website, there seemed to be a noticeable difference between the break angles (the blackguard has a very severe angle, the sunburst has a more "normal" looking angle).

so there is a supposed tone improvement with a greater break angle??

If you look at the saddles on the lsl they usually look closer to the end of the bridge , the bridge could be moved since the saddles are adjustable , but not by much. They use a standard fender stamped bridge .

My tele has a high action even with a shallow pocket it would still be high for most player .

You could shim your neck up with a small piece of wood or metal to make a shallow neck pocket and see if it makes any difference. Hearing is in the ears of the beholder. Sometime my guitar sounds great, other times it sounds like crap. The guitar doesn't change ( taking the weather into account), my perception of it changes.

First my action is really high , raising the neck would only lower my action to a decent one even shimming 2 mm , even if i raise if further i still don't get close enough to the break up angle .

This is where i heard about it first

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGhDNv_wx-A

And was referred in other video the theory say that it makes the body act more like a tuning fork .

I got the wood and tools , i am willing to try at least the shallow neck part , but it seem like there is something else going on .

Mark

Tuning fork........The whole guitar acts like a tuning fork in my opinion, as it all vibrates together. I stand by my original thought which I deleted from my initial post.... high quality parts assembled together with care, along with a good set up, should yield a great guitar. That's what you find in the guitar in the video. You have a lightweight body, nitro finish, maple neck, decent electronics and hardware, hand wound pickups, maple neck, and a set up.

I know a tuning fork , the lsl guys are saying the break angle a significant improvement otherwise there would be no debate , and yes all the attribute of a guitar makes a great guitar , but design could also help . The first esquire's had 1/2 neck pocket ... the saddles where bigger .

The basic question is should i try a closer bridge still staying within the 25.5 scale .

I found discussion on this subject in this forum and others , one guy said he measured the neck pocket at 5/8 but that is the regular neck pocket size for a fender tele . If that one is shallow it must be very close , less then a millimeter .

It may not be all guitars built like that , they don't have that many guitar built under a thousand .

That break angle has to be caused by a closer bridge of a close neck , the only issue would be a shorten adjustment range on the bridge .

If you could make it better by drilling 6 holes 1 or 2 millimeter closer , would you not like to know , i guess i will have to try it .

Mark

Could you not get some brass or aluminum rod and have them machined for taller saddles? Or even stick some brass or aluminum under your current saddles to raise them up farther? They have to be in a certain spot for intonation to be on so that variable will change a little, moving the saddles backward. That would seem to be a cheap experiment. You can get those metals at a hobby shop or online. Seems like a simpler approach than drilling your body again.

Sigh..............voodoo science strikes again

I concur.......

I can understand the value of it if the bridge was a top loader but if it's string thru I can't understand how it would make the slightest difference.. what's the reasoning behind it?

Kinda splitting hairs...I mean it's not a flipp'in Jazzmaster. Tele already has about as much break angle as you could want, kind of a "this one goes up to 11" type of logic.

I see two issues at work here:

1. By moving the whole bridge assembly AND the string through holes a little towards the neck, you may be able to create a greater string angle BEFORE the saddle - the saddles seem to be closer to the back of the bridge to compensate for the movement of the whole aasembly and keep a standard scale length.

2. A shim inserted at the end of the neck pocket would change the angle of the neck and allow to raise the saddles creating a greater string angle AFTER the saddle.

Would this make a sonic difference? Sure... For better or for worse? That will be a matter of taste.

Anyway, I am still amazed when I see people going to such great lengths to solve problems we didn't even know we had.

But hey... a '52 blackguard or a '59 Les Paul have so many problems... crappy hardware, microphonic pickups, fading varnishes... awful! :twisted:

So, if you do not know how to dispose of yours ecologically, send it to me, I will recycle it :mrgreen:

I see two issues at work here:

1. By moving the whole bridge assembly AND the string through holes a little towards the neck, you may be able to create a greater string angle BEFORE the saddle - the saddles seem to be closer to the back of the bridge to compensate for the movement of the whole aasembly and keep a standard scale length.

2. A shim inserted at the end of the neck pocket would change the angle of the neck and allow to raise the saddles creating a greater string angle AFTER the saddle.

Would this make a sonic difference? Sure... For better or for worse? That will be a matter of taste.

Anyway, I am still amazed when I see people going to such great lengths to solve problems we didn't even know we had.

But hey... a '52 blackguard or a '59 Les Paul have so many problems... crappy hardware, microphonic pickups, fading varnishes... awful! :twisted:

So, if you do not know how to dispose of yours ecologically, send it to me, I will recycle it :mrgreen:

Well i would not go as far as to call it a problem , i am only seeking mean of improvements , If talking about something equals to doing something and going to great lengths ,then i am in the wrong business , i should go into politics ..:lol:

Micro phonic pickups have advantages too ..

I did finish the routing of my guitar and made the neck 2 millimeter closer to the bridge ...

Mark

I guess i will know then ...

Everyone repeat, "Thin nitro finishes allow the guitar to breathe and resonate."

The extra high saddles is a new one though.

How many have heard about scraping away the finish under the bridge or sanding bridges flush to make better contact with the body? Here's Joe Bonamassa talking about putting foam under the bridge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKS4YtmwcMs&feature=related

In a book by Dan Erlwhine (of Stewmac) who mentions Buzz Feiten's (famous for his altered tuning system) idea of inserting a thin vinyl shim on the front (towards the nut side) of the bolt-on neck joint (of a guitar) with the express purpose of separating the neck and body to alter (in his opinion improve) the tone;

according to Feiten, "the bottom end and volume of the guitar increased dramatically" and "I think the neck and body each have their own resonant frequency, and by separating them slightly you allow each to resonate somewhat independently".

There is a procedure to it , tune to pitch , then slack the top screws put shim, re tune to pitch , then tight the screws .

There are many point of views on the subject .

@maricopa

Nice video , yes thin nitro . LsL line on this is he cracks the finish to help the wood bread . And so thin , he said he could not make it like that without relicing the body.

But also that way he can put them in the stores without fear of losing value . I spoke with Mr Hahn on that subject , 2 or 3 time over the years , when he comes to town for the Guitar show , he makes amazing guitars i feel he would benefit from more exposure in the stores . He makes top notch instrument with nitro so thin and clean ,but it also means fragile (lets say easy to relic ).And he is a great guy too !

Mark

Haha, I still for the life of me can't understand how dead wood is expected to suddenly start "breathing". :wink:

Haha, I still for the life of me can't understand how dead wood is expected to suddenly start "breathing". :wink:

You are obviously ignorant of the latest technology developments

http://www.fitmaster.gr/images/61510.jpg

:grin:

(nitro-smirto...:mrgreen:,my best sounding tele is a 72,with a..huge neck pocket gap....shallow...neck pocket...and a poly finish that must be 2 inches thick...:mrgreen: and I do have...many reliced thin nitro teles build w/ care and attention to detail....:wink: )

Nice video , yes thin nitro . LsL line on this is he cracks the finish to help the wood bread . And so thin , he said he could not make it like that without relicing the body.

Saves the hassle of having to do a nice finish too.... :wink:

Well i would not go as far as to call it a problem , i am only seeking mean of improvements , If talking about something equals to doing something and going to great lengths ,then i am in the wrong business , i should go into politics ..:lol:

Oups... Sorry for the misunderstanding, but english is not my first language as you may have guessed... :oops:

I was obviously not talking about you but about the dozens of small companies, often one man companies, who claim to have come out with solutions to problems we didn't even know we had...

I have just this impression about LsL, but I may obviously be wrong...

I guess the countless evolutions of, for instance, the fender tremolo who have fallen into oblivion are the condition for the apparition of one floyd rose... natural selection as Darwin would have put it :razz:

(nitro-smirto...,my best sounding tele is a 72,with a..huge neck pocket gap....shallow...neck pocket...and a poly finish that must be 2 inches thick... and I do have...many reliced thin nitro teles build w/ care and attention to detail.... )

Yup, I got one of those photoflame Japanese Strats from the early nineties, they are all prone to the poly finish cracking. Man, you could grow a garden in the cracks in it, the finish is so thick. But it sounds like a million bucks. It must be all the breathing.

:lol:

...for the apparition of one floyd rose... natural selection as Darwin would have put it :razz:

Then Darwin got it wrong IMO :wink:

I'd rather install a Tremsetter or Tremol-no on a traditional trem, in fact I'd rather a stock trem than a Fl... Flo... dang, I can't even type it and still respect myself... :mrgreen:

gary rossington slides a screwdriver under the strings at the first fret for the slide work on "freebird". and as far as wood breathing... well, you got me there.

Everyone repeat, "Thin nitro finishes allow the guitar to breathe and resonate."

The extra high saddles is a new one though.

How many have heard about scraping away the finish under the bridge or sanding bridges flush to make better contact with the body? Here's Joe Bonamassa talking about putting foam under the bridge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKS4YtmwcMs&feature=related

I really think he is talking about foam in the pickup cavity, not actually under the bridge proper, The point being to damp the pickup and prevent acoustic feedback.

All these mods, sanding the neck pocket, sanding the bridge, break angle and on and on are about energy transfer and all hold some possibility of making an audible change, Change is not always a good thing. Steeper break angle on a barrel saddle means more string contact on the barrel so it will transfer more energy to the saddle, There will be a corresponding loss of energy transfered to the body through the string ferrels. If it makes a difference I suspect will be instrument dependent. If it makes an improvement will be in the ears of the listener.

Steeper break angle on a barrel saddle means more string contact on the barrel so it will transfer more energy to the saddle, There will be a corresponding loss of energy transfered to the body through the string ferrels.

Pseudo science to me whether any of this makes any detectable difference, but when you are talking about a tele bridge, those saddles are in direct contact with the bridge which is in direct contact with the body, and under tension, so any 'loss of energy from the string ferrules' will be picked up by the body regardless.

I made a plastic guitar this year. People said it sounded like wood (one poster was even concerned whether the weight relieving chambers in it would affect the tone:shock:). To me it sounded like any 25.5" scale electric guitar with 2 humbuckers in it. That clear acrylic is some pretty amazing tonewood. :wink:

Some people put waaayyyy too much stock in these myriad 'tonal improvements' to me. Improvement over what exactly? At the very least any such 'improvement' is going to be completely subjective.

Remember how electric guitars work. A pickup picks up string vibrations.
That's about it.
I've seen guitars built out of MDF, beer crates or concrete. They all sound like electric guitars. Take what Jack White does at the start of "It Might Get Loud". An electric in it's simplest possible form. Still sounds like an electric guitar - albeit distorted through about the lowest fi out there. Want a tonal 'improvement'? Turn a tone dial on your amp. Turn the volume up or down on your guitar. Pick the string a different way.

Of course the rules are totally different for an acoustic, and many of the so called 'tone improvements' would make appreciable difference to the sound, whether good or bad.

The only answer to the OP's question is - why don't you try it and see? It's the only way you are going to know whether it's worth your trouble. If it makes a difference that you notice, and you like that difference, then cool.

You'd be better off trying all the temporary methods suggested here before you start dicking round with the bridge location though.

That's just my .02 of course. :wink:

....

What really bugs me is that even with all the cares in the world , best woods and finish you can still make a crappy sounding guitar , i tried that guitar and based on the builder comments he tried everything to bring it up to par , believe me it was eye candy , but worthless . But others just like that one were selling for 4000 plus.

Well , some people do not discern the different vibes each wood essence makes in the amplified sound , believe me it doesn't mean its not there .

Mark

Ps , i completed a tele body with the bridge about 1mm and a half closer to the neck .

I really think he is talking about foam in the pickup cavity, not actually under the bridge proper, The point being to damp the pickup and prevent acoustic feedback.

Yep after looking at the vid again I think you're right.

Oh, and what Kwerk said.

Then Darwin got it wrong IMO :wink:

I'd rather install a Tremsetter or Tremol-no on a traditional trem, in fact I'd rather a stock trem than a Fl... Flo... dang, I can't even type it and still respect myself... :mrgreen:

He! He! He!

As a personal preference I am with you!

But some guys (Hi Eddie!) have made a great use of the fl.... (:grin:) and it certainly has a sound of its own.

Mkster, let us know how that experiment turns out...

What really bugs me is that even with all the cares in the world , best woods and finish you can still make a crappy sounding guitar , i tried that guitar and based on the builder comments he tried everything to bring it up to par , believe me it was eye candy , but worthless . But others just like that one were selling for 4000 plus.



Which guitar was this?

Pseudo science to me whether any of this makes any detectable difference, but when you are talking about a tele bridge, those saddles are in direct contact with the bridge which is in direct contact with the body, and under tension, so any 'loss of energy from the string ferrules' will be picked up by the body regardless.

................

Remember how electric guitars work. A pickup picks up string vibrations.

You would be correct if the world were as first order as you want to make it out to be. first off, the strings do not have to vibrate, the pickup can vibrate in relation to the strings and there will be a voltage induced in the coil, It is all about relative motion. No vibration needed, but in this case it is how we get the vast majority of the relative motion.

If you want to do a second order study, you then have to consider vibration in the neck, body and the path lengths and propagation speed in all the different materials involved. (You can do it with a good FEA package, but you might have to write some material modules) Different path lengths and prop. speeds means that one has to consider signal phase at time of arrival and that there are three different points where time of arrival is important. And that is just touching the surface of second order and not even looking at tertiary effects (Which I strongly doubt are audible no matter the instrument)

The only answer to the OP's question is - why don't you try it and see? It's the only way you are going to know whether it's worth your trouble. If it makes a difference that you notice, and you like that difference, then cool.

You'd be better off trying all the temporary methods suggested here before you start dicking round with the bridge location though.

That's just my .02 of course. :wink:

I would not say it is the only answer, but it is the one that is going to be correct in all cases. My point was that there are valid engineering principles involved with changing break angle that could effect the output signal of a pickup. I am no tone wood snob, I try to always use species that are not usually used, Catalpa, Black Locus, River Birch to name a few, and yes they all sound like electric guitars. Like I said, the vast majority or the output signal is the result of first order effects, ie string moving with relation to the average location of the pickup. What you get with synthetic materials, ie plastic or MDF is consistency.

Break angle is important for acoustic instruments because the bridge drives the top. But the tops are thin. I doubt if you're going to flex 1 3/4" of solid wood regardless of the angle. Banjos have (usually) adjustable tailpieces that allow angles from the mid-teens to just under 20 degrees. Break angle does effect the tone/power/volume but the head is very, very thin. Hell, it's a veritable drum head.

Short of keeping the strings in the saddles, I don't think the angle could possibly make that much difference on electrics because of what goes on at the neck end... very shallow angles.

So if anybody has one of the early Pauls with a trapeze tailpiece, put it in a box and I'll pay the shipping to me.

Or perhaps we should declare that anything with less than a 45 degree break angle is inferior and therefore has poor tone.

You would be correct if the world were as first order as you want to make it out to be. first off, the strings do not have to vibrate, the pickup can vibrate in relation to the strings and there will be a voltage induced in the coil, It is all about relative motion. No vibration needed, but in this case it is how we get the vast majority of the relative motion.



That's as maybe, but the pickup isn't going to vibrate without the strings vibrating, and I'd put it to you that any so called tonal 'benefits' are going to be largely overriden by the strongest signal which is that of the pickup registering changes to the magnetic field caused by the vibrating strings immediately above it. The signal itself will barely change. There may be some 'sustain benefits' to be had by playing around with this stuff, but tonal 'improvements' whilst conceivably mathematically measureable, will be something of a white elephant in practical terms.

My point is that you can throw millions of dollars at trying to solve a non existent problem, or you can just turn a knob on your amp, or change some strings, or play differently, or use a different weight of pick, or play some different music, or change out your pickups and achieve whatever tonal nirvana you seek much more readily, demonstrably, and, critically, in an easily reversible way.

Me, I'd rather just play some music than lose sleep over whether my saddles are high enough. But as I say, my .02.

I wonder why they don't make and sell plywood guitar only , most of us are def anyway .

Yes most guitar can be improved to make nice sounds , most fender guitar are crappy for starter , no amount of eq tuning can fix that .

I have a friend guitarist that can't here Mp3 compression , i can't stand to listen to that crap , yet some people apparently can't hear it .

Its not because you can't here it , that others wont .

My first guitar was made of plywood. Sounded fantastic, and still does.

If you wanna move your neck a mm closer to your bridge, hey man, it's your guitar, you go right ahead.

I'll carry on plugging away on my crappy fender.

I ve been building for 6 years, I like all my guitars, they all sound different and I adjust my amps and pedals every time i switch. Im an engineer so I get the relevance, but just as a science vs art question how many have built 2 exact guitars and only change one thing (like one piece body to 2 piece). If you have you've got one on me, cause every one of my guitars either have different wood,pickups, bridge, fret size ect., They all have a sound I can use and enjoy in certain settings. My point is the science gets the signal to the amp, the rest is art. That being said, searching for the holy grail of tone can be entertaining and I admit I have dabbled at it.