![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
A: At least as stable.. All the same species of wood and less Glue Joints. Q's:Also, unrelated question: Since 6-string necks have more wood (wider, thicker, etc), would the low-B on a 6 be more meaty than on a 5-string? A's: First off they are wider overall but NOT thicker. The thicknesses stays the same hence the flatter FB radius. Any and every note on a 6 vs 5-string has MORE wood around it being wider all over especially the neck and fb. Therefore EVERY note to my ear is 'meatier' sounding. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
And are all the MS necks 3-piece laminate? It looks like one piece from the pictures. And are the graphite bars in all necks? |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Look close. Yes, they are 3-pc laminated. All Smith NTs have the Graphite inlaid Bars.. Please read the web pages. This is listed on the website. It's not a secret.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Reviving this thread to make a point regarding the action issue.
To my observation, the main difference between bolt-on and neck-through is the string-to-body distance. With BO's, there's a limitation on how deep the neck can be set into the neck pocket - unless you don't mind ending up with a 3" body. This limitation doesn't exist with NT basses. However, while the fingerboard on NT's mounts flash on the body surface the bridge might be too high. This is compensated by creating an angle between the body and neck. Take a look down the fingerboard, headstock to body. Notice the body face surface in relation to the fingerboard surface (assume it's flat for that matter). Both my NT Ken Smith's have this angle taken into account which allows for great low action all the way - bridge to nut. BTW, with many mass production bolt-on instruments, when you want to lower the strings, the saddles are already all the way down. The solution (poor but works) is shimming the neck - lifting its base from within the neck pocket, thus increasing the body/neck angle. This improves string/fingerboard distance and also has a little effect on string/body distance. Poor, because less contact between neck and body now. Hope it makes sense. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I believe that two styles feel as different from the Neck pitch as they do from the BO or NT build method in itself. We have made in the past set-neck models and a few non-pitched Neck-Thrus for testing. I think the Pitched method in either BO or NT performs better than non pitched. How much room needed under the string at the end of the Fingerboard is a matter of taste. Everyone has their own playing style, likes and dis-likes. Many people however also adapt to new things they have never tried as well. Altering ones technique to play a different design is quite common. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Correct me if I'm wrong, it would be very difficult to deal with a non-pitched neck through, unless you inlay the bridge into the body - or you need to use a very low profile bridge.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Not at all IF, the Neck is Lifted up like a Bolt-on when made and glued up. That is how we made the 4 test basses back in 1982. I made 8 basses in one run, 4 with and 4 without pitch. Necks lifted about 1/8"/3mm without pitch or Fingerboard flush at body with 3 degree pitch, same bridge heights on both.
|
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|