Laminate Constriction

[Ronen Tat]

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.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Ronen Tat

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.

While the string-to-body distance is different at the end of the fingerboard, the two models are 'pitched' differently but end up at the same height at the bridge. The NT is pitched about 3 degrees and the BO about 1 degree. This makes them meet at the same height at the bridge.

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.

[Ronen Tat]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

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.

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.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Ronen Tat

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.

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.

[Ronen Tat]

Understood. I'm glad you decided to go "flush & pitched"... I prefer the smaller string-body distance near the board.
I also think it's visually nicer, not having the pickups stick out too much, just my taste.

[Greg Lorisco]

I noticed that the 18mm bridge spacing 5 string neck is 3" wide at the 24th fret according to the Smith site. If you go with the 19mm bridge does that make the neck wider at the 24th fret or is it the same? If wider, how much wider?

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Greg Lorisco

I noticed that the 18mm bridge spacing 5 string neck is 3" wide at the 24th fret according to the Smith site. If you go with the 19mm bridge does that make the neck wider at the 24th fret or is it the same? If wider, how much wider?

On a 5 string bass, everything would be 4mm wider from Nut to bridge and beyond overall. You can't just put a wider bridge on the same neck. The Strings would fall off the neck! Everything must be made wider.

[Ronen Tat]

I once ordered a 19mm spaced 5 string custom bass from a known luthier. Upon completion I double checked and I was told the bridge has 17.5mm (or 18).
I insisted that I get what I ordered and a 19mm bridge was installed. What I didn't know was that the whole bass was built around the original spacing.
Very bad result! No longer have that bass.

[Tim Bishop]

Originally Posted by Greg Lorisco

I noticed that the 18mm bridge spacing 5 string neck is 3" wide at the 24th fret according to the Smith site. If you go with the 19mm bridge does that make the neck wider at the 24th fret or is it the same? If wider, how much wider?

Greg, the 18mm Smith 5-String does measure 3 inches wide at the end of fretboard. The 19mm Smith 5-String measures 3.25 at the end of the fretboard.