Laminate Constriction

[Greg Lorisco]

I’m new to KS basses and was noticing a difference in KS from other neck-through (NT) basses. Most NT the neck gets thicker where it joins the body and is the same thickness as the body. But on some KS the neck stay the same thickness and there is another piece of wood that is laminated on top of it to match the thickness of the body.

What is the reason for this type of design and how does that affect the tone?

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Greg Lorisco

I’m new to KS basses and was noticing a difference in KS from other neck-through (NT) basses. Most NT the neck gets thicker where it joins the body and is the same thickness as the body. But on some KS the neck stay the same thickness and there is another piece of wood that is laminated on top of it to match the thickness of the body.

What is the reason for this type of design and how does that affect the tone?

In Making Neck Thru basses the thicker neck/heel 'same piece' design is cheaper to make but less controllable in movement..

The way we make it with the laminated Heel allows us to choose the fingerboard surface side AFTER the neck had been machined and flattened. This way we know which way the wood is actually breathing. If you choose the wrong side, the neck might easier forward bow. In the other design when cut from its larger block mass with Heel and Head in one, the wood springs more for relief and you have sometimes more forward or back bow which causes problems. We like having the choice so we do it the slow, more expensive and better way.

[Greg Lorisco]

Thanks Ken.

It would also seem that adding the heal would function much like a bolt-on joint and provide the NT with the same low-end kick with the added bonus of great sustain?

[Tim Bishop]

Originally Posted by Greg Lorisco

Thanks Ken.

It would also seem that adding the heal would function much like a bolt-on joint and provide the NT with the same low-end kick with the added bonus of great sustain?

The bigger difference IMO (speaking as the player), is feel. If you want proof of that, find a bolt-on and a neck-thru, play it and feel the difference for yourself.

[Greg Lorisco]

Originally Posted by Tim Bishop

The bigger difference IMO (speaking as the player), is feel. If you want proof of that, find a bolt-on and a neck-thru, play it and feel the difference for yourself.

I prefer NT; more sustain, faster / easier access above the 12th fret, you can dial in the action lower, etc.

[Maurice Hason]

Originally Posted by Greg Lorisco

I prefer NT; more sustain, faster / easier access above the 12th fret, you can dial in the action lower, etc.

Can you explain please how a NT allows lower action?
I didn't know this has anything to do with action but I may be wrong...

[Tim Bishop]

Originally Posted by Greg Lorisco

....you can dial in the action lower, etc.

Originally Posted by Maurice Hason

Can you explain please how a NT allows lower action?
I didn't know this has anything to do with action but I may be wrong...

As far as "lower action"? It doesn't. "Action" is the string height, as adjusted for the players preference, from the fretboard. A neck truss-rod adjustment can also impact the "action" by increasing or decreasing the amount of relief in the neck.

Besides the obvious, one of the larger differences is where the end of the fretboard/neck meets the body. The BO neck and fretboard sit a bit higher at the body: This is where the feel is very different between a BO and NT (at the body).

I can set-up the action on either my BO or NT equally. But again, the bigger difference being in the feel at the end of the fretboard (particularly noticible when thumb and pop technique is used at the EOF) of a BO vs. a NT. A larger gap between the bottom of the strings and body at the end of the fretboard of a BO neck.

In the end, it's a choice and preference for the player. For me: I use both and depending on the tune, I make my choice accordingly.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Maurice Hason

Can you explain please how a NT allows lower action?
I didn't know this has anything to do with action but I may be wrong...

The only real difference is that on a NT, the Fingerboard is flush with the body so there is less room under the string. On a BO, the neck is lifted and there is more room from the string to the body at the end of the FB. Some funk-type slappers like this feature while many of them play the NT and just love it.

Action off the strings over the FB depends on the individual neck/bass and not the construction.

[Greg Lorisco]

Originally Posted by Maurice Hason

Can you explain please how a NT allows lower action?
I didn't know this has anything to do with action but I may be wrong...

IMO, the action can be functionally lower on a NT because it is one piece of wood the length of the string (full length laminate) instead of two pieces bolted together in the middle. A bolted joint is never as stable (immovable) as no joint at all. So if the strings stopped on a bolt-on at the end of the fretboard there would be no difference. But because the stings continue much beyond that it’s not the same.

Others may not agree with this, but this has been my experience with the bolt-on and NT basses I have owned.

[Greg Lorisco]

I’m looking at the NT MS basses and it states the necks are 3-piece laminate, but it looks like one piece?

How stable are these necks with only maple compared to the 5-piece?

Also, unrelated question: Since 6-stirng necks have more wood (wider, thicker, etc), would the low-B on a 6 be more meaty than on a 5-string?

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Greg Lorisco

I’m looking at the NT MS basses and it states the necks are 3-piece laminate, but it looks like one piece?

How stable are these necks with only maple compared to the 5-piece?

Also, unrelated question: Since 6-stirng necks have more wood (wider, thicker, etc), would the low-B on a 6 be more meaty than on a 5-string?

Q:How stable are these necks with only maple compared to the 5-piece?
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.

[Greg Lorisco]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

Q:How stable are these necks with only maple compared to the 5-piece?
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.

Thanks Ken.

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?

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Greg Lorisco

Thanks Ken.

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?

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.

[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.