Hey all,
I play a guitar with a relatively small neck (Pacifica). I was wondering, if I were to play a guitar with a fatter neck, would the tone be better - and would it be easier for me to prevent string noise open accidental contact with other strings I don't intend to pluck?
Also, when a company offers different size necks, what are the differences besides personal preference. Is it harder to bend on a bigger neck, etc. etc.
And can someone please explain to me the radius of a neck and its pros and cons.
A thicker, fatter neck will generally give you a thicker, fatter tone.
As far as radius is concerned, a smaller radius will make chording easier (not that much, IMHO), while a flatter radius will allow bigger string bends without quot;fretting outquot; or choking the string.
Back profiles and thickness is a matter of personal preference IMO. Radius is too, but you can more easily make a blanket statement about how a radius will effect playability, where the back profile will affect people differently based on the size of the player's hands, etc. As Benjy said, a smaller radius is usually associated with easier chording, while a flatter one is considered better for bending and faster playing.
I agree with everything that's been said. Another thing to consider is that a thinner neck will tend to fatigue your thumb muscle more during rhythm playing, since your hand muscles feel better when they're more open under tension. Play bar chords for 2 hours straight on a thin Ibanez neck, then do the same thing with a fat Gibson 57 Historic LP neck. You'll quickly realize how that thumb muscle reacts to both neck thicknesses.
I think my personal favorites are the Gibson 50's neck, PRS McCarty neck, and the chunkiest strat C neck I can find. I tend to like 9.5 - 12quot; radius, since bent notes don't 'fret out.'
Originally Posted by GearjoneserI agree with everything that's been said. Another thing to consider is that a thinner neck will tend to fatigue your thumb muscle more during rhythm playing, since your hand muscles feel better when they're more open under tension. Play bar chords for 2 hours straight on a thin Ibanez neck, then do the same thing with a fat Gibson 57 Historic LP neck. You'll quickly realize how that thumb muscle reacts to both neck thicknesses.
I think my personal favorites are the Gibson 50's neck, PRS McCarty neck, and the chunkiest strat C neck I can find. I tend to like 9.5 - 12quot; radius, since bent notes don't 'fret out.'I agree, I'm really starting to like a thicker neck. Then again I have pretty long, lanky hands (on my 25.5quot; scale strat I can comfortably do a hammer on from frets 1 to 7 )
I prefer thicker necks. 50's LP shape is perfect, thicker strat necks, even the old tele baseball-bat style necks. I got real big hands though, it just helps for me to have that extra little bit of wood on the neck. My les paul has a nice neck on it, its quot;supposedquot; to be a 60's slim taper, but it feels a whole lot thicker than any of those i've ever played.
I play a guitar with a relatively small neck (Pacifica). I was wondering, if I were to play a guitar with a fatter neck, would the tone be better - and would it be easier for me to prevent string noise open accidental contact with other strings I don't intend to pluck?
Also, when a company offers different size necks, what are the differences besides personal preference. Is it harder to bend on a bigger neck, etc. etc.
And can someone please explain to me the radius of a neck and its pros and cons.
A thicker, fatter neck will generally give you a thicker, fatter tone.
As far as radius is concerned, a smaller radius will make chording easier (not that much, IMHO), while a flatter radius will allow bigger string bends without quot;fretting outquot; or choking the string.
Back profiles and thickness is a matter of personal preference IMO. Radius is too, but you can more easily make a blanket statement about how a radius will effect playability, where the back profile will affect people differently based on the size of the player's hands, etc. As Benjy said, a smaller radius is usually associated with easier chording, while a flatter one is considered better for bending and faster playing.
I agree with everything that's been said. Another thing to consider is that a thinner neck will tend to fatigue your thumb muscle more during rhythm playing, since your hand muscles feel better when they're more open under tension. Play bar chords for 2 hours straight on a thin Ibanez neck, then do the same thing with a fat Gibson 57 Historic LP neck. You'll quickly realize how that thumb muscle reacts to both neck thicknesses.
I think my personal favorites are the Gibson 50's neck, PRS McCarty neck, and the chunkiest strat C neck I can find. I tend to like 9.5 - 12quot; radius, since bent notes don't 'fret out.'
Originally Posted by GearjoneserI agree with everything that's been said. Another thing to consider is that a thinner neck will tend to fatigue your thumb muscle more during rhythm playing, since your hand muscles feel better when they're more open under tension. Play bar chords for 2 hours straight on a thin Ibanez neck, then do the same thing with a fat Gibson 57 Historic LP neck. You'll quickly realize how that thumb muscle reacts to both neck thicknesses.
I think my personal favorites are the Gibson 50's neck, PRS McCarty neck, and the chunkiest strat C neck I can find. I tend to like 9.5 - 12quot; radius, since bent notes don't 'fret out.'I agree, I'm really starting to like a thicker neck. Then again I have pretty long, lanky hands (on my 25.5quot; scale strat I can comfortably do a hammer on from frets 1 to 7 )
I prefer thicker necks. 50's LP shape is perfect, thicker strat necks, even the old tele baseball-bat style necks. I got real big hands though, it just helps for me to have that extra little bit of wood on the neck. My les paul has a nice neck on it, its quot;supposedquot; to be a 60's slim taper, but it feels a whole lot thicker than any of those i've ever played.
全站熱搜
留言列表
