software

how much difference do they make in a set neck guitar?
since most of the string tension is balanced by the truss rod how does the wood affect the sound?

if two guitars were identical except for the neck wood, the maple neck one would be brighter than the mahogany neck one. to what degree of brighter i cant really say, but id bet its pretty noticable

EX250 nailed the impact, but from what I've seen it only has a medium impact on the sound because there are so many other variables- From what I have seen body wood and pickups have the most impact followed by neck and then fingerboard.

So it might be a bit of a stretch to find 2 idential set neck gtrs with everything the same except the neck wood, but as EX250 said, the maple neck should be a bit brighter on average-


Originally Posted by zionstratSo it might be a bit of a stretch to find 2 idential set neck gtrs with everything the same except the neck wood, but as EX250 said, the maple neck should be a bit brighter on average-haha yeah, but that would be the only real way to have an objective example

More articulation and quot;snapquot; as well.

thanks guys,
one more thing,
which is heavier, maple or mahogany?

Maple's heavier, but in a setneck guitar, I like mahogany/rosewood or solid rosewood.
Maple has strength and high end bite, but isn't quite as warm and musical as the other two. That's why most people agree that Les Pauls with mahogany necks sound better than LP's with maple necks (like a lot of 70's LP's).


Originally Posted by GearjoneserMaple's heavier, but in a setneck guitar, I like mahogany/rosewood or solid rosewood.
Maple has strength and high end bite, but isn't quite as warm and musical as the other two. That's why most people agree that Les Pauls with mahogany necks sound better than LP's with maple necks (like a lot of 70's LP's).

thanks. that was helpful.
Here is the context of my question. I am looking at a couple of voodoo gibsons that were made a few years ago. they had swamp ash body and mahogany set neck. the people who had it said they sounded amazing. I was wondering why they didn't use maple neck since maple neck and swamp ash body go together more often. any idea?


Originally Posted by GearjoneserMaple's heavier, but in a setneck guitar, I like mahogany/rosewood or solid rosewood.
Maple has strength and high end bite, but isn't quite as warm and musical as the other two. That's why most people agree that Les Pauls with mahogany necks sound better than LP's with maple necks (like a lot of 70's LP's).

Its sad that I find LPs to be muddy and not good for my hi-gain music...it makes me sad........maybe its just my amp or I could change the pickups?

Could be your amp settings. Most Gibsons come with 300K pots stock (right?)...I think they should have 500K.

Ash is pretty resonant and punchy, so they probably stayed with a mahogany neck so the guitar wouldn't be too bright.

And the reason why some people don't consider the Les Paul to be good for technical metal players is because LP's play poorly at the store. The necks are perfect, but the nuts are usually cut high and the saddle is too high. If you want a LP to be good for metal, get a pro setup and use higher output Alnico 5 or Ceramic pickups. Get a Custom or Custom 5 and a 59 neck, and plug it into a good highgain amp, and you'll have a better tone than all the guys with Fender Fat Strats, Schecters and Ibanez's.

Not that it's a big deal or anything- but when you're writing mahogany- sound out to yourself quot;Mah-Hoe-Gannyquot; it makes it easier to spell it correctly.