Hello All. I'm new here, please see my introduction in the Show It Off forum. I promised lots of questions there, so here is my first one. I know I saw a discussion on this somewhere on this board, but can't find it now (funny how that happens). But I want to look at this subject from a slightly different perspective.
Pros and Cons - bolt on vs dovetail necks for a modern, 6/12 string, steel string guitar
I've seen arguments on this subject before. That's not where I want this to go. We all know the standard "Dovetails are the traditional method and therefore better" argument". I submit that tradition really doesn't apply to steel string guitars. Their history just isn't that long. As far as I can tell, Martin uses the dovetail for many, but not all of their guitars. And I've seen a few other builders who maintain that the dovetail is part of what makes their guitars so special. But I've also seen, in my recent research, many other very well respected builders, who create highly sought-after guitars, who use bolt on necks for incredibly expensive guitars.
So how about some personal views of the pros and cons of dovetails and bolt ons, and hopefully with some science or better yet, some real-world reasons to back up your assertations.
A new look at an old argument
-
jstream
-
Tony_in_NYC
- Posts: 827
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:11 pm
Re: A new look at an old argument
It is all a matter of opinion.
Many people who use a dovetail, do so because that is the method of attaching the neck that they learned. Others do it because, well...because pre-war Martins have a dovetail. Some people believe that a dovetail transfers sound better.
Proponents of the mortise and tenon believe it is a superior joint because it is easily reset when the neck needs resetting. They feel there is no loss or dampening of vibrations from the neck to the body. It is a vastly easier joint to execute well.
My opinion, and it is just an opinion, is that any joint, if properly done and is very well fitting, will not hurt the sound of the guitar. There is a guy who uses three bolts to attach the neck to his guitars. I wish I could find the picture. Anyway, the only point of contact for the neck to the body are the three bolts. The actual neck heel does not contact the body. In blind tests, nobody could tell the difference between that joint and a dovetail.
It is really up to you what type of joint you prefer. As I said, my opinion is that no type of joint is better than any other. I have no scientific proof of this and I have also never built a dovetail neck. I just feel that tight, well fitting joints are more important than bolts on of DT neck joints.
Millions of people love old Martin guitars. Millions of people love their brand new Taylor guitars. Taylor does not use a DT joint. In fact, I dont even think they use a mortise and tenon joint. I think their necks a true bolt on jobs, and the neck heel butts up to the body.
I hope you find something useful in this post. You wont find me taking sides on this argument, but you also wont find me building a guitar with a DT neck joint either!!
Many people who use a dovetail, do so because that is the method of attaching the neck that they learned. Others do it because, well...because pre-war Martins have a dovetail. Some people believe that a dovetail transfers sound better.
Proponents of the mortise and tenon believe it is a superior joint because it is easily reset when the neck needs resetting. They feel there is no loss or dampening of vibrations from the neck to the body. It is a vastly easier joint to execute well.
My opinion, and it is just an opinion, is that any joint, if properly done and is very well fitting, will not hurt the sound of the guitar. There is a guy who uses three bolts to attach the neck to his guitars. I wish I could find the picture. Anyway, the only point of contact for the neck to the body are the three bolts. The actual neck heel does not contact the body. In blind tests, nobody could tell the difference between that joint and a dovetail.
It is really up to you what type of joint you prefer. As I said, my opinion is that no type of joint is better than any other. I have no scientific proof of this and I have also never built a dovetail neck. I just feel that tight, well fitting joints are more important than bolts on of DT neck joints.
Millions of people love old Martin guitars. Millions of people love their brand new Taylor guitars. Taylor does not use a DT joint. In fact, I dont even think they use a mortise and tenon joint. I think their necks a true bolt on jobs, and the neck heel butts up to the body.
I hope you find something useful in this post. You wont find me taking sides on this argument, but you also wont find me building a guitar with a DT neck joint either!!
-
enalnitram
Re: A new look at an old argument
i'm not an either or person. I like em both. if done well, they are both great.
-
kencierp
Re: A new look at an old argument
Per Frank Ford and I agree:
OK, so which is better, a traditional glued dovetail like a Martin, or a bolted neck like a Taylor?
I’m amazed that any builder, whether an individual or a large factory, would make flat top guitars without considering the eventuality of needing or desiring to remove the neck. It’s a little like the cigarette industry and cancer. How much evidence do we need before everyone admits it?
I hope by now it’s obvious that virtually all steel string guitars (including lightly built archtops, too) undergo a body shape change that results in a neck angle problem. These days, we correct the neck angle by removing the neck and resetting it to approximate the original angle with respect to the top and the bridge. How many solid top imported guitars will be thrown away because the necks cannot be removed? How many “high end” guitars will need really serious and expensive modification because they were made with a Spanish heel, epoxied dovetail, or other nonremovable system.
A glued dovetail neck is a removable neck, as long as the glue can be softened reasonably easily. But, in what way is it superior to a bolted mortise? It is traditional, to be sure, and I do respect tradition. In fact, I really like tradition. So, how long did those old time builders think we’d try to keep their instruments “on the road?” Especially for the early builders and gut stringing, how significant was “low action” up the neck?
Today’s players are far more sophisticated in their needs for good playability and intonation, and we need to take that into account. When I first started in lutherie, more than 30 years ago, it was commonly held that necks needed to be reset only on really old instruments and/or poorly built ones. Now, we accept that it’s only a matter of time before any flat top guitar will need the operation, and many of them will need that job repeated at regular intervals. With that in mind, why not simply go with the flow? Why not make a guitar with a neck that can come off with minimal damage to the finish or structure of the instrument?
If there’s one piece of “reasoning” I don’t trust it’s that bit about the neck joint contributing to the tone. Particularly on Internet forums, I've heard any number of folks state that the neck joint is the logical reason that Taylor guitars sound bright, and Martins tend to be more full in their bass response. That's a real case of comparing apples and oranges. In the dreadnought size, for example, Taylor instruments have different, and heavier top bracing, which clearly makes for a stiffer top, emphasizing treble response, while Martins have lighter bracing, and similar thickness tops and backs, so they are more flexible, allowing for a fuller bass.
As a further illustration, I offer this little scene:
Not long ago I was visiting a guitar factory, where thousands of guitars have been made over the last few decades. One member of our little tour group asked the guide a question.
“As we went through the factory, I noticed that some of the workers were out to lunch and I didn't see how you attach the neck to the body. What kind of joint do you use?”
“We've always used a glued tapered dovetail joint because it’s important for our special tone. Other kinds of joints would not transmit vibrations as well.”
Another member of the group asked, “Have you ever tried another kind of joint, even as an experiment?”
“No.”
What I heard was a defense of the “way we do things” rather than even a tiny bit of reasoning on the subject. Meanwhile, others build guitars that consistently sound GREAT using a joint that this sort of fellow disparages as “not transmitting vibrations.”
From time to time, I've been called upon to convert a guitar from a solid, nonremovable neck to a bolted construction. In no case have either I or the owner of the guitar experienced a loss of tone.
Now, it seems that classical and flamenco builders often aim for a rather low bridge and saddle height. It’s a matter of tone, and that’s all well and good. BUT, wouldn't we have a much easier time if those guys also made their instruments with removable necks? I've met a number of really angry owners of high end Spanish classical guitars who were disappointed by the fact that their necks couldn't be removed and reset like many steel string guitar necks.
As a guitar mechanic, I've gotten good at disassembling Martin and other dovetail neck joints. The process involves steam, and some risk, especially to the finish. Personally, I have enough work to keep me really busy, so I wouldn't mind a bit if Martin would switch to a bolted mortise. My customers would like it, too, because neck resetting would cost less. With Bob Taylor’s help, the “stigma” of a bolt-on neck is now pretty much a thing of the past, so, why not let the dovetail be a thing of the past, too? FF, 2/11/01
OK, so which is better, a traditional glued dovetail like a Martin, or a bolted neck like a Taylor?
I’m amazed that any builder, whether an individual or a large factory, would make flat top guitars without considering the eventuality of needing or desiring to remove the neck. It’s a little like the cigarette industry and cancer. How much evidence do we need before everyone admits it?
I hope by now it’s obvious that virtually all steel string guitars (including lightly built archtops, too) undergo a body shape change that results in a neck angle problem. These days, we correct the neck angle by removing the neck and resetting it to approximate the original angle with respect to the top and the bridge. How many solid top imported guitars will be thrown away because the necks cannot be removed? How many “high end” guitars will need really serious and expensive modification because they were made with a Spanish heel, epoxied dovetail, or other nonremovable system.
A glued dovetail neck is a removable neck, as long as the glue can be softened reasonably easily. But, in what way is it superior to a bolted mortise? It is traditional, to be sure, and I do respect tradition. In fact, I really like tradition. So, how long did those old time builders think we’d try to keep their instruments “on the road?” Especially for the early builders and gut stringing, how significant was “low action” up the neck?
Today’s players are far more sophisticated in their needs for good playability and intonation, and we need to take that into account. When I first started in lutherie, more than 30 years ago, it was commonly held that necks needed to be reset only on really old instruments and/or poorly built ones. Now, we accept that it’s only a matter of time before any flat top guitar will need the operation, and many of them will need that job repeated at regular intervals. With that in mind, why not simply go with the flow? Why not make a guitar with a neck that can come off with minimal damage to the finish or structure of the instrument?
If there’s one piece of “reasoning” I don’t trust it’s that bit about the neck joint contributing to the tone. Particularly on Internet forums, I've heard any number of folks state that the neck joint is the logical reason that Taylor guitars sound bright, and Martins tend to be more full in their bass response. That's a real case of comparing apples and oranges. In the dreadnought size, for example, Taylor instruments have different, and heavier top bracing, which clearly makes for a stiffer top, emphasizing treble response, while Martins have lighter bracing, and similar thickness tops and backs, so they are more flexible, allowing for a fuller bass.
As a further illustration, I offer this little scene:
Not long ago I was visiting a guitar factory, where thousands of guitars have been made over the last few decades. One member of our little tour group asked the guide a question.
“As we went through the factory, I noticed that some of the workers were out to lunch and I didn't see how you attach the neck to the body. What kind of joint do you use?”
“We've always used a glued tapered dovetail joint because it’s important for our special tone. Other kinds of joints would not transmit vibrations as well.”
Another member of the group asked, “Have you ever tried another kind of joint, even as an experiment?”
“No.”
What I heard was a defense of the “way we do things” rather than even a tiny bit of reasoning on the subject. Meanwhile, others build guitars that consistently sound GREAT using a joint that this sort of fellow disparages as “not transmitting vibrations.”
From time to time, I've been called upon to convert a guitar from a solid, nonremovable neck to a bolted construction. In no case have either I or the owner of the guitar experienced a loss of tone.
Now, it seems that classical and flamenco builders often aim for a rather low bridge and saddle height. It’s a matter of tone, and that’s all well and good. BUT, wouldn't we have a much easier time if those guys also made their instruments with removable necks? I've met a number of really angry owners of high end Spanish classical guitars who were disappointed by the fact that their necks couldn't be removed and reset like many steel string guitar necks.
As a guitar mechanic, I've gotten good at disassembling Martin and other dovetail neck joints. The process involves steam, and some risk, especially to the finish. Personally, I have enough work to keep me really busy, so I wouldn't mind a bit if Martin would switch to a bolted mortise. My customers would like it, too, because neck resetting would cost less. With Bob Taylor’s help, the “stigma” of a bolt-on neck is now pretty much a thing of the past, so, why not let the dovetail be a thing of the past, too? FF, 2/11/01
-
jstream
Re: A new look at an old argument
[quote="Tony_in_NYC"]It is all a matter of opinion.
Many people who use a dovetail, do so because that is the method of attaching the neck that they learned..."
This is kind of the answer that I expected. It is what makes the most sense in regards to the part of my question that asks why. And watching the guy in the Martin video doing it by eye... hmmm... think he's done in once or twice? :)
Thank you guys for the direct, concise answers. I've played electrics for years, and almost exclusively Fenders with their bolt on necks. The only exception really being a Les Paul Jr that we used for a pure punk thrash song. I've never had any issues with tone or sustain. True, electrics are a different beast when it comes to tone, but in terms of transmitting vibration, they (the bolt-ons) don't seem to be lacking at all. My Strat was designed to sustain, and sustain it does. I can pluck a string, put the guitar down, go to the bathroom or let the dogs out, come back and it's still ringing... even without an amp.
So what I'm looking for, and what I've gotten so far, is that both are truly valid, with the major difference being the adjustability down the road/ease of repair going to the bolt on. And in the immediate, the bolt on being (possibly? - probably?) easier for a first time kit builder to achieve a good quality joint. I came in with no real pre-conceived notion, just a curiosity, and I get some great answers.
Thank you!
Many people who use a dovetail, do so because that is the method of attaching the neck that they learned..."
This is kind of the answer that I expected. It is what makes the most sense in regards to the part of my question that asks why. And watching the guy in the Martin video doing it by eye... hmmm... think he's done in once or twice? :)
Thank you guys for the direct, concise answers. I've played electrics for years, and almost exclusively Fenders with their bolt on necks. The only exception really being a Les Paul Jr that we used for a pure punk thrash song. I've never had any issues with tone or sustain. True, electrics are a different beast when it comes to tone, but in terms of transmitting vibration, they (the bolt-ons) don't seem to be lacking at all. My Strat was designed to sustain, and sustain it does. I can pluck a string, put the guitar down, go to the bathroom or let the dogs out, come back and it's still ringing... even without an amp.
So what I'm looking for, and what I've gotten so far, is that both are truly valid, with the major difference being the adjustability down the road/ease of repair going to the bolt on. And in the immediate, the bolt on being (possibly? - probably?) easier for a first time kit builder to achieve a good quality joint. I came in with no real pre-conceived notion, just a curiosity, and I get some great answers.
Thank you!
-
tippie53
- Posts: 7013
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:09 pm
- Location: Hegins, Pa
- Contact:
Re: A new look at an old argument
It is the bracing of the top that creates tone . I agree with most of what Ken states . The facts about a bolt on neck is that you will place the glue faces in shear. A true bolt on usually uses 2 bolts. Martin uses a mortise and tenon joint. This is a glued joint not a true bolt on.
As a repair center I do see where the M&T joint will fail . I never seen a dovetail fail unless it was stressed. Still I agree that the neck joint is there to connect the neck to the body. It is the stiffness of the neck that will influence tone not the neck joint. If the neck is not stiff enough it has a dampening effect.
So to answer the original question , It matters not how the neck is attached. I have seen Butt joints, Doweled , M$T dovetail and they all work
john
As a repair center I do see where the M&T joint will fail . I never seen a dovetail fail unless it was stressed. Still I agree that the neck joint is there to connect the neck to the body. It is the stiffness of the neck that will influence tone not the neck joint. If the neck is not stiff enough it has a dampening effect.
So to answer the original question , It matters not how the neck is attached. I have seen Butt joints, Doweled , M$T dovetail and they all work
john
John Hall
Blues Creek Guitars Inc
Authorized CF Martin Repair Center
president of Association of Stringed Instrument Artisans
http://www.bluescreekguitars.com
Blues Creek Guitars Inc
Authorized CF Martin Repair Center
president of Association of Stringed Instrument Artisans
http://www.bluescreekguitars.com
-
pete nardo
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: N. Salem, NY
Re: A new look at an old argument
here's a question:
Is one method "easier" to set the neck angle than the other? I've yet to set the neck on my first build, but my teacher maintains that it is easier to set the neck angle using a dovetail joint.
Regards.
Is one method "easier" to set the neck angle than the other? I've yet to set the neck on my first build, but my teacher maintains that it is easier to set the neck angle using a dovetail joint.
Regards.
-
tippie53
- Posts: 7013
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:09 pm
- Location: Hegins, Pa
- Contact:
Re: A new look at an old argument
no one is as hard as the other.
John Hall
Blues Creek Guitars Inc
Authorized CF Martin Repair Center
president of Association of Stringed Instrument Artisans
http://www.bluescreekguitars.com
Blues Creek Guitars Inc
Authorized CF Martin Repair Center
president of Association of Stringed Instrument Artisans
http://www.bluescreekguitars.com
-
Tony_in_NYC
- Posts: 827
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:11 pm
Re: A new look at an old argument
John is right. I will add that this one is a bit harder than that one. However, when done right, the other one is much more adjustable than the first one. So, which ever one you choose, this one or that one, you can rest assured that one is harder than, or easier than, the one you didnt choose. Is that clear?
-
kencierp
Re: A new look at an old argument
I would repectfully disagree with John and your teacher -- there are valid reasons "Frank Ford" has deemed the dove tail as the "joint from hell" getting an excellent fit and perfect set angle, while doable requires much more practice and knowledge. Heck -- Bob Taylor launched an entire Guitar Making Company based on the idea of being able to easily adjust the bolt on neck. Here's some info that my be helpful, read all four articles.
http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/neckangle.html
I invite some of the guys that constructed KMG kits to chime in.
http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/neckangle.html
I invite some of the guys that constructed KMG kits to chime in.