Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Les Paul neck angle??

  1. #1
    Mojo's Minions lex666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    That's me in the corner - that's me in the spotlight, losing my religion.
    Age
    40
    Posts
    8,690
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default Les Paul neck angle??

    I didn't want to de-rail BloodRose's thread, but I didn't know Gibson had changed the neck angle on their Les Pauls?

    What changed? Does this apply to other Gibson guitars as well?

    Plz edjumacate me. Sorry if I'm late to the party.


    Thanks!
    If I know I'm going crazy, I must not be insane.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLivingDead View Post
    DON'TGETMADBRO

  2. #2
    Mojo's Minions JeffB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    13,920
    Likes (Given)
    897
    Likes (Received)
    370

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    Yes, they did. It enables them to produce more consistently on a production level withiut resorting to a long neck tenon and longer build times due to letting necks and boards settle properly or necks to glue up longer.

    The resulting need for sky high tp and bridge is the result. Some people wont care, but it has a marked effect on tone and playability due to lack of coupling.

    No thanks.
    I'm an internet person. All we do is waste time evaluating things that have next-to-zero real world significance.

    Remember, it's just a plank of wood. YOU have to find the music in it - The Telecaster Handbook

  3. #3
    Saucy Plebe Aceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    I came from outer space - that's how I know your name!
    Age
    47
    Posts
    25,596
    Likes (Given)
    485
    Likes (Received)
    3238

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    Ramped up neck angle eh?

    I haven't noticed this, but i don't like the idea.

    Another brilliant move by Gibson's engineering idiots....able to save money while simultaneously ruining the company/brand. Bravo.

    Like i said - I'm not giving Gibson 10 cents again. There is enough awesome goodness on the markety already, and it's cheaper.
    Quote Originally Posted by jon the art guy View Post
    Aceman, your advice was a rich tapestry of hard-fought research, blood, sweat and tears and the homespun wisdom we've all learned to expect and relish from our itinerant face-painted lunatic. I would like to award you a internet trophy for "best comment on a proco rat discussion". Let it be written in the annals of history; Aceman sure as heck helped.

  4. #4
    John Mayer's Mankini ImmortalSix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Commonwealth of Virginia
    Posts
    22,015
    Likes (Given)
    315
    Likes (Received)
    951

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffB View Post
    It enables them to produce more consistently on a production level withiut resorting to a long neck tenon and longer build times
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceman View Post
    Another brilliant move by Gibson's engineering idiots....able to save money while simultaneously ruining the company/brand. Bravo.
    Perhaps you're not familiar with engineering
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering

  5. #5
    Mojo's Minions JeffB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    13,920
    Likes (Given)
    897
    Likes (Received)
    370

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    No argument from me on efficiency, and resulting money saved, and need for less builder skill. But its stupid from the perspective of building a higher quality instrument. Nobody else resorts to this when utilizing the TOM and stop TP system, whether its chinese budget stuff, or high end booteek or anything inbetween. Nobody.
    I'm an internet person. All we do is waste time evaluating things that have next-to-zero real world significance.

    Remember, it's just a plank of wood. YOU have to find the music in it - The Telecaster Handbook

  6. #6
    Conjugateologist sosomething's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Voidship Earthling
    Age
    33
    Posts
    16,141
    Likes (Given)
    165
    Likes (Received)
    520

    Default

    I didn't think they technically changed the spec on the angle, they just went to a rounded "rocker" bottom on their tenons to relax their tolerances, and so their production associates could "eyeball" it when they were setting the neck.

    I saw it all on a Gibson special on TV. They don't even measure those angles in Nashville.
    -Adam

    Hear or Follow my band:

  7. #7
    Mojo's Minions JeffB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    13,920
    Likes (Given)
    897
    Likes (Received)
    370

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    Quote Originally Posted by sosomething View Post
    I didn't think they technically changed the spec on the angle, they just went to a rounded "rocker" bottom on their tenons to relax their tolerances, and so their production associates could "eyeball" it when they were setting the neck.

    I saw it all on a Gibson special on TV. They don't even measure those angles in Nashville.
    They have been doing that for years, and thus why the neck angles were all over the place. Now they have changed to a specific hard angle that is easy to replicate over and over due to a new.process. They have not t been very open about how its done, but Id wager some new machine/tech they paid alot of $ for.

    It doesnt make any sense cos even the Epiphones are far closer to correct. And of course the historics are too. IDK why they just dont change the top carve back to a historic spec and do it the right way, but I suspect its all about eliminating a very skilled and labor intensiveprocess, as well as having to put far less effort and time into building necks and keeping them and the fingerboard straight, and just plekking to "even everything out".
    Last edited by JeffB; 02-16-2012 at 09:44 AM.
    I'm an internet person. All we do is waste time evaluating things that have next-to-zero real world significance.

    Remember, it's just a plank of wood. YOU have to find the music in it - The Telecaster Handbook

  8. #8
    Just A Minion ErikH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    The Lonestar State
    Age
    42
    Posts
    18,520

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffB View Post
    They have been doing that for years, and thus why the neck angles were all over the place. Now they have changed to a specific hard angle that is easy to replicate over and over due to a new.process. They have not t been very open about how its done, but Id wager some new machine/tech they paid alot of $ for.

    It doesnt make any sense cos even the Epiphones are far closer to correct. And of course the historics are too. IDK why they just dont change the top carve back to a historic spec and do it the right way, but I suspect its all about eliminating a very skilled and labor intensiveprocess, as well as having to put far less effort and time into building necks and keeping them and the fingerboard straight, and just plekking to "even everything out".
    I don't understand either. There are other builders out there that make set-neck guitar kits (such as Precision Guitar Kits) that go together like a puzzle. My SG Jr.'s neck angle is 2.5 degrees. Their LP Custom kit has a 4.4 degree neck angle. Some of the Gibson USA LP models say to be 5 degrees (+/- 15 seconds) and the few Custom Shop models I looked at say 4 degrees (+/- 15 seconds). Just from putting my SG Jr. together, I don't see how it can be that difficult to make the angle shallower by a degree. It's all CNC anyway, just make the adjustments and test it out.

    Looking at the specs of the SG Classic Faded (pretty much same as my non-faded Classic), the neck angle is 5 degrees (+/- 15 seconds).
    Last edited by ErikH; 02-16-2012 at 11:54 AM.

  9. #9
    Mojo's Minions lex666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    That's me in the corner - that's me in the spotlight, losing my religion.
    Age
    40
    Posts
    8,690
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    26

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    Anyone have a graph or something that illustrates the angle change - before and after?
    If I know I'm going crazy, I must not be insane.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLivingDead View Post
    DON'TGETMADBRO

  10. #10
    Fuzzy. Guitars the guy who invented fire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    North of Atlanta
    Posts
    22,418
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    474

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    In the 50's and early 60's it was different than it was in the late 60's which was different than the 70's and again a change in the 80's...same thing wiht headstock angles...

    Who gives a crap...if you like the guitar then play it no need to over think stupid crap about the neck angle, fretboard radius, fret size, etc...

    If someone doesn't want to buy new Gibsons that's fine, they don't care and neither do we...

    FWIW, Gibson is building some of the best guitars they've built since their golden age IMO and I'm glad to it!
    Proudly Klon free!

  11. #11
    Mojo's Minions blueman335's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    15,782
    Likes (Given)
    592
    Likes (Received)
    469

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    Quote Originally Posted by the guy who invented fire View Post
    In the 50's and early 60's it was different than it was in the late 60's which was different than the 70's and again a change in the 80's...same thing wiht headstock angles...

    Who gives a crap...if you like the guitar then play it no need to over think stupid crap about the neck angle, fretboard radius, fret size, etc...
    +1. I like angled necks, but I don't pay attention to what the angle is. Some seem shallower than others (SG's in particular), but it doesn't effect the way I play.

  12. #12
    INTENSELY corrosive sweat formula73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Portsmouth, VA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    5,125
    Likes (Given)
    2880
    Likes (Received)
    767

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    How new is this development? I have an 09 Trad Pro that feels absolutely great. It was the guitar that turned me onto LPs, again, and it's bridge isn't sky high or anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by the guy who invented fire View Post
    In the 50's and early 60's it was different than it was in the late 60's which was different than the 70's and again a change in the 80's...same thing wiht headstock angles...

    Who gives a crap...if you like the guitar then play it no need to over think stupid crap about the neck angle, fretboard radius, fret size, etc...

    If someone doesn't want to buy new Gibsons that's fine, they don't care and neither do we...

    FWIW, Gibson is building some of the best guitars they've built since their golden age IMO and I'm glad to it!
    Agreed. If I had more disposable income, I'd be loaded up with them. Traditionals/Traditional Pros are fantastic and I want one of these new Jr DCs with the baked tajunkarangie wtf-ever board.

    Quote Originally Posted by blueman335 View Post
    +1. I like angled necks, but I don't pay attention to what the angle is. Some seem shallower than others (SG's in particular), but it doesn't effect the way I play.
    Holy ****...a post in which I agree with both TGWIF AND Blueman. The end is nigh.
    Quote Originally Posted by Empty Pockets View Post
    the Les Paul is the ultimate electric guitar.
    i know that's a pretty heavy statement to make and a bunch of dudes that love Teles and shredsticks are gona argue with me, but they're wrong.
    anything you can't do on a Les Paul is because you haven't practiced enough or you don't rock hard enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by sosomething View Post
    You put the "pow" in "power bottom."
    Quote Originally Posted by MetalManiac View Post
    *Thumpety Thump Thump Thump...WHOMP WHOMP WHOMP"

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    69
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    Quote Originally Posted by the guy who invented fire View Post
    In the 50's and early 60's it was different than it was in the late 60's which was different than the 70's and again a change in the 80's...same thing wiht headstock angles...

    Who gives a crap...if you like the guitar then play it no need to over think stupid crap about the neck angle, fretboard radius, fret size, etc...

    If someone doesn't want to buy new Gibsons that's fine, they don't care and neither do we...

    FWIW, Gibson is building some of the best guitars they've built since their golden age IMO and I'm glad to it!
    ^ This...they have changed it a bunch of times already and I haven't seen any piles of '53 Les Pauls at the dump lately.

  14. #14
    Vintageologist crusty philtrum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    7,543

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    I built a LP-based guitar last year and had to calculate the neck angle. It's a complex thing and something that really needs to be done for each individiual instrument because fretboard thickness, fret height and several other things come into the equation. In my particular case, i felt that having the bridge up high would mean less threads contacting the body ferrules so i tried to set the neck in a way that would keep the bridge low to the body while still allowing enough downward adjustment.

    4 1/2 degrees was not enough, 5 degrees was too much. I probably ended up with an angle of about 4.7 degrees and it worked out perfect for my guitar. Half a degree can make a lot of difference in height at the bridge.

    While i was deep into all this, making full-size drawings, measuring the bridge height, fretboard thickness, fret heights etc., i got thinking about how this would have been if i had to make not one but many guitars like this. After all, fretboard thicknesses could end up varying to some degree due to how much sanding was done, and fret heights could vary once fret dressing was completed. So obviously a compromise would have to be reached as way too much time and effort would be wasted addressing the guitars one-at-a-time.

    Following on from that, the bridges would have to be set high enough so that none of them ever found themselves in the position of needing the bridge lowered but the bridge was already as low as it could go. So favouring a slightly high bridge setting would be the only way to ensure that there would always be some downward adjusment room available despite veriables in the geometrical equation.

    So it's a compromise to avoid running into set-up problems. In the case of my guitar, it was a one-off and i had the luxury of taking my time and creating the ideal angle that would provide the best transfer of tone into the wood (most of the bridge posts' threads contacting the body) while still allowing the action to be lowered to the point of unplayability.
    Lumbering dinosaur (what's a master volume control?)

    STALKER, NO STALKING !!!

  15. #15
    High Voltologist Wattage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Rocky Point, NY
    Posts
    11,133
    Likes (Given)
    37
    Likes (Received)
    231

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    Custom Shop makes a reduced neck angle, regular production is really getting crazy these days. Checked out 4 regular production LPs today that had bridges and tailpieces near their max, that isn't right. All the CS were fine, tails down and bridges low with plenty of adjustment in either direction as it should be IMO.

  16. #16
    Li'l Junior Member MetalManiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    PAUL BEARER
    Posts
    11,762
    Likes (Given)
    486
    Likes (Received)
    730

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    Quote Originally Posted by the guy who invented fire View Post
    Who gives a crap...if you like the guitar then play it no need to over think stupid crap about the neck angle, fretboard radius, fret size, etc...

    If someone doesn't want to buy new Gibsons that's fine, they don't care and neither do we...
    !
    Obviously people do care. Why bring up anything about not caring about about buying new Gibsons? This issue is about neck angles and the way they are streamlining the process in a negative way in order to cut costs to make guitars that used to be built in the traditional way, which I believe is the proper way.
    If your Gibson, you can't win. With the rising costs of production,You have to cut corners to make guitars as affordable as they can be , or people start *****ing about prices going up.
    So now, you can buy a Custom Shop for premium price, or pay the same price as usual for a guitar with a less refined neck joint.
    By the way, would these be more vulnerable to headstock break?

  17. #17
    Our Neighbor Totoro FuseG4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    SLC, Utah
    Age
    26
    Posts
    5,878
    Likes (Given)
    544
    Likes (Received)
    123

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    No idea what the neck angle is on my LP but I played it before I bought it and it's fine. Would it be better with a different angle? I don't know and don't care. My bridge and tailpiece are fine, same with everything else.
    ----
    My gear:
    Arisa, Fender American Standard Stratocaster
    Kureha, Squier Vintage Modified Jazzmaster

    Orange OR15 head w/ Vox 112NT cab
    Fender Champion 20

  18. #18
    Li'l Junior Member MetalManiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    PAUL BEARER
    Posts
    11,762
    Likes (Given)
    486
    Likes (Received)
    730

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    Quote Originally Posted by FuseG4 View Post
    . Would it be better with a different angle? I don't know and don't care.
    If I find out my Paul has the wrong kind of neck angle, its not gonna sound near as good as it did before.

  19. #19
    Just A Minion ErikH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    The Lonestar State
    Age
    42
    Posts
    18,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crusty philtrum View Post
    I built a LP-based guitar last year and had to calculate the neck angle. It's a complex thing and something that really needs to be done for each individiual instrument because fretboard thickness, fret height and several other things come into the equation. In my particular case, i felt that having the bridge up high would mean less threads contacting the body ferrules so i tried to set the neck in a way that would keep the bridge low to the body while still allowing enough downward adjustment.

    4 1/2 degrees was not enough, 5 degrees was too much. I probably ended up with an angle of about 4.7 degrees and it worked out perfect for my guitar. Half a degree can make a lot of difference in height at the bridge.

    While i was deep into all this, making full-size drawings, measuring the bridge height, fretboard thickness, fret heights etc., i got thinking about how this would have been if i had to make not one but many guitars like this. After all, fretboard thicknesses could end up varying to some degree due to how much sanding was done, and fret heights could vary once fret dressing was completed. So obviously a compromise would have to be reached as way too much time and effort would be wasted addressing the guitars one-at-a-time.

    Following on from that, the bridges would have to be set high enough so that none of them ever found themselves in the position of needing the bridge lowered but the bridge was already as low as it could go. So favouring a slightly high bridge setting would be the only way to ensure that there would always be some downward adjusment room available despite veriables in the geometrical equation.

    So it's a compromise to avoid running into set-up problems. In the case of my guitar, it was a one-off and i had the luxury of taking my time and creating the ideal angle that would provide the best transfer of tone into the wood (most of the bridge posts' threads contacting the body) while still allowing the action to be lowered to the point of unplayability.
    You make valid points in your case since a lot of hand work was done (and came out fantastic, I might add). With Gibson, all of that is cut using a CNC machine with everything pre-set to cut the same way every time. The fretboard planing is set to be the same thickness every time. It's modern machinery making what used to be a very labor intensive process much more simple. They shouldn't have to change things that much unless there is a valid reason from a design or efficiency standpoint that we don't know about.

  20. #20
    Mojo's Minions blueman335's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    15,782
    Likes (Given)
    592
    Likes (Received)
    469

    Default Re: Les Paul neck angle??

    Quote Originally Posted by formula73 View Post
    Holy ****...a post in which I agree with both TGWIF AND Blueman. The end is nigh.
    You know, this will never happen again; savor the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •