Taylor's new neck design--Review?

Subject: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Fortunato
Date: 28 Mar 00 - 12:32 PM

Just watched Taylors New Neck Design video. I was impressed. The neck can be unbolted and reset in five minutes and because the neck extends into the body and the fretboard is supported through its entire length the relative setup is maintained. The neck remains flat, always, never 'hinging' at the body when the neck angle is changed. What do you all think?

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 28 Mar 00 - 12:39 PM

I've heard about this, but haven't examined any of the new Taylor necks. I suspect that it'll take a while before we all have a good sense of how well their new construction approach works out. Have to say, though, that I thought their old necks were pretty damn good.

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Bert
Date: 28 Mar 00 - 12:43 PM

Tell us more!

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Mooh
Date: 28 Mar 00 - 12:57 PM

I've got the video, and I've played a guitar or two with the new neck attachment and I think the new technology hasn't hurt the sound at all, and has likely improved the stability of the construction. However, as with all things about acoustic guitars, give it a few years and the Frank Fords of this world will be able to tell us for sure if it's an improvement.

By the way, if any of you don't like your new Taylor guitars, I can arrange for the shipping of them to my address, and I'll pick up the shipping charges. I've got GAS but little budget.

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Fortunato
Date: 28 Mar 00 - 02:07 PM

Bert. I'm sure others could do a better job of explaining, but, in their absence... In traditional design the neck stops at the body of the guitar and the fretboard extends over the top of the guitar and is glued directly to it. Therefore when the neck must be adjusted backward or forward to allow for curvature of the neck (necks generally tend to fold forward over time), there occurs a 'hinging' of the fretboard where it joins the body. In other words when the neck moves the part of the fretboard glued to the guitar top does not. Taylor's new design has an extension of the neck under almost all of the fretboard and this neck piece slots into the top of the guitar.

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Bert
Date: 28 Mar 00 - 02:27 PM

Thanks, it sounds like a good idea.

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Fortunato
Date: 28 Mar 00 - 02:42 PM

Hey Mooh. Who's Frank Ford? I don't have any Taylor's I don't want. Would you like a teenager?

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Mooh
Date: 28 Mar 00 - 03:22 PM

Fortunato,

No thanks on the teenager, got one of my own. Unlike guitars, I can stop at one. Oops, for a couple of years I'll have two. I'm hopelessly devoted to them.

Frank Ford is of frets.com , one hell of a site for stringed instrument interests. Seriously worth looking into, since he's the ultimate guitar guru, at least as I see him. His site has everything, very very little advertising, and it's a labour of love.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Lanfranc
Date: 28 Mar 00 - 05:13 PM

Back in the 60's I owned a guitar, Scandinavian in origin if I remember right, called a "Nashville Model 10" which had just the type of neck joint described above. It was a reasonable instrument, but I only owned it for about two years (I traded it for a more conventional, if more expensive, Gibson J45) so I can't speak for it's long-term stability.

I've never seen another since, but it goes to show that there is nothing much new in lutherie.

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: GUEST,Fortunato, remote
Date: 28 Mar 00 - 08:25 PM

Alan. thats interesting. My description of the Taylor design was not complete nor do I feel I fully understand all the implications. But it is interesting to think that Bob Taylor's design could be drivative. Of course what guitar design would not be derivative?

fortunato

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Troll
Date: 28 Mar 00 - 10:54 PM

Kay also put out a bolt-on neck in the (I believe) late 50's. The one in my collection is not playable at this point (no strings) but as I recall it did ok the last time I played it as far as neck-set etc. The tone was something else. Thats probably why I never re-strung it. I've played one of the new taylors.Nice, but as the man says, time will tell.

troll

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 29 Mar 00 - 10:57 AM

One of the problems with bolt on necks is the way folks view the esthetics of it. Doesn't bother me in the least. I just want a STRAIGHT neck. Go for it Taylor.

Rick

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Lanfranc
Date: 29 Mar 00 - 05:18 PM

I've been dredging my memory, and recall that the neck on my Nashville bolted on to a block in the body like the Eko. However the block was less massive and extended in an inverted L-shape under the last few frets of the fingerboard to the soundhole. The neck below the fingerboard was then dovetailed into the block. It seemed a reasonable way of going about things but never caught on - until now, perhaps.

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: jofield
Date: 29 Mar 00 - 11:39 PM

OK, I'm picturing a neck-sized block of wood extending into the body of the guitar, changing the acoustics of the sound chamber. Is this right?

James.

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Fortunato
Date: 30 Mar 00 - 08:35 AM

The acoustics are unaffected according to Bob Taylor.

As others above have said, time will tell.

cheers, Fortunato

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Easy Rider
Date: 30 Mar 00 - 09:26 AM

I have generally found that guitars with bolt on necks, Taylor, Collings, have a stronger midrange response and not as rich or deep a bass as guitars with traditional, glued, dovetail joints, like Martins and Gibsons. Taylors do project very well, though. Maybe this has to do with the lack of glue in the joint or the extra density of the bolts and bolt anchors. I don't know. I just don't like the tonal balance.

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Fortunato
Date: 30 Mar 00 - 10:53 AM

Thank you Easy Rider, have you played the new Taylor design, shipped after jan 1, 2000 (I think)?

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Scotsbard
Date: 30 Mar 00 - 03:52 PM

From the construction and maintenance standpoints bolt-on necks are definitely much less expensive, but they also seem to affect the acoustic response. Bolted necks require additional structure and compressive preloading near the joint, both of which may affect the frequency response of the cabinet. It seems fine for electric guitars, but all of the acoustic bolt-ons I've played to date have had weirdly uneven resonances.

I've never seen a rigorous scientific comparison using two designs as similar as possible except for the fastening, but would be interested if anybody knows of such a study.

~S~

Subject: RE: Taylor's new neck design--Review?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 31 Mar 00 - 08:23 AM

There seems to be a little confusion here, at least among some of us. Taylor has been making their guitars with bolt-on necks for years; there's nothing new about that. Other manufacturers through the years have also made guitars with bolt-on necks (both acoustic and electric). Over the years Taylor has made much of the fact that a bolt-on neck makes resets easier, which is true.

If I understand it correctly, the thing that is new about Taylor's latest design is that the upper end (body end) of the fingerboard is not glued or otherwise attached to the soundboard. So when you reset the neck, you don't have to deal with a fingerboard that has been warped above the neck joint, and you don't have to be so painstaking about separating the fingerboard from the soundboard. Hence, resets are even easier. There is debate out there about the wisdom of all this -- some luthiers (Jean Larrivee, for example) will tell you that their dovetail-joint necks are stable enough that they won't ever need a reset. Others question whether it is wise to design a guitar around the neck reset issue at all. But Taylor knows a thing or two about what he's doing, so I wouldn't be quick to dismiss this idea.

As fopr consistency of sound, I don't have the most well-tuned ears on the planet, but in my experience Taylors have a very consistent response from low to high registers -- much more consistent, in fact, than many of the more traditional dovetail joint guitars like Martins. Now, when all is said and done you may not LIKE a consistent response -- lots of folks prefer the low/low-mid "woof" that a Martin dreadnaught produces, particularly for solo playing (in an ensemble situation the lower frequencies sometimes get lost anyway). But it seems to me that Taylor has gotten past any issues of tonal inconsistency that otherwise might exist for bolt-on necks in general.