-
I have been on and off regarding whether I should sell my The Loar LH-300
Main reason for selling:
- The neck feels uncomfortabe, it is big and thick, and my left hand gets tired. I tend to play it differently, I much more often use my thumb for a bass note and just one or two chord notes, and avoid barre chords to make it easier for the hand).
Main reasons against selling:
- It sounds really really great.
- I don't really need the money (but of course, money is money).
So I was wondering, is it a realistic option to have the neck reshaped? Is it something that is common to do to guitars after they are ready built?
I would preferably like to decrease both the neck's depth and the width (so I guess I'd also replace the nut for a narrower one), but only decreasing the depth would be nice too, I realize that decreasing the width would require narrowing the entire fretboard and shorten the frets.
Would it perhaps affect the sound too much?
Is it perhaps a very time consuming job that would perhaps cost many times more than the guitar.
(I live in Stockholm, and all labour cost is relatively high (most of it goes to the tax), if anyone can recommend somone in the area who could do the job well, I'd appreciate it).
-
01-23-2014 11:48 AM
-
the neck is a huge part of the sound and resonance of a guitar. I had a neck reshaped once and it effected the tone of the instrument. Whether the change is for the good or the bad, only you can be the judge. And if you're lucky the difference will be imperceptible.
But, I would try to find a different instrument. Heritage is well known for slim necks so maybe you'll find something closer to your liking with one of their instruments.
-
I've recontoured most of the necks on guitars I've owned. I have relatively small hands and once an instrument fits my hands, it's something I can't put down. You may be surprized to find that it doesn't take a lot to make a neck feel radically different. For me the shape is more important than the mere reduction in cross section.
If you go that route, accept that the guitar will be yours pretty much forever; it's a real personal customization.
Find a good luthier and make sure it's one you can work with through the process. Trial and error. And to really judge, the neck should be brought to as smooth as it can be, strings in place for you to really judge what it feels like. And then of course it will need to be scraped back again to make any further alterations.
It takes me about 40 minutes plus finishing to get a neck to be a perfect fit to my hands. For me it's not only worth it, but it's truly what makes an instrument an extension of myself.
I am a luthier and I'm not recommending this for just anyone. You decide but I'm just weighing in on one instance where it's been done and has provided a solution you're asking about.
David
-
So I was wondering, is it a realistic option to have the neck reshaped? Is it something that is common to do to guitars after they are ready built?
I would preferably like to decrease both the neck's depth and the width (so I guess I'd also replace the nut for a narrower one), but only decreasing the depth would be nice too, I realize that decreasing the width would require narrowing the entire fretboard and shorten the frets.
Would it perhaps affect the sound too much?
Ahem. I have an LH-700, which took a big ugly gouge to the neck when my little dog knocked it out of the stand and onto the leg of a heavy steel office chair. I sent it to Famous Luthier for opinion. It arose in phone conversation, once the guitar had arrived at Luthier's shop, that he was the very guy who had reduced the neck in Tony Rice's now-famous pre-war D-28 Martin. The Loar's neck was a handful - no doubt. So neck reduction surgery on the Loar, for way too much money, and it's big, big regret now.
The guy misunderstood, for one thing. He's a Taylor dealer, and I said I liked the neck shape in those, but I had no desire for an archtop to be that way. So, God bless telephones, the 700 now has a Taylor neck.
What you LOSE is a lot of volume. The solid wood Loars have volume to spare, so the LH-700 still sounds nice, but I know, every time I play it, what it used to be. I like "loud" in an acoustic archtop. As Jack Z. said, the neck is VERY important in determining the tone and volume of a guitar. That's definitely so, it appears, in the Loar archtops. The LH-650 w/humbucker has a slim "normal" guitar neck, and the sound is NOT what most would like for playing acoustically, imo. Despite solid wood. Plugged in - really sweet.
If you don't like the LH300s sound now, much of a neck reduction will make things worse, imo.
kj
-
i personally think folks get too anal about these things. At one point I had a boat neck tele, my slim neck heritage eagle, a slim suhr strat and a fat neck'ed 6 string bass.
With diligence, I was comfortable on all of them. I couldn't imagine taking the neck on the 6 string bass down to match the Heritage eagle.
Seriously, it's quite possible to get used to most any neck. I have small hands and the boat neck tele was fine when I got used to it. A bonus is those boat necks sound really fat and sustain like crazy.
-
Agreed, Jack. The acoustic I play most is an LH-600, which has virtually the same neck as the 700. If not for the gouge in the neck, none of this crap would have happened, in my case.
Wanna see a big neck, I have a 1947 Gretsch New Yorker - cheapo guitar - and THAT neck is huge. But play it ten minutes and you forget all about it.
-
agreed. my second guitar teacher was 5'6 and played an 18" Epiphone Emperor which had a neck that Babe Ruth would have loved.
I have to admit, I love the slim neck on my heritage eagle but I've also loved just as much the boat neck on my tele...
-
I agree. To the original poster, you mentioned that your hand gets tired playing the thicker neck. I also have had guitars with lots if different neck sizes and shapes and have always been able to get used to them. Perhaps the discomfort is coming from a combination of the thicker neck and a poor setup. What is the action like on it? More importantly, what is the relief of the neck? An eighth of a turn on the truss rod can sometimes make a significant difference in ease of playing. Just thinking out loud.
Originally Posted by jzucker
i personally think folks get too anal about these things. At one point I had a boat neck tele, my slim neck heritage eagle, a slim suhr strat and a fat neck'ed 6 string bass.
With diligence, I was comfortable on all of them. I couldn't imagine taking the neck on the 6 string bass down to match the Heritage eagle.
Seriously, it's quite possible to get used to most any neck. I have small hands and the boat neck tele was fine when I got used to it. A bonus is those boat necks sound really fat and sustain like crazy.
-
Clint Strong has Les Paul with reshaped neck...I think he like it.
I did profesional reshaping on my classical guitar few years ago.Sound did not change.
-
I don't remember the source for this, so I hesitate to say... but I do remember that it was a reputable source - which is why it stuck with me. This article's point was that a big chunky neck, maybe unless you're doing constant thumb chords, requires far less muscle work to do a given thing - scale, lick, chord shape - than a skinny neck.
It makes sense I guess. A hefty neck would do much of the work for you...does that make sense to anybody else?
Think of playing ii-V-I's, something like the bridge of Cherokee. With a slim neck, aren't your hand muscles gonna be moving and flexing, and the opposable-thumb maneuver would simply be required to do more work - no?
Shoot, I don't know. I'm certain though, that I read this in a trustworthy article. The point was that a big neck lets
you play longer without becoming tired.
================
BTW, here's the Loar w/"Taylor neck" - for what it's worth. I liked the big neck better. : ( It's for sale, btw. A good L5 clone, but w/slender neck.
-
My feeling and experience is there are different styles of playing, thumb wrap, thumb riding up the bass side, classic, pads of the hand fretting, tips of the hand fretting, etc. There are hands that are small all around, there are hands that are large with small fingers, small with long fingers (like mine) and combinations within. For any of these, there is a zone of comfort, and outside of that, it becomes unfeasible. I've played necks that were too thick, and it was something I could have gotten used to, but compared with a neck that really "fit" my hand, there were things I play effortlessly on a neck I've matched to my hand. There are voicings I wouldn't have gone for on a neck that was outside of my optimum comfort zone, and hand fatigue I experience on a neck that's too thin.
Sometimes something feels really good at first, but over usage and time, they turn out to fatigue me.
Now this is just me, and me with the luxury of being able to do the work myself, and me playing voicings you may not, but it is one of the things, that when offered to a customer as a luthier of custom guitars, is a consideration for myself and some customers.
Addressing an issue of sound loss, I agree. There can be a change of sound and volume. It depends on the neck material, the "Q" and resonance of that piece of wood, the amount of wood taken off (mass is linear, stiffness is logarhythmic so as you remove wood you won't experience a measurable degree of change in the stiffness until you reach a point then it changes very quickly), and that's the reason you get a good luthier and don't leave it to their imagination.
Sometimes even a tiny amount of wood off the depth, plus the considerable amount from the finish, and a softening of the contour from a boxy profile to a softer C or D, or as in my case, an asymmetrical profile with a slight flat on the bass side (I play classical style with the thumb on the neck) can make a huge difference with not a lot of wood removed at all. Refinishing with something that's NOT thick poly also makes a world of difference.
Personally, if somebody said they'd do it themselves, I'd caution heavily. Let a luthier run wild, I'd caution heavily. Set out without an idea of what you want, caution with lots of care. But done right, it can make a big difference.
I've had a number of people build DIY's with Warmouth necks. I sit with them and we find their profile. They're keepers for professionals who will be playing through an extension of their bodies.
Not something do be done thoughtlessly. That's the bottom line.
Good discussion
David
-
It's definitely a job for a true craftsman.
Last edited by cosmic gumbo; 01-24-2014 at 05:53 AM.
-
TruthHertz writ:
Let a luthier run wild, I'd caution heavily.
Now you tell me.
kj
-
Thanks everyone for your replies. I really appreciate it.
I really like the LH300's sound now (that's why I am hessitant to sell it). Originally Posted by Kojo27
It is pretty loud so losing some volume is fine with me, but I would prefer to keep the character as much as possible.
I also own a LH650. I like the LH650's neck much better (but I prefer even smaller necks with a smaller necks.
I have thought about that too. Originally Posted by jzucker
I have raised and lowered the bridge serveral times and tried different actions. It's the usual buzz vs. easier to play trade off. I try to set it as low as possible and have a bit of fret buzz sometimes. Originally Posted by AlainJazz
I am not that good with set up and trussrod adjustment, but I've done the simple test where you press the string down on the first and the last fret and examine the distance between the string and the frets, and it looks fine to me. When I've set the action low, the fret buzz isn't clarely more in one (or two) specific place on the neck, so I guess the relief is relatively fine, even though it could possibly be improved.
-
Can you quantify what you mean by "fine". The adjustments are subtle but make a huge difference. Would you say that the distance between the string and the fret while checking the relief is about the size of which string? I.e about the same as the thickness of the E or maybe B string? Or does the string actually touch the fret? This is really easy to adjust.
-
Originally Posted by TruthHertz
This is so true. Removal of 1mm or less can make a big difference in how the neck feels. But before altering a neck, you need to have a good idea of what you're going for. I would get detailed measurements of a neck I loved and see if that could be duplicated on the Loar without removing too much wood. I would not attempt to make the fingerboard narrower in width.
I kind of agree with those who say that you should be able to adjust to different size necks. But if you just can't get used to that big neck, and understand the possible consequences, shaving the neck could work for you.Last edited by Gilpy; 01-24-2014 at 01:00 PM.
-
i personally would never have a neck thinned because your hand is getting tired. If your hand is getting tired you are either applying too much pressure or your muscles are not yet developed.
I see this with a lot of beginning/intermediate students. They are gripping the neck with such ferocity that their hands are hurting. Yet, I show them that I can play without even touching the thumb to the back of neck. How can this be? Can I lift 50lb weights with my fingers?!? No, but the muscles in my hand are developed from practicing so I can apply the pressure to the finger that needs it in a very specific way. Callouses don't hurt either.
But hand pain is almost never related to the size of the neck. In every case where a student developed pain, I was able to coach them through it with a practice routine.
NOTE - I am not talking about repetitive motion injuries. That is something altogether different...
-
When you set the action low and get fret buzz in one or two places it means that the fret heights are uneven. Get the frets dressed and that buzz will go away. Then you can lower strings even more if you like.
-
just that it looks fine as far as I know. Similar to a new guitar or a guitar that has just been set up by a pro (as far as I can judge). It just means that nothing looks strange, most space between string and frets are in in the middle of the neck and then gradually decreases. Originally Posted by AlainJazz
Distance between string and fret in the middle of the neck is about the same as the thickness of a business card (it was a rule of thumb I saw somewhere), similar to the B string's thickness perhaps.
If one (or two or three) fret is uneven you can check it by, pushing the string on the nearby frets and examine. Originally Posted by kenbennett
For exampe if you get buzz on only 6th fret. Push your string on 5th and 7th, see if it looks the same as if you repeat the test for some other two frets, equally far apart.
In my experience, if the truss rod adjustment is off and you set the action low, you would get most buzz on maybe 8th fret and then it would gradually decrease the further you move from the 8th fret (don't know if it exactly the 8th or some other close by, probably depends on the guitar).
Or if the truss rod adjustment is off in the direction, you could see a simliar phenomenon in two places. on each side of the neck's middle.
I wouldn't say that I feel pain, or that I experience tiredness in the hand after playing (get a bit tired of holding some chords until I release them). Originally Posted by jzucker
It's more like I don't bother to use chord shapes that require more force.
If you have a guitar with a thick neck and heavy string gauge. At least I think it requires significantly more amount of force to play a barrechord on the 1st fret (and it is easier to play barre chord on other frets)
So what I have a tendency to do is to play F major as 1x321x with the thumb on the 6th string, rather than using a barre chord (just one example), it feels much easier.
It is mostly a tendency to be lazy and not bother.
I once remember my guitar teacher told me that I should practise more voicings and chordshapes so that I wouldn't need to move my hand so much up and down the neck to be able to play the limited amount of chordshapes in my comfort zone. (and I did spend a lot of effort to learn more voicings and chordshapes, his argument appealed to me )
I have played guitar for about 17 years, and I think I have at least passed the beginner phase, but I might be in the intermediate phase. I doubt I am using too much force. I think I have rather good feeling for how much force is required.
But it could be that I haven't developed enough left hand/palm/finger strength.
My main guitars have been a strat, an SG and a 335 inspired (I've mostly used 12s in that one (it was my "jazz guitar" before I got my Loars) but 10s in the two others) all have rather similar necks, and most of my practising and playing hours have been on these 3 guitars.
-
if it's harder to play a chord on the first fret your nut is cut too high.
-
I recommend you try and give the truss rod an eighth of a turn to the right (clockwise while looking at the headstock from above).
-
Hello Orri,
I was very interested to read your original post. I have an LH-600 which I've had extensively re-worked. You didn't mention if your reference point of comfort would be an electric neck but I'd say the Loars come from the factory with nut and string spacing set very much like a flat top acoustic guitar. The luthier who worked on mine changed the nut, the bridge and also re-profiled the fretboard edge via the binding. The guitar is now much less tiring on the hand and retains more or less of it's original tone (it also has a CC pickup fitted which did dampen the top). I do find however, that the sheer girth of the Loar neck doesn't lend itself too well to "thumb over" bass note chording, although surprisingly the V profile neck does tend to orientate the players thumb towards that direction.
The luthier who carried out the work for me was John Moriarty of Dublin.( www.archtop.ie .) Perhaps you may wish to e-mail him for more specific info.
All the best.
Puby.
-
I created this thread almost 2 years ago.
I've been struggling with this guitar, because it sounds so really nice, and because the neck make it less enjoyable to play.
I decided to try to do this myself. This guitar didn't cost so much initially anyway, so I decided it would be worth the risk. (In the worst case I could have one guitar fewer, or pay a luthier to fix it, get a new neck even). I also had bit of confidence in my own ability that it would probably not get a lot worse.
It wasn't that difficult.
The hardest part was to remove the original lacquer. It was quite hard to sand or file off, I was hesitant to use a sanding machine but ended up doing that anyway. Beneath the lacquer the wood was relatively easy to form.
I made two stencils out of cartboard (one matching at 2nd fret and one matchinh at 10th since the neck width tapers), where I cut out the C-neck profile of my loar 650 to use as reference (but didn't bother much to make an exact match).
There was quite small amount of wood that I removed.
I then had a clear satin nitro cellulose spray lacquer that I used to finish it.
I'm really happy with the final result. It of course doesn't look as good since I didn't even try to match the colour, but the neck feels much better now, guitar is more enjoyable to play, and I can't hear any difference in the sound.
Last edited by orri; 11-15-2015 at 10:33 AM.
-
Nice work there Orri.
It's a real sense of achievement when you can change something for the better!
-
good for you. I did the same thing with a horrible v neck once, now it is much more playable.
Reply With Quote
Loar Vs. Samick (Tone Examples)
Today, 12:29 PM in The Songs