Interesting video, niki!

I believe fingerboards do effect tone; sometimes I wish they didn't.
Aesthetically, ebony or maple can really make a guitar just POP, but on electrics, I've never played a 1-piece maple neck or ebony fingerboard I felt happy with. They have qualities, sure, and for another player they may well be perfect but to my ears (and hands), they're just not the same as rosewood (or indeed, each other). For one, the guitar feels different (the way it vibrates not just texture) with different boards - you can really feel just how stiff maple is when you play hard; it's like the fingerboard is trying to buck your hand off! It's almost painful at times whereas rosewood seems to absorb some of the attack. Surely that's going to translate to a difference in sound? It does, buddy, and it's more complex than simply saying that maple is brighter - there's a world of s**t going-on with the mids and I'm really not the best man to explain; somehow I'd weave unicorns in there!

Also quite interesting is that I played a maple fingerboard equipped guitar years ago (a Voodoo Strat) that I loved - the difference being that it had a maple laminated fingerboard. I joined this forum because I wanted to know what type of lamination was used and asked Mike Eldred - he told me (after I found some pics) that it was flat laminated and that period correct (1968) would have been round laminated - the difference being that round laminated would sound brighter. But it's ALL still maple and just a little glue...

I don't like to reference somebody else's point of view to support my case but I hope we can agree that some folks swear it does and others swear it don't - both right? Sure, why not.

Oh Lord: I hate myself for being such a knowitall. But...

Hi AJM: here is a piece of my felled, planked and seasoned ash. This is the most extreme example from a batch much of which turned out very nicely. This is a fully flatsawn plank and shows the force the orientation of the growth rings have on warping in the drying process:



Quite dramatic, huh? Luckily the other planks were much better. And the good news is that once it has fully dried to ambient humidity it is unlikely to move any further. We can now plane that plank true and use it. (That lump of wood is now to be found in the middle of the Burnt Strat, for anyone as remembers it. Once cut square it has stayed stable and true.)

So the answer for you is to dry your small piece of wood before finally cutting it to shape and size. So any warping it has to do will be finished by the time you work it. The radiator thing is absolutely not how you'd go about seasoning timber for proper carpentry, but for the tiny piece you need it will be fine. I'd possibly put it near rather than right on the radiator, but other than that, go to!

If it helps here is a Ceri-diagram of the dimensions to cut a piece to for use in the Clapton trem blocking method:



Good luck.



Hi abzoluut: I'll come clean on what I think about this, though other people's mileage will definitely vary. Theory suggests there must be tiny sonic differences between fingerboard woods. Perhaps we hear those differences in Nick's test and perhaps we don't. And maybe that's down to our own ears and minds too.

But even if there is a difference in that vid it is unarguably a very small one. Far too small to have any significance in a real-life playing situation. Therefore: choose the one you think looks nicest or feels best to your hands.

The most useful thing I ever heard said on this subject was from Forum user Orvilleowner. He pointed out that any real or imagined difference in fingerboard tone was absolutely tiny compared to the difference made by shifting the pickup selector switch one notch. I think that's all we need to know.

IMHO.

Cheers - C

_________________

Agree with Dino.. I recently replaced the neck on one of my Strats, it was my first maple, went back to rosewood, and yes the guitar did get warmer, but it's hardly noticeable, unless you're picky about your tone like I am. The biggest difference for me was the feel, rosewood does feel softer and easier to play, felt like home maybe cause rosewood was all I played for all these years. It was worth a try but I doubt I'll be trying any other maple necks, it's not for me.

Ceri, incredible and detailed explanation about the various types of woods. I had so many of my questions answered just reading your posts and seeing the photos. Thanks!

_________________
American Standard Strat, Sienna Sunburst
Gibson Les Paul, Desert Burst
Gibson SG '61 Reissue, Heritage Cherry

I think it is safe to say that the feel of a Rosewood or Maple (or Ebony) fingerboard should be your number one "concern" because the difference in sound is negligible imho.

If you would close your eyes and listen to someone playing the exact same tune on the exact same guitars, the only difference being the fingerboards (RW and Maple), you will not be able to tell the difference. I am not talking about your own guitars and amps which you know the sound from so well. Just a random person, your eyes closed, not knowing which one he will start with..

Exactly Abzoluut

Between 2 seperate guitars with the same hardware on my vid. The sound difference is miniscule, despite me unwittingly hitting the maple one harder, and the pickups being set different.

Yet despite evidence, people will still deny the reality of the results.

_________________
No no and no

Great.. Nice Thread.

I don't think I missed it but in the context of quartersawn wood.
As a remodeler, when it comes to finish stock for interior trim casings as well as exterior applications ( more importantly in exterior ).
It is not superstition, quartersawn is always preferable and over the long term will outperform.
A boards tendency as it cures after cutting is to contract as the moisture content decreases.
Quartersawn resists the tendency to cup excessively since the growth rings are perpendicular rather than almost parallel.
A piece of pine can illustrate that quite well.
Take two lenghts of freshly milled pine, a foot long or so. One quatersawn, the other flat sawn.
set them up to dry in the same room close to each other but not on each other. you can stack them but separate them with small pieces so that ambient air can travel in between the planks as well as over and under (sideways down )
Let them dry out for a couple of weeks or even months.
The flatsawned piece will be cupped dramatically more than the Quartersawn.

By the way, this will work in reverse, same criteria but now the lumber is re-exposed to excessive moisture, then when the drying out process begins again, same result.
Hence why quartersawn is preferable.

_________________
"C'est parti mon Kiki "

See below

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"

Hi 53: I support every word you said. Moreover, my photo of a warped (or as you say, "cupped" - I like that phrase! ) piece of ash earlier on this page exactly illustrates what you are talking about.

Another word on that, though. As I mentioned, once that piece of wood was finished seasoning it didn't move any further. I planed it square and then used it and it has stayed absolutely stable ever since.

What's more, Fender (and everyone else) have constantly used flatsawn cuts in their guitar bodies. For example, my '75RI Jazz Bass and my MIK Tele both have Natural finishes so from the ends one can see that each has flatsawn timber in their construction. Neither shows the tiniest hint of warping - and indeed we almost never hear of body timbers warping. It must have happened somewhere sometime, but it definitely isn't a significant problem.

I just say this to make the point that whereas a cabinet maker certainly wants the finest cut of timber he can find, it is not crucial in guitar building. Indeed, nearly all production Fenders have flatsawn or riftsawn wood in their necks as well as their bodies without any problems at all.

So spending more for a quartersawn neck in an EJ Sig Strat or a Custom Shop model is nice - but not vital.

That's the point I'm out to make.


Hi Doc: without a doubt you have handled and also owned more Clapton Strats than I will ever see. Your word is law on this subject.

But just to clarify: the wedge shaped block I illustrated comes from dimensions mentioned by Fender factory setup worker Albert Garcia. He uses a block that shape for his highly recommended version of the setup procedure, and I have found it works well for permanent trem blocking too.

If you say the block in the Clapton Sig is rectangular in shape I'm sure that's fine, but I'd still suggest that Garcia wedge shaped one as an option because it permits us to control exactly how firmly seated it is by how far we push it in, and also allows for leeway in the gap between trem block and the back of the cavity. After all, not all Strat trem blocks are created equal in size - as we've heard at... um... some length.

And for anyone who thinks this thread is just too anally retentive - find another thread!

Cheers guys - C

_________________

I'm absolutely sure the wedge shape block is for modern trem systems, to better fit the contour of the tremblock.
It would always have a bit hanging out on a straight sided vintage trem block. Then you'd end up with the sharp corner of the tremblock constantly pressing into the wood block.

Be back with a photo in a min

_________________
No no and no

Hee-hee - me too!

But not till tomorrow I'm afraid. Running out the door to do - stuff.

Later - C

_________________

Ok here's the block sitting in the back of my Custom Classic



Showing off the angle cut




Try putting that against a vintage trem and you end up with minimum contact. Not making for a stable block. You'd either have the corner of the tremblock pushing into a flat edge of the wood block. Or the flat of the tremblock/cavity wall acting on a sharp point of the woodenblock.
It would wear pretty quickly.
I couldn't even get the thing anywhere near in place with the hotrod.



(look at the colour difference between the silver undercoat CAR and the gold undercoat CAR)

_________________
No no and no

I believe you, you wouldn't be able to tell. I believe I would, however - why don't you believe me?

A range of Strats played through a dirty Marshall? Abzoluutly, I'd ace that test!
I'd expect to hear the all-maple one display a boxiness to its sound - particularly when played aggressively; it would sound the most compressed.
Played cleanly? I'm not so sure I could tell if I wasn't playing them. I'm a rock player and my experience with clean sounds is limited, to say the least!

Din0
My completely pragmatic and non argumentative reason is.
Because I believe my own ears above all else. Sorry to say. People who claim a difference will never tell you what frequency range is the increase in? I'd expect someone who could identify the difference to accurately place where the difference is. Within say 50/100 mhz at least, concerning the high frequencies.
How can anyone attribute that to the fretboard alone, compared to other differences that I've been completely open about? I tried my hardest to make as impartial a test as possible. Yet I'm fallible and over looked things. Why the volume increase on the 2nd guitar (someone with far better ears than mine estimated it at around 3db). Because of the pickup height difference that I'd overlooked. Or because of a difference in how I hit the strings?
On a dirty amp, how can you hear anything accurately and rule out the amps response to any of the contributing factors that make up a guitars sound (including those mistakes I made, mentioned above). It's just another added component to cloud the results as far as I can see. The same as I judge tests where people play a set piece of music with added effects when comparing the sound differences in certain components. Demonstrate the thing to be shown, not the amp or effect or even playing skills. These big companies pay loads to have people demonstrate how good their playing is on the companies product. I own a strat but don't sound like Clapton. They are two very different things, sound demonstration and play demonstration.

Then atop all of that, looking at the way sound vibration works and how pickups work. I seriously doubt the relevance of body or neck wood on the guitar pickups and scale length at all. But there was an exhaustive thread on that a while back.

That is my take on it and why I won't be swayed. If someone can show me I'm wrong on that, I'll willingly change my mind. I used to believe in tone wood too, until I started looking for myself rather than believing my own suppositions. If you or anyone else wants to prove me wrong, visually and auraly, I'll glady accept it. It's certainly a damn sight easier than constantly explaining my reasonings.

_________________
No no and no