An Off-The-Wall Idea For Y'all To Chew On
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:16 pm
Background -
Discussions abound plentifully regarding the factors contributing to "cabinet drop", "body drop" or whatever ya want to call it. An equal number of debates center around the generation of that elusive - and subjective - topic called "tone". Beefy side plates on the aprons of the cabinet. A broad-based connection of the changer to the top plate. Some have posited that minute movement of the changer contributes to detuning. Emmons and their attempt to couple sonic energy to the cabinet. Carter and their Body Contact Technology (BCT). On and on and on. Ya get the idea. Fill in the blanks.
The neck of an instrument is mostly a passive contributor to both "sustain" (decay) and "tone" although some have elatedly proclaimed that loosening the screws holding the neck to the body has released a bountiful burst of tonal energy. Fill in more blanks.
WHAT IF: -
• The changer were NOT bolted to the body but, rather, made an integral part of the neck assembly.
• That is, bolt the changer directly to a neck which, in close proximity, completely surrounds the changer and THEN secure the assembly to the body with a dozen 1/2" grade 8 bolts. (Ya know that I'm kidding, but you get the idea).
• Would not the assembly contribute to the longitudinal stiffness of the instrument?
• Would not the acoustic energy of the vibrating strings be coupled effectively to the body?
• Any downside to this that I'm not thinking of?
I'm fond of thinking about the various paths of acoustic "loss" in the instrument. The more "loss", the shorter the decay ("sustain"). In comparison to the wooden body, the changer mechanism is rather "lossless" to acoustic vibrations thus transferring more energy to the body which, ostensibly, (and according to many pundits) is the major contributor to the "tone" of the instrument. The combination of changer/neck would provide that much broader base 'twixt it and the body thus - hopefully - transferring more acoustic energy to the body.
Yeh - I know - simply mounting the "pillow blocks" for the changer axle directly to the top of a 3/4" thick neck might place the strings at chest height but an area could be relieved such that the blocks were recessed into the neck such that string height were at an acceptable height.
I'm an old goat and not thin-skinned thus you can flame away at will and eat this thing alive. Just tryin' to stimulate some thinking along these lines for whatever it's worth.
Now, that's the purpose of this forum is it not?
Richard
Discussions abound plentifully regarding the factors contributing to "cabinet drop", "body drop" or whatever ya want to call it. An equal number of debates center around the generation of that elusive - and subjective - topic called "tone". Beefy side plates on the aprons of the cabinet. A broad-based connection of the changer to the top plate. Some have posited that minute movement of the changer contributes to detuning. Emmons and their attempt to couple sonic energy to the cabinet. Carter and their Body Contact Technology (BCT). On and on and on. Ya get the idea. Fill in the blanks.
The neck of an instrument is mostly a passive contributor to both "sustain" (decay) and "tone" although some have elatedly proclaimed that loosening the screws holding the neck to the body has released a bountiful burst of tonal energy. Fill in more blanks.
WHAT IF: -
• The changer were NOT bolted to the body but, rather, made an integral part of the neck assembly.
• That is, bolt the changer directly to a neck which, in close proximity, completely surrounds the changer and THEN secure the assembly to the body with a dozen 1/2" grade 8 bolts. (Ya know that I'm kidding, but you get the idea).
• Would not the assembly contribute to the longitudinal stiffness of the instrument?
• Would not the acoustic energy of the vibrating strings be coupled effectively to the body?
• Any downside to this that I'm not thinking of?
I'm fond of thinking about the various paths of acoustic "loss" in the instrument. The more "loss", the shorter the decay ("sustain"). In comparison to the wooden body, the changer mechanism is rather "lossless" to acoustic vibrations thus transferring more energy to the body which, ostensibly, (and according to many pundits) is the major contributor to the "tone" of the instrument. The combination of changer/neck would provide that much broader base 'twixt it and the body thus - hopefully - transferring more acoustic energy to the body.
Yeh - I know - simply mounting the "pillow blocks" for the changer axle directly to the top of a 3/4" thick neck might place the strings at chest height but an area could be relieved such that the blocks were recessed into the neck such that string height were at an acceptable height.
I'm an old goat and not thin-skinned thus you can flame away at will and eat this thing alive. Just tryin' to stimulate some thinking along these lines for whatever it's worth.
Now, that's the purpose of this forum is it not?
Richard