Hey, y'all! I'm a newby too CBG building, and to Cigar Box Nation. I'm just finishing my first build, but am already planning my second. On my first one, I put the neck through the body, but I have seen others with the neck simply attached to the top of the body. I was wondering if anyone could tell me if there is any difference in tone between the two methods, and if so, which method gives the best tone?
You need to be a member of Cigar Box Nation to add comments!
they've been building instruments with full resonator faces for a long time.. called a banjo. LOL
my very first homemade instruments were all made from tins, with a neck-thru style build, with a bridge resting on teh top/back of the tin. the entire front surface was allowed to resonate and it sounded OKAY.... like a tin banjo...
but tin is very thin, and it caves under the presssure of the bridge , and the notes warble and go off while rining. the weakness of the face surface actually weakened the volume and tone too.
that's one of the earler parts of my journey that led me to the neck-on-front design to begin with, because the neck took all the strain of the strings, and the resonator just attatched to it and vibrated.
back to your idea doughboy, i'd like to see a rectangle body frame with like a diamond-steel plate face on the front... that would be great! or maybe just use diamond plate on the front of a cigar box for a resonator.... OOOOH. :D
it IS true. there is a small amount of volume dampening that occurs with a neck-on-box build, when played acoustically.
however, it plays great and sounds good, because there are fewer fudge factors involved. and amped, it sounds great. it's just a stick with the bridge and nut, and with a nice hard stick for the neck you'll get LOTS of sustain.
if there's any doubts, one could check my videos, where i play acoustic at home and my performance videos where i plug in to the PA for sound.
if have built a neck-through and i hated it. i gave it away. it had a louder volume, but the tone and pitch strayed a little while ringing out, and it had a hard time staying in tune. i put lots of extra work in to an instrument that wasn't playable. for me, that equals a complete waste of time.
i could have built two or three "crow" standard stick-on-boxes in the amount of time it took me to build and attempt to iron out that neck-through.
i fully understand that everyone specializes in different build types, but i've worked very hard to arrive at a build method that meets all of my needs efficiently, and works the best for playing live.
as a builder and a performer,i've achieved my goals, and i'm sticking with "the crow" method.
one final note - for those of us who perform on a regular basis, a properly built neck-on-box build is VERY durable!!!! i've beaten the hell out of mine, and it keeps playing night after night!!
it IS true. there is a small amount of volume dampening that occurs with a neck-on-box build, when played acoustically.
however, it plays great and sounds good, because there are fewer fudge factors involved. and amped, it sounds great. it's just a stick with the bridge and nut, and with a nice hard stick for the neck you'll get LOTS of sustain.
if there's any doubts, one could check my videos, where i play acoustic at home and my performance videos where i plug in to the PA for sound.
if have built a neck-through and i hated it. i gave it away. it had a louder volume, but the tone and pitch strayed a little while ringing out, and it had a hard time staying in tune. i put lots of extra work in to an instrument that wasn't playable. for me, that equals a complete waste of time.
i could have built two or three "crow" standard stick-on-boxes in the amount of time it took me to build and attempt to iron out that neck-through.
i fully understand that everyone specializes in different build types, but i've worked very hard to arrive at a build method that meets all of my needs efficiently, and works the best for playing live.
as a builder and a performer,i've achieved my goals, and i'm sticking with "the crow" method.
one final note - for those of us who perform on a regular basis, a properly built neck-on-box build is VERY durable!!!! i've beaten the hell out of mine, and it keeps playing night after night!!
Hi, Andrew! My guess would be -and this IS just a guess- that in the neck-on-top design, the vibrations travel from the strings to the bridge to the neck to the box, thus creating a "middle man" between the bridge and the sound board, but still allowing it the vibrations to reach the sound board, albeit in a more weakened state. This probably accounts for the decrease in volume?
Andrew Fowle said:
With the neck-on-top cbg, if the bridge is sitting on a solid piece of timber (the neck), won't this render the instrument accoustically dead? I thought the bridge had to be touching the face of the instrument (soundboard) to transfer the vibration from the strings to something thin enough to act like a speaker cone. Then again what I thought doesn't hold much weight, as I've yet to even hear a neck-on-top cbg, let alone make one myself (or make anything for that matter lol).
With the neck-on-top cbg, if the bridge is sitting on a solid piece of timber (the neck), won't this render the instrument accoustically dead? I thought the bridge had to be touching the face of the instrument (soundboard) to transfer the vibration from the strings to something thin enough to act like a speaker cone. Then again what I thought doesn't hold much weight, as I've yet to even hear a neck-on-top cbg, let alone make one myself (or make anything for that matter lol).
All of my current builds have used yet another method, the bolt-on neck. This requires a bit of precision in manufacturing the neck, but it leaves the box much more like a real instrument, free to vibrate. It's also easy to set neck angle if desired.
I prefer neck thru and use a thick piece of wood for the neck. The part that goes thru is just as strong as the neck outside the box on mine, and has lots of sustain. I was of the opinion that the thru neck would sound better than a neck on top of the box until I played around with a Dulcimer made with the neck on top and it sounded great, live and learn. I like the thru better looks wise also but I just may make one top mounted to see how it comes out. Also if its amped I don't think it makes much difference, the top mount may even be better for damping the extra sounds picked up by a piezo. Either way make what appeals to you and have fun.
The points about weaking the neck by cutting away for the top are well taken. I was worried about that, so I glued the cutout piece on the other side of the neck. But, I think there's still an awfully weak spot under the end of the fingerboard, right where the neck meets the body. I've been content with the tone, but I think sustain suffered a lot because of that weak spot in the neck.
I still like the neck-through, but I'm going to use a lap joint on the next one.
well, i think that i am pretty much "the guy" that builds exclusively with the "ON BOX" approach, so i'll throw my 2 cents in...
i have built and played both neck-on-box and neck-thru-boxs. here are my thoughts:
-------------------
NECK-THRU-BOX:
-it is POSSIBLE to aquire better tone and volume with a neck-thru-box build -there are MANY more spots for error to occur: -the cigar box sides have holes or slots which weaken the integrity of the box and may adversley affect tone -the resonating face which supports the bridge may cause the tone and note to vary or warble while ringing through due to a weak face board or an uneven seat between the bridge and face -the shallowing of the neck stick may cause integrity issues -the tail and string stops become more complicated, unless the tail of the stick exits the body at the bottom as well, cauing a second weak spot in the box
in general, its a more complicated build, and theres a lot more error to make.
-----------------------------------
NECK-ON-BOX
-the stick IS the instrument -the stick can be transplanted repeatedly from one resonator to the next for experimentation -the stick can be replaced easily with a better-built neck when ready -all the electrics can be inside the box and are not integrated with the stick at all -the entire instrument can be re-built and improved on-the-fly, as the box has not been cut, and all the hardware is on the stick -the bridge and nut are on the same plane, making it very easy to adjust for preferred playing height of strings -the stick is not weakened by shallowing or cuts, so the sustain may be better than other build types
in all, it's easier to get desirable results and fewer unexpected problems with the stick-on-box method. that's what i've refined it for - ease of build and reliability of results.
---------------------------------------
no matter what you do, make sure you set attainable goals that you can learn from, then play the hell out of it!!!
Thanks, Matt. You're rigth. It wouldn't hurt to try it.
Matt Towe said:
I PREFER to sue the neck thru method. And I will have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised at the sound that did come from my "Crow" build. Look for the "build a cgb in 1 hour" videos. Sound better? Well, I dunno, but it is a different sound. I guess I would have to say I prefer the tone from the neck thru, but go ahead and build one and decide for yourself ....it'll only take an hour er so.
Replies
they've been building instruments with full resonator faces for a long time.. called a banjo. LOL
my very first homemade instruments were all made from tins, with a neck-thru style build, with a bridge resting on teh top/back of the tin. the entire front surface was allowed to resonate and it sounded OKAY.... like a tin banjo...
but tin is very thin, and it caves under the presssure of the bridge , and the notes warble and go off while rining. the weakness of the face surface actually weakened the volume and tone too.
that's one of the earler parts of my journey that led me to the neck-on-front design to begin with, because the neck took all the strain of the strings, and the resonator just attatched to it and vibrated.
back to your idea doughboy, i'd like to see a rectangle body frame with like a diamond-steel plate face on the front... that would be great! or maybe just use diamond plate on the front of a cigar box for a resonator.... OOOOH. :D
Crow said:
however, it plays great and sounds good, because there are fewer fudge factors involved. and amped, it sounds great. it's just a stick with the bridge and nut, and with a nice hard stick for the neck you'll get LOTS of sustain.
if there's any doubts, one could check my videos, where i play acoustic at home and my performance videos where i plug in to the PA for sound.
if have built a neck-through and i hated it. i gave it away. it had a louder volume, but the tone and pitch strayed a little while ringing out, and it had a hard time staying in tune. i put lots of extra work in to an instrument that wasn't playable. for me, that equals a complete waste of time.
i could have built two or three "crow" standard stick-on-boxes in the amount of time it took me to build and attempt to iron out that neck-through.
i fully understand that everyone specializes in different build types, but i've worked very hard to arrive at a build method that meets all of my needs efficiently, and works the best for playing live.
as a builder and a performer,i've achieved my goals, and i'm sticking with "the crow" method.
one final note - for those of us who perform on a regular basis, a properly built neck-on-box build is VERY durable!!!! i've beaten the hell out of mine, and it keeps playing night after night!!
have fun guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Andrew Fowle said:
I still like the neck-through, but I'm going to use a lap joint on the next one.
Crow said:
Matt Towe said:
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next