Neck Angle Of 58, 59 and 60.

[Victory Pete]

In this video Phil Harris talks about the increased neck angle from 58, 59 and 60 influencing the sound from a bit mellow in 58 to aggressive in 60. I have 2 ROs that do have high bridges and a great snappy aggressive sound. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[bern1]

In general, I think you’ll find that a steeper neck angle will produce a brighter tone. Using the year as a guideline is dicey, you can find both high and low in any year, though earlier years may seem to have more low bridges than the later guitars.

 

[Hamerfan]

Yep, the angle influences the tone - for sure. But there was oneone at Gibson on Jan. 2nd who said: Listen folks now we make the angle 1 deg. steeper from today on. With handtools of that time it was a great job to meet the specs at all.

 

[Big Al]

The neck angles are consistent. Increased by a degree in 60, mid to late year I believe. I have not noticed a tone difference or a tone signifier attributed to neckangle. With all the separate componate effects in tone how do you just hear pitch angle only, or clearly identify a consistent effect such as brightness? They do not all sound the same and 57-59 can be as bright.

 

[Victory Pete]

Interesting discussion. I am trying to determine what does make my ROs sound very different from my friends R8. His sounded almost dull compared to the "Snap, Crackle, Pop" of my ROs. Could it be the angle, or the thickness of the neck? The BOTB book states the neck is a "Tone Filter", but doesn't clarify anything about different neck angles or thickness.

 

[brandtkronholm]

This topic has been bouncing around the forum for a while now. It's very interesting, but I don't get it. Since the heights of the stop-tailpiece and tune-o-matic bridge are adjustable, one can achieve the same break-angle of the strings over the bridge. A steeper break-angle is possible with a greater neck-angle while top-wrapping might be difficult with a shallow neck-angle.

To further confound things, some opinions state that a bright snappy tone is attributed to a thin neck - a feature of the later 1960 'Bursts. There are so many available ways to adjust the bridge & tailpiece on the 1958-1960 'Bursts (and '57-'58 Gold Tops) that I don't see how it is possible to generalize the sound of these Les Pauls based on the neck angle.

 

[Victory Pete]

This topic has been bouncing around the forum for a while now. It's very interesting, but I don't get it. Since the heights of the stop-tailpiece and tune-o-matic bridge are adjustable, one can achieve the same break-angle of the strings over the bridge. A steeper break-angle is possible with a greater neck-angle while top-wrapping might be difficult with a shallow neck-angle.

To further confound things, some opinions state that a bright snappy tone is attributed to a thin neck - a feature of the later 1960 'Bursts. There are so many available ways to adjust the bridge & tailpiece on the 1958-1960 'Bursts (and '57-'58 Gold Tops) that I don't see how it is possible to generalize the sound of these Les Pauls based on the neck angle.

I hadn't thought about the break angle at the bridge specifically, but more the angle the neck meets the body, but there are many variables.

 

[RocknRollShakeUp]

Interesting discussion. I am trying to determine what does make my ROs sound very different from my friends R8. His sounded almost dull compared to the "Snap, Crackle, Pop" of my ROs. Could it be the angle, or the thickness of the neck? The BOTB book states the neck is a "Tone Filter", but doesn't clarify anything about different neck angles or thickness.

I don’t know about the neck angle thing, but check his neck relief.

All else being equal, I’ve found that a flat neck relief gives better, snappier, brighter tonal response. A flatter relief also allows/requires the bridge to be adjusted higher, thus increasing the string break angle and pressure across the bridge saddles, so that may play into it also.

Conversely, when the relief is too large, the bridge typically has to be lowered (to retain the same action height) and in sum, the strings start to plunk and thud too much, and the tone loses snap and zing.

 

[ADP]

In my experience of playing real Les Pauls, the ones that have the strings closest to the top and have the bridge nearly touching the wood, or in some cases even shaved to fit, are the ones to have.

The best Les Paul I've ever played has a very low neck angle and the strings are pretty close to the body compared to a "regular" Les Paul

 

[Victory Pete]

I don’t know about the neck angle thing, but check his neck relief.

All else being equal, I’ve found that a flat neck relief gives better, snappier, brighter tonal response. A flatter relief also allows/requires the bridge to be adjusted higher, thus increasing the string break angle and pressure across the bridge saddles, so that may play into it also.

Conversely, when the relief is too large, the bridge typically has to be lowered (to retain the same action height) and in sum, the strings start to plunk and thud too much, and the tone loses snap and zing.

Interesting, I always keep my relief to almost non existent. My thinking is it makes the neck stiffer by having a lot of tension in the rod.

 

[Victory Pete]

In my experience of playing real Les Pauls, the ones that have the strings closest to the top and have the bridge nearly touching the wood, or in some cases even shaved to fit, are the ones to have.

The best Les Paul I've ever played has a very low neck angle and the strings are pretty close to the body compared to a "regular" Les Paul

How do those LPs sound?

PS: What do you mean "real Les Paul"?

 

[Victory Pete]

I just noticed the bridge on Phil's 59 has the 6-32 posts sticking out of the top of the bridge, Ouch! Why would they do that? I wonder if the neck angles were just randomly varied.

 

[LeonC]

In my experience of playing real Les Pauls, the ones that have the strings closest to the top and have the bridge nearly touching the wood, or in some cases even shaved to fit, are the ones to have.

The best Les Paul I've ever played has a very low neck angle and the strings are pretty close to the body compared to a "regular" Les Paul

I have no reason to doubt what you experienced. That said...is there any way of knowing that it was only the distance from the strings to the top that made it sound great? Couldn't have had been made some particularly excellent pieces of wood? Or perhaps it had a particularly excellent neck/body joint that transferred sound better. Or could it have had an especially excellent set of pickups and/or wiring harness? The thing is...how can you isolate just one of these factors? When you have a really outstanding guitar, chances are, there's not just one aspect of its components or construction involved...

 

[Victory Pete]

I have no reason to doubt what you experienced. That said...is there any way of knowing that it was only the distance from the strings to the top that made it sound great? Couldn't have had been made some particularly excellent pieces of wood? Or perhaps it had a particularly excellent neck/body joint that transferred sound better. Or could it have had an especially excellent set of pickups and/or wiring harness? The thing is...how can you isolate just one of these factors? When you have a really outstanding guitar, chances are, there's not just one aspect of its components or construction involved...

I understand and agree with you, but my 2 2018 ROs sound identical, at least they did before one got a Bigsby. Pickups both 8Kish

 

[RocknRollShakeUp]

Interesting, I always keep my relief to almost non existent. My thinking is it makes the neck stiffer by having a lot of tension in the rod.

yeah I try to have pretty flat relief too, if the guitar allows it..like no more than .009” and often .006” at most..

I do have an R4 that has the G string slot cut too much into the nut so the G string’s action at the 1st fret is too low, so it buzzes easily if I hit the open string too hard, so I think I gave it .010” of relief, out of necessity..I really start to notice a loss of “twang” when I go more than .010” or thereabouts..

I even think I’ve seen a Joe Bonamassa set up video where he or his tech mentioned loss of tone with too much relief. I’ll try to find it.

 

[Victory Pete]

Here is another video with Bernie Marsden. He demonstrates the progressively increased "Snap, Crackle, Pop" of 58, 59 and 60 reissues.

 

[bluesky636]

Interesting discussion. I am trying to determine what does make my ROs sound very different from my friends R8. His sounded almost dull compared to the "Snap, Crackle, Pop" of my ROs. Could it be the angle, or the thickness of the neck? The BOTB book states the neck is a "Tone Filter", but doesn't clarify anything about different neck angles or thickness.

Different guitars.

Different pickups.

Different pots.

Different woods.

Different setups.

And on and on.

To say the difference in tone is due solely to neck pitch is ridiculous.

 

[Victory Pete]

Different guitars.

Different pickups.

Different pots.

Different woods.

Different setups.

And on and on.

To say the difference in tone is due solely to neck pitch is ridiculous.

You are missing the point. We are discussing possible reasons for why guitars may sound the way they do. Some people are seeing patterns, I am one of them.

 

[Drayve85]

I saw this video a while and had some questions also. Like, are the “snappy, aggressive” ‘60’s only the ones with a thin neck, the later 60’s. Or are there examples of it in all 60’s? It does seem kind of hard to pinpoint the way a Les Paul sounds to just one attribute, but I’ve never played an original, or even enough reissues to have an opinion on it. Just thinkin’ here. Love these discussions tho, btw.

 

[bluesky636]

You are missing the point. We are discussing possible reasons for why guitars may sound the way they do. Some people are seeing patterns, I am one of them.

No, you are missing the point. The sound of a guitar is due to the sum of its parts. To say that something as trivial as a one degree difference in neck angle is totally responsible for the difference in sound between two guitars and ignoring all other factors, is ridiculous. In my opinion, it is as ridiculous as claiming two ring tuners as used on 1960 guitars sound different than one ring tuners used on 1959 guitars.