light vs heavy neck ?

nobleark

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
is a heavy neck better for sound? i heard a heavy stiff neck creates more sustain. where a light one is more punchy with quick attaks like a flemeco style .
 
There are different opinions on many building issues.

Some reckon stiff sides, solid linings, strong neck attachment, and a stiff neck all help in ensuring the string energy generated excites the top and is not dissipated elsewhere: the theory is that this results in more volume and sustain. Some guitar makers also believe the use of a heavy wood for the neck also adds to this.

In the uke world some makers will take some of these factors into consideration and consider there are benefits to be had. I suspect few consider the use of a heavy neck material to be of benefit. Weight balance is important to some uke players so the choice of machine heads is often a consideration. For this reason I suspect a heavy uke neck would be unacceptable to many.
 
the theory is that this results in more volume and sustain.

I don't mean to start a squabble here or a sustained (ha!) discussion, but just would like to point out a persistent fallacy: Volume and sustain are mutually exclusive acoustic events. In other words you can't have both. It is just physics as any acoustic engineer will tell you. Higher sustain means lower volume and higher volume means lower sustain. Guitar makers continue to market this fallacy though: "Our guitars deliver high sustain and high volume!". That is actually physically impossible. Think about it.

"If wishes were horses beggars would ride"
 
Vintage Martin necks are thinner than most of the newer ukes I've seen.
 
yeah i believe a balance of weight and strength is key. pretty much not a great difference in using a softer cedar neck vs a hardmaple neck which is stiffer and heavier.

flemeco guiatrs use cedars necks for low sustain and quick attack and others like to use maple for more sustain from what ive read in guitar world. i do like jake shimabukuros huge headstock with heavy gilbert tuners and also the think cobra headstock with the tiny gotoh tuners
 
A heavy, stiff neck (paired with good joinery) is beneficial for sustain. But there is a practical limit to this.
 
Playability is far more important than neck stiffness. Certainly the neck wants to be as stiff as possible. Most of us use a carbon fiber rod to that end. To my mind though a thinner neck is specially important for female players who generally have smaller hands. Playing a thicker neck will lead to fatigue of the forearm. Having said that a ukulele neck is pretty darn stiff by being so short as compared to a guitar. I believe in a ukulele it's pretty much a non issue.
 
It is what works as a whole, a single element will not maketh the sound, its a summation of all the elements.

As has been mentioned balance is important and a neck that is to heavy will make the uke feel rather odd to hold and play.
 
gore/gilet talk about this in their books and from memeory the sentencegoes like this"never had problems withheavy necks but have had problems with light ones". Why is sustain and volume relationship opposed ie more volume less sustain? just asking.
regards
chris
 
gore/gilet talk about this in their books and from memory the sentence goes like this"never had problems with heavy necks but have had problems with light ones". Why is sustain and volume relationship opposed ie more volume less sustain? just asking.
Regards
Chris

I'm not sure why Trevor says that. It doesn't sound correct to me, but trevor can probably prove it mathematically.
 
gore/gilet talk about this in their books and from memeory the sentencegoes like this"never had problems withheavy necks but have had problems with light ones". Why is sustain and volume relationship opposed ie more volume less sustain? just asking.
regards chris

Well think about it: The sound that comes out is a function of the energy that is put into the system (plucking a string). If the sound lasts longer (sustain) than the energy is released slower over time. If the same amount of energy is released quickly, the sound is louder but lasts a shorter period of time.
 
Last edited:
That argument would seem to work for two systems which had exactly the same string-energy-to-sound-energy efficiency. If you are going to get the same amount of sound energy out of two systems, if it is delivered slower (sustain) it must be lower volume as you state.

However, this says nothing about the efficiency of the overall system, that is, how much sound energy you get per unit of string energy. If there is some energy damping component in one system, you will get less overall sound energy out of the system, regardless of whether it is as volume or sustain. So lets say that you have an instrument with two interchangeable necks. One neck damps the sound more than the other. With the 'damping' neck in place you are going to get less overall sound production than with the non-damping neck in place. This means that both volume and sustain will be lower with the damping neck than with the non-damping neck. One can build for both increased volume and sustain (not mutually exclusive) by making the instrument as efficient as possible at converting string energy to sound energy.
 
I am neither an acoustic engineer nor a physicist, but I like to think about these things.

... If there is some energy damping component in one system, you will get less overall sound energy out of the system, regardless of whether it is as volume or sustain.

Good point and damping must be taken into account. I think you could look at damping as energy "absorption" where the energy is absorbed (as heat?) and there is no sound transmission. Think of a metal bell versus a rubber bell. But here is where I'm skeptical about neck thickness having much (or anything) to do with sound transmission. The connection of the neck to the box is relatively small in area and would be a poor transmitter of energy. Plus, the neck itself does not transmit audible sound. I would think that any damping difference between a thick neck versus a thin neck would be vanishingly small and undetectable.
 
I don't think im talking about thin vs thick neck. more of light soft woods like cedar necks compared to dense heavy wood like maple or even hard koa.

the soft woods wood probably need a carbon rod or a hard wood in between and you can always shave a heavy wood neck thinner to save weight.

but I just read that a heavy dense wood neck make more sustain, but has nothing to do with volume as the soundboard is already thin and braced well for optimal vibration. plus how much volume can you loose from a heavy neck compared to a light neck? i think poly finish like a pono will probably kill the volume.
 
...

The connection of the neck to the box is relatively small in area and would be a poor transmitter of energy.
...

It's huge in comparison to the connection of the string to the box. I've no idea what that proves though.

Also, If you put a contact mic on the headstock you get a pretty good signal albeit along with a lot of finger noise.
 
I don't mean to start a squabble here or a sustained (ha!) discussion, but just would like to point out a persistent fallacy: Volume and sustain are mutually exclusive acoustic events. In other words you can't have both. It is just physics as any acoustic engineer will tell you. Higher sustain means lower volume and higher volume means lower sustain. Guitar makers continue to market this fallacy though: "Our guitars deliver high sustain and high volume!". That is actually physically impossible. Think about it.

"If wishes were horses beggars would ride"

Sequoia, I can attest to this. My banjouke screams when I pick it, or strum it hard, but there is no sustain whatsoever.
A heavy headstock is a big turn off to me. I guess that's why I don't care for open headstocks, as they can be heavier.
 
Top Bottom