Making a set neck VS a neck through

[the_8_string_king]

Thank you for your responses, fellow club-members, I appreciate them all... and I now know something significant that I did not know before.
 
Bob, I initially didn't fully grasp your explaination, although I went to the link and instantly got what a volute was the moment I saw the picture and integrated it to your description.
 
I'm sometimes bad about intuiting undefined terms... for the same reason I totally vegged and didn't fully grasp (the second part of) Bill's witty and humourous post.
 
But this afternoon/now, the obvious suddenly hit me... the scarf joint is like... a SCARF... hiding the Frankenstein neck-line of this point... and then it all made sense.  And then I re-read the previous posts and links as well as the new ones.
 
Hey Pete, thanks, your post was perfect for me as it explicitly made it all clear with no room for uncertainly/having to make assumptions.
 
And Toby, I caught your post earlier before you edited it, but appreciate your sharing your thoughts within the context of your knowledge as well.
 
Interesting...
 
My Europa has the outer Flame maple laminates go all the way up from the body into the headstock; they are continuous pieces of wood on either/both sides; this is, however, a unique custom feature that cost extra (a LOT extra, now).  It begs the question -and I'm curious at this point- if the inner 11 laminates of my neck are also this way or not.  Based on this thread, I'd have to assume they're probably not... that only the 2 outer laminates which were specified to be continous wood... were continous.  I'll have to ask 'em some time.
 
Okay, I get the reasoning: it's cheaper/wastes less wood, and it facilitates/is more conducive to easier repairs... but... IS IT STRONGER, OR WEAKER THAN (the alternative) OF (having/being) CONTINUOUS PIECES OF WOOD?  (Or, is there NO DIFFERENCE, or is it BETTER in SOME WAYS and WORSE in OTHER WAYS?)
 
Any thoughts on that, gang?
 
I have to say I found this kind of shocking.  I always assumed the pegheads and necks were continous wood, and it just rubs me the wrong way intuitively; it seems to me like it would have to be weaker, and like somehow the quality of sound would be less.  But I lack detailed technical expertise in the specifics and nuances of the building specifics and intricacies in this area, so it is just as likely these feelings/impressions are arbitrary and without a basis in reality.  I'd certainly like to know which is the case.
 
88persuader, I hope you aren't getting irritated that I've sort of (by which I mean totally) usurped your thread.
 
I'm also still interested in the original question which I've perhaps distracted people away from, the comparison between the costs/labor of set necks and neck-throughs.
 
Thanks again for taking the time to educate me, folks!

[88persuader]

No problem 8 string king. This thread is interesting.

[flaxattack]

set necks are a bit harder to make than neck throughs
here is the reason per val
 
on a set neck- the angle at which the neck is joined to the body has to be exact or its kaput.
so the neck needs to be machined properly and so does the body- this was one of the reasons my tribute took a bit longer as it was the first one
 
obviously on standard models they know the angle
but it requires more time to do

[88persuader]

Well Flax ... if it's harder to make set necks why don't they make them all neck through? Wouldn't it be more cost effective? They could make the body wings out of cheaper simple wood and use the same lower end electronics to keep the cost down. If set necks are harder to make I don't understand why they bother making them ... especially on the cheaper basses? I'm sure THEY know why they do but I'm a little confused.

[cozmik_cowboy]

Mark, if you glue 2 pieces of wood together, then try to break them apart, I can pretty much promise you won't split the seam - you'll break the wood next to it.  The glue joint is stronger than the wood is.  Also, a long piece of wood (like for instance, oh, I don't know - say a guitar neck) follows the long fibers of the grain of the wood.  To break it you have to break all the fibers.  In a scarf joint, this orientation goes up to the joint, then changes direction so you have the same longitudinal strength in the headstock.  In a one-piece construction, the carving takes the headstock across the grain - to break it all you have to do is separate the fibers fron each other - much easier to do. It's the same reason you can split a log with one good whack of your ax, but to chop it to length takes repeated blows. This weakness in the HS can be largely offset by volutes and laminations, but the core of a scarf joint construction is inherently stronger than one-piece.  
 
Raymond, I'm with you - given the much larger blank needed to carve a one-piece neck, plus the fact that it would seem harder to carve it than to slice and glue, plus it would seem to me (as you said earlier)to be harder to align a set neck, why do they cost less?  And why do them at all?  A scarf joint would work on a set neck (can you say Gibson?) And you could even go belt-and-suspenders and get the best of both - IIRC, the old Martins had a scarf joint with a volute.
 
Peter

[the_8_string_king]

Interesting.  Thanks for the additional post, Peter.  It's good to know this procedure makes the peghead/neck connection even stronger -and why.
 
And it seems to make the original question even more curious.  If it's harder to do the set-necks, why are they charging less for them?
 
I'm really extra curious now.
 
Very interesting post.  Thanks again, all.

[Bradley Young]

My guess is that set necks are more expensive to build tooling for, etc., but are cheaper in the long run.  It is hard to get everything right at first, but then you can turn them out with less cost.
 
Bradley

[the_8_string_king]

Hmmm. That seems like a/the reasonable theory, Occam's razor and all.
 
Confirmation, anyone?

[mica]

The short version is: set necks take less labor to make. about 20-30 hours compared with 50 plus on a neck through.  
 
The medium version is that you can make the whole body for a set neck, sand it on the abrasive planer and it's the final thickness. For a neck through, you need to leave the body slightly thicker than the final size, then hand sand everything to get it to fit well.  
 
The long version: maybe I'll write a book someday.  
 
Why make set necks at all? They happen to sound different from neck throughs. Add that to the fact they can be a little less expensive, and it's rason enough I think.  
 
Mark, don't worry about us charging less for something that is harder to do, we'll only make that mistake once. The bottom line is that the labor is the biggest expense. The more time it takes the higher the price, that simple.

[the_8_string_king]

And there we have it!  Thanks, Mica!

[88persuader]

Yes thank you Mica ... it's nice to get the inside scoop!

[southpaw]

Like many people here, I own Alembics with set neck and neck through, both sound fantastic and both sustain forever. Set neck basses are not entry or lower level Alembics, just a different flavor,with all the Alembic quality.
The consensus here seems to be a neck through bass with ebony lams is the king of Alembic necks, hopefully I will find out someday.

[cozmik_cowboy]

Thanks for explaination on why set-necks, Mica - but why do you not do scarf joints on them?  Just curious....
 
Peter

[jags]

of course the headstock,or part of it is attached. how else can you get a bevel on your headstock? i understand not all have bevelled headstocks,but my anniversary is,and you can tell,in the side ot the headstock between the veneersthere is a fine joint line running perfectly straight,and logically the top is just glue on,its just another loveable laminate