• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Lets talk about the Yamaha BB

I saw it done. What else can I say?
I wasn't questioning that you saw it. I was questioning your conclusion that because you saw it therefore the strings always pull the neck straight into the pocket and won't pull the neck forward. If the strings didn't try to pull the neck forward, there would be no need for a truss rod.

Yes, if the neck has such a tight fit (common on pre-cbs instruments) that the neck is essentially "stuck" in the pocket by friction - if that friction is strong enough to withstand the pull of the strings the neck may not pull forward. But I assure you the strings are pulling and the neck will pivot forward if the neck is free to move -- in your example the neck was held in place by friction.

But to the point of this thread - I think the Yamaha method of securing the neck is a great idea.

I have no strong feelings about whether or not thru body stringing makes any difference in tone or feel - but if you're going to do it, I think the Yamaha angled method is superior. There are several brands of flat wound strings that cannot handle the sharp bend of a normal thru body stringing without breaking the string.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lackey
While I think the 45 degree angle for stringing is likely an improvement (If you’re a strings through the body person), I pretty much think the angled neck bolts are fixing the problem that isn’t actually a problem. But it is an easy sales bullet point I guess, for those who think that it might be a feature.

That said, my Yamaha maybe 614 is one of my favorite instruments that I own. Bang for the buck it’s darn near impossible to beat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joshua and Beej
I like the 45 degree strings idea, and I think Beej explained the witness points thing very clearly. Expensive and difficult to build, but Splinters' version was gorgeous!

I remember Billy Sheehan raving about the angled neck bolts, and I was skeptical. I still am. I expected Bruce Johnson to clear this up by now, but he either is sitting back and laughing at us, or he is busy making Pythagorean Bruce Bolts to prove his point. I'll wait.
 
I'm not an engineer or luthier. Been looking at BB's recently though.

Those bolts pulling the neck into the pocket appears to make sense to me. Instead of just pulling down, that should be pulling down and in. I would think it may increase "mating surface" of the pocket. Maybe they are trying to replicate the qualities of a neck-through bass?
 
I'm not an engineer or luthier. Been looking at BB's recently though.

Those bolts pulling the neck into the pocket appears to make sense to me. Instead of just pulling down, that should be pulling down and in. I would think it may increase "mating surface" of the pocket. Maybe they are trying to replicate the qualities of a neck-through bass?

Yep, it's one of those things that "looks like" it would be a good idea. In theory it makes for a tighter neck/body join. In reality it just doesn't matter if the normal neck pocket and bolts are done right. But it doesn't hurt anything either. It's kinda like having an extra cup holder hidden under the seat of your car. It doesn't cause any problems, but it doesn't provide any benefits either.

In case anybody at Yamaha is listening in, I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can offer up your engineering studies on it.
 
Yep, it's one of those things that "looks like" it would be a good idea. In theory it makes for a tighter neck/body join. In reality it just doesn't matter if the normal neck pocket and bolts are done right. But it doesn't hurt anything either. It's kinda like having an extra cup holder hidden under the seat of your car. It doesn't cause any problems, but it doesn't provide any benefits either.

In case anybody at Yamaha is listening in, I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can offer up your engineering studies on it.

I just looked through 4-string basses around $500 on sweetwater to see how they handle the neck joint. I was surprised to see that at that price point ($499 to $400), most manufacturers are doing flush bolt inserts in the range of 4-6 bolts. ESP and G&L use 6 in some of their $500 models, though none are angled. Squier sticks with the trusty 4-bolt neck plate, and in fact I didn't notice any others in this range using plates. I guess my only point is that Yamaha isn't the only company that thinks more than 4 bolts with inserts are either needed or a good sales point. And Yamaha can't be beat up too much for adding a new feature that isn't publicly justified with hard engineering data. That's a pretty high bar to set.
 
So, just to touch on the angled neck screws here:
Anyone who has watched a lot of interviews and/or gear breakdowns with Billy Sheehan will understand what's going on here. Billy has been the major endorser of Yamaha for probably the longest time. He has a signature bass with them (maybe a few) and it was him who asked them to strengthen the neck joint because he tends to do some, as he puts it, "pretty crazy acrobatics" on the thing that involve actually bending the neck by placing his hands on the back side of the neck and the back side of the body and pushing against the strap button. Anyone who has ever watched him do it (I've seen him live, it's crazy) will understand just how hard he pushes and just how far he bends a note like this. So Yamaha responded to Billy's request by adding the 2 angled screws. Billy says it makes a difference for what he is doing to the thing. Are you likely to do the same thing? Probably not. But that doesn't stop Yamaha from trying to use it as a marketing tool. Just keep in mind that it absolutely WAS an answer to a problem, it just wasn't "your" problem. ;)
 
My newbie take:

I think the angled bolts only make the joint stronger - which is i thought what we want. How could it NOT be better to pull the neck back and down harder into the pocket. Have to do it properly: Tightening the angled bolts first, then the other ones would be the way to do it.

If we agree that loosening the bolts on a strung bass to allow the string tension to pull the neck back is a good practice, then i don't think we can argue against the angled bolts. Its doing the same thing, but maybe better: pulling back, but also pulling down.

I guess the question is does the traditional neck joint NEED to be stronger? Maybe not. But the angled bolts as far as I can see have to make a stronger + more solid joint.
 
Maybe someone who follows the BB models can help me. Last weekend I bought a BBN5. It seems like a great guitar. My question is it only has a volume control for each pickup and no other knobs. Any idea of the age of this one. It has the the two jazz style pickups. I've done a search but cannot find one similar.
Thanks
 
So in a perfect world, the strings would clamp down at the bridge and the nut with a zero "unspoken length".
(
perfect for some, awful for others.

If you’re curious to try minimal Non-Speaking Length feel, check out some headless basses. I suspect you’ll find the gauge strings which you’d usually use to feel more firm on the headless than what you’re used to and you’ll be wanting to drop down a size or detune.
 
I expected Bruce Johnson to clear this up by now, but he either is sitting back and laughing at us, or he is busy making Pythagorean Bruce Bolts to prove his point. I'll wait.

Ha! I'm here, and I've been reading through this thread. I've been planning on joining in this discussion, but hadn't gotten to it yet. Unfortunately, I'm going into the hospital next week for heart surgery, so my time is kind of scrambled up right now....

Here you go:

The reason why we add extra bolts and reinforcements to the neck/body joint isn't to increase strength. The Fender-style joint with four wood screws is certainly strong enough. Very rarely does anyone break the neck off of a Fender bass. That's not the issue here.

We add more screws, bolts, metal threaded inserts, internal bars, thicker neck plates, etc., to increase the stiffness of the joint. Strength is how much load you can apply before it breaks and explodes. Stiffness is how much it moves and springs back when you apply a smaller load, and then remove it. Way below the level of breaking it. High stiffness means there's hardly any bending or movement when you apply the load. Low stiffness means it bends more.

The frame of a bass is like an archery bow. It's a wooden frame with a steel string stretched from one end to the other. As you tighten up the string, bringing it up to tune, the wood frame flexes while taking the load. The two ends bend forward and toward each other. That's why the strings lift up off the fingerboard as you bring them up to tune. The wood frame is pulling into its loaded shape.

When you pluck the string and release it, it cycles back and forth as it rings out. The wood frame reacts to that changing load, bending a tiny bit forward and back as the string swings forward and back. Its movement lags the movement of the string, and fights against it. Slows it down. Quiets down the movement and the note. It changes the sound ringing on the string.

How this microscopic flexing of the wood frame changes the sound on the string gets real complicated. A long discussion by itself. Many factors are involved, but they are all related to the stiffness of the frame. The overall stiffness of the whole thing, and the stiffness of the parts, and the stiffness of the joints between the parts.

As an overall picture, the stiffer the frame, the less the frame moves under the cycling load, and the less it affects the sound on the string. What you hear is mostly the string's own natural sound. On a bass with a really stiff frame, what the pickup "hears" is mostly created by the string itself. Clear, wide range, cold, a steel sound.

On a bass with a softer (less stiff) frame, the frame flexes more and it modifies the sound ringing on the string. It can reduce the range, cut down some frequencies, add extra spike frequencies (warmth) in the background, and other things. And this is the sound ringing on the string, which the pickup detects and modifies some more, and sends on down the line to the amp.

And that's a big part of what we Luthiers do: messing around with the stiffness of the frame, to change the sound of the bass. To increase or reduce parts of the sound.

Back to the neck/body joint in a bolt-on style bass. Obviously, the neck/body joint is right in the middle of the frame, so it's a key part in the overall stiffness of the frame. It primarily affects the low end frequencies. If the joint is softer, it quiets down the lowest frequencies on the string and makes the low end warmer and muddier. Less clarity definition and sustain. Fender P-bass. Making the joint stiffer lets the string ring out more. More clarity and definition of the deep lows. More bottom keys of the piano.

Now, the stiffness of the neck/body joint is not the only thing that affects the bottom end clarity. The stiffness of the neck plays an equally big part. That's why we also play around with truss rods and various reinforcements of the neck. They have to work together. If you want to increase the bottom end clarity, both the neck and the neck/body joint (and some other things) have to be stiffened up. If one of them is soft, then the whole bass frame is soft overall.

Stiffening up the frame to change the sound means doing all the things. A list of small details. Softening the frame to soften and warm up the tone only requires one thing to be soft.

Anyway, there are many different ways to stiffen up the neck/body joint. One way is to increase the clamping force between the two wood parts by using stronger hardware and tightening it tighter. That's what I do with my brass bars (the infamous BruceBars) in the neck, combined with machine screws and a thicker neck plate. Plenty of surface area and mechanical fastener strength, so I can really clamp down on the wood.

Once again, it's not about increasing the force needed to rip the neck off. It's about increasing the stiffness, so it barely deflects when a mild force is applied.

Machine screws and brass inserts are another way to increase the amount of clamping force you can apply. Another way to increase the stiffness of the joint is to extend the length of the joint. Make the pocket longer, with more screws. Ibanez joints with that extra tang beyond the end of the fingerboard. The MusicMan neck joints. Same reason, to stiffen it up and make the deep bottom clearer. The pickups and preamp aren't the only reason why a MusicMan sounds different from a P-bass.

Yamaha added an extra twist to their neck joint design. They stiffened it up with long length and strong inserts, and then added those two angled bolts at the back. Their purpose is to increase the clamping force horizontally, between the heel of the neck and the back of the neck pocket. All for the same reason: to increase the stiffness of the joint. And, working together with other design features, to make the deep bottom clearer and more defined.

To make it sound better than a P-bass. Is it necessary? Well, if you think that the P-bass sound is all anyone would ever need, and all basses should be made to sound like P-basses, then no, this extra neck joint feature isn't necessary to make the Yamaha sound like a P-bass. They added the feature as an improvement, among other design features. You can judge whether you think the Yamaha sounds better than a P-bass.

Extra strength to resist Billy Sheehan, and the cool look of the angled bolts are added advertising bonuses.
 
I knew you would drop in... thanks Bruce.

If I understand you correctly we are talking about a factor that is finite, the "miter neck joint" would get us for example from 99.99% to 99.999% stiffness.

For the record The web page claims "increased sustain and outstanding resonance". You described the resonance at least very clearly. As for sustain, I'll let others rehash the "bolt-on vs. neck-thru" debate.

I wish you a 100% recovery.

BTW: Did anyone else notice the "Offset B bridge"?
 
I prescribe 100% to the concept of stiffness affecting the tone as per Bruce's description. I think that's really one of the core concepts of instrument design - probably the single most important element overall, right up there with pickup/electronics and string choice as the holy trinity of electric stringed instrument design elements. Spending effort understanding and refining design choices as a way to influence stiffness (whether you're chasing more stiffness or less) should be a core competency of anyone trying to get better at building instruments. But the thing I'm still stuck on is whether or not this diagonal screw method actually does anything that actually changes the stiffness of the joint.

Can we put this in quantitative terms?

A set of bass strings might represent around 200-210 lbs of tension pulling the neck into the pocket "horizontally". I just got that number off the back of a pack of strings, for reference.

Meanwhile, the pull strength (the force needed to pull a screw out of wood) of a #8 wood screw driven an inch into a hardwood like maple is about 80 pounds, if my googling is correct. I would expect the clamping force at typical torque values to be a fraction of that (it has to be less, otherwise you would have stripped the hole), maybe 60%? Considering we're talking about screws driven in at an angle, they're only contributing a fraction of the force in terms of actually clamping the neck into the pocket (about 70%, thank you Pythagoras). If the strings are already pushing with 200-ish pounds, I've got to imagine the heel is already smashed pretty darn tightly against the wall of the pocket. Is another 67 pounds from two diagonal screws really going to make a difference in terms of making the neck joint tighter in that direction? Please correct me if my math is wrong.

Further, how much benefit to stiffness is actually added by extra force in that horizontal direction, pushing the heel against the wall of the pocket? It seems that clamping force "vertically" between the body and the neck would be the most direct way to increase stiffness, since that's the direction that would help fight the joint acting like a giant hinge. If we're worried about stiffness in terms of a bending moment trying to curve the structure, that's going to be better solved by vertical clamping between the two pieces, not horizontal clamping, right? Which brings us to the classical design of screws vertically through the body into the neck. If someone wants to increase stiffness, it seems that it should probably be done by making those screws better, versus by adding diagonal screws - using big threaded inserts, or a threaded metal plate in the neck, or just more screws, or a longer joint so the screws can be spread out more, etc.

And, just to be facetious, if you are REALLY concerned about the stiffness of that joint, why not just build neckthrough basses and be done with it? (I know there are legitimate answers to that question, don't worry!)

On the other hand, if the argument is that tightening those screws first keeps the neck pulled tightly into the pocket so you can clamp it down with the other screws, that seems like an odd and complicated way to solve what is basically an assembly process problem.

As a disclaimer, I'm not trying to say this design is "bad" - I'm just trying to say that I'm not sure it's significant enough to be important. If you've decided that you need to chase stiffness to get the tone you want, it seems like there are other, more direct ways to achieve better results which are well proven and accepted (build a stiffer neck. Build a stiffer body. Use a better fastener design for "vertical" neck screws. etc.). Something tells me that diagonal screws won out in that Yamaha design because they're visible, and hence marketable and buzz-able - not because they're effective. You can feature diagonal screws in a print add. Everyone will instantly know and wonder about them when they look at the bass. It will be obvious that there's something different going on. Compare that to swapping to threaded inserts or a steel plate in the heel of the neck, which might be more effective at increasing stiffness, but no one would see or know about those features when they picked the instrument up off the rack at Guitar Center.
 
One thing worth mentioning (and I have discussed elsewhere on TB) is that the neck attachment method and string-thru mounting do not eliminate dead frets, at least not on my 434. I have pretty severe loss of fundamental tone on the G string, around frets 4-7, enough for tracking effects to lose tracking. It may be that this issue is due to neck resonance by itself, and even infinite stiffness of the attachment point to the body won't eliminate it.
 
Ha! I'm here, and I've been reading through this thread. I've been planning on joining in this discussion, but hadn't gotten to it yet. Unfortunately, I'm going into the hospital next week for heart surgery, so my time is kind of scrambled up right now....

Here you go:

The reason why we add extra bolts and reinforcements to the neck/body joint isn't to increase strength. The Fender-style joint with four wood screws is certainly strong enough. Very rarely does anyone break the neck off of a Fender bass. That's not the issue here.

We add more screws, bolts, metal threaded inserts, internal bars, thicker neck plates, etc., to increase the stiffness of the joint. Strength is how much load you can apply before it breaks and explodes. Stiffness is how much it moves and springs back when you apply a smaller load, and then remove it. Way below the level of breaking it. High stiffness means there's hardly any bending or movement when you apply the load. Low stiffness means it bends more.

The frame of a bass is like an archery bow. It's a wooden frame with a steel string stretched from one end to the other. As you tighten up the string, bringing it up to tune, the wood frame flexes while taking the load. The two ends bend forward and toward each other. That's why the strings lift up off the fingerboard as you bring them up to tune. The wood frame is pulling into its loaded shape.

When you pluck the string and release it, it cycles back and forth as it rings out. The wood frame reacts to that changing load, bending a tiny bit forward and back as the string swings forward and back. Its movement lags the movement of the string, and fights against it. Slows it down. Quiets down the movement and the note. It changes the sound ringing on the string.

How this microscopic flexing of the wood frame changes the sound on the string gets real complicated. A long discussion by itself. Many factors are involved, but they are all related to the stiffness of the frame. The overall stiffness of the whole thing, and the stiffness of the parts, and the stiffness of the joints between the parts.

As an overall picture, the stiffer the frame, the less the frame moves under the cycling load, and the less it affects the sound on the string. What you hear is mostly the string's own natural sound. On a bass with a really stiff frame, what the pickup "hears" is mostly created by the string itself. Clear, wide range, cold, a steel sound.

On a bass with a softer (less stiff) frame, the frame flexes more and it modifies the sound ringing on the string. It can reduce the range, cut down some frequencies, add extra spike frequencies (warmth) in the background, and other things. And this is the sound ringing on the string, which the pickup detects and modifies some more, and sends on down the line to the amp.

And that's a big part of what we Luthiers do: messing around with the stiffness of the frame, to change the sound of the bass. To increase or reduce parts of the sound.

Back to the neck/body joint in a bolt-on style bass. Obviously, the neck/body joint is right in the middle of the frame, so it's a key part in the overall stiffness of the frame. It primarily affects the low end frequencies. If the joint is softer, it quiets down the lowest frequencies on the string and makes the low end warmer and muddier. Less clarity definition and sustain. Fender P-bass. Making the joint stiffer lets the string ring out more. More clarity and definition of the deep lows. More bottom keys of the piano.

Now, the stiffness of the neck/body joint is not the only thing that affects the bottom end clarity. The stiffness of the neck plays an equally big part. That's why we also play around with truss rods and various reinforcements of the neck. They have to work together. If you want to increase the bottom end clarity, both the neck and the neck/body joint (and some other things) have to be stiffened up. If one of them is soft, then the whole bass frame is soft overall.

Stiffening up the frame to change the sound means doing all the things. A list of small details. Softening the frame to soften and warm up the tone only requires one thing to be soft.

Anyway, there are many different ways to stiffen up the neck/body joint. One way is to increase the clamping force between the two wood parts by using stronger hardware and tightening it tighter. That's what I do with my brass bars (the infamous BruceBars) in the neck, combined with machine screws and a thicker neck plate. Plenty of surface area and mechanical fastener strength, so I can really clamp down on the wood.

Once again, it's not about increasing the force needed to rip the neck off. It's about increasing the stiffness, so it barely deflects when a mild force is applied.

Machine screws and brass inserts are another way to increase the amount of clamping force you can apply. Another way to increase the stiffness of the joint is to extend the length of the joint. Make the pocket longer, with more screws. Ibanez joints with that extra tang beyond the end of the fingerboard. The MusicMan neck joints. Same reason, to stiffen it up and make the deep bottom clearer. The pickups and preamp aren't the only reason why a MusicMan sounds different from a P-bass.

Yamaha added an extra twist to their neck joint design. They stiffened it up with long length and strong inserts, and then added those two angled bolts at the back. Their purpose is to increase the clamping force horizontally, between the heel of the neck and the back of the neck pocket. All for the same reason: to increase the stiffness of the joint. And, working together with other design features, to make the deep bottom clearer and more defined.

To make it sound better than a P-bass. Is it necessary? Well, if you think that the P-bass sound is all anyone would ever need, and all basses should be made to sound like P-basses, then no, this extra neck joint feature isn't necessary to make the Yamaha sound like a P-bass. They added the feature as an improvement, among other design features. You can judge whether you think the Yamaha sounds better than a P-bass.

Extra strength to resist Billy Sheehan, and the cool look of the angled bolts are added advertising bonuses.

First off, good luck on your upcoming surgery. Wish you a complete and speedy recovery.

Secondly, that's a very enlightening post, for a novice like me anyway. Thanks for sharing.
 
Ha! I'm here, and I've been reading through this thread. I've been planning on joining in this discussion, but hadn't gotten to it yet. Unfortunately, I'm going into the hospital next week for heart surgery, so my time is kind of scrambled up right now....

First and foremost, I hope the surgery goes well and wish you a speedy and complication-free recovery.

Second, thanks for the detailed response. It's fun to speculate, but it's even better when someone who actually knows what they're talking about weighs in.
 
This has gone to the exact spot I was hoping.... thank you, everyone, for chiming in. Bruce - best of luck with the surgery.

One thing worth mentioning (and I have discussed elsewhere on TB) is that the neck attachment method and string-thru mounting do not eliminate dead frets, at least not on my 434. I have pretty severe loss of fundamental tone on the G string, around frets 4-7, enough for tracking effects to lose tracking. It may be that this issue is due to neck resonance by itself, and even infinite stiffness of the attachment point to the body won't eliminate it.

This sounds like a separate issue - but I'm curious to read about it - can you post a link?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dwizum
I thought the 45 degree angle on the body-through was done to reduce the break angle, because there are a lot of flats that don’t respond well to the 90-degree bend and it reduces this stress. I can’t imagine it would influence tone in any audible way, but I could be wrong.
I experienced that exact situation on my FGN . In my case the 90 degree bend completely deadened the E string on 2 different strings set (Labella flats and warwick Ni roundwound) when set throught body. And in a very audible way (less obvious with the roundwound)! That pissed me off for a few days untill I top loaded them. Problem solved! So I think this Yamaha 45° angle is a great idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bermuda Ron