• 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 free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Nut Width versus Neck Thickness

#21
Let's coin a new phrase. Neck Depth. If the neck width at the nut is a measurement from side to side, depth would be the proper measurement front to back. Maybe we can determine increments and assign them letters, so a neck might be described as an A neck Jazz (1.5" nut width) with a T depth (1.25" or whatever would be the correct number for a T depth neck). Just a thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rezdog, StrangerBasses, ErikP.Bass and 4 others
#23
jamro217 said:
Let's coin a new phrase. Neck Depth. If the neck width at the nut is a measurement from side to side, depth would be the proper measurement front to back. Maybe we can determine increments and assign them letters, so a neck might be described as an A neck Jazz (1.5" nut width) with a T depth (1.25" or whatever would be the correct number for a T depth neck). Just a thought.
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense to me.
 
#24
With me, neck profile/nut width/scale length is directly related to the comfort level of my left wrist. My hands/fingers seem to be able to adjust to any reasonable combination but my wrist won't. I had a Lakland 5 string that I just loved the tone but my wrist hated the 35" scale so I ended up selling it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Cheese
#26
i have one P neck on one of my fretlesses: it's not my favorite --- like the J necks are, but it delivers and i have no problem switching, playing for hours, etc.

some folks are 'insistent' on their specs, some just have preferences. i think most players would play the thing if handed to them --- it's not life or death. but if you've been playing a long time, you know what you like and what feels the best: so you get to have preferences...it's part of the game/fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandM and Dr. Cheese
#27
Both aspects matter to me, but I really wouldn't be able quote any measurements or statistics.
My Warwick Corvette $$ feels like home to me.
P.S. I've also recently realized that the finish on the neck makes a difference . I was playing my P last week on a humid day, and my hand was experiencing way too much drag from the highly lacquered neck. It definitely impacted my playing.
 
#29
to throw a wrench into your thoughts ...

radius ... and backside profile

the last few years , i've grown to prefer , for 5 strings , the Warmoth Deluxe 5 .. 1.75 , with the asymmetrical backside !!!

make my 5ver feel like a chunkier 4 ... sort of ...!

and i like a radius of around 10 ... if something is wide , thin with a much flatter radius , it seems to aggravate my old arthritic hands/fingers .. why i couldn't bond well with my Warrior ...

and to small of neck , radius , nut , thickness ... also hurts my hands ... like my old Geddy , Alembic Elan II 4 stringers ..

maybe it's just the price for playing piano/bass/gtr since the mid 60's ..!!??
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Cheese
#31
Dr. Cheese said:
@bgartist posted in my NBD thread about my SB5000 that Carvin has a nut with of 1.75” while my Pedulla is 1.875”. My old Lakland is 1.81”. This was an eye opener because I cannot imagine a bass playing more easily than my Carvin. The thing about the is despite of relatively narrow nut, the neck is very thin front to back while my Lakland was a fairly chunky C profile. My Pedulla has a neck profile that feels perfect to me too. It has that wide 1.875” nut with a wide and super thin neck. Sadowsky has the same 1.875” nut for five strings and a neck profile that feels identical to wide-spaced Pedullas. The Carvin, however, is making me challenge my assumptions. That narrow nut did not phase me at all. It plays as comfortably as my Pedulla. My guess is that I like the look of a wide nut, but the thing that really makes a bass most comfortable to me is the front to back thickness of the neck.
Click to expand...
I think you are spot on about the shallow neck being Key to the feel of the neck. My 1965 Jazz had a 60's Shallow-C shape with a 7.25" radius. Bought it in 1966 and it was stolen in 1976. Over a three year period in the early 70's I performed with it ~750 times - I knew that neck well. Finally found another Jazz with the same neck specs in 1985 and I bought that. It's the one in my Avatar - I've had it for a few years now.

Tried the '66 Jazz when it first came out and was really glad I had purchased the '65. 1966 Jazz had a deep U shape on the neck - terrible. Took me close to 10-years to find a shallow C-shape neck with the 7.25 radius again. P-basses really felt clunky to me because their neck was wider and deeper.

In 2009 I bought an inexpensive 5-string and its neck is wider but it still has a shallow depth. I have no trouble playing that when a 5-string is needed It's 45mm wide at the nut and has a 12" radius. My Grandson also got a bass two Christmases ago when we were visiting in Australia. It's a Squier P-bass with P and J pickups. When I played it I was impressed. The neck was shallower than any P-Bass I'd ever seen and I could comfortably play it. And it sounded good too - far better than the piece of crap I started with. Yep! depth of neck is definitely a major consideration!

So, yeah, I think that depth of the neck makes a huge difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandM and Dr. Cheese
#32
Rip Van Dan said:
I think you are spot on about the shallow neck being Key to the feel of the neck. My 1965 Jazz had a 60's Shallow-C shape with a 7.25" radius. Bought it in 1966 and it was stolen in 1976. Over a three year period in the early 70's I performed with it ~750 times - I knew that neck well. Finally found another Jazz with the same neck specs in 1985 and I bought that. It's the one in my Avatar - I've had it for a few years now.

Tried the '66 Jazz when it first came out and was really glad I had purchased the '65. 1966 Jazz had a deep U shape on the neck - terrible. Took me close to 10-years to find a shallow C-shape neck with the 7.25 radius again. P-basses really felt clunky to me because their neck was wider and deeper.

In 2009 I bought an inexpensive 5-string and its neck is wider but it still has a shallow depth. I have no trouble playing that when a 5-string is needed It's 45mm wide at the nut and has a 12" radius. My Grandson also got a bass two Christmases ago when we were visiting in Australia. It's a Squier P-bass with P and J pickups. When I played it I was impressed. The neck was shallower than any P-Bass I'd ever seen and I could comfortably play it. And it sounded good too - far better than the piece of crap I started with. Yep! depth of neck is definitely a major consideration!

So, yeah, I think that depth of the neck makes a huge difference.
Click to expand...

I bet I would like the feel of your Basses too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rip Van Dan
#33
TNCreature said:
Both aspects matter to me, but I really wouldn't be able quote any measurements or statistics.
My Warwick Corvette $$ feels like home to me.
P.S. I've also recently realized that the finish on the neck makes a difference . I was playing my P last week on a humid day, and my hand was experiencing way too much drag from the highly lacquered neck. It definitely impacted my playing.
Click to expand...


Some "OOOO" steel wool would fix that. Tape over the PU's and a light rub down to take the "shine" off it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNCreature
#34
This is such a personal thing. I believe that hand size and playing style both are important factors that influence our preferences on neck thickness and string spacing.

I play mostly 5 and 6 string basses when I play electric but about half the time I play upright bass. I have fairly small hands.

The electric basses that are the most comfortable for me to play are my Peavey Cirrus basses. They have tight string spacing at both the nut and bridge and the necks are fairly thin front to back. Those basses also have superb fretwork and set up with very low buzz free action. When I play them I have nothing about the bass that distracts me from the music.

That said, I also own a Roscoe Century 6 fretless, G. Gould ggi5 and ggi6 and a Music Man Bongo 6. The string spacing at the bridge is a little wider on the Roscoe and Gould basses but the width at the nut is comfortable and the necks are not too thick. The Bongo is a challenge for me since it is much wider at the nut than any of my other basses. The width at the bridge is fine but that wide nut takes a bit of getting use to. The 34" scale (all my Cirrus, Gould and Roscoe basses are 35") and the thin neck on the Bongo still make it fast and comfortable to play but I am aware that it would be a better fit for me if the nut were less wide.

I also own a lovely USA G&L M 2500. It has a deeper neck but is very narrow at nut and bridge. It is a very fast feeling neck.....yeah....fast. Just very easy to get around on and the neck sets up with low action due to the plek job (the Gould basses also are plecked and set up quite low).

Perhaps we overthink these things. I never hesitate to play my Bongo because the neck is wider at the nut. Every one of my basses sounds and plays great and I enjoy them immensely.

Time to practice, isn't it? Oh look, the Bongo is right here on the stand!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandM and Dr. Cheese
#35
Chuck M said:
This is such a personal thing. I believe that hand size and playing style both are important factors that influence our preferences on neck thickness and string spacing.

I play mostly 5 and 6 string basses when I play electric but about half the time I play upright bass. I have fairly small hands.

The electric basses that are the most comfortable for me to play are my Peavey Cirrus basses. They have tight string spacing at both the nut and bridge and the necks are fairly thin front to back. Those basses also have superb fretwork and set up with very low buzz free action. When I play them I have nothing about the bass that distracts me from the music.

That said, I also own a Roscoe Century 6 fretless, G. Gould ggi5 and ggi6 and a Music Man Bongo 6. The string spacing at the bridge is a little wider on the Roscoe and Gould basses but the width at the nut is comfortable and the necks are not too thick. The Bongo is a challenge for me since it is much wider at the nut than any of my other basses. The width at the bridge is fine but that wide nut takes a bit of getting use to. The 34" scale (all my Cirrus, Gould and Roscoe basses are 35") and the thin neck on the Bongo still make it fast and comfortable to play but I am aware that it would be a better fit for me if the nut were less wide.

I also own a lovely USA G&L M 2500. It has a deeper neck but is very narrow at nut and bridge. It is a very fast feeling neck.....yeah....fast. Just very easy to get around on and the neck sets up with low action due to the plek job (the Gould basses also are plecked and set up quite low).

Perhaps we overthink these things. I never hesitate to play my Bongo because the neck is wider at the nut. Every one of my basses sounds and plays great and I enjoy them immensely.

Time to practice, isn't it? Oh look, the Bongo is right here on the stand!
Click to expand...

I am going to practice tonight after I record my last exams for this semester today.:hyper::bassist::hyper:
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandM, ajkula66 and Flaked Beans

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back