Anyone else feel like fretboard radius and neck thickness hardly matters?

[ArtDecade]

Ever try shredding on a Rickenbacker? Neck size and radius matters.

 

[Matt08642]

Personally it doesn't matter as long as it's between Ibanez Wizard and Fender Modern C. Anything thicker than that and it takes some work/getting used to. The biggest factor for me is heavy lacquer on the back of the neck or fretboard. Not a complete dealbreaker, but not preferred.

 

[eaeolian]

I *can* play almost anything except super-thick boatnecks, because my hands are pretty small. There are things I prefer, like compound radius and a nice soft c, but honestly if the guitar is killer it doesn't really matter, even on 9.5" you can do a whole step bend without fretting out.

7.5" is kinda weird, though.

 

[eaeolian]

Let's not go there lol


To give some additional context for my reason to start this thread:

I falsely assumed that the stereotypes of "80's hair metal shred guitars with the thinnest shredyest necks..." had more legitimacy behind it. But now it seems like it's more about the aesthetics than any sort of specific specs.

Whoever was talking about the thinnest shreddiest necks was playing RGs. Kramers (which most people in the hair scene were *actually* playing) weren't especially thin, just thinner than the giant '59 Les Paul necks all the previous generation of guitar heroes were playing.

 

[Chris O]

I think both matter, at least to people who can’t tolerate anything other than a certain spec based on how they play or what’s comfortable. It’s personal preference, just like pickups, bridges, etc.

That said, I’m comfortable with almost any neck, scale length, or radius, but I prefer something middle of the road all the way around - 25” scale, mid thickness neck, and 10-12” radius. But I have everything - fat, thin, short, long, wide…on and on

 

[yan12]

It matters to me know because I have arthritis. I have small hands, but I have always like thicker necks. I have massive necks made now on custom shop guitars because I can't play in a "pinched" style any more with super thin necks. I sold all of those guitars off...just hurts too much.

But before that, I personally could play any size neck or radius. I just get used to it and off to the races. So it doesn't matter to me, but it does to others. Just as it should to us quirky guitar players!

 

[cthroatgtr]

Neck thickness and neck radius matter a lot. Not for speed, speed is what it is. But for comfort as well as string bends. One reason I loved Warmoth 10-16" compound radius is that chords are more comfortable with a more curved radius, but string bends and action are easier on a flatter radius. Anytime you bend "over the hill" of the apex of the curve, it is more likely to fret out unless you have higher action. Thickness comes into play based on hand size. If you have big hands, small necks are not comfortable, but if you have small hands, larger necks can be hard to play. More than anything I like my guitars to be consistent easier to switch mid set if I have to, though I prefer to play the set with the same guitar. Next argument is fretboard woods, but that is for another day.

 

[Riff the Road Dog]

Wouldn't be surprised if neck feel was the single most important criteria for the majority of players. It is for me.

 

[gnoll]

I'm not super picky but I can really struggle with thick necks. It feels like trying to run fast with huge ass clown shoes or something.

 

[SJShinn]

I wouldn't say hardly matters, but matters somewhat less than some put on maybe. It's definitely a factor. I can jump from my 50's neck, 12" radius Les Paul, to my Schecter Loomis 7 string with a super thin neck and 16" radius with no issues. I do however hate super flat necks, anything above 16" and I can't stand the feel.

 

[budda]

Things we arent mentioning: nut width and string spacing. I mean, since we’re here.

 

[Kyle Jordan]

Overall feel, playability, and tone are the 3 pillars of what I judge a guitar on, and the neck is critical for the first two. Some would argue for the third as well, but I'm not opening that can of worms here.

That said, outside of extremes and a couple of specific areas specwise, neck specs aren't quite as impactful to me as when I was younger. I went through a period in my mid-20s where I didn't play much, and basically had to reboot my technique when I jumped back in. A great side bonus was improving my previous shitty technique that led to left hand pain with mostly Ibanez necks after a couple of hours. After the reboot, have never had the problem again.

On 6 strings, I have a pretty wide window that I am comfortable on and consider myself competent with for playing. 7 and 8 strings change this. I prefer thinner, flatter, flatter radius necks on those quite strongly.

Overall, my fairly strong preference is for thin (19-21mm at the 3rd fret, 21-22mm at the 12th fret) flatter necks with larger compound radii (12"-16", 14"-19", 16"-20"). C and D shapes are about even for me, with maybe preference for a flat C or a D with smaller shoulders.

I find thick necks much less desirable.

Things we arent mentioning: nut width and string spacing. I mean, since we’re here.

I mentioned two quirks above, and nut width is one of those for me. I have big hands, but they're thick, not necessarily long. Something changes either in the overall spacing (I think this is it) or string spacing with nuts that makes the base of my fingers rub together more with smaller nuts. I tend not to run in to this on 7s and 8s, and I think it's because the boards are simply wider, so I can finger nearer the nut (LOL) on a wider surface. Don't feel like my fingers will miss the board or push off.

Probably subconscious BS though.

 

[IbanezDaemon]

One of the most important things for me is neck profile. I have terrible CTS so super thin Wizard type necks are most def my faves...always have been. Not to say I don't like other profiles. Bought a Dean Soltero with a Soft V profile which I thought was really nice. Really thick necks aggravate my arthritis and CTS though....never liked them when I was symptom free anyway.

 

[Ross82]

Fuck yes, it matters and I would hardly call a Fender USA Strat neck chunky at all. Yes compared to a wizard neck there would be a significant difference but in general I find the Fender profile to be pretty middle of the road. A thick, round neck feels horrible and unwieldy to me and I've ditched a few Les Paul's with baseball bat necks in the past. I generally prefer thinner necks with flatter boards but can usually play anything between there and the 'Medium C' territory just fine. Jackson necks are the nicest shredders to me with Wizards close behind.

 

[Edika]

I have several guitars with different profiles nowadays. I started learning on an MIJ Squier that was leaning on super strat territory and it has one of the thinnest necks I've tried. When I got my Carvin, which has a relatively thin profile, I could not play it lol! After several guitars and several neck profiles I can play on the same speed on my Les Paul with a 50's neck and my Ibanez with a Wizard profile. But in terms of comfort and neck access, Ibanez and Jackson win for me. If I go from the LP to either, its like taking weights of my hands.

 

[LunatiqueRob]

I see people caring a lot about it but I never noticed it affecting me. I guess if it was very extreme like ridiculously thick or thin, or oddly shaped (like Strandberg's Endurneck), or with very curved radius, it would have some impact, but after owning dozens of guitars and basses it just never made enough of a difference to me.

 

[kamello]

don't care about thickness, but radius is a big thing for me, 10 is my low limit but 20 radius is just perfection

 

[Dayn]

I don't have the widest breadth of experience, as my guitars are all extended range with wide fretboards, mostly thin necks, and between 16-20" radius. I like thin, but my Strandberg's endurneck is fine, probably because it's a mixture of thicker and stupidly thin.

Radius matters a lot to me, though. Too small and it just looks and feels weird having the strings go over the horizon. The highest string on my 10-string, and on my 7-string violin, are often just out of sight. Likewise, I don't like flat. Even 20" is noticeable. I have tall stainless steel frets on my classical, and certain large barres can be difficult which would otherwise be easy on a 20" fretboard.

 

[Marked Man]

Of course both matter! And scale is part of the equation.

I'm perfectly happy with a 9.5" radius for a trad Strat, but Jackson/Charvel's compound 12 to 16 fits their style very well (EVH does this also). I don't like a single radius flatter than ~15, maybe 17.

I recall reading that Allan Holdsworth liked 20" radius guitars, but then again, he liked playing bizarre alien stretch chords that I can't do anyway, so.....

As far as profiles, a nice Jackson Soloist is hard to beat for that style, and I like the classic Strat necks (with a twist! ) on my Yngwie Strats. Classic neck thru era Carvins had very nice 14" radius necks and I assume this is still the default choice at Kiesel. The original Ibanez Wizard neck is too thin for my tastes, but a real deal JEM is perfect.

 

[kerryymm]

I prefer a thinner neck, but I've gigged guitars with massive necks & it didn't stop me from playing anything I needed to; again though, I'm not exactly a shredder.

I do think I'm quite unusual though, because a lot of the things that see I people on forums obsessing over, like nut width, radius, neck depth & shape etc. just don't even occur to me as things to check.