# Why is a thinner neck 'better for playing fast'?



## SirMyghin (May 25, 2011)

I want to chime in on opinions here, as I for one, don't get it. I can't see how neck thickness is going to come to factor into your ability to play fast, one way or another. Unless the neck is so ridiculously large you can't actually navigate it, (and I have never encounterred ones that are, my hands aren't large either) then is neck thickness really going to make a difference? 

People think shredder necks and they think dinky crap like Ibanez, which I equate with thumb cramp, I feel my fingers are also getting too close to my thumb. I can play just as fast, or faster, on a thicker neck, and thicker necks (or slightly rounder radii) facilitate rolling a bar to a greater extent. If you are holding a neck properly, there isn't going to be drag dependant on the thickness either way (as area will only really come into play if you are gripping the heck out of the neck). 

So what is the magical factor I am missing? (I am going to ignore construction type, and neck joints here, because those are a little more explanatory, though they are also not an issue for me, lower horns are though, let us limit this to ONLY the neck please.)


----------



## Mordacain (May 25, 2011)

Neck thickness is just a preference most people need to experiment to find what works best. 

I think there is a bias built-up based on that kids tend to see their shredder idols playing certain guitars and associate from there.

I find a thin C (but not super thin), somewhat wider nut but narrower string spacing to work best for me. The PRS Wide/Thin is so far my most comfortable neck and I'm trying to replicate that as best I can for my custom build.


----------



## Adari (May 25, 2011)

For me, it's the neck profile that matters. I can't stand the D-profiles on Ibanez and Jackson guitars. A Les Paul feels much nicer to me. 

The most comfortable guitar I've ever played (for me) was the Chapman Ghost Fret (Rob Chappers's green one), which I tried last year. Don't have £1500 though.


----------



## Matti_Ice (May 25, 2011)

I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned how close your fingers felt to your thumb. Its kind of like taking a shit. Just sitting there will eventually get it out, but hunkerin down and squeezin that bad boy out with some force is more effective. I have found the closer my fingers are to my thumb, the more of a tight grip I have, more muscles are in play and the faster I can go. I personally have no interest in shred, but I do know with a thinner neck (like my Ibby's) I can play faster with more accuracy than say I can with my Agile, or the POS Schecter I used to own. And as for cramps, I get them with baseball bat necks instead of thinner... so see its all preference. If your ripping up a redwood, then go for it and to hell with skinny shit.


----------



## aslsmm (May 25, 2011)

Im more accurate, faster and cleaner on my ibby 550 than i was on my friends REAL zakk wylde LP not the epiphone 400 dollar one. Im talking about the 5000 dollar one. The 550 is like a popsicle stick but the LP was like goliaths dick. When i first started playing my thumb would creep up over the top of the neck, then i learned propper hand placment and now i barely even put pressure on the neck with my thumb. Especially when im soloing. 

The three main factors in my clean fast playing was 
neck finish
neck prophile
neck width

thickness was important but as long as the finish dosnt get sticky, the prophile is ibby-ish and it wide like a diving board then i can add a little bit of thickness.

FWIW the k-7 is my fav neck.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (May 25, 2011)

I don't know what to say. For me it's a combination of thickness and finish. It's not either one or the other. IE: I had an LTD MH-250 or something a long time ago. It was the second guitar I owned, and the first with a painted neck. I hated the neck. The thickness was "alright" but the finish was lame. I really hated it. I then picked up a banged up Ibanez rg370dx and the thin neck and satin finish was to my liking.

I then switched to 7 strings and got the Xiphos 7. I didn't really mind the paint _that_ much, and the thickness was good.

Then I switched to 8 with the rg2228 and I love the neck SO much. I love the thickness. I love the satin. It's the silk panties of guitar necks. I sometimes get cramps, for the first time, but only when I'm playing huge stretches (cause of the extra scale length, which only affects me when I'm play two notes four frets apart), and because I'm not that used to playing standing up yet, and I don't attribute it to the thickness. I feel that if it were thicker, I'd lose a lot of leeway.

But yeah. That's my two cents. Everybody's hands are unique and preferences are subjective. I used to bitch about Schecter baseball necks (which aren't really baseball-y) and V-necks (the neck profile, not the hipster shirt), but then I realized, I don't care. Just cause I don't like something doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Except V-neck shirts, fuck hipsters


----------



## SirMyghin (May 25, 2011)

A wide thin isn't a bad compromise, they look similar to a Carvin neck carve, I would prefer a wide fat personally. I agree about profule more than thickness also, I don't really care for necks with shoulders, in general, so C shape all the way. Then again if you don't grip the neck profile gets less important. 

As far as tight grip, I don't have one, and think a tight grip is a bad habit, you are exerting a lot more force than you need, sounds like you are wrapping around a bit far with your thumb no?

Finish is another very important factor ofcourse, it can't be sticky obviously. I like bare necks.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (May 25, 2011)

Simplest way to put it is theres less neck to reach around which means you have more control and better grip. Imagine a baseball bat having the entire thing be the width of the thick end as opposed to how it normally is. 

It wouldn't be very practical, you could still use it but it just wouldn't be very good. If you had exceptionally large hands you might not even notice a difference. 

But in general you have more grip and control over the smaller cylinder since you can reach around it easier than trying to squeeze your hand around a larger one. In the guitar world its not as drastic but the same idea follows.

and about the hand cramping thing, I think that has more to do with technique than the neck profile.


----------



## Mordacain (May 25, 2011)

I don't think reach around is a problem at all. You use different hand positions for different styles of playing. I've never heard anyone get bluesy vibrato out of classical hand position. Similarly, you can't get proper vibrato out of a wrap-around grip. Different positions for different tones and I need a neck that is comfortable doing both.


----------



## Jakke (May 25, 2011)

It's the profile that does it for me, but I prefer D-shaped necks


----------



## Pauly (May 25, 2011)

'Thinner is better!' is a very popular school of thought with guitarists, tied in particularly with the 'faster/shreddier' style of playing, but ultimately what you find works best will depend on the size of your hands, the length of your fingers, what music you play e.t.c. just as much as what shape the neck itself is. I think the two most comfortable necks I've held, for me, were a EB/MM Petrucci, and a custom build neck with an asymmetrical profile. 

Recently my interest in guitars has primarily been in ergonomic design, and the whole Trapezoid neck profile the Strandberg or Rick Toone guitars have fascinate me, as from a playing perspective they seem to make a lot of sense, rather than the rounded necks everyone else seems to use just because... everyone else seems to use them?? It's a bit like fretboard radiuses, guitars being fixed scale, variations on the same shapes e.t.c. Things seem to be done because that's how they've always been done.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (May 25, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> I don't think reach around is a problem at all. You use different hand positions for different styles of playing. I've never heard anyone get bluesy vibrato out of classical hand position. Similarly, you can't get proper vibrato out of a wrap-around grip. Different positions for different tones and I need a neck that is comfortable doing both.



In said example both cases are easier to preform with a thinner neck because in both cases you have less neck to reach around and more control over your hand for vibrato. 

The differences in a guitar neck are so subtle and the differences in the size of hands can be much more drastic, I'm just getting down to if say everyones hands were exactly the same this is the most basic reason why.


Also I agree with the part pauly said about ebmm jp necks, holy fuck is that neck comfy.


----------



## maliciousteve (May 25, 2011)

I too find things easier on a thicker neck.

I used to own a BC Rich Gunslinger Retro. One of the thinnest necks I've played and while it was great for fast runs and legato, my hands cramped really bad when playing chords or arpeggios which is why I sold it.

The Wide Fat neck on my PRS is the perfect size for my hands which is a bit thinner than a Gibson 59 neck but fatter than a standard Strat neck. It's probably because I've got big hands.


----------



## Mordacain (May 25, 2011)

Cheesebuiscut said:


> In said example both cases are easier to preform with a thinner neck because in both cases you have less neck to reach around and more control over your hand for vibrato.
> 
> The differences in a guitar neck are so subtle and the differences in the size of hands can be much more drastic, I'm just getting down to if say everyones hands were exactly the same this is the most basic reason why.
> 
> ...



I disagree. Thinner does not make it better or enable more control on its own. It really just matter how the profile conforms to your hand. The Wide/Thin and Wide/Fat PRS profiles are virtually the same, one just thicker than the other. the fat is actually better for bluesy vibrato for me, while the Thin is more comfy for chording / classical.


----------



## SirMyghin (May 25, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> I disagree. Thinner does not make it better or enable more control on its own. It really just matter how the profile conforms to your hand. The Wide/Thin and Wide/Fat PRS profiles are virtually the same, one just thicker than the other. the fat is actually better for bluesy vibrato for me, while the Thin is more comfy for chording / classical.



Seeing as vibrato is all from the wrist, I don't see how profile is going to influence it. It doesn't effect my vibrato, that much is sure. I agree thinner =/= more control or precision. 

On a side note I have palms longer than fingers, which may have something to do with my preferences.


----------



## thrsher (May 25, 2011)

neck finish is a big one for me, that is all the thickness doenst really affect me. i found that the tung oil necks are my fav.


----------



## aslsmm (May 25, 2011)

Age old question is age old.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (May 25, 2011)

aslsmm said:


> Age old question is age old.



Is what makes it fun, a debate without an answer


----------



## ST3MOCON (May 25, 2011)

Less hand fatigue on a thinner neck.


----------



## Sephael (May 25, 2011)

Matti_Ice said:


> but hunkerin down and squeezin that bad boy out with some force is more effective.


...at causing a heart attack. 


on topic, I see the only useful reason to have a really thin neck is to be able to reach over with the thumb Hendrix style


----------



## Ghost40 (May 25, 2011)

I tend to like both the Wizard II necks and the PRS wide/thin necks. I find them both to be very comfortable to me. I also prefer a satin, tung-oil type finished to the nitro and painted finishes as well.


----------



## technomancer (May 25, 2011)

It's not better, it's all personal preference


----------



## Dayn (May 25, 2011)

My thumb is just there to counteract any force my fingers apply to the neck when I'm fretting so the guitar doesn't rotate around me. Thick necks make my thumb have to stretch around the neck; Ibanez allows my thumb to just sit limp with bugger-all tension. If I barely have to move my thumb, I have better control over the neck and I can play faster. Sometimes my thumb doesn't even touch the neck.

I never use my thumb for anything except positioning the guitar, so extra neck just gets in the way. I would go with the baseball bat analogy that was brought up.


Edit: To add to that, when I turn my hand around and leave it limp in the fretting position, my thumb naturally touches my index finger and the shape of a thin neck just slides in perfectly. So I suppose it's really up to the shape of one's hands and how their technique is.


----------



## jordanky (May 25, 2011)

ST3MOCON said:


> Less and fatigue on a thinner neck.



I personally disagree. Thinner necks tend to hurt my wrist after a while of playing them. I've never gotten along with the thin Ibanez or Jackson necks at all. I can play much more comfortably and much faster on my PRS Wide Fat necks, but it's all subjective. One of my best friends has an early 90's Jackson Dinky Reverse and it has the thinnest neck I have ever felt in my life, and within five minutes of playing it, my hand feels like it's about to fall off. He, on the other hand, gets cramped up trying to play my PRS necks and can' really play comfortably on anything else. 

A lot of people argue that thicker necks = more body material = more resonance which makes tons of sense, but that is also subjective.


----------



## Curt (May 25, 2011)

I prefer an "in between" neck I suppose. not ibanez thin, but not old Kay jazzbox thick.

ESP's "Thin U" is one of my favorite profiles. fits my hand well and isn't too thin nor too thick. 

Although the neck profile on the JP6 I played was very nice as well.


----------



## Hollowway (May 25, 2011)

Yeah, I don't know what all the hubbub is about, either. I've got several different brand guitars, and I can play them all equally (bad ). I think a lot of people just jump on he bandwagon. It's kind of like in college when someone would keep handing a kid a cup of O'Douls and after a while he'd start to act drunk. I bet for half of the things people praise on here they wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a blind study. We've seen that time after time with A/B clips of pickups or amps. And everyone falls about how thick Schecter necks are, but someone recently posted a pic of an Agile next to a Schecter and the Schecter was clearly thinner.

TL;DR Some people prefer thin necks. Everyone else just jumps on the bandwagon.


----------



## Curt (May 25, 2011)

Schecter necks honestly aren't that bad, I actually kind of dig them. Of course, they feel a lot like the ESP necks that I like. 

Yeah, speaking of that blind test thing, I did a clip with LePou LeCto and sent it to a guy to ask his opinion about the tone(knowing he hates digital gear) and he liked it and asked what it was, I told him it was a mesa triple rectifier and then when I told him it was an amp sim he immediately began to pick apart what was "wrong" with the tone. but that's a different story for a different day.


----------



## MetalDaze (May 26, 2011)

Matti_Ice said:


> Its kind of like taking a shit. Just sitting there will eventually get it out, but hunkerin down and squeezin that bad boy out with some force is more effective.


 
Just make sure you don't blow out your O ring


----------



## aslsmm (May 26, 2011)

I can agree that there is alot of band wagoning when it comes to music gear but i personally play faster and cleaner right from the get go with a 550 instead of a warlock or fender strat. My thumb tends to sit firmly and comfortably on the wide flat neck rather than slowly migrating to the top of the neck like it does on the hellraiser 7 i used to use.


----------



## snowblind56 (May 26, 2011)

The older I get, the more comfortable I am playing on just about any neck. Don't get me wrong, I prefer the "truss rod with a fretboard attached" necks, but working in a music store and having lots of different guitars come across my bench showed me that I can play on any size/shape neck.

The bigger obstacle for me, is fret size. I can't play on vintage size frets. I need 6100's.


----------



## Tomo009 (May 26, 2011)

I find I play better on ESP and Schecter necks as far as 6/7 strings. When it came to 8s though, my RG2228 neck is the only one I have liked.

Ibanez 6 string necks actually hurt my hands for some reason, just feels like my thumb has nowhere to go, like it's just on the other side of the fretboard.


----------



## Matti_Ice (May 26, 2011)

dmccarthy said:


> Just make sure you don't blow out your O ring


 
This ass is designed for maximum havok and destruction. Toilets fear it


----------



## Strobe (Jun 2, 2011)

My four 6's kind of run the gammut of neck thicknesses. From thickest to thinnest:

1) Gibson SG Robot with 50's profile (ebony on mahogany, 12" radius) 
2) Schecter V-1 (rosewood on mahogany, 12" radius) 
3) Gibson Les Paul with 60's profile (rosewood on mahogany, 12" radius) 
4) Jackson RR24M (1 piece maple neck through, compound radius)

I will say that I like the feel of all of them - and they range from closer to baseball bat (SG) to closer to a hockey puck (Jackson). For lead work I most prefer #1 and #4. That seems to imply that something else besides neck thickness is the critical factor to what feels best for leads / shredding (often badly, in my case). For the less *meedley meedley* stuff, 2 and 3 feel best - I am less likely cramps if I am playing something repetitively with a lot of complex chords.

To my taste, I prefer the thinner neck for fretboard acrobatics, and the thicker neck for digging in on bends and vibrato.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 3, 2011)

It all boils down to personal preference, but hey examples are better right?

Shredding on a fender:



Shredding on a Gibson






Thread?


----------



## Sephael (Jun 3, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> Shredding on a Gibson


seriously? except for a few (slow) slides his hands barely move up and down the neck while he is playing which makes a piss poor argument for the ability to shred on the guitar, and when he does do a lot of moving up and down the neck it's with his right hand which isn't being effected by neck size.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 3, 2011)

Sephael said:


> seriously? except for a few (slow) slides his hands barely move up and down the neck while he is playing which makes a piss poor argument for the ability to shred on the guitar, and when he does do a lot of moving up and down the neck it's with his right hand which isn't being effected by neck size.



Seriously? I just found a random video of him, I think we all know he's capable of some pretty ridiculous speeds.

Here's something you 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaCErlW-3p8&feature=related

Let me know if what he's doing at 3:23 doesn't qualify. Seriously grow up.


----------



## Murmel (Jun 3, 2011)

snowblind56 said:


> The bigger obstacle for me, is fret size. I can't play on vintage size frets. I need 6100's.


This.

Fret size is a much more important factor to me than neck profile. The proflie really only changes the way I play if I stand up.
I have a really hard time playing anything remotely lead on anything but jumbo or bigger


----------



## signalgrey (Jun 3, 2011)

my favorite neck feel EVER has been my trusty epiphone sheraton II. to this day havent found a neck that fits my hand as good, even on other sheratons or ES335's


----------



## georg_f (Jun 3, 2011)

I think big necks are cool and just as fast


----------



## Sephael (Jun 3, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> a random video of him... Seriously grow up.



I know what he is capable of. If you want to use him as an example a simple name drop or picture would work, but when you post a video as your argument it really should speak for it self, which that clip failed.

Grow up? Glad you take the critique of the playing in the video selection so personally when you said it was random. A simple "oh crap, random vid,thought it would have showed his skills better" would have been a more mature response imho but whatever.


----------



## Murmel (Jun 4, 2011)

One shall not complain about guitar necks being 'too fat to shred on'. This neck is probably fatter than most guitar necks 

4:35


----------



## rippedflesh89 (Jun 5, 2011)

Neck Profile > Fretboard Radius > Neck Width > Neck Finish > Neck Thickness...

but then again, i love my ibby-thin necks.... i have small hands, so thin necks just give me the impression that i have more control...

the only thick neck ive ever really owned is a BC Rich Beast, and holy fuck is that thing uncomfortable to play on... it has sat in my room for years now


----------



## thealexkelley (Jun 5, 2011)

I like the d... shaped necks like my jackson ke5fr


----------



## Dead Undead (Jun 5, 2011)

For me it's all about the finish. The neck could be a baseball bat or a truss rod with frets but if it's not a smooth satin or bare wood finish I can't play it well. Gloss finishes feel too sticky for me.
I do tend to prefer thick necks, however. My guitar teacher has a custom guitar from Warmoth with a fatback neck profile, the thickest they offer, and it was the (second) most comfortable neck I've ever played. The most comfortable I've ever played was a Jackson SLSm which is funny since the neck is so thin on it. That mostly had to do with the finish, fretboard radius, and fret size, though. Since it's neck through the neck heel was also much nicer and more comfortable. Felt like I had way more breathing room in the higher registers.

The one thing I cannot stand is a flat-back neck profile like cheap Ibanez necks. Does not suit me at all. I really want to try a trapezoidal neck profile though. Seems like there would be more room for my fingers to move instead of hitting the back of the neck.


----------



## lemonlust (Jun 6, 2011)

I find that a thin neck combined with jumbo or extra jumbo frets works very well. The jumbo frets decrease the amount of pressure you have to put onto a string. Neck thickness is mostly just preference. I've played two similar neck sizes with regular frets and jumbo frets. The jumbo fret neck was easier and faster to play with. I recommend getting a neck with Jumbo or Extra Jumbo frets.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 6, 2011)

Good question. I've just always found thinner necks more comfortable... 

And I play better when I'm comfy. 

@OP - When will you ever learn? You can't sound good on a basswood guitar, EMGs sound the same even in outer space and thin necks are the only shredworthy necks...


----------



## StratoJazz (Jun 7, 2011)

I know i prefer the gibsonesque neck from the 60s. Tapered and thin(don't know exact measurements). I've gotten used to the neck on my strat which is more like a traditional acoustic guitar.

I might have sand down my neck so i don't feel like my hand is sliding along molasses.


----------



## trickae (Jun 11, 2011)

I'm the exact opposite. I've grown up with my 2000 Ibanez RG550 which has a super wizard neck. 17mm width at the 1st fret and 19mm at the 12th fret. To me it's the most comfortable neck to solo on / or play for long periods of time.

I sold my 1998 jackson Kelley because I hated how thick the necks were. I also gave up on my jackson soloist because I couldn't get used to the fretboard radius. 

I hate to sound like a fan boy - but the Ibanez super wizard necks have been one of my favorite necks to play. Sweeps, tapping, wide stretch legatto and long runs feel the most comfortable. 

The only other guitar that came close was the new suhr moderns which have to be one of the most comfortable necks ever made. 

The next would be the old school kramers. 

As mentioned above - it's a question of preference. There's no be all end all to the ideal shredder guitars - or else every single shred guitarist would be gravitating towards one brand.


----------



## Andromalia (Jun 11, 2011)

Imho size doesn't matter, it's just dependant on what you are used to.

Proof:


----------



## ZackP3750 (Jun 11, 2011)

I think its all about marketing. guitar companies aren't going to try and sell their guitar "with a fat neck for really slow soloing". It sounds way cooler to new guitarists to hear "With a super thin neck that will enable you to play blazing solos, making it the ultimate shred machine!" Seasoned guitarists like ourselves know what we can play on and don't normally buy into that shit, but the wording of the advertisements can make a world of difference. And we all especially know that the neck itself will not enable you to shred, but hours and hours of practice will, and most beginners don't realize that.


----------



## Kr1zalid (Jun 21, 2011)

I'm not gonna read through the whole thread but thinner necks does feels better for me, the thinner the better~~ I can feel the thumb is nearer with my other fingers and I think that's a good thing... My thumb will go up over the neck if I play with a thicker neck, and my other finger movements are quite restricted in the sense that I cannot really stretch my fingers wide... Another thing I MUST look into is the neck profile~~ I need round, thin necks and I really dislike flatbacks, really really uncomfortable for my left-hand....

Anyway, I think this is a good conclusion:



technomancer said:


> It's not better, it's all personal preference


----------



## flint757 (Jun 21, 2011)

jordanky said:


> I personally disagree. Thinner necks tend to hurt my wrist after a while of playing them. I've never gotten along with the thin Ibanez or Jackson necks at all. I can play much more comfortably and much faster on my PRS Wide Fat necks, but it's all subjective. One of my best friends has an early 90's Jackson Dinky Reverse and it has the thinnest neck I have ever felt in my life, and within five minutes of playing it, my hand feels like it's about to fall off. He, on the other hand, gets cramped up trying to play my PRS necks and can' really play comfortably on anything else.
> 
> A lot of people argue that thicker necks = more body material = more resonance which makes tons of sense, but that is also subjective.



Agreed

I use Schecters because out of everything I played it is the most comfortable and I have small hands. I honestly feel that finish and fret size is more relevant (which I like satin finish and jumbo frets) to playability. However, whatever you buy people typically get used to the design.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 21, 2011)

ZackP3750 said:


> I think its all about marketing. guitar companies aren't going to try and sell their guitar "with a fat neck for really slow soloing". It sounds way cooler to new guitarists to hear "With a super thin neck that will enable you to play blazing solos, making it the ultimate shred machine!" Seasoned guitarists like ourselves know what we can play on and don't normally buy into that shit, but the wording of the advertisements can make a world of difference. And we all especially know that the neck itself will not enable you to shred, but hours and hours of practice will, and most beginners don't realize that.




I am quoting this as A) I am surprised this thread still lives and B) this has to be the best response I have seen thus far.


----------



## orakle (Jun 21, 2011)

a bit like krizalid said

with a thinner neck i feel i have way more strength and control over my fingers
which pretty enables me to play faster


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jun 21, 2011)

Like others said, it probably is marketing. I play the fastest and cleanest(NOTE-badly) when I'm playing on a Les Paul, or any other guitar with a fat, round neck, and a round radius. Maybe it's just me, though, but I have troubles with Fenders, the necks seem to be kind of narrow. On something with a flat neck and flat radius, like an Ibby, my hand cramps up and I just can't move up the neck as fast.


----------

