Why the 12 closest to the player on a double neck?

Gearhead

So I've been wondering this for a long time. Why is it that double neck 6/12 guitars always have the 6 neck at the bottom and the 12 on top? It seems weird to me since I would expect the 6 to be used more for lead and the 12 more for strumming / arpeggio / riffing. I personally prefer to have the neck closer when (attempting to) play lead than when doing other stuff, I suppose because it needs more focus.
The trouble is I have yet to find a 6-on-top double neck to try it out and it's a bit of a schlep to have to build one to find out, since I would like to find out before I build.

studmissile

I'd hazard a guess. The neck of a 12 would be larger than the 6. Thus the 6 would be easier to hold lower down. The 12 would take the higher position like that of classical guitar for more wrist work around a larger neck?

AlanRatcliffe

Yup - the 12 is more demanding on the left hand and you need more of a classical approach to your hands and thumb position. Also far more six string lead players play low than high...

Gearhead

studmissile wrote: The neck of a 12 would be larger than the 6.

Agreed, it tends to be. I actually don't think this is such a good idea either, it annoys me that the feel of the one neck is different from the other. Makes adjusting more difficult when switching necks. As I enjoy thick necks more than skinny ones, I would just go for two equally thick necks. Likewise, I find that the 6 should have relatively thick strings and the 12 the thinnest gauge that does not break high G strings too much - something like 11 to 49 and 9/9 to 46/26.

studmissile wrote: The 12 would take the higher position like that of classical guitar for more wrist work around a larger neck?

The trouble with the classical position is that it needs more space between necks. You don't want that since it makes the guitar heavier and the neck positions further apart. This again is an argument for putting the solo neck up top since few guitarists play lead in classical position.

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: Yup - the 12 is more demanding on the left hand and you need more of a classical approach to your hands and thumb position.

Hmm. When I got my acoustic 12, which has an unbelievably thick neck and very low frets, I found that that combination makes me play almost the same wrist position as on an acoustic 6. It has to do with being able to put more fingertip pressure from the thumb when it is far from the fingers as well as needing less pressure to avoid buzzing on the octaves.

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: Also far more six string lead players play low than high...

Then again, that would mean that the adjustment to the 12 is aggravated by the adjustment to the high position...

studmissile

Gearhead wrote:
studmissile wrote: The neck of a 12 would be larger than the 6.
Agreed, it tends to be. I actually don't think this is such a good idea either, it annoys me that the feel of the one neck is different from the other. Makes adjusting more difficult when switching necks. As I enjoy thick necks more than skinny ones, I would just go for two equally thick necks. Likewise, I find that the 6 should have relatively thick strings and the 12 the thinnest gauge that does not break high G strings too much - something like 11 to 49 and 9/9 to 46/26.

12 neck would have to be wider, no? Also I think that they very unpractical guitars, I mean besides stairway and hotel california live, you rarely see them. I'm not a big fan of 12 strings, once I played a Yamaha, that was 12 that I really thought was lovely, but beside that I avoid them.

Gearhead

studmissile wrote: Also I think that they very unpractical guitars, I mean besides stairway and hotel california live, you rarely see them.

They are only impractical because they are heavy and don't fit into normal cases. So I figure, find a way to get the weight down and make a proper case, no? If you then also fit resomax bridge(s) and midi out you actually don't need to bring an acoustic or a midi guitar and all of a sudden... it's more practical!

studmissile wrote: 12 neck would have to be wider, no?

Not necessarily, Ric makes 12s with neck sizes I can't even play on properly when strung with 6.

studmissile

Ideally, if you want to build one, it will be a custom job to you liking? Like most of the ones build. Wasn't Jimmy's Pages initially a custom job by Gibson?

Gearhead

studmissile wrote: Ideally, if you want to build one, it will be a custom job to you liking?

Yebo, but still you don't want to go too far away from what's already been tried and tested, if the 'common' way of doing things makes sense. Which is why I figured I'd ask the question: WHY the 12 on top?

studmissile

Gearhead wrote:
studmissile wrote: Ideally, if you want to build one, it will be a custom job to you liking?
Yebo, but still you don't want to go too far away from what's already been tried and tested, if the 'common' way of doing things makes sense. Which is why I figured I'd ask the question: WHY the 12 on top?

Like I said I honestly think it's to do size and position as above. If you can manage it vice versa, then please make allowance for us mere mortals.

AlanRatcliffe

Speaking for myself, I prefer having the 12 up top.

BTW - I loved the way my Aria solved the close neck thing, by angling the two necks apart:

Gives you plenty of space to get to the tuners too.

studmissile

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: Speaking for myself, I prefer having the 12 up top.
BTW - I loved the way my Aria solved the close neck thing, by angling the two necks apart:
Gives you plenty of space to get to the tuners too.

That is clever.

Gearhead

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: I loved the way my Aria solved the close neck thing, by angling the two necks apart:

This makes sense, if you assume that the 12 is on top and you will not play the 12 in the upper register across more than one or two string pairs.

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: Gives you plenty of space to get to the tuners too.

That is, if you put all the tuners on the neck side. Which in my view isn't a good idea since the guit will be neck-heavy. I'm torn between all-in-body or split-between-both-neck-and-body-Bich-style. Some Steinberger gearless tuners may come in handy on the body side to avoid the silly Bich shark bite body shapes.

singemonkey

I think Washburn also did this with a Nuno Bettencourt type 12/6?

Gearhead

Yep they did, both the angled necks and the Steinberger tuners. Note the headstock of the 12 has the tuners at the bottom, which is probably not so good for access.
Another gripe I have is that these bodies are guitar shapes with something in between. One should make a shape to suit the two necks and save a whole lot on body weight. You don't need all that wood outside the bridges, let alone the lower horn.

Less real estate around the necessary hardware...

el-guapo

There are exceptions: Music Man's Silhouette double neck has the 12 at the bottom, and Steuart Smith, the Eagles' touring "Don Felder" for the last while plays it (on Hotel California, too! Heresy!)

On the topic of doublenecks, though, how terrifying is this offering from Carvin? http://www.carvinmuseum.com/decade/images/91-dn612.html

I shudder to think how many hair-metal vocalists were impaled when unexpectedly jumping off the drumriser as the guitarist swung this monster into the point-it-at-the-sky solo pose...

Gearhead

el guapo wrote: There are exceptions: Music Man's Silhouette double neck has the 12 at the bottom

Noted:

AlanRatcliffe

Gearhead wrote:
Alan Ratcliffe wrote: I loved the way my Aria solved the close neck thing, by angling the two necks apart:
This makes sense, if you assume that the 12 is on top and you will not play the 12 in the upper register across more than one or two string pairs.

You don't need much space between the necks for playing, and closer means quicker switching from one to the other.

You could always solve most of your problems by going for a headless "cricket bat" design. The Steinberger 12-string bridge (with only one tuner for all 12 strings) is sheer genius.

el guapo wrote: There are exceptions: Music Man's Silhouette double neck has the 12 at the bottom,

And possibly the worst looking 12-string headstock ever.... ?

The Ed Roman site has a four page gallery of 12-strings:
http://www.edroman.com/featured/doubleneck4.htm

Gearhead

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: You could always solve most of your problems by going for a headless "cricket bat" design.

The headless design has crossed my mind 1000+ times but the long and the short of it is that it puts too many tuners on the body, right where you have

a neck switch
two pup switches
an electric/acoustic switch
a MIDI/electric switch
(a tone and) a volume knob

...and then you run out of real estate there.

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: The Steinberger 12-string bridge (with only one tuner for all 12 strings) is sheer genius.

Unobtanium and... no ghost saddles available. Plus body shape nightmare.
See also here, at the bottom.

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: The Ed Roman site

Ed... yeah

Gearhead

Some evidence that there are more nutcases...

From the looks of it, though, this gentleman was photographed in the seventies. Either that or he's doing one kickass job of looking anachronistic.

One argument/thought remains. If I wanted to get the 12 a semi-hollow body and wedge the body to be very shallow at the top, tapering to half deep at the bottom, the 6 would be better on top... Plus an offset body shape (think Jaguar or non-reverse Firebird) would allow for better balance and proper upper register access...