i was just checking out some nice baker (gene) guitars on ebay currently, and i noticed they had that huge infamous neck hell *aka the heel from hell* just like PRS is now doing. i'm curious as to why baker did this as a heel of that magnitude restricts upper fret playing. i hate PRS guitar mostly because of this heel. any info anyone?
- Thread starter Estin
- Start date
Well, I know PRS increased the size of their neck heal slightly because it substantiallyl improved structural integrity and tone on their Custom model guitars. I've played both the big heal and small heal guitars, and honestly I couldn't feel any significant difference at all - my current PRS Custom 24 (the BEST playing and sounding PRS I've ever touched) has the large neck heal, though I'll admit that it's harder to tell on the 24 fret guitars... Anyway, unless you play neck through Jacksons or Carvins exclusively, I don't see how you can claim their heals are restrictive. The PRS and Baker neck heals are still substantially smaller than any bolt-on I've ever used, and upper fret access is better on my PRS than on any of my EB/MM guitars...
just my 2¢
just my 2¢
VegasGreg
Well-known member
No real problems at all with a Baker neck. Mine plays just as easily as any of my other guitars.
VegasGreg
VegasGreg
thanks for your two cents jimi D, i know prs says it improves structure but if they did the full tung *set-thru* neck they wouldn't need the hell. i played a prs with large heel and didn't like how it played in the upper frets *maybe personal preference* but i think my EBMM's play better in the uppers, and my ibanez is super slim so heel isn't a big deal on that guy either. if you watch ebay the pre "95" prs without the big heel go for alot more than later models. i'd be interested in trying a original gene baker model as i've never tried one before.... oh and btw, i dislike prs mainly due to their "Fashion" impact on music. i'd be interested in learning a bit more about your model tho.
Hi Estin,
I agree that PRS guitars wouldn't have a problem with a heel if they were neck-through or full tongue set-through, but then they wouldn't be PRS's either... Luthiers choose to make their guitars as bolt-on, neck-through or set-neck for a number of design reasons, but the major ones are the tone and feel - I doubt a PRS would sound or play the same if they changed the neck's design...
The earlier production (pre-move) PRS's are somewhat more collectable than their later-year brethren for many reasons - the issue of the heel is probably the least of them... It predominantly has to do with the idea that PRS's were "hand made" before moving to the new factory, and "machine made" afterwards, but that's a grossly mis-informed point of view. Many of the older guitars will fetch a premium because they offer features no longer available in current production models (W/F or normal neck carves on a CU24, the Custom Studio, etc.). At any rate, Ed Roman seems to be the public voice against the so-called "heel from hell", and everyone agrees that Ed Roman is an idiot. Fact is, he adopted this position shortly after PRS withdrew his dealership priveledges and told him they never want to hear from him again as long as he lives. If he still had a PRS dealership, the whole "hell from hell" thing would never have been given the weight it has today... Funny thing tho' - if you spent time on the now defunct PRS Forum (or go over to the new "Birds and Moons" forum), you'll find that the real fans of PRS guitars (the guys with five or more) don't seem to care nearly as much about the differences in the heel size as some general I'net surfers seem to...
My Custom 24's just a generic PRS - no fancy top, no birds, it certainly doesn't look like anything special - but it does have the normal neck carve (I think they only come with W/T now). Spec-wise, the heel on my Axis is at the 16th fret, while the PRS heel is at the 19th fret - the PRS heel is physically smaller than the Axis heel as well. How that can equate to superior upper fret access on the Axis is beyond me, but to each their own... I like this particular PRS over the others I've owned because it's one of the lightest, most resonant PRS's I've ever come across - it rings like a bell acoustically, it's just an amazing piece of wood, and it sounds fantastic!
I agree that PRS guitars wouldn't have a problem with a heel if they were neck-through or full tongue set-through, but then they wouldn't be PRS's either... Luthiers choose to make their guitars as bolt-on, neck-through or set-neck for a number of design reasons, but the major ones are the tone and feel - I doubt a PRS would sound or play the same if they changed the neck's design...
The earlier production (pre-move) PRS's are somewhat more collectable than their later-year brethren for many reasons - the issue of the heel is probably the least of them... It predominantly has to do with the idea that PRS's were "hand made" before moving to the new factory, and "machine made" afterwards, but that's a grossly mis-informed point of view. Many of the older guitars will fetch a premium because they offer features no longer available in current production models (W/F or normal neck carves on a CU24, the Custom Studio, etc.). At any rate, Ed Roman seems to be the public voice against the so-called "heel from hell", and everyone agrees that Ed Roman is an idiot. Fact is, he adopted this position shortly after PRS withdrew his dealership priveledges and told him they never want to hear from him again as long as he lives. If he still had a PRS dealership, the whole "hell from hell" thing would never have been given the weight it has today... Funny thing tho' - if you spent time on the now defunct PRS Forum (or go over to the new "Birds and Moons" forum), you'll find that the real fans of PRS guitars (the guys with five or more) don't seem to care nearly as much about the differences in the heel size as some general I'net surfers seem to...
My Custom 24's just a generic PRS - no fancy top, no birds, it certainly doesn't look like anything special - but it does have the normal neck carve (I think they only come with W/T now). Spec-wise, the heel on my Axis is at the 16th fret, while the PRS heel is at the 19th fret - the PRS heel is physically smaller than the Axis heel as well. How that can equate to superior upper fret access on the Axis is beyond me, but to each their own... I like this particular PRS over the others I've owned because it's one of the lightest, most resonant PRS's I've ever come across - it rings like a bell acoustically, it's just an amazing piece of wood, and it sounds fantastic!
thanks again for your input, i'm as much of a Ed roman hater as the next guy beleive me i mearly chose the nickname "The heel from hell" because its something most everyone knows of. i agree with people being mis-informed of their being quality diferences between handmade vs. CNC if there is it would be in favor of CNC in my opinion due to the fact of better consistancy. i guess originally in this post i was just curious how baker adopted the heel like the new PRS's have. i think PRS are well made guitars, and their finishes are beautifull. i think i'll seek out some different models and try those, i'd be curious to see if a different neck profile helped me get fast the heel a bit. i actually just stopped by the Ed roman website a while ago and it shows he is still a dealer........in fact he claims he's the largest PRS dealer in the states..........
He's not a dealer... I read over his website, and no where that I could he does he state that he is an authorized dealer... he has the largest selection of USED PRS guitars in the US, and he can work through others to get new ones... PRS broke off relations with him because he was selling re-finished and modified PRS guitars as "custom models" - I'm sure they wouldn't give him a dealership again...Estin said:
woah? are you serious? thats really messed up. that guy seriously needs to be shot or something. too bad he's such a jerk i heard he was actually a decent builder. but then again he prolly never built anything himself, just put his name on it.
hbucker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 707
His site is really tame now compared to what it once was. They've revamped it, in part, I'm sure, because things he was originally saying about other makers were really outrageous. And if they were true, they meant that most everyone (but him and the brands he represents) are big fat liars out to screw anybody they can. Legally I don't think he could continue to get away with that. But I'm only guessing.
Sometimes (very infrequently) he has posted something on his site that sounds reasonable. The most reasonable thing is his take on the vintage market. It is basically, "Where did all these vintage, unaltered guitars come from in the last 10-15 years?" He said he personally did nut, pickup, Floyd Rose etc. conversions on thousands of Strats in the 70's and 80's. But now all you see are "vintage" Strats at Guitar shows. Where are the Strats with Floyd Rose's and Super Distortion pickups? Sounds interesting to me.
Beyond that, he seems really "out there". Read his "Rants" posted on his website and some of them almost seem like he just wants to ramble with no real specific point. Others seem so self gratafying, self serving and one sided (ie: my guitars are great, virtually everyone else's suck!) that they lose credability IMO.
Rather than telling me why my guitars suck, just explain why your guitars are so good that I need to buy one. Otherwise, I'll think you're full of it. I know my guitars and many that you rail against DON'T suck so where does that leave you? ...with no credability.
CNC machines make total sense to me. I think the assembly line approach to guitar building can detract a little from quality if it is taken to extremes. But if the workers are competant and not under the gun to produce insane #'s per day, the products can be good. One builder working only on one guitar surely has it's advantages, but it also has it's disadvantages. I don't necessarily buy the whole, one builder puts more love/attention/caring/whatever into the guitar so therefore it's automatically a better product than one that comes off CNC's and an assembly line. And if it is better, is it $3,000 better???? I doubt it.
A good musician can make a $500 guitar sing like an angel. A poor musician can make a $5,000 sound like garbage. So where does that leave us? Be a good musician and the rest will take care of itself...
Sometimes (very infrequently) he has posted something on his site that sounds reasonable. The most reasonable thing is his take on the vintage market. It is basically, "Where did all these vintage, unaltered guitars come from in the last 10-15 years?" He said he personally did nut, pickup, Floyd Rose etc. conversions on thousands of Strats in the 70's and 80's. But now all you see are "vintage" Strats at Guitar shows. Where are the Strats with Floyd Rose's and Super Distortion pickups? Sounds interesting to me.
Beyond that, he seems really "out there". Read his "Rants" posted on his website and some of them almost seem like he just wants to ramble with no real specific point. Others seem so self gratafying, self serving and one sided (ie: my guitars are great, virtually everyone else's suck!) that they lose credability IMO.
Rather than telling me why my guitars suck, just explain why your guitars are so good that I need to buy one. Otherwise, I'll think you're full of it. I know my guitars and many that you rail against DON'T suck so where does that leave you? ...with no credability.
CNC machines make total sense to me. I think the assembly line approach to guitar building can detract a little from quality if it is taken to extremes. But if the workers are competant and not under the gun to produce insane #'s per day, the products can be good. One builder working only on one guitar surely has it's advantages, but it also has it's disadvantages. I don't necessarily buy the whole, one builder puts more love/attention/caring/whatever into the guitar so therefore it's automatically a better product than one that comes off CNC's and an assembly line. And if it is better, is it $3,000 better???? I doubt it.
A good musician can make a $500 guitar sing like an angel. A poor musician can make a $5,000 sound like garbage. So where does that leave us? Be a good musician and the rest will take care of itself...
yenling29
Member
Baker neck For sale $150
if anyone is interested i have an unfinished baker neck for $150 obo
if anyone is interested i have an unfinished baker neck for $150 obo
Estin, don't take Mr Roman too seriously.
On the "heel from hell".. ... here's some interesting reading
"Though much ado is made about the larger heel size in newer PRSi, the fact of the matter is that it increased by less than 1/4". The infamous "heel from hell" photos compare a 22-fret neck with a 24-fret neck. The 22s always had much larger heels for tonal reasons. Contrary to what you'll hear, the necks on the 22s were quite large even when they were carved with duplicarvers. So much for the theory that the large heel was required by the use of CNCs.
One nice thing about the larger-heeled 24s is the absence of dead spots that are quite common on the older models. A lot of folks who have owned older (80s-early 90s) PRS guitars can tell you that oftentimes a fretted note on the 12ts fret G string lacks sustain. I have two such guitars. They're playable (in fact they're awesome instruments) but I have to adjust my playing style to avoid that note.
Finally, let's compare the "heel from hell" to that of a couple of classic guitars: the Strat and Les Paul? The Strat has a huge neck flange that dwarfs the largest PRS heel. The Les Paul's heel starts at the 15th fret, where the upper bout joins the body. Why don't you see people flaming Fender and Gibson for building unplayable guitars? Hmmm..... "
For more check out
The Master of Misinformation
On the "heel from hell".. ... here's some interesting reading
"Though much ado is made about the larger heel size in newer PRSi, the fact of the matter is that it increased by less than 1/4". The infamous "heel from hell" photos compare a 22-fret neck with a 24-fret neck. The 22s always had much larger heels for tonal reasons. Contrary to what you'll hear, the necks on the 22s were quite large even when they were carved with duplicarvers. So much for the theory that the large heel was required by the use of CNCs.
One nice thing about the larger-heeled 24s is the absence of dead spots that are quite common on the older models. A lot of folks who have owned older (80s-early 90s) PRS guitars can tell you that oftentimes a fretted note on the 12ts fret G string lacks sustain. I have two such guitars. They're playable (in fact they're awesome instruments) but I have to adjust my playing style to avoid that note.
Finally, let's compare the "heel from hell" to that of a couple of classic guitars: the Strat and Les Paul? The Strat has a huge neck flange that dwarfs the largest PRS heel. The Les Paul's heel starts at the 15th fret, where the upper bout joins the body. Why don't you see people flaming Fender and Gibson for building unplayable guitars? Hmmm..... "
For more check out
The Master of Misinformation
Last edited:
VegasGreg
Well-known member
VERY interesting Jo!
That's funny, because I've never had a problem with a large neck heel on my PRS's (When I played PRS)
Nice web site you have also!
VegasGreg
That's funny, because I've never had a problem with a large neck heel on my PRS's (When I played PRS)
Nice web site you have also!
VegasGreg
