A couple of comments from Siminoff

[Dave Bagwill]

In The Luthier's Handbook, Siminoff gives his hearty approval to a couple of neck-related practices.

1. Embedding a 3/8" steel rod into the peghead, to increase sustain and improve timbre, that is, tone quality.

2. Cutting a notch down the center of the neck and gluing in a piece of wood with opposite grain; he really likes oak for this, as it adds strength and density.

As to #1, what would be the most logical location and method for embedding the rod?
As to #2, wouldn't the inlaid wood just then get routed out for the truss rod channel? Or is he talking about a 'notch' that is, say, 2x the width of the truss rod slot?

[TonyinNYC]

With the notch, he might be talking about adding it on the back of the neck. Or, you could be right and he is talking about under the FB and big enough to not be eliminated by the truss rod channel.

For the rod in the head stock, I would guess drilling a hole from the end of the head stock in towards the nut. If you attach a heavy clamp to the end of the head stock, it does improve sustain. You wont get the kind of sustain Nigel Tufnel claims to get from his Les Paul, but it does add sustain. I'm thinking that the further the weight is towards the end of the head stock, the more it will resist vibrating and thus help sustain?

[John Parchem]

The rod would add extra mass to the headstock. The extra mass would make it harder to vibrate the head stock. Thus more of the energy would be reflected back to the guitar instead of being used to vibrate the head stock. I am not sure where to place the weight, I would think centered from the end of the head stock heading toward the nut end. I think Tony has a good point having the weight close to the end.

[ken cierp]

Wish I could find the article -- but Steve Klien indicated that he views the sound-board bracing as nothing more than structure having little to do with sound quality, but he was a strong believer in neck stiffness and the elimination of the "tuning fork" effect caused by too little mass in the headstock. The essence of the comments was that controlling those factors leads to more response and sustain.

[Dave Bagwill]

Siminoff is talking about the notch in the neck being in the truss rod location, but then notching the inlaid wood for the truss.

At the headstock, a mortise could be cut for the rod, and the headplate would cover it up, I suppose.

[John Link]

I have contemplated, for many years, the addition of LEAD into the headstock. Something like excavate a cavity, then either pour the lead in molten, or place it there and encase in epoxy. Maybe rout out the cavity on the back, implant and secure the lead, then add a layer or two of veneer to seal the job.

On a 12-string I built many years ago I used 12 full sized gold Schaller tuners to get extra weight, not to mention the David Russell Young style steel bar (1/4" x 1/2") embedded in the neck with epoxy used to make airplanes. That neck has never moved. Several players complained about the neck weight. No one complained about the sound, thanks largely to the fully compensated saddle (a la Teeter), not my "genius" building. (Like all DRY style gits, it was overbuilt.) As several have commented in several places, an "in tune" instrument wins 90 percent of its battles at the get-go. But the weight hanging off the headstock might have had something to do with it as well. A counter man at Elderly mistook it for a Collings after he played it. It was interesting in that I did not ask him to play it, he asked to. All that glitter on the head end must have charmed him.

The short of it, people with good ears are really suckers for in-tune guitars.