Acoustic Gtr Q's.. on here?

[Sea Chief]

Anyway chaps much appreciate you reading my spiel, & for replying you are very kind.

Im going to have to buy a bone blank saddle ( assuming this is least likely to break.. my placcy one first try did/ binned: The height reduced so much by filing that it had little structure & snapped, a thrid go with a stronger material & I wont go quite so lows my idea ) so will report back.

The compensated b string thing tho! Drives me bananas. It just makes no logical sense, &, I prooved certainly with this diy saddle, that the b string on mine was best at the furthest possible point forward just the same as the others. But my tayor has a compensated one, & seems uniformly in tune string to string, as this one is. Bizarre.

Thanks SC

[Chuck H]

I do have one Yamaha guitar that exhibits a "Monday" or possibly a "Friday" sort of assembly which has a neck angle just a tad shallow. It's an electric guitar. with the bridge at it's lowest adjustment the action is still a about 1/32 higher than ideal for this instrument. And it's a neck through guitar so the repair options are limited. In this light it seems possible that the neck angle of your guitar may be other than ideal. In which case a neck adjustment and reset is the only option for lowering the action. Since no bulging of the the sound board or forward tilt of the bridge is evident, if the neck angle WRT the body is off there's nothing else to be done but change THAT aspect. At some considerable expense.

Or just use it for slide.

[Sea Chief]

I do have one Yamaha guitar that exhibits a "Monday" or possibly a "Friday" sort of assembly which has a neck angle just a tad shallow. It's an electric guitar. with the bridge at it's lowest adjustment the action is still a about 1/32 higher than ideal for this instrument. And it's a neck through guitar so the repair options are limited. In this light it seems possible that the neck angle of your guitar may be other than ideal. In which case a neck adjustment and reset is the only option for lowering the action. Since no bulging of the the sound board or forward tilt of the bridge is evident, if the neck angle WRT the body is off there's nothing else to be done but change THAT aspect. At some considerable expense.

Or just use it for slide.

Hi Chuck, 1/32 ?! Jeepers that's only a gnats..

Yes I think you're right, the neck reset seems the only plausible thing. And these are known for it. But I'll try a laborious new bone nut blank fettle first.

As I work with wood, I may loom into the idea of resetting it myself. I can hear you groaning all the way from the pacific NW!

Thx SC

[Chuck H]

As I work with wood, I may loom into the idea of resetting it myself. I can hear you groaning all the way from the pacific NW!

Nah. But I will suggest you do a lot of reading on the matter. The methods can be very specific depending on what glue was used, what the actual finish is, etc. There will be alcohol heat lamps and you may have to make custom clamps. Stuff like that. One of the stronger aspects of a good luthier is finish touchups after a repair. I had two guys in the California that were very good. I actually do know a good bit about the craft. Well, enough to know that I want a real pro doing it anyway. I'm a finisher myself and there's just no way I could get touchup results like I've seen from a good luthier.

[Jazz P Bass]

Awesome web page of an awesome Luthier: Guitar Repair: Neck Reset with Electricity? - YouTube

[Sea Chief]

Nah. But I will suggest you do a lot of reading on the matter. The methods can be very specific depending on what glue was used, what the actual finish is, etc. There will be alcohol heat lamps and you may have to make custom clamps. Stuff like that. One of the stronger aspects of a good luthier is finish touchups after a repair. I had two guys in the California that were very good. I actually do know a good bit about the craft. Well, enough to know that I want a real pro doing it anyway. I'm a finisher myself and there's just no way I could get touchup results like I've seen from a good luthier.

Wise words as ever, yes I had thought of this finishing aspect/ was hoping if I used a new blade I could score well etc.. but a helluva lot of research on the method to do.

If I could redo a nut, & able to shift this truss rod ( feels like its working, 1/8 a turn feels exactly what you'd expect going Left/ Loose, but 4 careful such turns hasn't made a fig of added relief.. hmm odd) I'd - just- get away without major repairs neck or top.

So it's this to concentrate on, & do a really good job before contemplating any neck reset. Very time consuming though. I need to re-rout the saddle slot in the bridge, as I realise now the bed is pretty important, must be, the bed really flat. I went at it with sandpaper taking a mm from the front wall.. to aid my intonation.. which worked, but the saddle to bridge contact I think I compromised in the process.

A very delicate rout job! Omg. Has to be done. Or could I remove the bridge, & replace I wonder?

Thanks SC

[Sea Chief]

Awesome web page of an awesome Luthier: Guitar Repair: Neck Reset with Electricity? - YouTube

Hi there JP. Thanks for this/ will dive in & watch tonight.

SC

[Chuck H]

If I could redo a nut, & able to shift this truss rod ( feels like its working, 1/8 a turn feels exactly what you'd expect going Left/ Loose, but 4 careful such turns hasn't made a fig of added relief.. hmm odd) I'd - just- get away without major repairs neck or top.

You're getting a bit sideways of the problem with this approach. The nut has almost nothing to do with action height unless it's grossly bad. In which case you would have trouble fretting notes in the first position and it would be obvious. The neck relief, or truss rod adjustment, though affecting action height is absolutely independent in it's purpose and function, must be considered on it's own terms and should be done before action is adjusted. In other words, there is nothing to be done with the truss rod that will CORRECTLY affect action height.



In the above graphic red represents a guitar string and purple represents the fingerboard.

In figures A, B and C you can see that action height is affected by neck relief. But improper neck relief has a negative affect on any and final action height adjustments. A, B and C demonstrate the string in a static position but this state of the string is only used for measurement purposes. The string is not at all static when a guitar is being played. A vibrating string is curved from one end to the other. It vibrates "elliptical" (with other small harmonic ellipses but that's not important right now).

Figures D and E show the string with an ellipse as though it were vibrating. In figure D, with the fingerboard represented as level, you can see there is crossover between the strings ellipse and the fingerboard. This translates to fret buzz and action height would need to be disproportionately high to compensate.

In figure E the fingerboard represents proper neck relief. Where the concave curvature matches the ellipse of the vibrating string. THERE IS ONLY THIS ONE CRITERIA FOR NECK RELIEF ADJUSTMENTS. And neck relief adjustments should never be used to affect any other aspect. Like action height. An incorrect truss rod adjustment will ALWAYS result in a higher action because of compensation required at the bridge or too much neck relief effectively curving the nut end of the fingerboard up. This is different from the nut being too high. It would be the "nut end" of the FINGERBOARD that would be too high.

EDIT: This is the simplest explanation for neck relief. In truth it is nuanced because the different strings ellipse differently as do their fretted notes. Proper neck relief then would be a least bad adjustment that averages these differences. It can also depend some on just exactly how any neck curvature is shaped. Also relying on a least bad setting. And no guitar is perfect. And it also depends on the player and how the instrument is used. If a player is almost always playing chords in the first position the ideal relief would be greater than it would be for a player that spends more time in the upper registers. It can even depend on an instruments particular tonality. A guitar that's not too bright won't exhibit as much offensive fret rattle and buzz as a brighter instrument so less relief may afford cleaner notes in the upper registers. Even scale length and tuning can have an affect. No two guitars or players are the same. But some things are known. Proper neck relief for different types of instruments is usually given as a min/max based on the known elliptical character of a vibrating string at a given tension. The increments are so small that one can usually do just fine adjusting to the middle of the published measurements. And this is a good place to start.

EDIT 2: You, SC, already had too much relief at 1MM bass and .5mm treble. Tune the strings to pitch and adjust to about half that amount. For an acoustic guitar the measurement should be taken with a capo on the fist fret at one end and the string pressed down on the fret nearest where the fingerboard meets the body at the other. The high E is usually measured because it tends to bow up less when fretted hard. Where the low E can tend to give a false reading when this happens. So, high E capo'd at the first fret and pressed down where it meets the body. Measuring about .25mm (or a little less) halfway in between.

[Sea Chief]

Hi Chuck, no what I meant was, if I could redo a nut, then I am capable. I know the nut has zero to do with the action, which is why I haven't mentioned it almost totally. The relief needs a bit more, because of the neck area @ the body: here its known often there is a slight hump ( only with lesser guitars, not with a taylor) soto mitigate against it I need a little more relief. But this truss rod just aint gonna let me = problem.

This is a minor issue. And increacing the relief a mite, if possible, would worsen the main issue. This is either the neck has pulled up ( nothing shows this tho, its on the same plane as the body looking down it), or bridge has pulled up ( nothing shows this either), or... something else has caused it, or it was like this with a very high action originally: the original saddle would mean a far higher action than Ive managed to lower it to maximum possible.

I'll add a photo of the area in Q ( the only area I can affect): have a look at how straight the strings are - behind- the saddle, the 8mm or so before they dive into the bridge pegs. Theyre all almost flat. They should go up, pivot on the saddle then onwards, Ive had to go this low, in orderto make the action - just- playably low. Any higher = unplayable guitar.

If you can zoom in on my diy saddle... you'll see how little height it has. Too little. The pivot point isn't meaning good ringing strings so low.

Hence my conundrum. SC

[Sea Chief]

You can maybe see from this photo( if you can zoom in- ideal ) of neither evidence of the neck having pulled up, nor any bridge area being anything other than normal too/ no obvious belly swell on the top (besides too it is plywood = much stronger/ stiffer than a solid top).

[Chuck H]

Well the fingerboard/neck distortion where it meets the body really is a problem with different solution. The fingerboard needs to have the frets removed and be planed. Probably enough so that you'll need to re cut some fret slots at the body end. This would also worsen the action with your other issues due to material removal. Removing the neck would require removing the 12th fret and drilling steaming holes anyhow. Honestly, if this guitar isn't important to you it's just not worth such effort. You should go in knowing that it could well become a learning platform that may not survive and the effort will be strictly for the experience. Not a bad thing overall since you can't use the guitar now anyway and you seem to be having some fun.

[Helmholtz]

You can maybe see from this photo( if you can zoom in- ideal ) of neither evidence of the neck having pulled up, nor any bridge area being anything other than normal too/ no obvious belly swell on the top (besides too it is plywood = much stronger/ stiffer than a solid top).

Looks like a bowed up top to me. Even +2mm in the middle might suffice to cause your problem.
A straightedge should lie (almost) flat on the top in both X and Y directions. Check if it rocks.

More relief will increase action, so make things worse.

The rigidity of plywood depends on the glue joint. Once the glue softens (e.g. by moisture), it bends more than solid wood and stays bent after..

[tedmich]

(possibly) inspirational video here:

This has always been what daunts me about acoustic work: feather thin pieces of wood, tons of glue, endless freehand work and once completed the guitar remains a structural "house of cards" That said they do sound wonderful!

In the above instance (and maybe yours) the key is being bold and unafraid to tear things down to build them up; an acoustic guitar does not adjust into functionality (like most electrics) , it instead must be BUILT into functionality. Real Luthiers have no issues with this; I bought a car from a guy who regularly tore down <1940 Martins worth more than several cars!

So either be bold and tear down to rebuild OR find a real Luthier!

[Sea Chief]

Looks like a bowed up top to me. Even +2mm in the middle might suffice to cause your problem.
A straightedge should lie (almost) flat on the top in both X and Y directions. Check if it rocks.

More relief will increase action, so make things worse.

Hi HH. But I don't know how you could say this, from this photo.. there's not enough pic accuracy or enough of the body in the photo. So is this an assumption?

The first question I asked, where I needed to begin.. was should acoustics have a dead flat top? I think I knew the answer (no, there is usually a slight upward curve with the bridge on the " crest " of the curve).

But assuming my answer is correct ( If my decently playable/ normal action 8 yr old takamine, & my 2005 taylor, both have similar curves, then it seems logical to say these are -not- both showing signs of an incorrectly bowed up top: they are meant to have this curve / it is normal/ it is in the design when new).

But I need to get this answer confirmed then I can sort of progress to the next question.

Could someone confirm this is true?

( I understand adding more relief will increace action. But I have to. I have explained why I need to add a bit more. Once again: as it is, the tiny bulge ( a common occurrence) of the neck area @ the body = buzzing/ strings not ringing well playing here. SO. Once, or rather if I can ideally add a fraction more relief to combat this minor issue... the main / major issue is then made worse. It will highlight the main issue even more.)

Thanks, SC

[Sea Chief]

(possibly) inspirational video here:

This has always been what daunts me about acoustic work: feather thin pieces of wood, tons of glue, endless freehand work and once completed the guitar remains a structural "house of cards" That said they do sound wonderful!

In the above instance (and maybe yours) the key is being bold and unafraid to tear things down to build them up; an acoustic guitar does not adjust into functionality (like most electrics) , it instead must be BUILT into functionality. Real Luthiers have no issues with this; I bought a car from a guy who regularly tore down <1940 Martins worth more than several cars!

So either be bold and tear down to rebuild OR find a real Luthier!

Indeed. But in order to fix something, you first need to pinpoint the issue ( or rather what is --causing-- the issue). I simply cannot.

Conjecture that " it has a bowed up top " is just that, conjecture. Yes it makes sense that this is the most likely cause, 50 /50 split with the other usual monkey ( a pulled up neck)...... but my guitar shows no obvious signs of either. It might have symptoms of one. But no signs, no physical thing telling me either one IS the cause.

IE it might, possibly, have been like this with a silly- high action when new. But this seems unlikely.

To reitterate. The action in the photos is " good'ish / acceptable " ( though simply too high to you & me... if I measure it you'll agree ).... this is after my days' work reducing the saddle to stupid low, to help the silly high sction: actually it is compromised-low, there's buzzing too at the bridge, my saddle effort went a bit too far).

You can see how stupid-low my filed saddle is in the close-up bridge photo above. It needs more height. Needs another day's work/ another saddle fashioned by me (I have no choice if I can hear buzzing at this very saddle, it is flawed).

Thanks SC