Acoustic Gtr Q's.. on here?

[Chuck H]

...although only Chuck has agreed they do have curved tops,..

I shamefully admit that what I said ("Most acoustic guitars bow up a little.") could be construed that way. But that is NOT what I was saying and now you're using it as a point to argue. Which seems ridiculous anyway under the circumstances. What I MEANT was that most acoustic guitars bow up a little UNDER STRING TENSION. They are indeed built flat and that is why the bridges are flat on the bottom. So they can be glued to a flat top.

You seriously couldn't put this together from the conversation so far? Further, since you've been playing guitar for so long you should have known this anyway. Unless you put on a blindfold to restring your acoustics.

I honestly think you just post for the attention. Half the crap you go sideways with is just forum masturbation. And you take every opportunity to do it. Hence so many threads over five pages long.

Really. Just put nylon strings on the guitar.

[Sea Chief]

Ok... You mentioned the model number of the guitar but I never looked it up. I had assumed this was a steel string guitar until this last page when you mentioned it's a classical guitar (there are no pictures showing the bridge face on or the headstock). Then I thought "Eh, still the same problem." But then Helmholts mentioned the greater string tension of steel strings.

BING! BING! BING! BING! BING! BING! BING! BING! BING! BING! BING! BING!

In post Private Messages I can clearly see you have steel strings on this instrument. It could well be the extra tension that is the problem. What I'm wondering now is how YOU, who are holding the guitar in your hands and reading along with this thread, hadn't put that together at least by post Projects where Helmholtz mentions string tension. I actually would have thought you knew the lighter tension of nylon strings already just because your a guitar player. have never owned a classical or flamenco guitar and I knew it. Why did this thread even happen???

Put some nylon strings on it. Come back if it's still broken.

No the guitar in Q is not a classical Chuck! Thing is I have a bad habit ( I know, same when I spiel I take a while to get to the point) of expanding too long. Sort of a need to be clear. But I do the very opposite often, confusing you along the way. Apologies, my fault for not being clear again.

Or... you jumped the gun & only read half of my posted spiel!

No. I do not own a classical. A builder stole it. I was referring to a classical only becuase I seem to recall it ( albeit 29 yrs ago) had a flat top, dead flat, no curve. A design thing. Nothing to do with string tension per se ( but then HH picked up on the difference in string tension.. & we got sidetracked).

I'll certainly put on a set of lighter strings, now knowing 70 kg of tension exists at the bridge. See what happens. Might make the neck go dead straight though.

Sorry, SC

[Chuck H]

Might make the neck go dead straight though.

Doubtful. Since you were able to get the truss rod to respond it should be adjustable. There's still the hump at the body joint fouling things up but that's a much easier fix. And it might even make it possible to improve the action measurement since you could replace the existing frets with extra tall jumbos. Effectively raising up the finger boars a tad. I always wanted an acoustic with light strings and jumbo frets for getting my MTV Unplugged act on . Sounds like fun.

Apologies for ranting (and possibly not paying close enough attention).

[Sea Chief]

Yes, solely (except for archtops).
Imagine the weight of person pulling on the bridge.




Nope.

I understand & always have done, that there is a fair bit of tension with acoustic strings. I can tell just by restringing them. But there is a difference between this string tension, & the top of an acoustic having an inherrent design curve prior to it ever being strung.

You are suggesting solely that the curve is made due to the string tension, & therefore, is not in the body design. I just can't see this as true. If this were true, the top would go down again once strings removed. Now call me a dutchman.. but this aint so. The curve remains there exactly as it did, with it unstrung.

Furthermore if this were true over time a ( strung) guitar would naturally get higher & higher, until maybe an equilibrium is reached. But how can a mfr sell new guiatrs this way? They couldn't. And every new acoustic Ive owned hasn't changed in height over a short, or, long period. It remains the same as when new, years later.

SC

[Chuck H]

Lot's of things are built with known flex tolerances. Think springs. All materials have some degree of flex and rebound. It's up to the engineers to work that out. Even buildings are built with such tolerances in mind. A certain amount of sag is considered for multi story steel framed structures. Yet they do not get shorter and shorter with age. Well, not much anyway. Same for wood. It's VERY resilient. This has been recognized by people for a very long time. Consider catapults, bows, atlatls. All used thousands of years ago.

And though you don't notice it your acoustic guitars tops DO change under string tension. Maybe you can't see it, but it's there. Consider their construction. There's only so much some little X braced sticks and a 1/8" plywood board can do against the weight of a human body. Just as a curiosity experiment you could put a straight edge across any of your acoustic guitar tops next time the strings are off. Then check it again when the new ones are tuned up.

[Sea Chief]

Doubtful. Since you were able to get the truss rod to respond it should be adjustable. There's still the hump at the body joint fouling things up but that's a much easier fix. And it might even make it possible to improve the action measurement since you could replace the existing frets with extra tall jumbos. Effectively raising up the finger boars a tad. I always wanted an acoustic with light strings and jumbo frets for getting my MTV Unplugged act on . Sounds like fun.

Apologies for ranting (and possibly not paying close enough attention).

Hi Chuck. I've repeatedly said I have specifically -not- been able to get the truss rod to respond.

I've asked about an acoustic top. If it's curved ( within the design I meant from #1.. I had yet to read about string tension until mentioned by HH 3 pages later).You seemed to agree about this curve being there, although I could see on all 3 of my acoustics the same curve. Which told me its massively likely tye curve is there on acoustics/ expected... & massively unlikely all three have similar bow-up bridgeissues. Now you say you didn't agree at all.

Im therefore really confused about your replies, especially you thinking this was a classical, when in Home I said the very model number. Even moreso with a thread title including the word Acoustic.. I mean how can you possibly conclude this? Nevermind. Something weirdly lost in translation.

Perhaps someone else could tell me if acoustics have this curved top when made (ie inherrant to the body design is what I was referringto in #1, rsther than as a result of the strings): this is the question Im still trying to answer, if now you don't agree after all.

Thanks SC

[Sea Chief]

Chuck H "There's still the hump at the body joint fouling things up but that's a much easier fix"..

Easy fix? ( Im yet more baffled). Could you tell me how-? The one thing I was 100% sure of, was that this was very far from an easy fix.

My saddle refashioning was, I thought, the easiest method of all. Although it oddly only lowered the action by 2mm, when I took a good 5-7mm off the height of the original saddle. As I have to do another one ( this one compromised as I took it down too low) this work -might, just- be enough of a solution.

I know the neck reset idea isn't easy, & also the top redoing would even more difficult. So these two are effectively ruled out, as I cannot afford, nor is there a luthier within 100 miles, nor is its cost warranting spending more than I paid for it, to do such work. As I explained right from the start. Hence looking at the saddle, being the only feasable thing I can do.

The hump is so small, that if I could add a bit of relief, this would sort this minor issue. But I cannot do so (I've said a good few times). So this minor hump stays, actually would the buzzing aroundthis top neck area be made worse with a lighter set of strings? I'll have to do it & see. From HH's string tension info (starting only on pg3), it seems likely the hump a bit worse with a 11-52 set.

So Im easing the tension doing this lighter strings idea which would possibly be good for the bridge ( I doubt it myself but more than happy to be proved wrong), but, worse for the relief. Ones currently? I don't know but hurt my fingers/ definitely one or maybe two guages higher.

Thanks SC

[Chuck H]

Yes. You did say that have been unable to add relief. But you have more than you need now. I'll repeat that you absolutely cannot improve playability by using neck relief to adjust action. You have been told this. You have been shown why. Persisting on wanting to increase relief is counter productive.

If you read my post N46 there should be no confusion. I never said that guitars are made with this bow. You have been told how it is. You can research it for yourself if that is not satisfactory. Choosing to argue or lament it now is going sideways of the goal.

Correcting the hump is a matter of pulling the frets and planing the fingerboard. There are special sanding blocks made for this and it's a common procedure. New frets would be installed after. This amounts to a "fret job". Also a common procedure. Much easier than removing the neck.

And I thought we already resolved, or at least amicably found ourselves on the other side of the classical vs steel string confusion. But here you are making into a point of contention again. For what purpose?

I'm not interested in going in circles anymore. I'm out.