This topic comes up quite often and we get the same old arguments from the few who believe that if a guitar isn't built like a pre war Martin Dreadnaught, then it just ain't right. I get tired of the old hillbilly Keebler elf story like he really knows anything, the "rigid" neck as opposed to the what, a "floppy" neck, the "I can hear the difference, don't know what I hear, I just hear it", argument, and of course the experts, Willi Henkes and John Arnold, who I agree are at the top of their game, but are deep in the pre war Martin camp.
All necks are rigid. On a non-adjustable neck, a steel bar strengthens the neck and the relief is set with the use of compression frets, which keeps the neck under tension at the correct relief permanently, or so we hope. With an adjustable rod, the same mahogany neck, with fretboard and frets that add to a rigid system, uses a truss rod that can be adjusted, which adds the tension needed for the correct relief. One neck is not more rigid than the other. One just uses the frets for the tension, the uses the rod to add the tension.
I have nothing to say about hearing a difference, If you can hear a difference and you believe it is the truss rod, that's good too. If you do hear a difference, why is it that the old way is always better?
I have two guitars with non-adjustable rods and two guitars with adjustable rods, all Martins. The are all good, just different ways to get to an end.
............Mike
|