Adjustable Truss Rod -- good or bad?

[Br1ck]

I have no issues with my M 36, but I bought a guitar from Fla, and when it got to Ca, it was two and a half turns to get it half decent. Six weeks later, it was back to about where it started, but I played it the whole time. That made me a believer in the dual action truss rod, as I went from one rod to the other and back again.

[harmonics101]

I have not adjusted a single truss rod in any of my guitars in my entire life, all have adjustable truss rods, all my guitars play perfectly. I like the option of being able to adjust the truss rod, if indeed that needs to be done. Sort of like alignment on your car. You assume (hope) the alignment comes correct straight out of the factory, never needing to make that adjustment. I think there are lots of cases where the truss rod adjustment is being used inappropriately for other ways of correcting a different problem,

H

[ukejon]

Truss rods? Well, they sure come in handy when you need them....

[bozz_2006]

I've never had to use my car's airbag, but I'm glad it's there.

[justonwo]

Just to be clear to the OP, a truss rod is really only one part of a setup. Of the guitar is otherwise perfectly setup, including all adjustments at the nut and saddle, then you can tweak the truss rod as weather conditions might change to dial in the relief. Many guitars built without adjustable truss rods are pretty resilient against weather changes. On a nice guitar, whether you have a truss rod or not is really a matter of personal preference and sensitivity to needing adjustments to the relief. I like both kinds of guitars, but find that those guitars that are reinforced with graphite rods (i.e. no adjustable steel rod) can be quite light weight and better balanced than a guitar with an adjustable steel rod. A very cheap guitar with no adjustable rod is a whole different story.

Adjustable truss rods are the easiest way to adjust relief. Great guitars can certainly be built with adjustable truss rods. However, I am of the opinion that building with fixed neck reinforcement is a better way. I've owned and played such guitars for many years. Properly done, with the right combination of materials, stiff reinforcement, and compression fretting, relief remains constant year after year, season after season. It's a very stable way to build.

Here's what Willi Henkes had to say about it. He also pointed out that he tends to hear dead spots on adjustable truss rod necks if they require too much tension to straighten. That wouldn't apply to all installations, but more for a neck that was not very stiff on its own.

"While a non-adjustable rod as well as laminations reinforce a neck the basic construction is simple. The densest part or level with the highest tension of such a neck is the fingerboard with the frets adding pressure and tension with the string tension compressing this side of the neck while the back is pulled. This tension creates excellent sounding necks as long as the glue joints are in good working order and the frets fit tight with enough pressure.

For this reason bar fret necks sound perfect even with a slimmer neck profile. T-bar necks are quite similar but with the difference that the tension is lower but there's more mass and density. It seems that these necks also are excellent sounding but especially a higher string tension and/or bigger neck size have a positive impact. Carbon rods are something in-between as they are stiffer than ebony but have less mass and density than steel."

[jseth]

Adjustable truss rods are a VERY good thing... especially if you travel around the country a bit...

I know there are builders who do not use adjustable truss rods, and I know that the Authentic line does not. I know that Martin didn't even begin to use them until the 80's, and they built a LOT of great guitars before then, so I figure there's a way that not having a truss rod can work very well...

But I am firmly in the "yes, please" camp for adjustable truss rods...

[MissouriPicker]

I prefer having a truss rod in my guitars. You never need it until you need it. Better safe than sorry.

[teleamp]

Originally Posted by paulzoom

If your guitar doesn't have a truss rod it's either a piece of junk or a very old vintage guitar.

Please qualify this answer...

[gruuv]

An unequivocal vote of "good" from moi.

[handers]

Originally Posted by harmonics101

I have not adjusted a single truss rod in any of my guitars in my entire life, all have adjustable truss rods, all my guitars play perfectly. I like the option of being able to adjust the truss rod, if indeed that needs to be done. Sort of like alignment on your car. You assume (hope) the alignment comes correct straight out of the factory, never needing to make that adjustment. I think there are lots of cases where the truss rod adjustment is being used inappropriately for other ways of correcting a different problem,

H

I also have never touched or had someone adjust the truss rod or had a setup since acquiring these guitars over the last 30 years. One had a neck reset by the builder so I presume they may have used the truss rod to set the action.

Maybe I need to adjust all my truss rods!!

hans

[Dreadful]

Adjustable truss rods are not needed, tone is better without them. I have six guitars without adjustable truss rods, two with them.

[flaggerphil]

Why wouldn't you want one?

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by kydave

Back when I got into Martins in the '60s, this old hillbilly bluegrass/old time musician with Martin guitars and Gibson banjos and mandolins to die for told me, when I ask why Martin didn't have that little plastic thingie on the headstock like Gibsons & Guilds did:
"Dave, underneath that thingie is an adjustment nut to get at the rod that straightens the neck. Martin doesn't use or need that. They build them right to begin with and build them to stay that way."

That's stuck with me ever since. The rigid Martin neck, IMO, transmits sounds in a slightly different way than the non-rigid Martin neck. I think it's a better way.

A rigid neck is stiff enough so that the relief stays virtually the same regardless of the string gauge you use. This type of "stiff" is different (better in my book) than a "stiff" that really is variable and dependent on the adjustment of the truss rod. The physics of the sound transmittal are different.

"Dave, underneath that thingie is an adjustment nut to get at the rod that straightens the neck. Martin doesn't use or need that. They build them right to begin with and build them to stay that way."

I normally agree with Dave on most things - but I'm afraid that most who have owned pre & post truss rod Martins over the years know that this simply is not true.

I've seen so many non rod necks that had relief like old mattresses, and ones with truss rods with the same problem.

Of course back in the day when Dave and I were young'uns and them crusty old bluegrass pickers used heavy gauge strings and never went above the fifth fret, maybe a 1/2" relief was manly!

[wrathfuldeity]

Originally Posted by kydave

That's stuck with me ever since. The rigid Martin neck, IMO, transmits sounds in a slightly different way than the non-rigid Martin neck. I think it's a better way.

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

However, I am of the opinion that building with fixed neck reinforcement is a better way. I've owned and played such guitars for many years. Properly done, with the right combination of materials, stiff reinforcement, and compression fretting, relief remains constant year after year, season after season. It's a very stable way to build.

Here's what Willi Henkes had to say about it. He also pointed out that he tends to hear dead spots on adjustable truss rod necks if they require too much tension to straighten. That wouldn't apply to all installations, but more for a neck that was not very stiff on its own.

"While a non-adjustable rod as well as laminations reinforce a neck the basic construction is simple. The densest part or level with the highest tension of such a neck is the fingerboard with the frets adding pressure and tension with the string tension compressing this side of the neck while the back is pulled. This tension creates excellent sounding necks as long as the glue joints are in good working order and the frets fit tight with enough pressure.

For this reason bar fret necks sound perfect even with a slimmer neck profile. T-bar necks are quite similar but with the difference that the tension is lower but there's more mass and density. It seems that these necks also are excellent sounding but especially a higher string tension and/or bigger neck size have a positive impact. Carbon rods are something in-between as they are stiffer than ebony but have less mass and density than steel."

Interesting...I have 2 old harmony H165, same early/mid 60's era of "steel reinforced neck" non adjustable. Both have had neck resets, one I'm sure nothing was done with one tress rod; in the other the orginal steel rod was replaced with heavier steel rod (non-adjustible) and epoxied in. This resulted in a significantly heavier and more solid feeling neck. The guy that did this said that the guitar should never need another reset, the neck is great, no dead spots, no movement with a change of string gauge. It seems...but IDK...its like with this solid neck...the sound doesn't travel up the neck and keeps the vibrational energy in the body...and this guitar is louder, has more projection and has more headroom. However the one with the orginal condition neck, is light as a feather, has a fast response and can be played with a feather touch and easily overdriven...very intimate.