Resolved!! - Strange Autonomous Creaking from Martin Authentic

[Von Beerhofen]

Could it be the T-Bar is adjusting to temperature change and the creacking is just the noise of it when it rubs against the wood in it's T channel.
The T- Bar is a snug fit as opposed to the standard trussrod, which more or less hangs in it's channel.
BTW I recall a simmilar thread not too long ago.

Ludwig

Originally Posted by Von Beerhofen

Could it be the T-Bar is adjusting to temperature change and the creacking is just the noise of it when it rubs against the wood in it's T channel.
The T- Bar is a snug fit as opposed to the standard trussrod, which more or less hangs in it's channel.

No T-bar on this one. The OM Authentics have ebony reinforcement. Regardless, both T-bar and ebony are glued solidly in place on the Authentics.

[OddManOut]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

No T-bar on this one. The OM Authentics have ebony reinforcement. Regardless, both T-bar and ebony are glued solidly in place on the Authentics.

Ebony...really? This is even more interesting. Wood moves with humidity changes. That there is a dense wood (ebony) abutting a wood of lesser density (mahogany)-not reinforced with a steel rod of some sort, mind you-could allow for uneven movement between the pieces. I have no idea if that is what is actually happening here, but it is suspect.

One man's opinion: Two way truss rods are good things.

[bill91]

Perhaps change its location after the strings are removed to see if the tension as well as the temp.and r.h.are the issue. I'm not sure it would help but it could be a starting point.

Originally Posted by OddManOut

Ebony...really?

Martin Authentics based on pre-1934 guitars have ebony reinforcement, except for the 000-18K 1921, which has no reinforcement at all.

Originally Posted by OddManOut

One man's opinion: Two way truss rods are good things.

If forced to choose one adjustable truss rod, it would be the conventional 1-way rod seated in the aluminum channel. IME they are much easier to adjust. The 2-way rods Martin currently uses are considerably more fussy, as in a very small change in the rod sometimes creates too much difference in geometry. Think of the difference between 4:1 banjo tuners and 12:1 Waverly tuners. The 2-way rods also bow the neck differently. They create more change near the nut than expected, where the other style puts nearly all the change in the middle of the rod. They're just more predictable. The 2-way rod is also heavier. Finally, there are very few times in traditional neck construction where you want to force a forward bow - which is what a 2-way rod does. Most of the time, string tension creates all the forward bow you need, and more, so the 1-way rod is more sufficient. The only reason Martin changed to the 2-way rod is to combat the tendency of their early Micarta fretboards to back-bow the neck under string tension.

[00-28]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

Martin Authentics based on pre-1934 guitars have ebony reinforcement, except for the 000-18K 1921, which has no reinforcement at all.


If forced to choose one adjustable truss rod, it would be the conventional 1-way rod seated in the aluminum channel. IME they are much easier to adjust. The 2-way rods Martin currently uses are considerably more fussy, as in a very small change in the rod sometimes creates too much difference in geometry. Think of the difference between 4:1 banjo tuners and 12:1 Waverly tuners. The 2-way rods also bow the neck differently. They create more change near the nut than expected, where the other style puts nearly all the change in the middle of the rod. They're just more predictable. The 2-way rod is also heavier. Finally, there are very few times in traditional neck construction where you want to force a forward bow - which is what a 2-way rod does. Most of the time, string tension creates all the forward bow you need, and more, so the 1-way rod is more sufficient. The only reason Martin changed to the 2-way rod is to combat the tendency of the their early Richlite fretboards to back-bow the neck under string tension.

Most of the experienced guitar "experts" I have researched or spoken to prefer the two-way rod. I have never experienced any difficulty adjusting a two-way rod, small adjustment, small change. I don't see how a neck will change more at one point along the shaft, at the nut you say, than along the entire shaft equally with the two-way Rod. One-way rods and two-way rods are anchored at the same points, the nut and the neck block. Are you saying a two-way Rod creates an "S" curve to the neck? Maybe you are correct, but I have never seen it. Just my point of view.

I also have a hard time following the reason Martin went to the two-way rod across the board is because of the early Micarta boards had a tendancy to back-bow.
........Mike

[WindChaser]

Interesting. I didn't realize it had ebony reinforcements instead of the t-bar; thanks for the info.

I took it in to an authorized Martin repair person and he said it would take about an hour to fully inspect it so I had to leave it with him. He said he would call me on Monday. I'll keep you all posted.

[Joe McNamara]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

The only reason Martin changed to the 2-way rod is to combat the tendency of the their early Richlite fretboards to back-bow the neck under string tension.

I'm not sure that this is accurate. The two-way rod was implemented in 2007 if memory serves - synthetic fingerboards were a small fraction of Martin's line-up at the time - and what SFBs there were may have still been Micarta at that. (I don't think that Richlite replaced Micarta on some M&T models for a couple of years after the two-way rod was installed across the line as the "latest-and-greatest".) It was put in Standard, Vintage, Limited Edition, Marquis at the same time it went into the Mortise & Tenon line, IIRC. I do remember carry dozens of the new, longer truss rod wrenches at the time of the changeover and doing a lot of training in the field.

I was there '96 -'13 and I don't remember any discussion of two-way rods vis-a-vis synthetic fingerboards being the driving force for the change, which as I said, wouldn't seem to have made economic sense at the time, but I can't pretend my memory is perfect - or sometimes even very good. :-)

[Blueser100]

Originally Posted by PastorSteve

Sounds more like a Terrified top.......

Now that's funny.

[OddManOut]

The two-way rod was implemented in 2007 if memory serves

Oy vey. Martin was a bit resistant to change, perhaps?

[devellis]

Originally Posted by OddManOut

Ebony...really? This is even more interesting. Wood moves with humidity changes. That there is a dense wood (ebony) abutting a wood of lesser density (mahogany)-not reinforced with a steel rod of some sort, mind you-could allow for uneven movement between the pieces. I have no idea if that is what is actually happening here, but it is suspect.

One man's opinion: Two way truss rods are good things.

Fingerboards are high-density ebony abutting lower-density mahogany necks. Would you expect them to creak? Remember, like the fingerboard, the ebony rod is glued in place. In neither case would I expect movement.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by WindChaser

Hi All,

I have had my Martin om-28 authentic for about a month now, and it truly is fantastic; however, the guitar is acting rather odd and I wanted to see if anyone had a similar experience.

Whenever I bring it down from my first floor (71 degrees, 45% humidify) to the basement (68 degrees, 50% humidity), and when I let the guitar hang on the guitar stand, it starts to creak by itself. These creaks are very short and cause a little echo within the guitar. The time intervals between the creaks vary from 3 minutes to 30 minutes and continues to as long as about 4 hours. It creaks again when I bring it back upstairs. None of my other guitars have ever done this.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Aaron

Are you by any chance using Ultimate Support guitar stands? I experience this phenomenon with a couple of my guitars when I place them on an Ultimate Support stand. It's an interaction between the finish on the neck and the material used for the yoke on the stand. I've never noticed any issue other than the noise.

Try moving the guitar between your two locations but don't use the stands. Still get the creaking?

Fran

[OddManOut]

Originally Posted by devellis

Fingerboards are high-density ebony abutting lower-density mahogany necks. Would you expect them to creak? Remember, like the fingerboard, the ebony rod is glued in place. In neither case would I expect movement.

You are right. No, not crack, but they do move because of the different density woods. But the presence of the fingerboard completely overrides my concern about the ebony neck reinforcement. I stand corrected. Tunnel vision on my part. Honestly, I appreciate you pointing out my error. It is not my intent to pass along bad info.

[devellis]

Originally Posted by OddManOut

I appreciate you pointing out my error. It is not my intent to pass along bad info.

Not to worry. We all get stuff wrong sometimes. I certainly do. Usually it eventually gets straightened out.

[djg]

Originally Posted by PastorSteve

First I would like to applaud you for finding a way to use the word autonomous. It is a rare thing indeed.

Now that we know the guitar is possessed, you should send it to me immediately if it starts to say anything - to be properly exercised of course.

So . . . you would take the guitar to pilates class or something?