To Truss rod or not to truss rod...that is the question...

[justonwo]

Originally Posted by invguy921

Thanks to everyone for the commentary on this. Quite interesting points of view from just about every angle. Sometimes we all (I) don't realize just how much goes into all of this...hence this discussion brings all of us (ME) to a point of more respect for those who DO understand it .

I certainly have a feel for what I like in string height, but I've never had a "measurement" for relief. I have an "eye" for it, but is there actually a measurement for curve in the neck that is optimal? I read the article below from 2010 and it makes some sense.

https://www.premierguitar.com/articl...or_Consistency

Anyone want to chime in on this? I'm all ears...

I think preferences vary, but the rule of thumb would be to have as little relief as possible to prevent fret buzz for a given saddle height and playing style. I play very aggressively with my picking style and probably need more relief than others. When the frets are dead level the amount of relief required is pretty small.

Originally Posted by invguy921

I certainly have a feel for what I like in string height, but I've never had a "measurement" for relief. I have an "eye" for it, but is there actually a measurement for curve in the neck that is optimal?

See below.

Originally Posted by justonwo

I think preferences vary, but the rule of thumb would be to have as little relief as possible to prevent fret buzz for a given saddle height and playing style. I play very aggressively with my picking style and probably need more relief than others. When the frets are dead level the amount of relief required is pretty small.

It is my belief that the vast majority of players and a solid majority of "technicians" have no idea how to setup a guitar or even what exactly makes one guitar play better than another. I don't believe heavy handed players need more relief, and I put myself in the first third of the heavy zone.

The idea that extra relief is necessary probably comes from the fact that adding relief via an adjustable truss rod also raises the action slightly. While that will stop some buzzing, it also makes the middle frets more difficult to play, and can actually cause buzzing as the player frets closer to the body. Assuming we're starting with level frets and no other issues, what nearly all players need is the nut slots at fret height, very near 0.005" relief, and the saddle height adjusted such that the guitar does not buzz with their normal playing style.

I've proven this to a few players how thought they needed more relief, and afterward they admitted their guitar "never played better". I'm not a professional repairman by any means, but I've been watching the good ones and they've been kind enough to teach me.

[invguy921]

Originally Posted by justonwo

I think preferences vary, but the rule of thumb would be to have as little relief as possible to prevent fret buzz for a given saddle height and playing style. I play very aggressively with my picking style and probably need more relief than others. When the frets are dead level the amount of relief required is pretty small.

Thank you. I can't really say if my playing style is aggressive or not...depends on the day . But certainly, I'm in the "as little relief as is possible" camp, make that "as is practical" for a versatile playing style. After reading everything, I'm leaning more towards the "talented builder with no adjustable TR" side of things. That said, the words that will always haunt me are "The benefit of having a truss rod even if you don't need it to adjust it is infinitely greater than the drawback of not having one if you do need to adjust it."

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

The idea that extra relief is necessary probably comes from the fact that adding relief via an adjustable truss rod also raises the action slightly. While that will stop some buzzing, it also makes the middle frets more difficult to play, and can actually cause buzzing as the player frets closer to the body. Assuming we're starting with level frets and no other issues, what nearly all players need is the nut slots at fret height, very near 0.005" relief, and the saddle height adjusted such that the guitar does not buzz with their normal playing style.

Thanks Todd for adding clarity. Good thoughts !!

[GeoffStGermaine]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

Assuming we're starting with level frets and no other issues, what nearly all players need is the nut slots at fret height, very near 0.005" relief, and the saddle height adjusted such that the guitar does not buzz with their normal playing style.

I unfortunately can't find the article again with the search I've done, but I did read one in some guitar building/repair related publication where they'd polled a number of touring guitarists' techs for how they set up their action and relief and there was a pretty wide variation. I do recall there was variation between no relief and about 0.020". These we all electric players... I recall Jeff Beck and Eric Johnson being among the names.

My only point is that it is certainly personal preference, though I wouldn't at all argue that your parameters are certainly going to give a very playable guitar for most people.

[rustystill]

Originally Posted by invguy921

We're all seeing different approaches to design in guitars and frankly just about everything else on the planet as well. Old ideas being thrown out in exchange for new and better ones. Some time ago, I personally "bought into" the notion of the design that McPherson uses which is carbon fiber in the guitar neck and no truss rod. I can only guess that part of the reason for this with McPherson comes back to Matt McPherson's pride in his design and not wanting anyone to adjust the guitar and possibly mess it up. Presumably McPhersons need very little adjustment and hence the only way you can get and Mac adjusted is to send it back to them...a costly and time consuming option. Not to mention, McPherson guitars may "die" with Matt someday leaving McPherson guitar owners with limited options for the future owners.

I've always liked, and I think we all like the idea of a guitar that needs less adjustment. And yet it is wood and certainly wood moves with climate change, as well as just through ageing of the instrument. I know that some builders don't like the idea of local luthiers and owners tweaking their guitar using the truss rod. We've all heard horror stories of goofballs tweaking their guitars to the detriment of the entire instrument.

Realizing/assuming that 99% of the builders (production and custom) out there put truss rods in their guitars, I can guess there must be reasons why the majority haven't changed directions and followed McPherson's "no truss rod" strategy. Tell me please...why not just quit putting truss rods in guitars and start adding carbon fiber and make the neck super stiff?

Let's have a rousing discussion on this. I would love to get some commentary from all sorts of people, particularly builders on this topic. Thx!!

A little late but always an interesting discussion. I've got guitars with and without truss rods, adjustable and non adjustable. My main squeeze for about 30 years was a 73 Martin D-28 I bought new, neck reset at about 7-8 yrs old and it's been stable ever since. I began to play on a pac rim cheapy with very high action and when I got my Martin thought the action was heaven. Yet some, especially electric players thought it was high. Barring string buzz, severe intonation deficiency and similar tone affecting issues, I've been able to accommodate my playing to a variety of different action heights. The idea of continually tweaking the action has never been a part of my equation, and ho9nestly really seems like it would be a continual PITA.
And for many years, the question of what was in the neck was really of no concern to me.

It wasn't until I discovered and fell in love with the world of older guitars that I began to really pay attention to the differences in sound produced by a variety of different older and newer construction methods. Bottom line for me is that what's in the neck really does have an audible effect on tone. 20s and 30s 12 fret guitars with no truss rods or ebony reinforcement sound different than those with metal. The stiffer the neck the less reflexive energy coming back from the strings and the more refractive energy, which basically means that the stiffer things are, the more the sound bounces off the surfaces and the less the instrument itself is set into vibratory motion producing frequency spectrums of it's own based on the structure and nature of the composition of the materials.

I certainly don't discredit new instruments with metal in the neck, I have some very fine sounding newer guitars that do, but for older instruments and customs, I always gravitate toward those with no truss rods or ebony in the neck (not a fan of carbon fiber either). As far as structural stability, haven't had any problems to date, I adjust to different actions, and primarily it's the tone that keeps me playing in this ballpark.

-Jim

Originally Posted by GeoffStGermaine

I unfortunately can't find the article again with the search I've done, but I did read one in some guitar building/repair related publication where they'd polled a number of touring guitarists' techs for how they set up their action and relief and there was a pretty wide variation. I do recall there was variation between no relief and about 0.020". These we all electric players... I recall Jeff Beck and Eric Johnson being among the names.

My only point is that it is certainly personal preference, though I wouldn't at all argue that your parameters are certainly going to give a very playable guitar for most people.

I suppose I could be convinced, but my initial reaction is that the guy who suggests that 0.020" relief on any acoustic or electric guitar simply doesn't understand the problem. And it would take some pretty high level logic to convince me otherwise.

[justonwo]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

See below.

It is my belief that the vast majority of players and a solid majority of "technicians" have no idea how to setup a guitar or even what exactly makes one guitar play better than another. I don't believe heavy handed players need more relief, and I put myself in the first third of the heavy zone.

The idea that extra relief is necessary probably comes from the fact that adding relief via an adjustable truss rod also raises the action slightly. While that will stop some buzzing, it also makes the middle frets more difficult to play, and can actually cause buzzing as the player frets closer to the body. Assuming we're starting with level frets and no other issues, what nearly all players need is the nut slots at fret height, very near 0.005" relief, and the saddle height adjusted such that the guitar does not buzz with their normal playing style.

I've proven this to a few players how thought they needed more relief, and afterward they admitted their guitar "never played better". I'm not a professional repairman by any means, but I've been watching the good ones and they've been kind enough to teach me.

I’m going to disagree with you on that one. Some players are gentle enough that they can play a fretboard with no relief. I can’t do that. Relief significantly impacts action in the lower frets, where more clearance is needed if you play hard. Saddle height obviously impacts the whole fret board, but high saddle height is more important for clearance in the upper frets. They work hand in hand, though I agree 0.005” is a fine starting point and is about where I keep most of my guitars. Recognize that some players can and do go closer to flat. You’re also correct that a very low saddle and excessive relief can create a weird dip in the fretboard that causes buzzing.

I would say that 0.020” is out of the range of optimal. There may be some players who like that but that’s just begging for buzzing in the upper frets if the saddle is lowered to compensate. Or if the player just doesn’t care about low action.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

The idea that extra relief is necessary probably comes from the fact that adding relief via an adjustable truss rod also raises the action slightly. While that will stop some buzzing, it also makes the middle frets more difficult to play, and can actually cause buzzing as the player frets closer to the body. Assuming we're starting with level frets and no other issues, what nearly all players need is the nut slots at fret height, very near 0.005" relief, and the saddle height adjusted such that the guitar does not buzz with their normal playing style.

This is why the relief should always be set FIRST before evaluating saddle height.

Also, many builders actually plane relief INTO the fretboard itself, as in an optimal world, bass and treble side relief should be different because of the string diameter (then the frets are installed, following the contour set at the fretboard, so that less fret filing is necessary). This is because the trussrod does not necessarily add "relief" in the proper place.

[GeoffStGermaine]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

I suppose I could be convinced, but my initial reaction is that the guy who suggests that 0.020" relief on any acoustic or electric guitar simply doesn't understand the problem. And it would take some pretty high level logic to convince me otherwise.

Like I said above, it's down to player preference. Really that's not a logic problem, so I can't see using logic to convince you. I would imagine that a touring professional musician and his tech understand the problem of setting up an instrument to the player's preference. IIRC the one or ones up around 0.020" were outliers and the majority fell within a 0 to 0.008" range.