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

[Guitars44me]

I'm not sure how much the super stiff neck contributes to the TONE of John Kinnaird's instruments but I do know his sound has rocked my world.

My latest JK and my next one have no adjustable TR. however, as always for JK the neck wood is split, bookmatched, and a five piece stringer is inset. Then multiple lengths of CF are inlaid from end to end, including one that is so deep it touches the fingerboard inside. The center CF almost reaches the back of the neck, too.

The fingerboards are also laminated out of two thinner slabs. One inner Rosewood and the outer one Ebony. There is no way this neck is moving. All the vibrations go to the top.
The necks are nice and light.

Then there are the CF struts from the neck block to the hips, and the elevated Fretboard which does not touch the top. As well as double sides, and solid linings which make for super rigid sides and allow a more flexible top.

All this is just PART of the build, as any Luthier can attest. The flex and tap of the parts, the ear of the builder, and general Mojo and pixie dust all are part of the mix. In JK's case with mine, the results have been STAGGERINGLY SWEET! One more, please!!!

Please remember that much of this is not new. As noted in other posts above, NO prewar Martin had an adjustable TR! And people squander their children's inheritance on these objects of desire and TONE. Many of which have survived all this time without even a bookmatch or a maple stringer!

Cheers

Paul

[The Bard Rocks]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I like the idea of no truss rods but would not do without unless the builder made a very good case for the practice. I remember my '78 M38, not a cheap guitar at the time. Martin categorically stated (then) that their necks were so good, truss rods were not needed. I took good care of it in the 18 years I had it - and it went through 3, count 'em, 3 neck resets. The final one, done by Steve Kovacik, was by far the best job, but by then I'd taken steps to get other guitars and to stop using that one.

[Bruce Sexauer]

A neck set is a bandaid fix for the neck caving into the body. The truss rod is to mitigate the neck itself being distorted by the string tension. These two items are related in that they are both the product of string tension and on the same instrument, but otherwise they are actually completely separate issues; one is the neck, the other is the body.

[rogthefrog]

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.

I wouldn't buy a wooden guitar without an adjustable truss rod.

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by justonwo

I believe the relief can still be fine tuned by milling the frets. Lewis Santer told me a Plek is a great way to do this.

That's a pretty invasive and expensive way to do something that would otherwise require a $0.50 Allen wrench and a couple of minutes. No?

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by jt1

I've 4 guitars that lack metal truss rods: 1917 Larson brothers built Dyer Style 7 Symphony Harp guitar, 1920 Larson brothers built Mauer 00, and two 1943-ish Gibson SJs. All have maple inserts instead of metal trussrods in their Honduran mahogany necks. All are beautifully playable and astonishingly light. All of the necks of these guitars are stable and their relief is minimal, which is my preference. The original owner of one of these guitars took his instrument to the European WWII battlefront, where he and the instrument lived in foxholes.

Now I have this mental image of a soldier with a giant ornate harp guitar with him at all times, covered in mud and shrapnel.

[svea]

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

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.

I wouldn't buy a wooden guitar without an adjustable truss rod.

<<<<<THIS!!>>>>>

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

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.

I wouldn't buy a wooden guitar without an adjustable truss rod.

For many of us it's about tone as much as weight or any other factor. Changing tension on an adjustable truss rod affects the tone of the instrument, some more significantly than others.

As I said earlier, I own many guitars with fixed reinforcement of one form or another. None of them ever move more than 0.002" from the extremes of winter to summer and this is with all kinds of travel and outdoor festivals for days at a time. This is not to say that I (or anyone else) will never have issues with relief, but it's fairly rare with the better forms of reinforcement.

No one should be forced into it if they don't want to be, but it is not an irrational choice.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by alohachris

Fixing all those broken-off Gibson headstocks taught me that 3/32" is simply not enough meat from the bottom of the slot to oblivion for a neck under tension - alohachris -

I think the Gibson headstocks fail more for the fact that they have a short-grain issue at the volute area due mostly to the design - large headstock tilt angle, with one-piece necks. I've repaired many Les Pauls (that were basically brand new, but that's another story) and it's always in the same location.

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

While a certain amount of relief can indeed be created in fret milling, it is paid for by making the instrument play less evenly. Most accomplished players will probably notice it, though they may not know exactly what the problem is. It is just one of the things that makes one guitar play better than another.

I agree with this....

Originally Posted by mcduffnw

Even the famed vintage Martins of the 30's and 40's, some of those took over a decade or more before the necks needed service...but some only took a few years. On some guitars, the neck stock was...or even with new guitars still today...is...just stiffer, some dovetail joints, and some tops and braces were/are also just stiffer/stronger, so they resist/resisted the forces working against them longer than others, even though they were...or are...same models, same materials, same construction techniques and quality of work.

Originally Posted by jt1

I've 4 guitars that lack metal truss rods: 1917 Larson brothers built Dyer Style 7 Symphony Harp guitar, 1920 Larson brothers built Mauer 00, and two 1943-ish Gibson SJs. All have maple inserts instead of metal trussrods in their Honduran mahogany necks. All are beautifully playable and astonishingly light. All of the necks of these guitars are stable and their relief is minimal, which is my preference. The original owner of one of these guitars took his instrument to the European WWII battlefront, where he and the instrument lived in foxholes.

While this is true, up until the 30s or so, guitars still used bar fretwire, and the compression against the slots help provide the stiffness of the neck, and adjustments in relief could be made by changing wire width at certain locations. I would think the builders of the time noticed this issue with using modern t-type frets with tangs.

Originally Posted by The Bard Rocks

Martin categorically stated (then) that their necks were so good, truss rods were not needed. I took good care of it in the 18 years I had it - and it went through 3, count 'em, 3 neck resets. The final one, done by Steve Kovacik, was by far the best job, but by then I'd taken steps to get other guitars and to stop using that one.

Neck relief is a different thing from body deformation, whether the top sinks, the back arch flattens, there's movement at the dovetail... all while the fretboard itself remains in the "correct" configuration.

Originally Posted by justonwo

I believe the relief can still be fine tuned by milling the frets. Lewis Santer told me a Plek is a great way to do this.

While that's true, the Plek can be used WITHOUT the frets. The nut and saddle are fitted and strung to tension. The guitar is then put on the Plek, where it take a reading of the neck, and calculates how much fretboard material needs to be removed, and where, based on the particular player's setup and style (or presets can be loaded for generic setups.) The setup for the Plek is such that the guitar can be removed and replaced and have the neck in tension simulation, like an Earlwine neck jig, but I believe readings can be taken before and after string tension so that the computer can calculate the amount to be taken off the fretboard. Then after the frets are installed, the guitar goes on the Plek again, to dress the frets.

This would be the more accurate way of using the Plek, such that the fret heights remain constant.

[justonwo]

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

That's a pretty invasive and expensive way to do something that would otherwise require a $0.50 Allen wrench and a couple of minutes. No?

It’s unnecessary if the relief is right to begin with. Look, I’m not trying to pursuade anyone. I have guitars with and without them. If you aren’t comfortable with a non-adjustable truss rod I understand.

[justonwo]

Louie, makes sense to me. I also could be misinterpreting what Lewis said. He might have been saying what you’re saying. It’s been a while.

[jt1]

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

Now I have this mental image of a soldier with a giant ornate harp guitar with him at all times, covered in mud and shrapnel.

The soldier bought this Banner SJ new in late 1943 and took it to the European WWII battle front:



I'm honored to be its current caretaker. I've traveled the world with it, telling the Kalamazoo Gals story. I'll be taking it to Germany and the UK this summer.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by justonwo

Louie, makes sense to me. I also could be misinterpreting what Lewis said. He might have been saying what you’re saying. It’s been a while.

What you mention is also true, but as Bruce mentioned playability and feel can become an issue, especially if the correction is enough to vary the fret heights. Even with calused fingertips my skin has enough meat on them that they would bottom out; I need as much fret height as possible (I actually install jumbo wire on my own...)

Where Plek is great is when you want to optimize how low you can get the strings without them buzzing, as the "shape" of the vibrating string when struck is not exactly the smooth arc we imagine it to be, and Plek takes that into account.

[invguy921]

Originally Posted by justonwo

It’s unnecessary if the relief is right to begin with. Look, I’m not trying to persuade anyone. I have guitars with and without them. If you aren’t comfortable with a non-adjustable truss rod I understand.

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...

[jt1]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

While this is true, up until the 30s or so, guitars still used bar fretwire, and the compression against the slots help provide the stiffness of the neck, and adjustments in relief could be made by changing wire width at certain locations. I would think the builders of the time noticed this issue with using modern t-type frets with tangs.

Neither Gibson nor the Larson brothers ever used bar frets. These guitars all have T frets.

This said, relief can be adjusted by compression fretting with frets of varying tang widths.