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

[justonwo]

Originally Posted by mercy

This conversation seems to have a lot of theorizing and a couple of owners who say it is no problem. If this is correct I say lets listen to those with the actual experience of owning one over a period of time.
And if there is tone loss with a adjusting rod it seems to me we need to look at the assumption of the necessity for a rod again.
I wonder if the adjusting rod is just a convenience for the builder.

I have 2. One of which I’ve had for 2 years and the other for 1 year: Klepper and Slobod were the builders. Both are rock solid. I used to have a Montuoro 000-12 that was 2-3 years old that was also rock solid. The right builder can do it well.

[s2y]

I'd need to try it out before buying. I'm very picky about my relief settings.

[woodbox]

Having had a non-adjustable Martin my whole guitar playing life, (the 1928 0-18 Grandma gave me in 1965) I can attest that it is as straight as the day it was made.
The 1967 000-18 I had for many years also had no adjustable rod.
No problems.

Each of the 50 or so guitars I've had, (other than the '28 0-18 and '67 000-18)
has had an adjustable truss rod.
And for the most part, I'm glad they did.

Having the flexibility to adjust the neck during setup has often proved a valuable option.

That all said, over the last two years I have been laboring to build my first guitar, and it is now playable and being enjoyed regularly.
I chose to put a non-adjustable stainless steel square tube rod in the neck.
I regret that decision.

As Bruce Sexauer stated in his third paragraph above, getting it perfect doesn't happen about a third of the time.
I missed.
I had to plane and refret my fingerboard twice.
Having the option of an adjustable truss rod would have been very helpful.

The next guitar I build will have an adjustable rod.
Just my views.

[HHP]

Adjustable truss rods coincided with a move towards slimmer necks so I think the final neck profile is a big factor in how much adjustment might be needed over time.

[mcduffnw]

Originally Posted by justonwo

I have 2. One of which I’ve had for 2 years and the other for 1 year: Klepper and Slobod were the builders. Both are rock solid. I used to have a Montuoro 000-12 that was 2-3 years old that was also rock solid. The right builder can do it well.

Hi justonwo...

Give them maybe 10, 15, 20 years...who knows what may happen...

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.

duff
Be a Player...Not a Polisher

[justonwo]

Originally Posted by s2y

I'd need to try it out before buying. I'm very picky about my relief settings.

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.

[alohachris]

Aloha,

If a guitar is smaller (up to 000), or 12-fret, & braced & designed for light-gauged strings, & won't travel through much climactic change a lot, then Carbon Fiber or other non-adjustable material is fine to use for a truss-rod. Even on nylon-string, classical guitars, I often have used CF as non-adjustable trusses.

In fact, on my first two Koa 00/000 sized, 12-fret gigging guitar necks, I epoxied in non-adjustable, 1/4" x 1/2" cold-rolled steel bars. Those two have never changed relief/action in over 41 years of playing them almost nightly in more than 60 countries (now retired from gigging). Rock steady. Slightly heavier. But slightly more sustain, IMO.

I have made many guitars with different CF configurations, with or without adjustable truss-rods. But I think that a laminated neck made with a combo of two (2) 1/4" x 1/4" CF side bars & an adjustable truss-rod (I like Martin's) gives you the most flexibility. For touring or travelling giggers, that's the best way to go, IMO.

You really see the advantages of an adjustable truss-rod in early autumn, when players turn on the indoor heating systems & guitar woods under tension shrink. Or if you play a gig in the Islands one night, & then play on the Mainland in winter within the same week. You really need that adjustable truss-rod for steel strings, IMO, - especially if you're into higher tension, higher gauge strings, 14 frets & long scales. The good news is that modern truss-rods have pretty cool designs over the older ones. Some even combine CF & adjustable steel rods & prevent the neck from side twisting as well.

Guitars do tend to move around a lot in their lives, no matter the original intent or place of playing. So, use an adjustable truss-rod. It'll help a guitar travel & remain playable throughout its life, no matter where it's played or what time of year. BTW, milling frets to achieve desired relief is an emergency short-term measure, IMO. It changes the consistency of how the neck plays in different areas.

Best of luck,

alohachris

PS: Of course, if you use an adjustable truss rod, then leave more neck mass (like a diamond or option) on the underside of the neck. 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 -

[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.

[justonwo]

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.

Good point. I’ve never experienced the difference in feel before and after this kind of job. Do you think it would be noticeable if you went from, say, 0.006” to 0.003” with relatively tall frets?

[svea]

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.

Bruce,
I totally agree with this. Frets play best at a full, even height, as they were originally installed and milled. Also, as a player who is very picky about her setups, I prefer having an adjustable truss rod and a drop in saddle. I've taught myself how to manage the action on my guitars with those two things. Otherwise it would be impossible for me to make any minor adjustments unless I take the guitar to my luthier.

I'm also a big fan of dovetail neck joints and multi-piece necks! But a good one piece neck out of well seasoned Honduran Mahogany would do just fine.

Svea

[justonwo]

Originally Posted by mcduffnw

Hi justonwo...

Give them maybe 10, 15, 20 years...who knows what may happen...

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.

duff
Be a Player...Not a Polisher

Indeed. Over that period of time any of a variety of things can happen, not just issues with relief. If that happens, I’ll get it fixed. Also, I’m going on the reputation and faith of people like Howard Klepper and John Slobod. If they tell me not to worry about it, I don’t. Not saying it’s impossible that something will happen, but it’s always possible that something will happen with a guitar.

I have to go now. I’m polishing my guitars.

[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.

I love these lightweight, a responsive instruments. I believe that a talented builder (including a bunch of extremely talented Kalamazoo Gals) can adjust her or his build to account for the lack of an adjustable truss rod.

[Bruce Sexauer]

Originally Posted by justonwo

Good point. I’ve never experienced the difference in feel before and after this kind of job. Do you think it would be noticeable if you went from, say, 0.006” to 0.003” with relatively tall frets?

Those who like such tall frets that their fingers don't really interact with the fingerboard (bar fretters, or frets over .050" tall) will certainly be less affected by a .005 difference than those of us, the majority I believe, who like to feel the fingerboard and use it as a reference. I personally totally prefer fret around .040, and think of .030 as approaching unplayable.

Fortunately, EVO frets seem to last forever, and may actually out live a human. Or an older one like me, anyway. I have yet to do a re-mill due to wear on one of my own EVO fret installations. It's been my standard wire for over ten years and I offer free fret maintenance to my guitar customers, so I'd expect to have at least heard about it if it happened.

By the way, I cannot yet figure out what is meant by going from .003 to .006.

[j. Kinnaird]

The stiffer the neck the less energy is absorbed by useless neck oscillations and the more energy is focused on the top. Adjustable truss rods do not make stiffer necks, they just balance string tension at a different point. That is why I always include two carbon fiber rods next to my trussrod, I want that neck to be as stiff as possible. Assuming neck relief is able to be built in with a non-adjustable neck, the best neck for sound and stability would be the stiffest non-adjustable neck possible.
The only major changes in the life of a well built guitar are top flexion due to prolonged stress and changes in humidity. The neck if well made, ought to stay rock solid stable. In my opinion it is a complete mistake to try to correct Poor action caused by top movement by adjusting the truss rod. Saddle height or neck camber should be manipulated instead. One benefit of having no truss rod is removing such a temptation.

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

Those who like such tall frets that their fingers don't really interact with the fingerboard (bar fretters, or frets over .050" tall) will certainly be less affected by a .005 difference than those of us, the majority I believe, who like to feel the fingerboard and use it as a reference. I personally totally prefer fret around .040, and think of .030 as approaching unplayable.

Agree on both ends of that - perfect versus unplayable.

Originally Posted by j. Kinnaird

The stiffer the neck the less energy is absorbed by useless neck oscillations and the more energy is focused on the top. Adjustable truss rods do not make stiffer necks, they just balance string tension at a different point. That is why I always include two carbon fiber rods next to my trussrod, I want that neck to be as stiff as possible. Assuming neck relief is able to be built in with a non-adjustable neck, the best neck for sound and stability would be the stiffest non-adjustable neck possible.
The only major changes in the life of a well built guitar are top flexion due to prolonged stress and changes in humidity. The neck if well made, ought to stay rock solid stable. In my opinion it is a complete mistake to try to correct Poor action caused by top movement by adjusting the truss rod. Saddle height or neck camber should be manipulated instead. One benefit of having no truss rod is removing such a temptation.

We've never met, but I get the sense that it would not be totally unpleasant for either of us. I'll be watching your writing a bit more closely now.