View Single Post
  #22  
Old 07-09-2014, 12:08 PM
charles Tauber charles Tauber is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arie View Post
less of a chance of being influenced by random variables:
The entirety of setup work is "random", by your statement. It is based on what exists - the geometry - at the time you set it up. That isn't random, it is a relatively static set of data (datums, in popular language) with which to work. The string height has to be set relative to something. Pick what that something is. But, you're point is well-taken, to choose data that are as static as possible.

For example, the thickness of the fingerboard is pretty static. So is the height of one (the first) fret above that. Those are two of the data I prefer.

Similarly, using Frank's method, the height of the first two frets can be considered static as well. If they aren't, trying to setup an instrument with constantly changing geometry is an exercise in futility. Ever tried to setup a guitar with a very flexible neck, like a whammy bar? While playing it, the action (and intonation) constantly change.

I like Frank's method. I just got tired of cutting nut slots too deep or having to inch (.0001?) my way down to the desired height by trial and error. Using feeler gages - a method I learned from Dan Earlwine - allows me to usually cut/file once and be done with it and with repeatable results. I'm all for doing things by eye that can be.

There are many viable ways to accomplish nearly any task. One picks the one that one likes. That varies from one person to the next.

Last edited by charles Tauber; 07-09-2014 at 12:17 PM.
Reply With Quote