It's official..Composite Acoustics has been bought by Peavy

[Jeff M]

Originally Posted by rlgph

I didn't realize there were "proper" set-up specs -- i would have guessed that varied from player to player.

Yep. There are.
Or, more accurately, optimal neck angle and saddle height on new guitars which allow the player enough saddle to lower the action if they so choose to do so at time of purchase, not to mention lowering it over the years as the neck angle changes with guitar aging.

From Frets.com;
http://www.frets.com/FRETSPages/Musi...neckangle.html

And from William Cumpiaon;
http://www.cumpiano.com/Home/Newslet...wsletter3.html

From the end of his discussion;
"I recently visited a major guitar factory to assist a good friend in selecting a guitar (he was an ace dealer and his reward was to pick one out). Only one guitar in a dozen had anything even approaching an ideal neck angle. He couldn't believe it. The guys in the factory got most upset at me. I felt like the messenger with bad news that was about to be killed. Most of the guitars we examined (which, indeed, were ready for shipping), had string actions higher than would be comfortable for the ordinary player, and saddles which invariably were too low.

When a new guitar like that reaches its destination and its already-low saddle is adjusted (by the music store techie) down even further in order to remedy the stiff action, there will be nothing left to adjust over the guitar's long future of progressive settling-in. Virtually all the guitars we examined in the shipping room of that guitar factory were candidates for an expensive neck reset barely five or six months down the road -- if not right then and there. After examining about fifty guitars, we found one that happened to have nice low action, and a full-height saddle. I don't want to go through that ordeal again.

Ideally, after a guitar receives its first readjustment following an initial settling-in period, there ought to be sufficient saddle height left for a long lifetime of downwards adjustments. On all these guitars, a better neck angle would have assured this "quality." Sadly, the production engineers at that factory missed a golden opportunity to impart this additional measure of value into their instruments. "

I agree with Bill's comments. Seems like it is more common to see new guitars in stores with improper neck angles than proper ones.

BTW, Thanks for fighting the good fight Larry. Bad neck angles on brand new guitars is one of my pet peeves, and one of the reasons I generally avoid purchasing new guitars on line.

[gitnoob]

Originally Posted by Jeff M

Seems like it is more common to see new guitars in stores with improper neck angles than proper ones.

BTW, Thanks for fighting the good fight Larry. Bad neck angles on brand new guitars is one of my pet peeves, and one of the reasons I generally avoid purchasing new guitars on line.

Oy. I'm not sure how this news of a corporate asset purchase turned into a discussion of carbon fiber neck angles, but there appears to be a misunderstanding here.

CA guitars are unibody. The back and neck and created as one single unit from a mold. There is no neck set, and there is never the need for a neck reset.

And carbon fiber has a much higher strength to weight ratio than wood. It is very light and stiff, which is why you don't need or want much string energy to drive the top.

I'm sure that's why the neck and bridge and scale are *designed* as they are. The designer understood the sonic properties and material properties of carbon fiber. The lack of a truss rod is also by design in the CA guitars.

[Jeff M]

Originally Posted by gitnoob

..

I'm sure that's why the neck and bridge and scale are *designed* as they are. The designer understood the sonic properties and material properties of carbon fiber. The lack of a truss rod is also by design in the CA guitars.

As Larry noted in an earlier post;

Originally Posted by Larry Pattis

The physics of string vibration does not alter from wood guitar to non-wood guitars. A string that can slide around on the top of the saddle due to extremely low break-angle is simply not optimal for vibration.....
A saddle that is too low at a good set-up height is simply too low....usually due to an improper neck angle......
...oh, and in case I forgot to mention this earlier, I hope they think about adding an adjustable truss-rod.

Not everybody likes the same action and neck relief.
If there is not enough saddle showing to allow it to be adjusted, then the original design is off...whether or not the guitar is as stable as a rock.
The lack of an adjustable truss rod means a "one size fits all" relief. Don't find it comfortable? Too bad.

Glad Peavy stepped in.
Lets focus on continual product improvement now.

[gitnoob]

FWIW, I play my Cargo with low action and medium strings. The strength of the neck is more than sufficient to maintain relief when switching from lights to mediums. The saddle height is perfectly sufficient to drive the top.

What problem are we trying to fix?

The only improvement I can envision is a retractable neck for travel.

[Jeff M]

Originally Posted by gitnoob

FWIW, I play my Cargo with low action and medium strings. The strength of the neck is more than sufficient to maintain relief when switching from lights to mediums. The saddle height is perfectly sufficient to drive the top.

What problem are we trying to fix?

Adjusting the action if you want it adjusted downward and there isn't enough saddle showing to do so.
Adjusting the neck relief.

If your guitar works for you, great. You got one set up the way you like it.
That won't be the case for everybody...obviously isn't the case for somebody like Larry.

Why not improve the design?
Seems like the "fix" is a simple one. Tweak the neck angle specs and add a truss rod.

I am a fan of Martin guitars.
Having said that, I believe the could do a better job on their neck angles and set up. I've played too many brand new ones where the neck angle was low.

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by gitnoob

FWIW, I play my Cargo with low action and medium strings. The strength of the neck is more than sufficient to maintain relief when switching from lights to mediums. The saddle height is perfectly sufficient to drive the top.

For you, not for me.

The relief changed noticeably in going from lights to mediums with the two Cargos that I owned. Not to an unplayable condition, but a change was easily noticed....and a changed that made the guitar that much less playable.

I am not attacking you or anyone that is happy with the CA product.

I am pointing out that there is room for improvement, and hoping for them to make an even better guitar.

...but this being a guitar-forum and all, I know that folks take things rather personally at times. I know I do, and sometimes I'm wrong in this.

Originally Posted by gitnoob

What problem are we trying to fix?

Well, it's my understanding that CA's production manager came from the auto-industry. No guitar background.

I believe that Peavy may be in a position to improve the product, from a guitarists standpoint.

You are correct in pointing out that the CA product is made with a mold, and that a neck re-set is not possible....but they did choose a certain neck-to-body (angle or neck set) relationship when the mold was created...and IMO the relationship they choose was an incorrect one.

The question *I* have is whether or not Peavey will recognize the need for a slightly better angle, and if they want to discard some *very* expensive molds to improve things. If memory serves, the aluminum molds may be in the range of $20K per.

Some folks are perfectly happy with what is...but not me. I see where a better, more versatile product could be created.

Give me a better neck angle, and give me relief choice. Even C.F. Martin gave up on non-adjustable truss-rods in 1981...

[gitnoob]

Originally Posted by Larry Pattis

Some folks are perfectly happy with what is...but not me.

Exactly. It is not a product flaw -- it is perfectly suited for some people and perhaps not suited for others. That's what makes a market. Ideally, somebody will build the product you envision, but the Cargo appears to have a big fan base without any changes.

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by gitnoob

Exactly. It is not a product flaw -- it is perfectly suited for some people and perhaps not suited for others. That's what makes a market. Ideally, somebody will build the product you envision, but the Cargo appears to have a big fan base without any changes.

Arguing your position requires that one suspend the belief that a product can be made better, and that this can be somehow "proven" by the fact that they have satisfied customers.

Perhaps they would have many more satisfied customers if the guitar could have a wider range of set-up configurations.

It's major product flaws to me, the neck-angle and not having an adjustable truss-rod!

As I mentioned earlier, I had several stores checking Cargos as they came in for any that seemed outside of the standard specs; that is, with a slightly better neck angle to accomplish my goals. In doing this, I was dealing usually with the shop's set-up guys. Each and every one was sympathetic to my issues, and were fully aware of the set-up limitations that were present on the Cargo.

Look, I feel that the Cargo *is* a good product, but that it has flaws...like many things (most things!) in life.

We're chatting about guitars here, on the AGF, and I'm in a mood to pursue pointing out how *I* believe this product can be improved.

That's okay with you, right?

We're not going to change each others mind, but that's okay, too...

[leeasam]

I would not buy another CA guitar until they got a truss rod. My action on the CA GX I had was on the high side. higher than say Taylor recommended 6/64 and 4/64--- Low E / High E I did sand the saddle some and there was plenty of exposed saddle to do so but I hit a point wjherew if I would sand anymore I would be buzzing and rattling the strings in the lower frets. the ONLY way to remedy this would be to ad a touch of relief then I could have gotten the saddle down. The neck was too straigt and without a truss rod you are basically left to what you have--- Notice I now am Back to a Taylor as playuing with high action and stiff Phos/Bronze strings were giving me issues with finger tip pain. The point of not have to baby sit the guitar with climate issues was nice but not worth it when it is unenjoyable to play!

[gitnoob]

Originally Posted by Larry Pattis

It's major product flaws to me, the neck-angle and not having an adjustable truss-rod!

We're not having an argument -- we're just framing the same issue in a different way.

I love the Cargo as-is. I have no idea what increasing the saddle height (or decreasing the bridge height) would have on the tone, but I assume the designers chose based on something other than pure randomness.

And the lack of a truss rod was clearly a conscious design issue. Perhaps it was economic. Or perhaps they believe it was the Right Thing to do:

Q: Why do your guitars not have a truss rod?
A: Because our guitar is so stable, we don't need a truss rod. i.e.; no movement... no need! Truss rods became a part of the typical construction of wooden acoustic guitars to allow the ability to adjust the curvature of the neck, which generally changes over time due to repeated or severe moisture changes in wooden guitars. Adjustment of the truss rod is a final step in the set-up of all guitars that have them - it allows makers to compensate for changes in the wood during the manufacturing process or variation in the build process. The truss rod adjusts the curvature of the neck, or relief. Relief is measured by holding the string down at the first and 14th frets and checking the gap under the string at the 7th fret. If you search literature, the web, and talk to experts, you will get a wide range of opinions as to the correct relief for an acoustic guitar, most estimates range from 0.005" to 0.012". We actually created computer models to determine optimum, which is in the range of 0.006' to 0.009". We have designed our guitars so that string tension puts the right amount of curvature in the neck. To some degree, our neck is self compensating - if you play mainly plugged in and use extra light strings, you don't need as much relief, and the lower string tension of lighter gage strings gives you a little less. On the flip side, if you use heavier gage strings, you generally need a bit more relief, which the higher string tension will provide. We are 100% confident that our approach is tecnincally sound, and have found that it works for almost all players - our goal is to provide you a consistent, worry free, guitar - to us, a not having a truss rod is just one less thing to worry about.

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by gitnoob

Q: Why do your guitars not have a truss rod?
A: Because our guitar is so stable, we don't need a truss rod.

<<snip self-serving nonsense>>

re-inserted:

"if you play mainly plugged in and use extra light strings, you don't need as much relief, and the lower string tension of lighter gage strings gives you a little less. On the flip side, if you use heavier gage strings, you generally need a bit more relief, which the higher string tension will provide. We are 100% confident that our approach is tecnincally sound, and have found that it works for almost all players - our goal is to provide you a consistent, worry free, guitar - to us, a not having a truss rod is just one less thing to worry about."

(from CA's website, perhaps?)

Gosh, that last part now has me convinced...

...not.

They are 100% wrong, in fact. A higher tension string will have a smaller arc of vibration (if the attack is the same), and can be set-up to lower tolerances, including the relief.

This is, in fact, one of the most *wrong* things I have ever seen stated on a guitar manufacturer's website (or wherever you got it from).

Originally Posted by leeasam

I would not buy another CA guitar until they got a truss rod. My action on the CA GX I had was on the high side. higher than say Taylor recommended 6/64 and 4/64--- Low E / High E I did sand the saddle some and there was plenty of exposed saddle to do so but I hit a point wjherew if I would sand anymore I would be buzzing and rattling the strings in the lower frets. the ONLY way to remedy this would be to ad a touch of relief then I could have gotten the saddle down. The neck was too straight and without a truss rod you are basically left to what you have--- Notice I now am Back to a Taylor as playing with high action and stiff Phos/Bronze strings were giving me issues with finger tip pain. The point of not have to baby sit the guitar with climate issues was nice but not worth it when it is unenjoyable to play!

This really is a bit too funny for me...must excuse myself...

[Jeff M]

Originally Posted by gitnoob

We're not having an argument -- we're just framing the same issue in a different way.

I love the Cargo as-is. I have no idea what increasing the saddle height (or decreasing the bridge height) would have on the tone, but I assume the designers chose based on something other than pure randomness.

And the lack of a truss rod was clearly a conscious design issue. Perhaps it was economic. Or perhaps they believe it was the Right Thing to do:.....

I will also refer you to leeasam's post.

Re; your not having any idea on how saddle height affects tone, I'll refer you to the article by William Cumpiano which I linked to earlier, and also to Brian Kimsey's web site.
(Brian is a very well known guitar tech/set up pro.)
http://www.bryankimsey.com/setup/actions.htm

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by Jeff M

I will also refer you to leeasam's post.

Yes, now that were done with that, perhaps we'll see a response to this, which was ignored earlier:

Originally Posted by gitnoob

Exactly. It is not a product flaw -- it is perfectly suited for some people and perhaps not suited for others. That's what makes a market. Ideally, somebody will build the product you envision, but the Cargo appears to have a big fan base without any changes.

Arguing your position requires that one suspend the belief that a product can be made better, and that this can be somehow "proven" by the fact that they have satisfied customers.

Perhaps they would have many more satisfied customers if the guitar could have a wider range of set-up configurations.

It's major product flaws to me, the neck-angle and not having an adjustable truss-rod!

[gerardo1000]

"When a new guitar like that reaches its destination and its already-low saddle is adjusted (by the music store techie) down even further in order to remedy the stiff action, there will be nothing left to adjust over the guitar's long future of progressive settling-in."

Yes, that is exactly what happened to me with a Recording King RO 227 Orchestra model that I bought from Elderly and which had a bad neck angle.
The action was OK but the saddle was extremely low, there was no room for sanding it further down in the future. More over, the strings angle with the bridge was very soft. I returned the guitar back. It was put again on sale.

Regarding CAs, I had five CAs in the past - the first one eight years ago !-
a Legacy, a Bluegrass Performer, two X, a GX. The only one that did not have any set up issue was the Bluegrass Performer.

I must say that, based on my personal experience, Rainsong appear to be much more consistent and well set up, with good neck angle. I had several Rainsong and never had a set up or neck angle problem.

[Acousticado]

For God sakes, the Cargo serves a niche (for hacks like me) which I doubt was intended for perfectionist professionals (not the target market). It's the consummate travel guitar (and as it turns out, couch guitar) that blows the doors off most, if not all, in it's category. It was affordably priced. If a truss rod and other so-called improvements are introduced, the price will probably go waaay up and that little winner could turn into a loser.