Personal frustration - new guitars practically need a neck reset

[jimi junior]

Now I know this is absolutely a matter of preference, and guitar builders have the difficult job of designing a guitar with geometry which can accommodate all tastes, including adjustment potential in both directions.

Nonetheless, I personally find that on a brand new guitar, with a 'correctly' set neck (aligning exactly with the top of the bridge), the saddle must be shaved to a slither, protruding ~1mm, to get a nice low action (yes, I like it very low).

This a.) leaves nothing for future movement which means I'll need a neck reset pretty soon to maintain that action, and b.) takes the strings a lot nearer the soundboard than is ideal, leaving very little break-angle or torque on the bridge.

Given, (I would have thought) most people like a slightly lower action rather than a slightly high action, and you're only ever likely to need to move it in one direction over the years, wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to build guitars with slightly overset necks to accommodate this?

I mean, does anyone leave the action as high as it comes on most new guitars? If the 'new normal' was to instead have 1-2mm overset at the bridge, I really can't imagine many people would like an action high enough that this would cause structural problems at the bridge? Even with such an overset in place, a fairly sensibly low/medium action would only leave 3.5-4mm or so of saddle protruding, which seems fine?

Or maybe I'm just massively under-estimating how high some people like their action? Maybe ya'll like to make playing hard work, and I should find some other clouds to shout at?

Personally I've reached a point where I've decided only to buy bolt-on guitars to allow such adjustments to be made more easily, which is a shame.

What do you think? Am I alone on this one?

[kriso77]

I typically like my string height at about 2mm high at the 12th fret. I have been surprised on more than one occasion with what was left on the saddle on a certain manufacturer's guitars after doing a setup. I wouldn't say it was a sliver, but certainly less than anticipated.

[nightchef]

It used to be that I thought every guitar I picked up in a store needed the action lowered. These days I'm finding the opposite -- many guitars I try are set up so low that even a fairly light attack triggers some buzzing. If I have to choose, I'd rather deal with a slightly-too-high action and hear those strings ring out than have it be comfortably low and hear them buzz.

[zmf]

Originally Posted by jimi junior

This a.) leaves nothing for future movement which means I'll need a neck reset pretty soon to maintain that action, and b.) takes the strings a lot nearer the soundboard than is ideal, leaving very little break-angle or torque on the bridge.

I see what you're getting at, but have you actually had problems after lowering the saddle? Or is this hypothetical?

I've had techs/luthiers lower the saddle more than I would to get the action I prefer, but haven't (yet) had subsequent problems with needing a neck reset, or the change in break angle affecting tone or volume -- with the exception of a D-18, who didn't seem to appreciate a low saddle.

[jimi junior]

Originally Posted by zmf

I see what you're getting at, but have you actually had problems after lowering the saddle? Or is this hypothetical?

I've had techs/luthiers lower the saddle more than I would to get the action I prefer, but haven't (yet) had subsequent problems with needing a neck reset, or the change in break angle affecting tone or volume -- with the exception of a D-18, who didn't seem to appreciate a low saddle.

Thanks for your thoughts - I do agree that the tone loss issue is a bit overrated. I doubt I could tell the difference in tone between a guitar with 4mm of saddle and the same guitar with 2mm of saddle.

But when buying an expensive guitar, which I hope to last me a long time, it does make me uneasy when the very first set up leaves such a small amount of saddle.

But on the other hand, yes I do have an 8-year old guitar which now needs a reset - the 'straight edge' trick shows the bridge is high by about 1mm but that is just about enough that the action is fractionally higher than I'd like and there is nowhere to go with the saddle. I could live with it for a while more (the action is still fairly low). But I'd rather not be in that position!

I guess another factor is it makes me nervous to buy a new guitar where the action is a bit high - I might love the sound then, but will it still sound the same with it lowered? As you say, possibly yes. But it does add a degree of uncertainty.

[jimi junior]

Originally Posted by kriso77

I typically like my string height at about 2mm high at the 12th fret. I have been surprised on more than one occasion with what was left on the saddle on a certain manufacturer's guitars after doing a setup. I wouldn't say it was a sliver, but certainly less than anticipated.

Thanks - I tend to go for more like 1.5mm low E (or a little less if I can get away with it), and closer to 1mm with the high E, so I'm aware I'm at one end of the distribution of player preferences.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by jimi junior

Now I know this is absolutely a matter of preference, and guitar builders have the difficult job of designing a guitar with geometry which can accommodate all tastes, including adjustment potential in both directions.

Hi jj

How do you set your neck relief via truss rods, and nut slot depths as they apply to the action?

I see no mention of either by anyone so far in this discussion thread. Perhaps I'm not understanding.

This is the saddle on my Olson which at the time of this photo was 21 years old, and my action at the 12th fret is typically at 3-4mm (hardly high action). The saddle has not been lowered since then, and this guitar has fairly low action by most player's standards.

[rick-slo]

http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/Musi...neckangle.html

[JERZEY]

Originally Posted by nightchef

It used to be that I thought every guitar I picked up in a store needed the action lowered. These days I'm finding the opposite -- many guitars I try are set up so low that even a fairly light attack triggers some buzzing. If I have to choose, I'd rather deal with a slightly-too-high action and hear those strings ring out than have it be comfortably low and hear them buzz.

Same here. In truth as a new player I would crutch on low action on my guitars. Now that I am better able to play those setups will never work for me.

[UncleJesse]

You'd like Eastman guitars then. Several I've had have had huge saddles. 4-6mm in height allowing for as much lowering as you'd ever want.

[gmel555]

First, I'd say you're justified in expecting a new guitar to buzz free (with the luthiers recommended string gauge on); and I'd expect the retailer's techs to remedy that free of charge, if you trust their techs to do the work. Beyond that, I don't expect new guitars to be set-up to my own individual preferences. Many posts on AGF express the opinion that new guitars need a post purchase set-up to get them optimized, BUT it shouldn't take a neck reset to accomplish that.

[NotveryGood]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

This is the saddle on my Olson which at the time of this photo was 21 years old, and my action at the 12th fret is typically at 3-4mm (hardly high action)

This illustrates nicely how different our preferences are, because I think of anything above around 2.75mm as being too high. I agree with the OP that we need to beware of new guitars with nowhere to go saddle wise.

[jimi junior]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi jj

How do you set your neck relief via truss rods, and nut slot depths as they apply to the action?

I see no mention of either by anyone so far in this discussion thread. Perhaps I'm not understanding.

This is the saddle on my Olson which at the time of this photo was 21 years old, and my action at the 12th fret is typically at 3-4mm (hardly high action). The saddle has not been lowered since then, and it still has fairly low action.

Thanks,

Good points

I tend to have very little relief - enough so you can feel the 'tap' of the string when holding it down on first and 15th fret, but can barely see the gap.

And I have my nut slots as low as they can be without buzz (again, a barely visible gap above first fret when fretted at third fret). So the nut is about the height that a zero fret would be for me.

That's a good amount of saddle, but see, 3-4mm is, for me, extremely high. I'd want to take that down to 1.5mm, which means taking off maybe as much as 5mm of saddle height (since there's roughly a 2:1 ratio). That would leave very little saddle.

But like I said, it's all personal preference.

[NotveryGood]

Originally Posted by jimi junior

That's a good amount of saddle, but see, 3-4mm is, for me, extremely high. I'd want to take that down to 1.5mm, which means taking off maybe as much as 5mm of saddle height (since there's roughly a 2:1 ratio). .

For me, 3-4mm is too high also, but 1.5?? That seems particularly low .surely tone and volume would be seriously lacking at that height? I don't think I've ever had a guitar that would play at that height without serious fret buzz.
But as you rightly say, we are all different. Good luck!

[jimi junior]

Originally Posted by UncleJesse

You'd like Eastman guitars then. Several I've had have had huge saddles. 4-6mm in height allowing for as much lowering as you'd ever want.

You're right, and I do have an Eastman - and the huge saddle was one of the points that made me more comfortable buying it! But the first set-up took it down to about 2mm of saddle - less than half it's original height and even then, the action was low but could have been slightly lower for my tastes.

Because a high saddle doesn't mean it's immune to this issue - more likely it just means it's got a higher action from the factory, so needs to be lowered more. Unless Eastman actually do overset their necks a bit? (this wasn't the case on mine - it had a high saddle and high action but the fret height perfectly aligned with the top of the bridge).