Official Luthiers Forum!

Owned and operated by Lance Kragenbrink
It is currently Tue Mar 19, 2024 4:01 am


All times are UTC - 5 hours


Forum rules


Be nice, no cussin and enjoy!




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:48 am 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:44 am
Posts: 5396
First name: colin
Last Name: north
Country: Scotland.
Focus: Build
Status: Semi-pro
I get a fair number of refrets and fret dresses in and have observed that the acoustic guitars with a higher string height above the soundboard, in general, seem to give more volume up to about the 1/2" normally quoted here in most discussions. (vs 14mm or 0.551" at the 1st string in the Gore and Gillet book)
Using the normal calculations, I've aimed for this 1/2" with my builds.
Yet I've ended up when measuring my final string height above the soundboard with a consistently lower figure, by around 1mm (0.040")
I had been thinking I must be getting more pull-up of the soundboard than others for some reason, and it's been annoying me.
This morning it dawned on me.
I measure string height at the outer strings, the same way I measure the action at the 1st and 6th strings.
And I have not been taking the fretboard/saddle radius into account, I was calculating for the highest point, around the middle of the saddle
For my 16" radius FB and a 56mm string spread at the saddle (my fingerpickers), the Sagitta or displacement of the arc of the fretboard and saddle is nearly 1.0mm, and it would be nearly 1.3mm for a 12" radius FB.
This is something I have never seen pointed out in neck geometry posts on the OLF when talking about aiming for a height of around 1/2", or even in Gore and Gillet, so thought it might be worth bringing up.

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.


Last edited by Colin North on Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:06 am 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:36 am
Posts: 7233
Location: Southeast US
City: Lenoir City
State: TN
Zip/Postal Code: 37772
Country: US
Focus: Repair
Good point Colin, I also measure my 1/2" at the center and never thought of the outside strings. Be interesting to see some of the comments from our fellow luthiers.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:28 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 10:44 am
Posts: 6232
Location: Virginia
I've always measured in the center too. But even so 1/2in plus or minus a mm here or there is no big deal imho. Having said that, I have learned that I need to give a lot more room for top deflection then books have suggested. I think in Cumpiano and Natelson the say go no more then 1/32 over the bridge or so. I typically double that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:46 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:19 am
Posts: 1307
First name: Richard
Last Name: Hutchings
City: Warwick
State: RI
Zip/Postal Code: 02889
Country: United States
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
Is this measurement made with the frets in?

_________________
Hutch

Get the heck off the couch and go build a guitar!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:29 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:36 am
Posts: 7233
Location: Southeast US
City: Lenoir City
State: TN
Zip/Postal Code: 37772
Country: US
Focus: Repair
banjopicks wrote:
Is this measurement made with the frets in?
Doesn't matter. We're measuring height of strings above the soundboard.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"



These users thanked the author SteveSmith for the post: banjopicks (Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:32 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:45 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:44 am
Posts: 5396
First name: colin
Last Name: north
Country: Scotland.
Focus: Build
Status: Semi-pro
[quote="jfmckenna"...………. I have learned that I need to give a lot more room for top deflection then books have suggested. I think in Cumpiano and Natelson the say go no more then 1/32 over the bridge or so...…………..[/quote]
Unless the soundboard/bracing is much stiffer than needed, that's for sure.

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:37 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:33 am
Posts: 1831
First name: Willard
Last Name: Guthrie
City: Cumberland
State: Maryland 21502
Zip/Postal Code: 21502
Country: United State
Focus: Repair
Status: Semi-pro
We measure using the underside of the D string (usually the highest string), and always include body distortion as opposite sign of the other numbers. Dread, GA, SJ, and other larger guitars see 1/16" of 'top rise' (really, body distortion) which serves to drop string height over the top once action is readjusted, while a 000 or OM may see 0.045", and an O and smaller between 0.030" (O) and 0.017" (Size 5). Obviously, these numbers are for planning - top thickness, bracing, and body construction will determine just how much the body changes shape (and how long that takes) under string tension.

A decent visualization tool:

Attachment:
String Height.jpg


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
We have become a civilization that elevates idiots, prostitutes, and clowns. Am I still to defend it? Yes, for its principles. Yes, for what it was. Yes, for what it still may be.

-Mark Helprin, The Oceans and the Stars: A Sea Story, A War Story, A Love Story (A Novel)



These users thanked the author Woodie G for the post: Colin North (Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:37 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:27 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:45 pm
Posts: 1470
First name: Trevor
Last Name: Gore
City: Sydney
Country: Australia
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
Colin North wrote:
I get a fair number of refrets and fret dresses in and have observed that the acoustic guitars with a higher string height above the soundboard, in general, seem to give more volume up to about the 1/2" normally quoted here in most discussions. (vs 14mm or 0.551" at the 1st string in the Gore and Gillet book)
Using the normal calculations, I've aimed for this 1/2" with my builds.
Yet I've ended up when measuring my final string height above the soundboard with a consistently lower figure, by around 1mm (0.040")
I had been thinking I must be getting more pull-up of the soundboard than others for some reason, and it's been annoying me.
This morning it dawned on me.
I measure string height at the outer strings, the same way I measure the action at the 1st and 6th strings.
And I have not been taking the fretboard/saddle radius into account, I was calculating for the highest point, around the middle of the saddle
For my 16" radius FB and a 56mm string spread at the saddle (my fingerpickers), the Sagitta or displacement of the arc of the fretboard and saddle is nearly 1.0mm, and it would be nearly 1.3mm for a 12" radius FB.
This is something I have never seen pointed out in neck geometry posts on the OLF when talking about aiming for a height of around 1/2", or even in Gore and Gillet, so thought it might be worth bringing up.


On page 4-34 of Design I say "...when the height of the tuned strings above the soundboard is 14mm (steel string guitar) when measured at the 3rd and 4th strings". I can't recall ever saying measure the the string height above the soundboard at the first string.

Regarding the sagitta of the saddle, in Section 21.6.1 I talk about saddle curvature, usually making the saddle slightly more curved (smaller radius) than the fretboard, because the 3rd and 4th strings are usually the ones more prone to rattling.

So it's all there. It is not necessary to talk explicitly about different fretboard radii in the neck angle discussion because it is intrinsically embedded in the calculation.

_________________
Trevor Gore, Luthier. Australian hand made acoustic guitars, classical guitars; custom guitar design and build; guitar design instruction.

http://www.goreguitars.com.au


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:27 am 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:44 am
Posts: 5396
First name: colin
Last Name: north
Country: Scotland.
Focus: Build
Status: Semi-pro
Trevor Gore wrote:
Colin North wrote:
I get a fair number of …………………………...
This is something I have never seen pointed out in neck geometry posts on the OLF when talking about aiming for a height of around 1/2", or even in Gore and Gillet, so thought it might be worth bringing up.


On page 4-34 of Design I say "...when the height of the tuned strings above the soundboard is 14mm (steel string guitar) when measured at the 3rd and 4th strings". I can't recall ever saying measure the the string height above the soundboard at the first string.

Regarding the sagitta of the saddle, in Section 21.6.1 I talk about saddle curvature, usually making the saddle slightly more curved (smaller radius) than the fretboard, because the 3rd and 4th strings are usually the ones more prone to rattling.

So it's all there. It is not necessary to talk explicitly about different fretboard radii in the neck angle discussion because it is intrinsically embedded in the calculation.

Didn't refer to at 4-34, section which appears to be on bridge rotation basically.
Should have worn my prescription glasses when reading pg. 4-91, (effect of fretboard relief) which says "14mm at the 4th", not the 1st, (1st edition) humble pie for breakfast today...
Section 21.6.1, I see nothing about saddle curvature, re-read it several times, I must be going completely senile!
Anyway, I have developed my own technique to combat rattles, typically delivering actions of 2.0mm bass/1.0mm treble, or lower, with light/custom light strings, for players wanting low actions, or of course older players with advancing hand and wrist problems.

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:22 am 
Offline
Koa
Koa
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:45 pm
Posts: 1470
First name: Trevor
Last Name: Gore
City: Sydney
Country: Australia
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
Colin North wrote:
Section 21.6.1, I see nothing about saddle curvature, re-read it several times, I must be going completely senile!

No, you're not Colin! I was quoting from Edition 2. Apologies. I re-wrote the second half of the 2nd paragraph in 21.6.1!

_________________
Trevor Gore, Luthier. Australian hand made acoustic guitars, classical guitars; custom guitar design and build; guitar design instruction.

http://www.goreguitars.com.au


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 4:49 am 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:44 am
Posts: 5396
First name: colin
Last Name: north
Country: Scotland.
Focus: Build
Status: Semi-pro
Trevor Gore wrote:
Colin North wrote:
Section 21.6.1, I see nothing about saddle curvature, re-read it several times, I must be going completely senile!

No, you're not Colin! I was quoting from Edition 2. Apologies. I re-wrote the second half of the 2nd paragraph in 21.6.1!


Phew! A temporary reprieve at least.
Got round to a list of any changes/additons by any chance?

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:35 am 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:20 am
Posts: 5920
I generally shoot for a string height above the soundboard of 7/16ths. Although the greater 1/2 inch distance above the soundboard makes for a louder guitar it also seems to make the sound a bit more strident on my instruments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:01 am 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:44 am
Posts: 5396
First name: colin
Last Name: north
Country: Scotland.
Focus: Build
Status: Semi-pro
Yes of course, I know of several makers who vary string height to suit the guitar/intended style of playing.
I was referring to the generally accepted 1/2" as the oft quoted maximum beyond which I believe there is a possibility of over torqueing the bridge / choking the response.

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:17 am 
Offline
Koa
Koa
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:45 pm
Posts: 1470
First name: Trevor
Last Name: Gore
City: Sydney
Country: Australia
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
Colin North wrote:
Trevor Gore wrote:
Colin North wrote:
Section 21.6.1, I see nothing about saddle curvature, re-read it several times, I must be going completely senile!

No, you're not Colin! I was quoting from Edition 2. Apologies. I re-wrote the second half of the 2nd paragraph in 21.6.1!


Phew! A temporary reprieve at least.
Got round to a list of any changes/additons by any chance?


No, I'm afraid not, Colin. Whilst the book is probably at least 98% the same, there are bits and pieces like this example that I've changed and I have no idea where they all are now! Most of the changes were just typos and re-phrasing/clarifying bits where it was possible to misconstrue things. I changed a few pictures, added a few, recolour-balanced them all, added a bit more to the Intonation section to prove the inherent sources of intonation errors, and a few other bits and pieces that I can't immediately recall. All the section numbering and the pagination remained essentially the same.

_________________
Trevor Gore, Luthier. Australian hand made acoustic guitars, classical guitars; custom guitar design and build; guitar design instruction.

http://www.goreguitars.com.au



These users thanked the author Trevor Gore for the post: Colin North (Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:44 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:43 pm 
Offline
Cocobolo
Cocobolo

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:04 pm
Posts: 315
First name: Andy
Status: Professional
Top rise is going to vary with every guitar. While you may target a specific height, this is not an act of high precision (i.e. variations in the tens of thousandths). Honestly if one can consistently control geometry to achieve 0.040" precision, you're in a small group of people that do so. Martin just throws on different thickness bridges to compensate for lack of control. Some classical guitar makers are known to plane fretboards to get to a target height. It sounds like you're doing fairly well!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:03 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:37 am
Posts: 4775
AndyB wrote:
Martin just throws on different thickness bridges to compensate for lack of control.


Along these lines, I've wondered what people use as the typical thickness for their bridges (mine are apprx 3/8"). I aim for 1/2" string height above the soundboard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:41 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 10:44 am
Posts: 6232
Location: Virginia
Frankly I'd be embarrassed if the way I achieved a proper neck angle and string height at the bridge above the top was to simply swap out different bridges. There are better ways to do it. One of which was mentioned above in the classical tradition, plane the fretboard. The other is to just figure out how to plane the rims ahead of the soundhole to produce an angle that gets you within acceptable limits. Lots of ways to skin that cat, I suppose swapping bridges is one of them, but I never liked that. The target height of the strings over the top at the bridge should be set for what ever tonal profile the luthier is going for. Having to fudge that after the fact changes that profile.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:05 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:20 am
Posts: 5920
jfmckenna wrote:
Frankly I'd be embarrassed if the way I achieved a proper neck angle and string height at the bridge above the top was to simply swap out different bridges. There are better ways to do it. One of which was mentioned above in the classical tradition, plane the fretboard. The other is to just figure out how to plane the rims ahead of the soundhole to produce an angle that gets you within acceptable limits. Lots of ways to skin that cat, I suppose swapping bridges is one of them, but I never liked that. The target height of the strings over the top at the bridge should be set for what ever tonal profile the luthier is going for. Having to fudge that after the fact changes that profile.


It's easier to swap bridges. And if you aren't concerned about the tonal profile there is a wider range of string heights above the soundboard that is "acceptable" (3/8ths to 9/16ths). Seems like someone at Martin once said there is always someone who will like the sound and buy the guitar.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:23 am 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:21 am
Posts: 4837
Location: Central PA
First name: john
Last Name: hall
City: Hegins
State: pa
Zip/Postal Code: 17938
Country: usa
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
this is an interesting discussion. I can tell you that it took me a while to dial in what I needed.
When setting the neck I am looking for 3/8 off the top at the point of the saddle with the frets off.
with the frets I will be about .037 higher.
It is hard to know exactly how much the top will deflect and we know that it will. So when I set up a guitar I start with a .375 thick bridge. After the neck is set I can now dial in the bridge . In a perfect set up for me I am looking for about 3/32 off the top of the bridge. I usually end up with a .350 bridge and .150 to .180 saddle when done.
I don't like to go much lower. Also don't get too into setting the final saddle until your guitar settles in. I will string them up and let them set a few days to make my final adjustments. On that same point I like to adjust intonation after at least a week or 2 as the top will rise and your bridge will torque a bit so let the box become a guitar before you make that final set up. Patience is the hardest thing to learn

_________________
John Hall
blues creek guitars
Authorized CF Martin Repair
Co President of ASIA
You Don't know what you don't know until you know it



These users thanked the author bluescreek for the post (total 2): James Orr (Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:14 pm) • Clay S. (Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:58 am)
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
phpBB customization services by 2by2host.com