James Orr wrote:
Question. The first pic looks like an improper neck angle. Would this not be the cause of the hump?
Question number two. How does fall-away prevent the hump? Or are they not related? I thought the purpose of fall-away was to give the string more room to oscillate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The way I read the pictures, you are correct, James, in that the first picture shows the hump being caused by improper neck angle. It looks like the rim/top angle is at 90deg. and the neck/heel angle is at the 90+deg required to get the correct string path.
I believe that picture two shows the correct compementary angle that gives the correct string path, and also allows the fretboard to remain flat from nut to sound hole. The fall-away is then shaped into the higher frets. So no, fall-away does not prevent the hump. Correct neck/body geometry prevents the hump, and in the fall-away, as you said, allows the strings room to oscillate.
Hopefully if I have it wrong, someone can correct me.
Alex
Here is another way to look at it that may help. If we imagine that there is no relief represented in the drawing we are left with two ever so slightly different fret planes. The first is the 1st through the 12th and then the second plane is the 12th through the last. The second plane is the fall-away. In this example there is no hump and only two planes.
With the relief represented in the drawing it can look a bit like a hump but if you measured the action in every fret position as the frets move toward the body the action always get's a tad higher, no hump.
Login
Register
FAQ
