Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=41527 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Steven Bollman [ Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:14 pm ] |
Post subject: | Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
I'm working on a Stahl Style #6 (viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=41471) and since it's my first guitar build, I though it might make sense to employ a bolt-on neck in case I have to mess around with getting the action and set-up fine tuned. I'm not really that concerned with authentic period details, but the idea of a solid neck seems appealing. Any thoughts from the intelligentsia? |
Author: | nyazzip [ Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:20 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
i am not exactly part of the "intelligentsia" but i have made a a few solid necks(no truss rod). they are great, and i daresay they sound better, with more sustain, fatter tone. you can feel the difference in the fretting hand. the amount of wood mass removed to make way for a truss rod is substantial. having it there makes the neck a whole lot more stable. i don't know if i woud try it with a weak wood like mahogany, but with maple, absolutely |
Author: | Kent Chasson [ Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:04 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
Seems to me like you're saying contradictory things here. One is that you're unsure of your ability to get the neck right the first time so you want it to be easy to remove. That's reasonable. But it's no small feat to build a neck without a truss rod that will stay where you want it for the long term. And being able to remove the neck more easily will not help you fix improper relief in the neck (and relief is a lot harder to get right than the initial neck set). I'd err on the side of having some adjustability in the relief, especially for a first build. Tonal considerations of the neck would be very low on my list of things to worry about on a first guitar. |
Author: | Ken Jones [ Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:45 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
Kent Chasson wrote: Seems to me like you're saying contradictory things here. One is that you're unsure of your ability to get the neck right the first time so you want it to be easy to remove. That's reasonable. But it's no small feat to build a neck without a truss rod that will stay where you want it for the long term. And being able to remove the neck more easily will not help you fix improper relief in the neck (and relief is a lot harder to get right than the initial neck set). I'd err on the side of having some adjustability in the relief, especially for a first build. Tonal considerations of the neck would be very low on my list of things to worry about on a first guitar. Couldn't agree more. Ken Jones Mountain Song Guitars |
Author: | Tom West [ Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:30 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
My first dozen or so guitars were built with non adjustable truss rod. Ala David Russell Young for anyone under 50.One has to build in back bow in order to compensate for the force of the strings. A bit touchy to get dead on and I experienced a bit of creep at times but then they stabilized. I'm sure some must have less then ideal relief. After using a variety of adjustable rods I have settled on the Stew-Mac Martin like Aluminum channel rod that I epoxy into the neck. I find this works very well and adds stiffness to the neck over the bare wood. As to your question, use a bolt on neck but leave the adjustable truss out at your own peril....!! Have fun. Tom |
Author: | Daniel Minard [ Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:05 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
Personally, I strongly favour the use of an adjustable truss rod. (preferably a double acting one)Too often, I get an unplayable guitar in for repair & spend hours working on the neck to get the thing into shape, when a simple rod adjustment would have taken minutes. On a cheap instrument, or an owner without a lot of extra cash in pocket, an adjustable rod can make the difference between fixing or scrapping the instrument. Without the ability to adjust the neck relief, you can be stuck with using a single string guage... Go to heavier strings & you can sacrifice playability, go lighter & you get buzzes all over the neck. (This issue can be mitigated by using a very rigid type of solid re-enforcement.) I don't have the experience to say that a non adjustable neck sounds or feels better. IMO, it'd have to be a LOT better to make the downside worthwhile. |
Author: | Steven Bollman [ Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:32 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
Thank you, guys for the input. I'm still weighing options. If I went with a hardwood neck insert in lieu of a metal truss rod, would a 1/4" thick piece of ebony tapered from the thinnest area of the neck (near the headstock) and getting wider down by the heel, provide good stabilization? |
Author: | James Ringelspaugh [ Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
I would take the time to install a truss rod. Relief will depend on playing style and can be a very subjective thing... some folks like a lot, some none at all. Even if somehow you get it perfect on your first guitar and you're going to be the only one who ever plays it, your style may change over the years and you may want something different. With a truss rod you can make that change in a minute or two. |
Author: | James Ringelspaugh [ Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
To be fair, from the ham fisted cowboy-chord strummer to the lightest fingerstyle player who plays all over the fretboard the difference in ideal fretboard relief really isn't all that great. That said, the difference between the respective high and low of acceptable relief for each is much greater, and the freedom to dial things in to suit the player or else fix an error in execution or an unexpected wood movement is a huge advantage for the truss rod. And really, correct relief is a subtle, sophisticated thing for a guitar builder to understand and master... shouldn't a first guitar have some flex there, especially when every guitar that costs more than about 50 bucks these days does? |
Author: | RNRoberts [ Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:03 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
As Mike Doolin used to say.... Spare the rod and spoil the neck. |
Author: | James Ringelspaugh [ Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
You are correct of course: it is perfectly reasonable to build a Larson parlor as it was - without a truss rod. But no matter your woodworking skills... if you expect your first guitar to work well - and then to stay that way - without a truss rod you are likely going to be disappointed. I think Kent's post said it best and is worth repeating: Quote: it's no small feat to build a neck without a truss rod that will stay where you want it for the long term. And being able to remove the neck more easily will not help you fix improper relief in the neck (and relief is a lot harder to get right than the initial neck set). I'd err on the side of having some adjustability in the relief, especially for a first build. Tonal considerations of the neck would be very low on my list of things to worry about on a first guitar.
|
Author: | jfmckenna [ Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:10 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
I don't think it will be a problem with a 12-fret parlor guitar to not have an adjustable truss rod. But I am curious as to why you think a solid neck 'seems appealing.' Why? Contrary to some opinion I find it very doubtful that anyone would be able to tell in a blind test that a guitar sounds or feels different with or without a truss rod. The adjustable rod helps you fine tune and tweak the action but it's not end all be all necessary. As for the bolt on neck... Go for it. IMHO it's the best way to go. |
Author: | Terence Kennedy [ Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:23 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
Why not be true to the Larson Brothers and build it the way they did? No downside, except it might not work as well as you hoped and then you would get the experience of removing a fretboard and installing a truss rod or at the very least get to experiment with compression fretting. It's a win-win situation. I would recommend using hide glue in the fret slots when you fret. |
Author: | Steven Bollman [ Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:40 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
Wow! Thank you, everyone for sharing all your experience and the pros and cons. I really appreciate it all. Gives a lot of food for thought. I'm tempted to not use a truss rod at the moment (though I ordered a traditional one from StewMac), not so much out of trying to be authentic to the design, but as a recognition that there is a lot of areas to screw up a first build and not futzing with a truss ride might be more manageable future consequences notwithstanding. I was also considering doing a bird beak joint at the headstock, but that will be for a possible later build. I'm catching the guitar building bug... |
Author: | Steven Bollman [ Mon Sep 30, 2013 12:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
Filippo Morelli wrote: Steven, I just popped over to look at the thread you referenced in the first post. That was helpful. First of off it is clear that you have woodworking chops. So in this regard, while it is your first guitar (and Kent's post is apropos) you are dealing with something that is largely what I like to call a "carpentry issue". It has frankly little to do with sound and mostly to do with structure. To that end, and understanding your knowledge a bit more, let me see if I can provide some additional insights for you to consider in fabricating your neck. If you are bent set on no truss rod (which is fine ... people here have pointed out the tradeoffs), a simple hardwood insert will work fine - 1/4" wide by 3/8" deep, for example. No taper is necessary. You can use a table saw, a router or be manly about it and bust out your router plane ![]() Your insert will serve you well and give you a bit of insurance. I suggest you make the insert somewhat taller than the slot - say 1/16" or so taller. This way, when you go to clamp up, the insert is proud and the clamps ensuring good pressure on the insert against the slot bottom. Any glue will work, but water based glues (AR/PVA/Hide) should be kept clamped for 2 days on the safe side, so the water works its way out. I like polyurethane (PU) glue for this as it is never coming apart (non-reversible glue) and there is no water involved. With PU, I know I said no water, but I like to wipe just a smidge of water on the wood with a slightly damp rag - enough to see the wood color change from transfer. Epoxy works as well. But water based is fine, as long as you clamp for extended time as I mentioned. Once dry, simply plane the insert flat. Make the same glue considerations when gluing the headplate and the fretboard. Just to add fuel to the fire - I don't believe it has much to do with neck stability over the years, as much as getting some control over the relief that the guitar will have once under tension (since you have no truss rod to control that). You'll want the board flat. As a steel string you may choose to place several thousandths of relief (at greatest depth) between the #5 and #9 frets ON THE BASS side. Expect 0.003" or so relief pulled in under tension. So that gives you 0.005 to 0.007" relief (give or take a few) on the bass side, and maybe half that on the treble side. Alternatively you can put in in the frets after level, though my preference would be to put it on the neck, then dress any additional necessary in the frets after the guitar is strung up for a while. Others may have a different point of view than what I've stated. This is the kind of stuff that classical builders muck with all the time because we don't generally use truss rods. I hope this helps you Steven. Let us know how it goes. I'll have to remember to pop over and look at your thread. Filippo Thank you, Filippo! For taking your time to make really great comments and suggestions. I really appreciate it! I'll probably go with an ebony insert as you suggested. |
Author: | jfmckenna [ Mon Sep 30, 2013 2:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
In the grand scheme of things for what all goes into the construction of a guitar installing an adjustable truss rod is not really that difficult especially if you are already going to rout a channel for a hardwood insert. It's a bit more work if your access is through the sound hole but even so it's not that difficult. So that's something to consider. |
Author: | Steven Bollman [ Mon Sep 30, 2013 4:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
Terence Kennedy wrote: Why not be true to the Larson Brothers and build it the way they did? No downside, except it might not work as well as you hoped and then you would get the experience of removing a fretboard and installing a truss rod or at the very least get to experiment with compression fretting. It's a win-win situation. I would recommend using hide glue in the fret slots when you fret. Thanks, Terrance. I've sort of given up on believing the plans from GAL are truly accurate. So, I'm not sure what to do about the doming of the top and back. Also, I spoke to someone who is an expert on Larsons, and he said he's never seen two that were alike. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free |
Author: | David Malicky [ Tue Oct 01, 2013 12:33 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
The typical placement of a solid rod (just under the fretboard) is at the neutral axis of the neck, which is the least effective location to improve bending stiffness. This means it would need to be a really stiff material to make a substantial difference. If using a hardwood rod, the stiffest placement is at the neck's backside (visible), and preferably wider than 1/4". Some Ebony is only ~30% stiffer than typical neck woods -- a 1/4 x 3/8 piece of that at the neutral axis would improve bending stiffness a little. Ipe and Cumaru are stiffer, more stable, and readily available. But for long-term creep resistance, I'd suggest aluminum or steel over any hardwood. Here are Young's Moduli for various materials (*10^6 psi, http://www.wood-database.com/): Honduran Mahogany: 1.4 Black Cherry: 1.5 Sapele: 1.7 Hard Maple: 1.8 White Oak: 1.8 EI Ebony: 2.0 Gaboon Ebony: 2.5 Jatoba: 2.7 Ipe: 3.2 Cumaru: 3.2 Aluminum: 10 Carbon-fiber epoxy: 5-20 Steel: 29 |
Author: | Tai Fu [ Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
Ever tried adjusting neck relief on a guitar without a truss rod? I would install the truss rod, you can do compression fretting or other techniques to correct neck relief but the rod makes things much easier. That and some guitars experience neck movement every season, so if you need to do compression fretting and planing to correct the neck every 3 months, nobody is going to want to own those guitars. Note a lot of the older guitars that lacked truss rods have very thick neck, which helps but it's still a pain to adjust its neck relief. |
Author: | Rodger Knox [ Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:37 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
The downside of no adjustable truss rod is that you could end up with a nice but unplayable guitar. Go for the Allied double action rod. String tension will flex the neck a little, if the neck is just the right stiffness string tension will pull in the correct relief. If it's too stiff (as my first 3 were), then there won't be any relief. It's not uncommon to end up with a little backbow without string tension. If the strings don't pull enough, you're out of luck. There's also the consideration of string gauge. Going from lights to medium (or vice versa) may not be possible without a truss rod, depending on how stiff the neck is. If you've got the chops to get the neck exactly right, you could use CF bars in the neck to make it stiff enough to resist ANY flex from string tension and plane the relief into the fretboard. |
Author: | Pmaj7 [ Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
As a safety, you could go with a neck that is on the thicker side. Leave it unfinished or just oiled, then after string up, if you needed more relief you could always take a little more meat off. |
Author: | Tai Fu [ Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
don't leave the neck unfinished or lightly oiled... the neck may warp. |
Author: | Pmaj7 [ Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:06 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
Unfinished is just temporary. From my experience and observation, it will not warp because of an oil finish. |
Author: | Rodger Knox [ Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:14 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
Filippo Morelli wrote: Rodger, do people put medium strings on a parlor? Filippo Not generally, but with a shorter scale length, mediums may work better. I was trying to point out potential problems associated with a first time builder and no truss rod. It looks like this guy has the chops to make a really nice guitar first time out, and he's working with BRW. I'm not as sure he can pull off a neck without a truss rod, and I'd hate to see a bad decision at this stage compromise the results. My idea of the way the truss rod should work is pretty simple, and this only applies to steel strings, nylon is significantly different loading. Think of the neck as a spring, and the truss rod as an adjustable stop. String tension bends the spring until it hits the stop. At this point, the relief is perfect. For this to be a valid analogy, the truss rod has to be stiff enough so that string tension has insignificant effect on flexing the truss rod. I believe this to be valid for double action rods like the StewMac hotrod and the Allied rod, but not necessarily for any single action rod. (Double action rods will flex a little, I think less than 10% of the total can be considered insignificant) Without a truss rod, there is no stop, so the neck has to carry all the stress and flex exactly the right amount for the relief to be "correct" (different players like different amounts, so correct varies with the player). I believe it's possible to build a neck stiff enough (using carbon fiber reinforcement) to be unaffected (less than 10% total relief) by string tension, so that the desired relief could be built into the fretboard. I was headed in that direction until I thought ![]() There is some engineering reasoning behind this. With the neck flexing easily til it comes to the truss rod stop, almost all of the stress is being carried by the truss rod which is much more resistant to cold creep, so the neck will not change over time. Of course, with a double action rod, any changes over time can be corrected with the rod, so avoiding changes is not too much of a concern. (If you use a double action rod.) |
Author: | Steven Bollman [ Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Does a bolt-on neck and NO truss rod make sense? |
You guys sure are smart! Thanks for engaging this topic. BTW... what is "cold creep?" |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |