| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Action vs. Tone http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=41708 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Chuck Gilbert [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Action vs. Tone |
I recently completed and delivered an EIR/Adirondack Spruce dreadnought and the action at the 12th fret was 6/64 on the low E and 5/64 on the high E - standard for me. It is a great sounding guitar - good volume, clear and crisp tone, and well balanced. After playing it for about 6 weeks, the customer asked me to lower the action a little bit so I did, mainly by changing the neck angle just a hair (I build removable necks so it's a quick job), and I also fine tuned the string heights at the nut, but they were already close. Now it's 5/64 at the base and 4/64 at the treble. Light gauge strings (.012 to .052). It's not buzzing anywhere but I wouldn't want to take it any lower. After the setup I swear that the guitar has lost a little bit of tone/volume. It may be my imagination, but I don't think so. It just doesn't as full and bright. Have any of you had this experience? Thanks, Chuck |
|
| Author: | Pat Foster [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
Did it have light gauge strings before? Pat |
|
| Author: | SteveSmith [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
Pat Foster wrote: Did it have light gauge strings before? Pat Exactly what I was going to ask. |
|
| Author: | nyazzip [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
...action can often dictate how the guitar is played or "attacked", which can then affect the tone. so in other words, not the action itself, rather, the playing technique that the action coaxes out of the player. just a thought to consider. but i'd probably blame first psychology, then string gauge/brand, in that order |
|
| Author: | phil [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
In my opinion these things are connected. A higher saddle height implies more torque on the top, right at the point of the top that the entire musical engine is being driven. During the setup of my last two guitars I started that part of the process with much taller saddles than I should have. Too eager to string them up I guess. In both cases the action was way too high to be playable, but the volume was crazy! As I lowered the saddle and brought the action into the ball park, they became "normal" guitars with the volume and characteristics we'd expect of hand built instruments. I've read an interview with Larry Cragg (guitar set up/repair man for the likes of Neil Young). He said that his first move when working on a guitar is to straighten the neck with the truss rod (essentially setting the angle back) and putting in a taller saddle to compensate for how the action was lowered by the straightened neck. He claimed that the difference is always big enough to be heard. So I'm with you on the physics of this, but also agree with the above post about a lower action changing a players approach / attack. I'm sure that's also a factor. I've only built a dozen, so take that in to account. Just a humble opinion, supported a little by a guru like Larry Cragg. Phil |
|
| Author: | WilliamS [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
No first-hand experiences here but I've heard of cases where instruments have very high action and are in need of a neck reset. Then, post reset don't have the same volume/tone, possibly due to the difference in the angle of pull, not entirely unlike the whole raised fretboard thing. I believe I even read a story somewhere from a luthier who returned a bluegrass player's vintage Martin to the nearly unplayable neck angle after the reset yielded a very noticeable decrease in volume. Again, I've never encountered it personally and the anecdotes I've heard have involved pretty big changes in neck angle, etc. I doubt that a minor tweak would have much effect...but maybe it's possible. Edit: I have heard a difference in regards to saddle height. |
|
| Author: | Rodger Knox [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
I don't believe you changed anything that would change anything, specifically the height of the strings above the soundboard at the bridge. If you didn't adjust the saddle and change the height of the strings, the difference has to be the strings. The action height has nothing to do with the physics of producing sound. I'm not disagreeing about the action affecting the player, but it doesn't affect the way the top moves. |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
Small changes in the height of the strings off the soundboard often make big changes in the tone. That is why resetting the neck is preferable to changing the saddle height. It's just not as easily done with most guitars. Changing the gauge of the strings and tension on the soundboard also has a big effect on how a guitar sounds. If you didn't do either of these things then it must be something else. 
|
|
| Author: | Alain Moisan [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
Chuck Gilbert wrote: ... (I build removable necks so it's a quick job) ... I'd check in that direction. I don't know which system you are using but if everything wasn't installed back real tight, it might be the source of your problem. |
|
| Author: | SteveSmith [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
OP said he lowered the action by 1/64" on each side mainly by changing the neck. That's not a big change. I do more than that seasonally on one of mine that has an adjustable neck and I don't think the sound changes. I would make sure the neck joint was well seated after the work and that the hardware is tight. Of course there are also the possibilities some of the others have referred to. Still curious about the strings but the OP hasn't reposted yet. |
|
| Author: | Pat Foster [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
There was also the tweaks on the nut that could have had an effect when playing open strings. Pat |
|
| Author: | Colin North [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
Quote: After the setup I swear that the guitar has lost a little bit of tone/volume. It may be my imagination, but I don't think so. It just doesn't as full and bright. Have any of you had this experience? I've noticed the same. Before I started building, I often lowered the bridges (and nut) of my guitars to help with the action. This was on both SS and Classical. (Usually mine involved a greater reduction in height at the saddle than what you indicate with that guitar, say 1.5 - 2.5 mm) My first 4 builds, when stringing up for the first time I notice the same difference as I lower the nut and saddle to get the action correct, definitely not so sharp and less volume. That's why I've started to shoot for a final string height closer to 14 mm or so with my SS builds. The difference in torque at the saddle between 14 mm and 12 mm height is high at 17%, although of course I can't prove that this is the only factor behind the changes I hear. |
|
| Author: | Tom West [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
William S. Generally guitars with very high actions end up with low saddles and less then optimal string height over the top. This can make a guitar have less then it's max. volume. When one does a neck reset we get proper string height with the correct action settings. The guitar will now sound more like it should. One can also set the string height too high and tend to choke up the guitar because of too much leverage at the bridge. As to the original post I doubt such a small action adjustment would have a noticeable change in sound. Change of string gauge will. Tom |
|
| Author: | Jeff Highland [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
I build with tilt adjustable necks. I can change action height instantly without changing the saddle at all. Going to a lower string height over the fretboard definitely lowers the volume potential |
|
| Author: | Chuck Gilbert [ Sat Oct 19, 2013 8:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
Thank you all for the replies. More info - The string gauge did not change but the brand did - from Martin SP to Dean Markley (customer's preference). My neck joint is the double M&T that I learned from the John Mayes videos and this guitar is #39 for me. I did not lower the saddle at all, just reduced the neck angle enough to make the difference at the 12th fret. The relief in the neck also remained the same as before - .008 around the 7th to 9th frets. |
|
| Author: | Alain Moisan [ Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
Chuck Gilbert wrote: The string gauge did not change but the brand did - from Martin SP to Dean Markley There you go. I have noticed many times when using Martin strings that they had more tension then most other string brands of the same gauge. |
|
| Author: | Shaw [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
I like a higher action. I like the sound and tone I get from this. But I have done work for some who prefer a much lower action then I prefer. When I play these guitars I hear buzzes and not a tone I prefer. But when the owner plays it sound great. It comes down to different technique styles. I have a heavy hand so a higher action works well for me but not others. |
|
| Author: | Alan Carruth [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
Lots to comment on. Plain strings of the same gauge, density (material), and length will have the same tension at a given pitch: that's physics. They may feel 'tighter' if there is a difference in the temper of the steel. Harder steel would be stiffer, and that would make them less 'compliant': harder to press down onto the frets, even at the same tension. Wound strings are harder to generalize about: a lot depends on the ratio of core to wrap diameters and the materials used. As has been said, you can feed more energy into a string without making it buzz if the action is higher. The energy is proportional to the tension and the square of the amplitude, so raising the action 40% would allow you to put in about twice as much energy, which would result in a noticeable change in volume and/or longer sustain with given strings. Most players stop pushing before the strings actually start to buzz noticeably. It's possible for the strings to 'choke' a bit before they really buzz, and that may be the clue people use to know when to back off. String height off the top at the bridge has an effect on the way the guitar sounds, but in this case that was not altered. I've got a bunch of real, honest data on this, not just opinion, and it gets sort of complicated. The main point I want to make here is that you have to be careful when you talk about this. The OP said nothing in his original post about altering the saddle height, and clarified things later by saying that was not done. I don't see how that could be a factor here. Also, changing the angle that the strings make relative to the soundboard within the limits we would normally do that on a guitar should make no real difference in the sound, at least if the data I have is right. There is not enough difference in the way the strings drive the top to matter if the change in angle is no more than about 5 degrees (and that's all the change I could check: maybe it would take much more). It's possible that altering the angle will change something about the response of the top due to stress, but, again, it would probably take more of a change in angle than simply resetting the neck in a 'normal' range, unless the guitar is exquisitely sensitive. |
|
| Author: | Tom West [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
Alan: Always good info..........!!! Tom |
|
| Author: | Alain Moisan [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
Alan Carruth wrote: Plain strings of the same gauge, density (material), and length will have the same tension at a given pitch: that's physics. Exactly. And 'light' strings from different brands don't necessarily have the same gauge and are not necessarily made of the same material. For Dean Markley, 'light' gauge is .011 - .052, while Martin is .012 - .054. So switching from Martin Light strings to Dean Markley light strings can most certainly give you a more quiet guitar. |
|
| Author: | Trevor Gore [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
Alan Carruth wrote: Plain strings of the same gauge, density (material), and length will have the same tension at a given pitch: that's physics. They may feel 'tighter' if there is a difference in the temper of the steel. Harder steel would be stiffer, and that would make them less 'compliant': harder to press down onto the frets, even at the same tension. I'll give you the conventional engineering view: Different tempers (and alloys) of steel will have different hardness (Brinnel hardness test, for example), and different degrees of hardness (heat treatment or work hardening) will have different yield strengths, with Brinnel testing used as a surrogate for testing the ultimate strength. However, the generally accepted view is that throughout this, the stiffness (Young's modulus) stays more-or-less constant. That's the conventional engineering view for "bulk" steel, which is what engineering design books are generally written with regard to. However, strongly grain aligned material, like heavily cold drawn steels (guitar strings, piano wire) seem to exhibit differences in Young's modulus (stiffness). So, Alan, in your string testing, have you logged any significant variations in Young's modulus of string steel compared to the usually quoted "bulk" numbers? |
|
| Author: | Chuck Gilbert [ Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
My apologies to all - the new strings were not Dean Markley but John Pearse #200L 80/20 Light Gauge (had to go dig the package out of the trash to be sure). I don't know why I had Dean Markley on the brain. Anyway, the "old" strings (Martin SP Phosphor Bronze Light - MSP4100) were .012, .016, .025, .032, .042, .054. The Pearse are .012, .016, .024, .032, .042, .053. So the G and the low E are .001 smaller. I can't really see that making enough difference to actually hear, but I certainly could be wrong about that. |
|
| Author: | Terence Kennedy [ Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
I don't know what caused the change (probably string fairies) but this illustrates one of the great things about a double tenon neck. If things settle in a little too much early on you can easily deal with the problem without touching the saddle height. Stick some SP's on it and see what happens, I'd be interested to know if it changes. Have you noticed more settling in with the Mayes/Bourgeois system over the first year compared to a glued fretboard extension Chuck? How often do you have to tweak the neck angle on ones that you see back? |
|
| Author: | SteveSmith [ Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
Chuck Gilbert wrote: My apologies to all - the new strings were not Dean Markley but John Pearse #200L 80/20 Light Gauge (had to go dig the package out of the trash to be sure). I don't know why I had Dean Markley on the brain. Anyway, the "old" strings (Martin SP Phosphor Bronze Light - MSP4100) were .012, .016, .025, .032, .042, .054. The Pearse are .012, .016, .024, .032, .042, .053. So the G and the low E are .001 smaller. I can't really see that making enough difference to actually hear, but I certainly could be wrong about that. I have switched my daily player, a walnut/sitka OM, from D'Addarion flat tops to their standard phosphor bronze, both mediums, and can tell a huge difference in tone. Same difference between those and Martin SP mediums. It's not just string gauge; I usually use mediums on my guitars but some sound better with different brands or even varieties in the same brand. I would expect there's a good chance that if you put the SP's back on you'll get the sound back. |
|
| Author: | Pat Foster [ Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Action vs. Tone |
There's also the possibility that the cores of the wound strings could be of different diameters while the overall diameter stays the same. Pat |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|