Neck Angle Parameters

[woodrat]

Its late and the Aussies are getting slaughtered in the cricket over in the Old Dart making for depressing viewing so I thought I would post a question to all the good folk on the forum. I was wondering what ballpark parameters for heights at the bridge everyone is using for setting neck angles I ask because Wm Cumpiano in his excellent tome says "no less than 1/64 and no more than 1/16 of an inch" over the 3/8 inch bridge height and yet an eminent Sydney based luthier said the he aims for between 13 and 15 mm under the D and G strings meaning more than Wm Cump's maximum of 1/16 over the height of the bridge position.
As this is probably the single most critical parameter in the guitars construction I was wondering how others approach it and what would be their maximums and minimums of height.
I basically have been using Wm. Cumps up to now but I am leaning towards just a smidge more height.
A penny for your thoughts one and all.....I love to hear how others skin their cats.

[Rick Turner]

There are several issues to consider here:

1) The height of the saddle above the bridge which in part controls the break angle of string going over the saddle. This can affect string breakage if the break angle is too severe. It has absolutely nothing to do with string tension, though. That's one of the most misunderstood things in guitar lore.

2) The height of the top of the saddle above the top itself which affects the torque load on the top and also the degree of frequency doubling imparted to the top by the vibrating strings modulating string tension. This will be a matter of your own personal taste in developing the style of your guitars.

3) Then there's the structural integrity of the bridge with the leverage of the saddle pushing against the front of the saddle slot. This alone is reason enough to go to a tilted-back saddle, though it also improves pickup response for under saddle pickups.

Pin bridge or pinless?

If pin, are your holes in a row or are they in some other pattern?

What kind of bridge plate? How big?

You can't open this Pandora's box of neck angle without considering a whole range of issues with bridge design.

[jeffhigh]

Woodrat, I think you may be comparing apples and oranges.

I don't have Cumpiano but he is probably referring to resting a straightedge on top of the frets and having it just clear the top of the bridge by that amount.

Wheras the other maker you have quoted is talking about final string height AFTER instalation of the saddle.

Probably the same end result expressed in different ways.

[Allen]

I've followed Robbie O'Brien's method of having a straight edge laying on top of the frets just resting on top of the bridge, or a scoch higher. Never lower. So it's pretty much the same as the measurments from the book.

I like to go just a little higher, because when you get the strings on, and the neck pulls up under the tension this has been about right for me.

If you go to an adjustable neck, this can be dialed in to anything you like.

[Rick Turner]

Allen (and others), that's one of the things I love about the tilt-adjustable neck...action is independent of saddle height or string height off the top. I set mine up to fairly conventional measurements, but then I (or my customers) can get the action wherever needed without messing with the saddle at all.

Someday I'd like to have the time to do some real measurements...audio measurements...of the effect of different saddle heights with the same guitar. Al Carruth has talked about doing this, too. We all kind of have our own ideas of what's right and why, but we don't really have the numbers to back it up.

[vandenboom]

John Mayes approach is for straight edge on unfretted fb to just touch top of 3/8" bridge. So again, in the same ball park as others.
Frank

[kiwigeo]

On my steel strings I use a Woolson jig to cut the neck joint and set up same for 10mm clearance above soundboard at bridge location (equivalent to laying straight edge along neck sans fretboard.

[kiwigeo]

A Turner/Carruth colaboration.....I look forward to same.

Allen (and others), that's one of the things I love about the tilt-adjustable neck...action is independent of saddle height or string height off the top. I set mine up to fairly conventional measurements, but then I (or my customers) can get the action wherever needed without messing with the saddle at all.

Someday I'd like to have the time to do some real measurements...audio measurements...of the effect of different saddle heights with the same guitar. Al Carruth has talked about doing this, too. We all kind of have our own ideas of what's right and why, but we don't really have the numbers to back it up.

[John Steele]

FWIW...
I shoot for a basic 1/8" (.125") saddle height above the bridge when determining neck angle. We are talking steel sting instruments. For me that works out to around 91.5 deg on the neck. If I err it towards a taller saddle (not much long term confidence in my neck joinery I guess, ) but no more than 3/16" (.1875"). I figure it puts off the neck reset for as long as possible.....
Rick; I see so many posts by you and they always seem to mention a set back angle on the saddle so much so that I think I am going to give it a whack. And say hello to SC for me. (born and raised in Watsonville) I think I bought my Guild from R.Hoover down @ Union grove if I remember well...
Happy Saturday/Sunday

[Rick Turner]

John, there are just a raft of reasons why to tilt back the saddle, and the only negative is that you do have to know your saddle height before gluing the bridge so the intonation comes right. Of course with my tilt design, I can move the entire neck in and out + or - 1/8", so I just need to get it in the ball park. But we do this on all our Renaissance semi-hollow instruments, and we just know where to set the bridge, so it's no big deal.