ANZLF Adjustable Neck Joint Group Discussion

Got a new way of doing something? Or maybe an old method that needs some clarification.

Moderators: kiwigeo, Jeremy D

Post Reply
User avatar
Dennis Leahy
Blackwood
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:32 am
Location: Duluth, MN, US
Contact:

Post by Dennis Leahy » Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:00 pm

Craig L wrote:... Hang on !! ya mean I made all those fancy ferrules for nothing !! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Cheers ,Craig
Craig,

What you now have in your bag of tricks are options and alternatives. If you build commission guitars, you can offer an external or internal adjuster to suit the buyer's fancy.

About 1742 posts ago, you mentioned that offset soundholes are another subject, but it can be a related subject if you can get a hand inside without loosening any strings, to make a neck angle adjustment. Or, a large side port could offer the same kind of access. More options, more alternatives, more tricks in the bag.

Dennis
Another damn Yank!

User avatar
Craig
Admin
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:08 am
Location: N.S.W. in the bush

Post by Craig » Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:45 am

Dennis Leahy wrote:
Craig L wrote:... Hang on !! ya mean I made all those fancy ferrules for nothing !! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Cheers ,Craig
Craig,

What you now have in your bag of tricks are options and alternatives. If you build commission guitars, you can offer an external or internal adjuster to suit the buyer's fancy.



Dennis
Dennis , I'm not at all concerned. I meant my above quote as a joke :lol:

I have a confession actually : my current ( way out there ,alternate, and probably scoffed at by many , outlandish and maybe ridiculous) project does in fact include it's soundhole in the upper bout. :lol: So in actual fact , I'll probably be using an internal adjuster in any case. I did however, want to include an external system development for others who may wish to use it, so my efforts with those little ferrules were mainly for those folk , although I'm sure I'll be using them sometime in the future


Cheers , Craig

User avatar
Dennis Leahy
Blackwood
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:32 am
Location: Duluth, MN, US
Contact:

Post by Dennis Leahy » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:33 am

Craig L wrote:Dennis , I'm not at all concerned. I meant my above quote as a joke :lol:
Cheers , Craig
I knew you were joking. (My sense of humor runs from "dry" to "bonehead silly", but I hate to resort to a LOL icon every time I'm joking around. It's hard to convey in text, but I'm usually joking around even when I'm serious...)

And, you can see by my current avatar that I misplaced the soundhole in my first guitar. I could not find the middle of the guitar to save my life. My next one (again, with a cutaway), has a sort of kidney bean shaped soundhole on the cutaway side, in the horn. I may never find that elusive middle ground!

Please start a new thread, and show us your "current way out there, alternate, and probably scoffed at by many, outlandish and maybe ridiculous project." If it is any help, I'm ready to sign up for your fan club just by the description alone!

Dennis
Another damn Yank!

User avatar
Kim
Admin
Posts: 4376
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: South of Perth WA

Post by Kim » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:49 am

Dennis Leahy wrote: My next one (again, with a cutaway), has a sort of kidney bean shaped soundhole on the cutaway side, in the horn. I may never find that elusive middle ground! Dennis
Ahh come on Dennis, your at the ANZLF now. We all know that kidney shaped soundhole happened when you carelessly put the guitar down on the floor to run outside for a play on the swings, come back in the shed looking for u'r snow shoes and stuck u'r big ass foot through the darn thing by mistake.

User avatar
Craig
Admin
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:08 am
Location: N.S.W. in the bush

Post by Craig » Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:46 pm

Dennis , ya cunning bugger, you've been sussing out my plans haven't you ?

Your probably not going to believe it , but I do have a soundport planned in that exact same area ,with a florentine.

Makes us both wierdo's :? :lol:

User avatar
Dennis Leahy
Blackwood
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:32 am
Location: Duluth, MN, US
Contact:

Post by Dennis Leahy » Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:42 pm

Kim, please do not give away my design methodology. The next thing you know, there will be dozens of luthiers wearing snowshoes, making offset soundholes!

Craig, I do believe you. You must be bloomin' brilliant! 8)

Dennis
Another damn Yank!

Grant Goltz
Gidgee
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:44 am

Post by Grant Goltz » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:05 am

So, OK, hope my comments did not slow down this interesting topic. Lots of good ideas here.

So now who is going to start building to try some of these out? Seems like that is the next logical step in the process.

Grant

User avatar
Tom Morici
Blackwood
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:46 pm
Location: Montana, USA
Contact:

Post by Tom Morici » Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:39 pm

Grant,

Im still in the thought process, I have not settled on any one design.
I am tied up with mandolin builds at present, so It will be awhile until I
can play with real working models of adjustable necks.

I like the simplicity of your clever design and I like the way Rick's design
allows more useable soundboard area. But, I don't like the truss rod adj.
at the peghead, that Rick use's. My thoughts are more on how to float the fingerboard over the top and have the truss rod adj. at the soundhole end.

I am still open to the input of others, If you or others have some Ideas about this I would love to hear them.

Tom

Grant Goltz
Gidgee
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:44 am

Post by Grant Goltz » Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:09 am

Tom, I do the truss rod adjustment at the soundhole end and it has worked out fine. Just need to use the longer rods to reach the end of the fingerboard extension.

Grant

User avatar
Dave White
Blackwood
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:10 am
Location: Hughenden Valley, England
Contact:

Post by Dave White » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:06 am

Tom,

You can also route the truss rod slot to the end of the fingerboard extension. Even if the truss rod doesn't reach the end of the fingerboard extension, the slot provides a guide for the adjusting wrench/key through the utb hole.
Dave White
[url=http://www.defaoiteguitars.com]De Faoite Stringed Instruments[/url]

User avatar
Allen
Blackwood
Posts: 5252
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:39 pm
Location: Cairns, Australia
Contact:

Post by Allen » Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:46 am

I've been building with a finger board extension on several instruments now, and all have had the truss rod adjustment at the sound hole. I use a regular rod and route the channel to the end as Dave suggests. Works fine for me.
Allen R. McFarlen
https://www.brguitars.com
Facebook
Cairns, Australia

User avatar
Tom Morici
Blackwood
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:46 pm
Location: Montana, USA
Contact:

Post by Tom Morici » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:41 am

Grant,Dave,Allen,

Thanks for the replys.

What I would like to do is "float" the fretboard and the extention over the soundboard, allowing the full size of the soundboard to be free to vibrate.
In order to do this Rick's design has the adj. at the peghead end and this is the simple solution.

I guess Im trying to come up with a way that the fretboard extention is above the soundboard (not notched in). The truss rod adj. would end up at the end of the fretboard, not through the soundhole.Maybe I thinking to far out of the box with this Idea. I may not be able to do it that way.

Im just thinking there may be a way, of course I can't figure out how to
do this. I have never seen it done, and Im sure there is a good reason.
The first problem would be the height of the bridge.

It is my "If there is a will there is a way" mindset.
It sure is a great way to waste a lot of time, trust me I know. :lol:

Tom

User avatar
Dennis Leahy
Blackwood
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:32 am
Location: Duluth, MN, US
Contact:

Post by Dennis Leahy » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:32 am

Tom, did you see this photo that I posted:

Image

Dennis
Another damn Yank!

User avatar
Tom Morici
Blackwood
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:46 pm
Location: Montana, USA
Contact:

Post by Tom Morici » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:28 am

Dennis,

Yes I did see that pic, I assumed it was a archtop guitar and it had a floating bridge. It would be easy on an archtop with a tall bridge.

Tom

User avatar
Dennis Leahy
Blackwood
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:32 am
Location: Duluth, MN, US
Contact:

Post by Dennis Leahy » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:29 am

Yes, that fingerboard is way up there.

[theoretical rambling]As long as you maintain a proper break angle over the saddle, it should not have much effect on the overall sound to have the neck floating higher over the soundboard. Might be disconcerting for a player who has learned to rest a pinkie on the soundboard when fingerpicking, but other than that, I don't foresee a problem (with sound.)

However, I do wonder if the 2-way truss rod can be cranked very much on an unsupported, non-laminated, cantilevered fingerboard. Ideally, the truss rod would not stick out too much beyond the 14th fret, but that would mean a specialized tool (an extra long Allen wrench) would be required to get to the truss rod nut.[/theoretical rambling]

CAD time!

Dennis
Another damn Yank!

User avatar
Dave White
Blackwood
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:10 am
Location: Hughenden Valley, England
Contact:

Post by Dave White » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:35 pm

Tom,

Check out Howard Klepper's website. The trick is to curve/arch the lower bout downwards. This lets you have an archtop type floating fingerboard -with the extension the inverse of the downward arc of the upper boat - and a normal fixed bridge (of normal height). You will lose a little of the body size/volume. This is one I did that is on the way to being like this - it gives you the idea but needs more of a downward curve:

Image
Image

I don't think having the floating fingerboard notched in the top loses that much scope to have an active upper bout. The key for me is having the top bout free from neck pressure and using a narrow X brace angle so that the X legs transfer the sound up into this area. I still use an utb as I find having a brace that arches the upper bout makes the whole guitar more alive and responsive - my "guitar is like a drum theory".
Dave White
[url=http://www.defaoiteguitars.com]De Faoite Stringed Instruments[/url]

User avatar
Dominic
Blackwood
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:58 am
Location: Canberra

Post by Dominic » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:52 pm

Dave, are you saying that you have compound arching on your top? That the curve on the top effectively has a break around the soundhole where the arch is different? If so how do you acheive this compound arching?

Or are you talking about the curve of the top relative to the finger board? In which case it only looks like the top is pulled down because the fingerboard is at a different angle.

I suspect the latter.

Dom
You can bomb the world to pieces,
but you can't bomb the world to peace!

User avatar
Dave White
Blackwood
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:10 am
Location: Hughenden Valley, England
Contact:

Post by Dave White » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:14 pm

Dom,

Yes, the longitudinal arch curves the upper bout of the top downwards. Just like the back arch really. The fingerboard on that guitar is in the same plane as on a "normal" guitar so you can see that the long arc of the upper bout is curving downwards. There are a number of ways you can do this - I use a 13' radius on my top braces and have a narrow X brace angle so that the top legs of the X braces go well into the upper bout area. To accentuate this you could put a bigger arch in the top legs of the X braces and shape the sides of the top bout area to give you the necessary "space" for an archtop type floating fretboard extension. I don't use "spherical dishes" in my build but use cork "wedges" in different combinations to shape the top and back where I want it when gluing braces on - in effect you get "compound arching". To me the "spherical" shape only makes sense from a "building convenience" point of view - you don't have to think about anything like shaping the sides, just sand it out with the dish. From a sound point of view it makes no sense to me at all - a load of balls you could say :D I've made this point many times on the OLF but it doesn't seem to get through. A top will only be spherical if you have an even distribution of bracing on it or glue/force it in a spherical dish - gluing a 3" long brace in the centre won't make the whole top suddenly become spherical.
Dave White
[url=http://www.defaoiteguitars.com]De Faoite Stringed Instruments[/url]

User avatar
Dominic
Blackwood
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:58 am
Location: Canberra

Post by Dominic » Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:37 am

Dave, when you say the fingerboard is on a normal plane but the soundboard is not, relative to what is the fingerboard normal?

If you assume that the soundboard is 'normal' by levelling it up relative to your eye or the ground or what ever reference point you are using to define 'normal', then the fretboad is now on a different plane. Neither of the two bits, fretboard and soundboard can be in a normal plane. They can only change relative to each other.

(Of course you can change the arching of the top but that is not the same thing)

I have seen these geometry debates on the OLF, they tend to degenerate very quickly and become quasi-religious with people just saying, they choose to believe what they like about it. Huh?
There is only one answer as it is based on maths.

Dom
You can bomb the world to pieces,
but you can't bomb the world to peace!

User avatar
Tom Morici
Blackwood
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:46 pm
Location: Montana, USA
Contact:

Post by Tom Morici » Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:55 pm

Dave,

Increasing the angle of drop on the upper bout was my first thought,
(my standard drop of the upper bout is 1-1/4 deg.)
I will admit In my mind I did not think I would care for the look.

But! after seeing the pic of your guitar and Howards guitar I think that it looks fine.

Last night I came up with this idea. This is just a visual aid.
I did not radius the top and back plate to keep it simple.
I used the body dimensions of one of my standard builds.(my style 03)
The bridge height is my standard,as is the body size,so no loss in body size either.Fretboard and extention thickness is 9/16" so I am close
to my goal.
Image

Tom

User avatar
Craig
Admin
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:08 am
Location: N.S.W. in the bush

Post by Craig » Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:39 am

This pic. was posted on the OLF recently. I thought some of you guys may find it interesting. It's a Yamamoto.


Image


Doesn't appear to have any rebate for the heel , so is a little like Rick's version in that regard.



...

Rick Turner
Blackwood
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:22 am
Location: Santa Cruz, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Rick Turner » Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:14 pm

A couple of comments...

The Yamamoto still seems to lock up the upper bout for no additional vibration...to me a waste of potential.

I suspect that those trying to do all adjustments of neck angle and truss rod through the soundhole have not spent many years doing "street level" commercial guitar repair work. Any time you have to push strings aside to work on the guitar's action or neck relief, you've wasted time and have probably killed at least the D and G strings. Adjusting the truss rod from the peghead end just gives you incredible control and visual reference of what you're doing. The old bit about truss rods weakening the peghead is based on too many Gibsons. With carbon fiber in the neck, a scarfed on peghead, modern truss rods that do not need a large scoop out to fit a socket wrench, and the possibility of doing "back-strap" overlays, a peghead adjustable neck need not be vulnerable to breakage. If your objection is aesthetic, I can only say that form follows function. I'm more interested in repair luthier-friendly guitars than I am in recreating the illusion of some hardware-less guitar of the past. I'm trying to make adjustments as simple as possible and as non-disruptive as can be. I've fixed and adjusted way too many guitars that were a pain in the ass to deal with, and I don't want to be making them. I think this is a point of view that comes with having worked on literally thousands and thousands of instruments and is likely not to be held by amateur or semi-pro builders who haven't worked the repair bench in a retail store or been on the road as a guitar tech working with bands. This is one of the reasons I think that even amateur luthiers should spend some real time working on instruments not of their own making.
Rick Turner
Guitar Maker, Experimenter, Diviner
www.renaissanceguitars.com
www.d-tar.com

User avatar
Craig
Admin
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:08 am
Location: N.S.W. in the bush

Post by Craig » Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:15 pm

G'day Rick ,

I'm supposing your top's geometry are created by the dish method .?

Other than adding a wedge shaped shim under the fretboard extension , do you alter the top's geometry between the soundhole and heel . ?

Also ,what height bridge does you system employ ?


Cheers , Craig

User avatar
matthew
Blackwood
Posts: 1189
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:16 pm
Location: Sydney, Inner West
Contact:

Post by matthew » Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:07 pm

Rick Turner wrote: The Yamamoto still seems to lock up the upper bout for no additional vibration...to me a waste of potential.
With a big cutaway it doesn't look like that upper bout is doing much anyway. You're not going to get much vibration so close to the edges and the blocks, are you?

Rick Turner
Blackwood
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:22 am
Location: Santa Cruz, Ca.
Contact:

Post by Rick Turner » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:17 am

Let's see now...

Neck and butt blocks...Well, mine are made of 1/2" Baltic Birch, so the glue line around the whole rim is pretty even; I may start routing a slight concave into the faces so they match the reverse kerfing perfectly. I double the top section of the sides, use reverse kerfing, and then now I'm laying CF on top of that, so my glue surface for the top is pretty much the same all the way around. Many builders who do not do this bevel the end block to reduce the surface area, too.

Bridge height: Low E is 7/16" off the top...pretty normal.

Bottom of fingerboard 1/4" off the top at the neck joint. Normal approximately 1/4" thick board. No wedge underneath, just CF dadoed up into the 'board...might start adding wood wedges just for looks...it wouldn't compromise function.

Full radius dish treatment, 25 foot radius, no flattening in the upper bout.
Rick Turner
Guitar Maker, Experimenter, Diviner
www.renaissanceguitars.com
www.d-tar.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests