All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - Lutherie: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=22
- - - All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ?: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=65470



Message


vachterm -> All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (May 23 2007 22:39:54)

I'm new here but not entirely new to lutherie.
however, lately,mainly as a result of exchanging ideas with luthiers Boaz Elkayam and Tom Blackshear, i've been re-thinking some of my construction methods and wanted to get some input from you guys.
first question would be about the negative neck angle- what i mean by negative neck angle is that the point at the neck where the nut is to be seated is a few mm above the plane of the top.
just for reference, Mr.R.E Brune points out on his '51 Barbero plan the the neck is angled in such a way the the nut is 2mm higher than the plane of the top.
this, along with a slight tapering of the fingerboard should enable the guitar tohave a decent action while still having a low bridge.
how do YOU get that "negative angle"? do you just glue the neck staright in line with the top and then pull it up and fix it in place when gluing the back? do you cut the "shelf" of the "spanish foot"(where the top is to be seated) at a slight angle to the neck itself?

second question is about relief - do YOU put any relief into your flamenco necks?
or do you want them as flat as possible?
have any of you ever put a negative relief? i think its called "rajo"...
supposedly, the neck is buolt in such a waythat at concert pitch the neck will be slightly back-bowed. its supposed to really contribute to the aggressive buzzing sound which is so characteristic to the flamencas of the 50's and 60's.

will wrap it up with some pics of my latest "blanca y negra"
[image][/image]

[image][/image]
will be looking forward to some interesting answers!

thanks a lot,
Udi.



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px




vachterm -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (May 23 2007 22:42:23)

didt know i could only upload one file per post so here's the negra



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px




Ricardo -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (May 24 2007 17:49:27)

I am a player, not a maker, but I have played some guitars where the neck went back, as you describe, and also forward. When the neck is back, you get more "buzz" but at the expense of having to put the saddle higher. And of course if you want to a cleaner sound, even higher saddle is needed. For flamenco, I personally, and many other player I know, really don't like having the saddle high. The lower the better interms of right hand feeling (need a word for it other than action).

So some guitars have the neck more forward, have a very low bridge and clean sound. Somewhere inbetween is perfect, because if the neck is forward, the bridge super low, but the action (over fingerboard) is too high, then you have problem. For this reason, I think that flamenco guitars might require more precision interms of set up than your normal classical guitar.

Ricardo




Anders Eliasson -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (May 24 2007 18:15:12)

Vachterm.

The neckangle you set in the Solera when you glue the back on if you are using a Spanish heel. You simpli fix the guitar and neck in the solera and the back locks the angle.

They never come out the same, but you can get pretty close and the rest you can adjust with fingerboard thickness and taper.

I build with a slight relief in the neck some 0,3mm or so, but I also build with neck reinforcement so that the neck will not change its bow. If you build without neckreinforcement, you can build straight and the neck will bow slightly, but its difficult to control. In order to have an even buzz control, the neck should have a slight relief.
To make a backbow in the neck is a VERY bad idea IMO. If you want buzzing, lower the darn strings and get an even buzzing all over the fingerboard[;)]




vachterm -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (May 25 2007 0:55:29)

Muchas gracias a ustedes dos,Ricardo Y Anders!

Anders, just as something to think about - the first time i heard of adding a negative relief/back bow to the neck was from none other then R.E Brune, who, i think we both agree is amongst the most knowledgeable luthiers living today.
and according to him , this was a very common practice on older flamencas, including the famous '51 Marcelo Barbero played by Sabicas on the "flamenco puro" album.

it is mentioned both in the article accompanying the barbero plan at the GAL and in another article written by him - "8 concerns of highly successful guitarmakers".

check them out if yoy get the chance.




Anders Eliasson -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (May 25 2007 9:22:45)

I think the best would be:
Instead of me reading articles I dont know where to get, you build a flamenco guitar with a backbow and tell us what you think.[;)]

I´m not going to build with a backbow. Thats for sure. Not even if Sabicas returned and asked me to build him one. It simply goes against string vibration.

I have build with straight neck and I dont like it. You have to raise the strings to much in order to not get to much buzzing at the first couple of frets. Its a simple physical law. Even stringed instruments without frets are build with relief.

A guitar with a backbow and a standard setup will have a lot of buzzing at the first frets, being normal at the middle frets and totally clean at the upper frets.

If you want buzzing, why not build a guitar with a very slight relief and the same amount of buzzing all over the fingerboard. That works and the guitar will work with or without capo.




Jasmine_27 -> RE: Torres Plans (Dec. 27 2007 12:20:04)

Dear Udi,

I couldn't figure out how to send via my in-box, so am borrowing this thread to ask if you could somehow send your Torres plans to Tokyo or scan them over the net. Let me know what works best for you - I'm interested in a guitar that fits my hands! Mucha gracia!

Jasmine




vachterm -> RE: Torres Plans (Dec. 28 2007 3:55:32)

Jasmine,
I have sent you a PM.
if you are having troubles with the PM system, you can contact me at:
vachterm@gmail.com




tele -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (May 31 2013 20:49:35)

I have a question on the topic:

The guitar is in process of attaching a new fretboard and the neck thickness has been done currently so that at preferred saddle height the string height is 2.5mm(12th fret, so 3.5 without the fret, measured with a "jig") without string tension. How much one can expect the neck to bend when the strings are attached? So how much I can expect the strings to rise from the 2.5mm?
The neck thickness is about 23mm and its spanish cedar. I would appreciate quick answers as tomorrow it should have frets installed

Thanks!




jshelton5040 -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (May 31 2013 23:35:14)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tele

How much one can expect the neck to bend when the strings are attached? So how much I can expect the strings to rise from the 2.5mm?
The neck thickness is about 23mm and its spanish cedar. I would appreciate quick answers as tomorrow it should have frets installed


I don't know how your luthier does it but we put the strings on without frets and check for relief. It there's not enough we remove wood from the neck until it warps the proper amount. It takes some experience since the frets tend to put a slight back bend into the neck therefore the relief without frets has to be exagerated so the finished fretted neck comes out correct. I hope that's clear, it's complicated to describe. Some luthiers plane or sand the relief in and some do it with the frets.




constructordeguitarras -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Jun. 1 2013 0:45:09)

I agree with Anders about "negative relief." And I have those plans, in condensed form in the Jornal of the GAL.

"Beware of the merely eloquent."




El Burdo -> [Deleted] (Aug. 13 2013 10:31:39)

Post has been moved to the Recycle Bin at Aug. 14 2013 20:22:19




Ricardo -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 21 2013 15:38:55)

quote:

They never come out the same, but you can get pretty close and the rest you can adjust with fingerboard thickness and taper.


Back to this topic again...as I am having a guitar built for me I, obviously want that low bridge without too much buzz unless driven hard. I accept they don't come out all the same, but what does "pretty close" really mean? I mean can you or any luthier guarantee a range of millimeters? I guess I mean at the bridge? I have seen a couple Anders guitars and they are set up just right and it really confuses me why all luthiers can't just nail it every time.




Anders Eliasson -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 21 2013 16:24:22)

Wood is Wood and every piece react a bit different . Even though your solera is very stiff, there can be a slight difference in the final setup height. Factors can be:
*a floppy solera,
*sides that are not fitted to well to the neck and thus gives stress
* poorly fitted back
* to much clamping, roping or rubbering pressure when gluing the back
Its important when assembling that everything goes together without stress. Its better to have a guitar that is not perfect in shape, but stress free than having a perfectly shaped guitar with a lot of stress built into it. The last affects setup and sound and many guitars are being forced into their final shape.
In the end its all about experience and I had to shave more fingerboards in the start than I do now.


I can normally nail it around the 7,5 - 8,5mm at the bridge with a 3mm 6th string over 12th fret.
If it gets a bit higher than that, I slightly shave the fingerboard after it has been installed.
This setup allows you to go down to 2,5mm stringheight at the 12th fret without going to low at the bridge.
Players, who want a lower setup at 12th fret will need another neckangle. Closer to a classical.
These super low setups can be discussed from now and untill forever. I´ve never met a flamenco with an aceptable buzz and a setup lower than 2,7 - 2,8mm. It does of course depend on playing style, but not even steelstrung guitsr with their much higher string tensión can go lower without excessive buzzing
I´ve also met a few pro-played guitars with 3 - 3,5mm setups. That because the player wanted that because of better volumen and projection.

I hope this helps.




constructordeguitarras -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 21 2013 18:48:57)

Brune says that the nut is 2mm above the plane of the soundboard, BUT the FINGERBOARD is fashioned so that there is "negative relief" meaning that it is convex, not concave. The plan says, "It's back bowed 0.01 "under tension..." Concave is normal. Here is part of Brune's plan:



(Just trying to clarify the earlier posts.)

Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px




Anders Eliasson -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 21 2013 19:23:38)

But because a plan says something, it doesnt mean that you should build it that way. Its just drawing of a guitar. Nothing else.

There´s Little idea in being a plan copyer. I dont think anyone would copy the: "plane marks not sanded out around head"

If someone wants a super buzz guitar go ahead and build a copy of this setup. It will work very well, but it could be easyer just to lower the saddle.




Ricardo -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 21 2013 22:00:02)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anders Eliasson

Wood is Wood and every piece react a bit different . Even though your solera is very stiff, there can be a slight difference in the final setup height. Factors can be:
*a floppy solera,
*sides that are not fitted to well to the neck and thus gives stress
* poorly fitted back
* to much clamping, roping or rubbering pressure when gluing the back
Its important when assembling that everything goes together without stress. Its better to have a guitar that is not perfect in shape, but stress free than having a perfectly shaped guitar with a lot of stress built into it. The last affects setup and sound and many guitars are being forced into their final shape.
In the end its all about experience and I had to shave more fingerboards in the start than I do now.


I can normally nail it around the 7,5 - 8,5mm at the bridge with a 3mm 6th string over 12th fret.
If it gets a bit higher than that, I slightly shave the fingerboard after it has been installed.
This setup allows you to go down to 2,5mm stringheight at the 12th fret without going to low at the bridge.
Players, who want a lower setup at 12th fret will need another neckangle. Closer to a classical.
These super low setups can be discussed from now and untill forever. I´ve never met a flamenco with an aceptable buzz and a setup lower than 2,7 - 2,8mm. It does of course depend on playing style, but not even steelstrung guitsr with their much higher string tensión can go lower without excessive buzzing
I´ve also met a few pro-played guitars with 3 - 3,5mm setups. That because the player wanted that because of better volumen and projection.

I hope this helps.


Cool. So then an experienced luthier should be able to nail it within a millimeter every time. So it sounds. So I agree with your 7-8 mm target height. Not sure why not EVERY flamenco guitar builder shooting for that range.




aarongreen -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 21 2013 22:45:56)

The 51 has a bit of a backbow and with the action it had when I got it, it definitely buzzes when pushed. Brune says thats intentional and I won't argue with him on that. When Dennis recorded it he felt it was too low and you can hear that in the videos. Before we went to the guitar festival where he played it in concert he asked me to make a slightly higher saddle for it, which I did and that took care of the buzzing for the most part. The action is still low, just not stratocaster low. It's more like 3.2 to 2.5 now if I remember correctly.

Some guitars just buzz more than others, it really has to do with how the box vibrates IMO. The Barbero should buzz more, honestly. It's a pretty solid guitar, not lightly built at all. Interestingly enough I restored a phenomenal 1970 Reyes that is very similar, pretty solidly built... beefy even (still light weight though). Playing it is like driving a supercharged Bentley.

The 1873 Vicente Arias guitar I currently have is yet another that should buzz way more than it does. Frank Wallace recorded that for me. It has an action that is flamenco low and frets that are more suggestions than actual frets, meaning they are lower than I ever thought possible and still do their job. Maybe it's force of habit with these old guitars....




krichards -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 22 2013 7:47:20)

quote:

Cool. So then an experienced luthier should be able to nail it within a millimeter every time. So it sounds. So I agree with your 7-8 mm target height. Not sure why not EVERY flamenco guitar builder shooting for that range.


I think many builders move on to flamenco from classical builds and, unless they are flamenco players themselves, they don't understand the nuances that make a good flamenco guitar.

Of course any serious professional will get it right sooner or later. There's no magic to it. Just a case of getting the solera right and paying attention to details with fingerboard and bridge.

Can you tell us about any particular flamenco guitars where the builder has not got it right?




Anders Eliasson -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 22 2013 8:37:25)

quote:




The 51 has a bit of a backbow and with the action it had when I got it, it definitely buzzes when pushed. Brune says thats intentional and I won't argue with him on that. When Dennis recorded it he felt it was too low and you can hear that in the videos. Before we went to the guitar festival where he played it in concert he asked me to make a slightly higher saddle for it, which I did and that took care of the buzzing for the most part. The action is still low, just not stratocaster low. It's more like 3.2 to 2.5 now if I remember correctly.

Some guitars just buzz more than others, it really has to do with how the box vibrates IMO. The Barbero should buzz more, honestly. It's a pretty solid guitar, not lightly built at all. Interestingly enough I restored a phenomenal 1970 Reyes that is very similar, pretty solidly built... beefy even (still light weight though). Playing it is like driving a supercharged Bentley.

The 1873 Vicente Arias guitar I currently have is yet another that should buzz way more than it does. Frank Wallace recorded that for me. It has an action that is flamenco low and frets that are more suggestions than actual frets, meaning they are lower than I ever thought possible and still do their job. Maybe it's force of habit with these old guitars....


So Aaron, your post really is weird.
Do you really mean that that 51 Barbero should have back bow?
If so, WHY?
Absolutely NO stringed instrument with a neck Works well with backbow. It doesnt matter if they have frets or no.
Please tell me why not arguing with Brune. Is he to "fine" to argue with. I argue with anyone saying crap.
So why is the back bow intentional?
Maybe the guitar just had a refret one day with some frets with a thicker tang than the original and so the neck bended back. That has happened to many a fine guitar or maybe the neck backboved because of humidity change.

You say that it Works with a bit of buzzing with a 3,2mm setup. Have you ever thought about if the guitar was fixed, meaning having a slight relief a new frets, you could most probably lower the action 0,5mm at the 12th fret and get the same amount of buzzing and at the same time a more even buzzing all over the fret board.

I hope this is not one of these ideas that because a guitars was once owned by a famous player and later inspected by a famous inspector, then nothing can be discussed. Because thats really a nobrain attitude. If someone wants to keep the instrument "original", then its their problem. But who on earth knows how this guitar was setup when it left Marcello Barberos workshop in 1951 and maybe good old Barbero is turning around in his grave, crying: "fix that guitar as soon as posible"
[;)]




Jeff Highland -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 22 2013 9:02:12)

I agree with you 100% Anders, there is NO justification for backbow.




Ricardo -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 22 2013 11:32:22)

quote:

Can you tell us about any particular flamenco guitars where the builder has not got it right?


Just about everyone except Conde and Anders honestly. [:D]j

Seriously, I think I am more impressed when the guitar is at 7mm (bridge) and can go lower and doesn't buzz. Almost all players are like "wow sweet!" with such a set up.




aarongreen -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 22 2013 12:25:32)

quote:


So Aaron, your post really is weird.
Do you really mean that that 51 Barbero should have back bow?
If so, WHY?
Absolutely NO stringed instrument with a neck Works well with backbow. It doesnt matter if they have frets or no.
Please tell me why not arguing with Brune. Is he to "fine" to argue with. I argue with anyone saying crap.
So why is the back bow intentional?
Maybe the guitar just had a refret one day with some frets with a thicker tang than the original and so the neck bended back. That has happened to many a fine guitar or maybe the neck backboved because of humidity change.

You say that it Works with a bit of buzzing with a 3,2mm setup. Have you ever thought about if the guitar was fixed, meaning having a slight relief a new frets, you could most probably lower the action 0,5mm at the 12th fret and get the same amount of buzzing and at the same time a more even buzzing all over the fret board.

I hope this is not one of these ideas that because a guitars was once owned by a famous player and later inspected by a famous inspector, then nothing can be discussed. Because thats really a nobrain attitude. If someone wants to keep the instrument "original", then its their problem. But who on earth knows how this guitar was setup when it left Marcello Barberos workshop in 1951 and maybe good old Barbero is turning around in his grave, crying: "fix that guitar as soon as posible"


Whoa settle down there Anders, you need to relax. First of all, the guitar plays great, second of all the degree of backbow is very slight and third of all it does not impede the guitar from being a very viable and excellent guitar. I am sure Barbero is not rolling in his grave.

I trust you are not implying that my feelings on this guitar, having lived with it for a few years is based solely on other people's assessments or who owned it. That would be just a tad insulting and completely off base. I've worked on many valuable and historically important guitars and I do what is needed to make it a viable musical instrument, often that means taking the very long way around a problem due to it's value but at the end of the day, I am confident in my own assessment of what comes through my shop

What I wrote was Brune says the back bow was intentional and I won't argue with _that_. One can intend to do anything, whether or not you think it's a good idea. He is basing this partially on conversations he had with Reyes, if I remember correctly and then of course his own 40 something years of experience with these guitars. You want to argue with him whether or not it's a good idea, ok fine, but you need to be clear that that is not what he said either...He just said it was intentional. And for the record, the action on the guitar when I got it is lower than I do on my own blancas, which generally have almost no relief these days. I don't agree that relief is always a good idea, in fact I use less than I used to and my guitars now buzz less and are easier to play.

As I also said, some guitars just buzz more than others and some guitarists buzz more than others. Besides that set up is incredibly personal I find. Sabicas never buzzed according to Dennis. He said it was one of the most incredible aspects of his touch, he could play anything and make it sing. According to his tech, Hendrix was the same way with his rig and uncontrollable feedback, no one could play his guitar through his rig and get anything but feedback but Jimi could control it just fine and it was set up as he required it to be.




estebanana -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 22 2013 12:44:24)

Actually I was fixing to write Brune' a letter and ask him more in depth about the Barbero.
He's such a generous man with his knowledge and he is a major repository of guitar information why would you ever challenge him?




Anders Eliasson -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 22 2013 14:09:55)

quote:

Whoa settle down there Anders, you need to relax. First of all, the guitar plays great, second of all the degree of backbow is very slight and third of all it does not impede the guitar from being a very viable and excellent guitar. I am sure Barbero is not rolling in his grave.

I trust you are not implying that my feelings on this guitar, having lived with it for a few years is based solely on other people's assessments or who owned it. That would be just a tad insulting and completely off base. I've worked on many valuable and historically important guitars and I do what is needed to make it a viable musical instrument, often that means taking the very long way around a problem due to it's value but at the end of the day, I am confident in my own assessment of what comes through my shop

What I wrote was Brune says the back bow was intentional and I won't argue with _that_. One can intend to do anything, whether or not you think it's a good idea. He is basing this partially on conversations he had with Reyes, if I remember correctly and then of course his own 40 something years of experience with these guitars. You want to argue with him whether or not it's a good idea, ok fine, but you need to be clear that that is not what he said either...He just said it was intentional. And for the record, the action on the guitar when I got it is lower than I do on my own blancas, which generally have almost no relief these days. I don't agree that relief is always a good idea, in fact I use less than I used to and my guitars now buzz less and are easier to play.

As I also said, some guitars just buzz more than others and some guitarists buzz more than others. Besides that set up is incredibly personal I find. Sabicas never buzzed according to Dennis. He said it was one of the most incredible aspects of his touch, he could play anything and make it sing. According to his tech, Hendrix was the same way with his rig and uncontrollable feedback, no one could play his guitar through his rig and get anything but feedback but Jimi could control it just fine and it was set up as he required it to be.


Dont worry Aaron I´m perfectly relaxed. And I also agree that flamenco guitars work best with a neck with very Little relief. Almost straight. BUT backbow, NEVER. Not even o,25mm
It totally goes against the fysics of a strings vibration.

I also understand that what you refer to as value is economical value and not the value as the tool a guitar is. I know that when some things gets prices which are out of proportion to the value of their original purpose, in this case a thing (guitar) used to make art (music), then people start treating them with a very different attitude than if it was just a "normal" guitar and it starts getting very "dangerous" changing whatever Little "problem" it might have because you might loose economical value. Its just like if you buy a classic car and change the brakes to some better ones, then you "ruin" the car. Kind of absurd, but well, thats the way our absurd Little world funcions.

So 3 questions:
1)Do you believe that this guitar would be a better instrument if it did not have any back bow? Dont think about its historical value. Just think thing, guitar.

2)Do you believe any other guitar would benefit from having backbow in the neck?

3) would you build a guitar with backbow yourself?

What you write about Sabicas sound is totally against what I hear from his recordings. Sabicas buzzes A LOT on his recordings. Its so much that it becomes a part of his sound. I cant imagine Sabicas without this buzzing that is always present. Another thing is that he could make the guitar sing (as you say) and buzz at the same time. Very few can do that and I trust its what you call his touch.




C. Vega -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 22 2013 14:53:26)

Richard Brune is a very knowledgeable guy and I have a lot of respect for his opinions but I don't put him on a pedestal. He's not infallible.
I can think of several instances where statements he's made, both in print and in online communications, were subsequently shown to be incorrect.
Nobody's right 100% of the time.
Not even me! [8|] Ha!




Ruphus -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 22 2013 17:07:54)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anders Eliasson

Maybe the guitar just had a refret one day with some frets with a thicker tang than the original and so the neck bended back. That has happened to many a fine guitar ...


These are of the peripher but interesting bits one takes from luthiers´ expertise.
Thank you!



quote:

ORIGINAL: aarongreen

I don't agree that relief is always a good idea, in fact I use less than I used to and my guitars now buzz less and are easier to play.


Hi Aaron,

Could you please explain some more on how guitars with more relief may buzz more in the same time?
... For maybe less careful planning and fretting with necks that have relief; or how is that to be envisioned?

No rhetorical question.

Ruphus




aarongreen -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 22 2013 19:51:18)

Hi All

Anders,

1) I do whatever I must do to make the guitar realize it's potential as a musical tool, regardless of it's value. Where value comes in is how exactly I go about doing that. However if there is no problem in how the guitar plays, then why alter it? A slight raising of the action, which I would have done with just about any guitar esp, considering how Dennis plays...is much easier than pulling frets and planing the board.

We (Karl Franks) and I have done some rather extensive and invasive restorations on such guitars as Hauser I, Bouchet, Fleta, Santos, Barbero, Friederich on down the line. I mean completely disassemble the guitar, often being able to save and reuse the purflings, bindings and fingerboards....we go to extreme lengths to make sure our work is not what you see when you see the guitar. In one case (1890 Ramirez) we had to rebrace the top entirely. Because it was horribly warped. So my attitude is you do what you must esp when we are often undoing what others have done, poorly. Just so you know, if the Barbero had an issue that manifested in the real world as a real issue, I would have dealt with it.

Your other two questions are not germane to_ this_ discussion. Once again, we are discussing Brune's assertion that this was intentional to give a certain kind of raspy attack (he called it rajo, if I remember correctly). That was the whole point of the comment. If he backs that up by referring to something that Manuel Reyes said, someone who knew Barbero.... then I am not going to argue with him because I don't have any way of disproving that. Whether or not it's a "good idea" or "correct" is another matter. However you must consider the fact that how people play and their taste etc never stay the same. Therefore it's not entirely fair to judge outside of the context of the players of the day. How's that?

Charlie,
You should have told me sooner that you are not infallible, I am just about done with a beautiful carved pedestal I was going to stick you on. For the sake of full disclosure, I was going to have you stuffed first. Oh well, I guess I'll have to find another.

Hi Ruphus
Too much relief can be a real problem as when you get to up to the 7th or so fret position now you have the upward slope of the relief to deal with. One way around that is to taper off the base side of the fingerboard from the 12th fret down to the sound hole, so that it is not in the same plane. Also too much relief can make the guitar harder to play as now you have to push the string down further in the middle positions.

On my guitars my ideal is a tiny bit of relief on the base side, none on the treble, the bass side tapers off at the 12th, so it dips down if you will and a perfectly level fret height on the treble side all the way up to the 19th or 20th fret. There's another answer for you Anders.

A




Jeff Highland -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 22 2013 19:55:43)

Some relief is good, but not as much as many used to believe
Assuming good level frets-
On my steel string guitars I go for about 0.125mm (0.005")
On Nylon about 0.25mm

When you get a guitar with excess relief, someone will generally have lowered the saddle drastically to get the 12th fret string height to where it looks right.
Then the frets from 10 or so up buzz, and the action on the lower frets still feels high.

To get it playing right you then have to lower the relief and raise the saddle.
The clearance at the 12th fret may end up the same, but there is the ability to play clean (or push into buzz) uniformly over the fretboard.




C. Vega -> RE: All you LUTHIERS - neck angle and neck relief ? (Oct. 22 2013 22:05:47)

quote:

ORIGINAL: aarongreen

Your other two questions are not germane to_ this_ discussion. Once again, we are discussing Brune's assertion that this was intentional to give a certain kind of raspy attack (he called it rajo, if I remember correctly). That was the whole point of the comment. If he backs that up by referring to something that Manuel Reyes said, someone who knew Barbero.... then I am not going to argue with him because I don't have any way of disproving that.


Aaron,
I'm not poo-pooing what Brune said but I can't help but wonder how well Reyes actually "knew" Barbero.
When he was interviewed by David George for his book The Flamenco Guitar (Madrid, Society of Spanish Studies, 1969), Reyes stated that he had spent all of one day with Barbero in Madrid.
Just something to consider.




Page: [1] 2    >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET