Finger board thickness

Costs are rising and times are tough.
Please consider a donation to keep this
place going.

Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.

This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.

We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.

You are logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >>Discussions >>Lutherie >>

Page: [1] 2 > >>

Message

<< Newer Topic Older Topic >>

Stu

Posts: 2522
Joined: Jan. 30 2007
From: London (the South of it), England

Finger board thickness

Hello?? Anyone there? This section is deserted!

What's the dimensions of the ebony?

Thickness at the nut? And thickness from the 12th fret to sound hole? Assuming I sand it down to fit the neck lean.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 1 2022 13:54:34

RobF

Posts: 1611
Joined: Aug. 24 2017

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

Hi Stu, thought you were in Sanlucar.

6mm is a good amount for a flamenco, but a little thicker or thinner is OK, too. You will have to adjust for the neck angle, there’s no getting around it, a gap-free fit can’t be achieved with pressure alone. The amount removed will vary from guitar to guitar, but it’ll be the same amount as the gap found at the 12th when measured with a straightedge from the nut to soundhole. Generally the fingerboard itself is used as the straightedge. Also, the ramp from 12th to SH is best done with a plane, as sandpaper has a nasty habit of rounding off towards the edges, which will lead to a difficult fitting. Try to make the transition at the 12th nice and crisp.

There’s many ways to do things, of course, but the suggestions above should get you to where you want to be.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 1 2022 23:17:33

Stu

Posts: 2522
Joined: Jan. 30 2007
From: London (the South of it), England

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to RobF)

Not not this year. Threatening to go back every year..... I'm gonna go next year honestly! I think they are done now anyway.

Thanks for that info rob.
When I lay the fret board down in its current state...it seems to be a nearly flat fit??!!

My mold has a neck lean built in.

So not sure why it sits flat. Three seems to be no gap really at all. 😕

Ok but actually..... When I stick the calipers on the ebony it's about 1mm thinner at that end. But overall too thick. Think the nut end is about 8 mm and tapers down to about 7 mm.

I guess I should start by thicknesses it to the same thickness all along the length, then reducing from 12th fret.

What's a good thickness to start? (Considering that I'll be taking some off once it's glued fur the bass taper.)

Gonna get this thing finished very soon! I can't almost hear it

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 2 2022 0:27:08

RobF

Posts: 1611
Joined: Aug. 24 2017

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

Yeah, I envy the people who went this year, I bet they had a great time.

Maybe thickness to 6.5mm, to give yourself some wiggle room during the pre-fret planing. If the fit over the top already seems tight, it can be double-checked with a thin slip of paper placed between the fingerboard and top at the join. If that pulls free without resistance then there’s a gap - when it’s tightly held, it’s good.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 2 2022 0:35:13

constructordeguitarras

Posts: 1672
Joined: Jan. 29 2012
From: Seattle, Washington, USA

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

quote:

So not sure why it sits flat. Three seems to be no gap really at all. 😕

Best to check to top of the fingerboard, in place, with a straight edge, pressed down. Look for gaps above and below.

_____________________________

Ethan Deutsch
www.edluthier.com
www.facebook.com/ethandeutschguitars
www.youtube.com/marioamayaflamenco
I always have flamenco guitars available for sale.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 2 2022 5:05:08

Stu

Posts: 2522
Joined: Jan. 30 2007
From: London (the South of it), England

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to constructordeguitarras)

Thanks for the tips guys, will have a look at this later when I get back in the shop

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 2 2022 12:47:57

JasonM

Posts: 2052
Joined: Dec. 8 2005
From: Baltimore

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

Definitely some great tips! I have some automotive feeler gauges which have come in handy for things like this.

For the finial thickness, don’t you also want to take into account your final action target and your whole string height/nut/saddle/ soundboard height geometry?

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 2 2022 15:09:50

Stu

Posts: 2522
Joined: Jan. 30 2007
From: London (the South of it), England

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to JasonM)

So running into some confusing stuff!

I think..... theres an issue with my neck lean. in that it doesnt exist!??!

I have a lean built into my mold. (see photo with straight edge.)
1. is 5mm cork
2. is 3.5mm shim
=1.5mm

I also definitely had to route an angle into the area of heel that joins to the sound board too so the neck would lean into the "lean"

However when I present a straight edge or the ebony to the neck and sound board there isn't the kind of gap I would expect.
The neck is kind of floating from the 12th fret to sound hole. whereas I'd expect to see a super slim slither of a triangle right? so 2 points of contact. 1 at the 12th fret and 1 at the sound hole but trangular gap in between. Is that right?

So the whole point of thinning the ebony is to close that gap right?

So I thinned down the ebony from the 12 fret and it appears to have made the gap worse. like the ebony is now floating "higher"
(which is what one would expect if the was no lean in the neck right?)

does this make sense?!? I am def feeling confused.

I've drawn some pictures
TOP: what I think is meant be happening.
MIDDLE: what it would be like with a neck lean but no materail removed.
BOTTOM: and what has actually happened aftyer ive thinned the ebony from 12th fret

Have I understood this all wrong?

Could the area of the sound board between 12th fret and rosette somehow be depressed?

any help would be gratefully recieved.

Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px

Attachment (2)

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 2 2022 20:34:39

RobF

Posts: 1611
Joined: Aug. 24 2017

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

Hi Stu,
Regardless of what’s expected from the workboard setup, the fingerboard should be fitted to the guitar as it exists, rather than to the theoretical. If you can’t see a gap or angle then there’s no point in attempting to adjust for one. I mean, how can the adjustment amount even be determined if it can’t be seen? If it appears to fit, then it probably does, lol.

I think it might be safest to stop pursuing this, re-flatten the bottom of the fingerboard and thickness it to a touch more than 6.5mm*, with the idea that the fingerboard surface planing can take care of any deviations in neck angle from expected. A workboard with a cork based perimeter does have some give, so maybe that’s part of what’s going on. Workboards, in general, can have their own idiosyncrasies and each one often needs a bit of tuning to get it where you want it to be. In your case, having a shim at the nut end gives a lot of flexibility to adjust things once you get them figured out.

I’d be concerned that you might run out of fingerboard depth to play with if you keep chasing this angle adjustment thingy-poo.

* hopefully the fingerboard is still thick enough at the soundhole end to be flattened. If adding the ramp has thinned it down too much then it might still be salvageable by planing the bottom flat, but in a wedge shape going thicker towards the nut, kind of like how you started out. The concern is if the entire board is flattened to the soundhole end’s thickness it might then be a too thin to work with when planing the surface to hit the bridge at the right height. Also, if the neck has no offset (or very small) then then fingerboard will naturally take on a wedge shape when planing the surface during prep, so it’s ok to start out that way.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 2 2022 23:15:09

Stu

Posts: 2522
Joined: Jan. 30 2007
From: London (the South of it), England

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to RobF)

Thanks Rob, nice to read that reply just before bed. Given me hope for tomorrow!

And wise words. I'll just work to whats there and not what I think should be..

Worried it may be a little thin now.... But maybe not.

Will check it out tomorrow.

I appreciate the advice man.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 2 2022 23:55:34

constructordeguitarras

Posts: 1672
Joined: Jan. 29 2012
From: Seattle, Washington, USA

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

Rob offers good advice.

This step doesn't always work out exactly as expected for me. I've even had some occasions where I've had to glue a piece of black veneer under the fingerboard from the 12th fret towards the soundhole to correct over compensation for the neck angle. Then everything works out when dressing the top of the fingerboard after gluing it on. It seems that in the gluing, the end of the fingerboard can get pulled down--even if it seemed to fit perfectly dry.

_____________________________

Ethan Deutsch
www.edluthier.com
www.facebook.com/ethandeutschguitars
www.youtube.com/marioamayaflamenco
I always have flamenco guitars available for sale.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 3 2022 5:41:10

constructordeguitarras

Posts: 1672
Joined: Jan. 29 2012
From: Seattle, Washington, USA

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

When you glued the soundboard to the ledge on the neck, did the joint come out flush? Perhaps the soundboard was a little bit proud of the neck and you sanded or planed it down, in the process leveling the angle? It is difficult to make the joint flush because if it is flush dry, the glue swells the soundboard somewhat, making it proud.

_____________________________

Ethan Deutsch
www.edluthier.com
www.facebook.com/ethandeutschguitars
www.youtube.com/marioamayaflamenco
I always have flamenco guitars available for sale.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 3 2022 15:59:36

JasonM

Posts: 2052
Joined: Dec. 8 2005
From: Baltimore

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to constructordeguitarras)

I noticed when glueing the back on, the clamp pressure at the heel really wants to flatten out that offset despite the neck being clamped at the nut end. If I remember right, I had to clamp the back first and THEN clamp the neck down to the shim last. Could be that it was too much pressure, but we are talking 2mm or less! Need a solera machined out of cast iron lol

Stu how thick is your board now?

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 3 2022 16:36:42

Stu

Posts: 2522
Joined: Jan. 30 2007
From: London (the South of it), England

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to constructordeguitarras)

Hi Ethan, I seem to remember it being pretty good. Kind of flush. I don't recall having to send to much. But that's a good point. And something I'll remember for future builds.

Jason, that's also a possibility. And a good thing to consider.I hadn't noticed or thought that might be happening...but was a while ago when I did that join..

I've just glued the board on.

I leveled the fingerboard on the drum sander but it's a little thinner than I wanted. But had to go that far as there were low spots.

It's about 5.7 mm

(Is that something one might compensate by leaving the neck 0.5mm thicker?) When carving.

It looks ok. But just wondering how it will be when tapering.

Let's see. Thanks guys. Glue drying now.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 3 2022 19:35:03

RobF

Posts: 1611
Joined: Aug. 24 2017

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

quote:

I leveled the fingerboard on the drum sander but it's a little thinner than I wanted. But had to go that far as there were low spots.

It's about 5.7 mm

(Is that something one might compensate by leaving the neck 0.5mm thicker?) When carving.

You should be fine. When carving the neck just work to your original target thicknesses, it doesn’t really matter how much of the total is fingerboard or neck wood. So, if you were intending to do 22mm at the nut tapering to 24mm or whatever at the 9th, then just stick with that.

It might be a good idea to take Jason up on his suggestion and make a drawing of the elevations, starting with the fingerboard thickness at the nut, all the way to the target heights at the bridge (and also add a mm to account for the frets) . It should give you an idea of what kind of taper you might be encountering on the fingerboard (if any). At the very least it can help bring clarity to the process.

Sounds like you’re having fun!

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 3 2022 20:37:39

Stu

Posts: 2522
Joined: Jan. 30 2007
From: London (the South of it), England

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to RobF)

Yeah its defo fun, but this fingerboard stuff has brought up some anxieties around this particualr component.

I mustve shared on here, but the first guitar I made... the fingerboard lifted up and became detached from the soundboard after about five months of it being back in england.

Had to remove and make a new one. I think I have some anxieties around this whole area of the build. kinda dreading the planing/sanding the bass taper into the ebony!!

hoping a succesful turn this time will banish those ghosts! lets see

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 4 2022 7:30:22

RobF

Posts: 1611
Joined: Aug. 24 2017

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

quote:

kinda dreading the planing/sanding the bass taper into the ebony!!

For a flamenco you can look at the bass taper as optional, IMO. One reason is the difference of height between the two ‘E’ strings is quite a bit less than on a classical, so the delta at the bridge will be correspondingly less. The other is due to the use of a capo in flamenco. Because of the capo it’s sometimes better to treat the taper as more of a twist, trying to keep the board as flat as possible at each fret. Even if you favor a slight crown to the fingerboard, it works better when approached as a twist than a bass-side taper (meaning the crown is consistent across frets, even if the surface is treated like a cone rather than a cylinder). A third reason is an abrupt taper can lead to buzzing on the “D” string, generally in the transition area, as the string can be closer to the frets than the 12th fret measurement implies.

But that’s going pretty deep. Bottom line is doing the bass-side taper isn’t always necessary, seeing a bit of rise in the saddle can be compensated for by adjusting the wood of the bridge to make it look more even, if one desires.

I’m not sure how everyone else does it, I’ve done it different ways over the years, at this point I’m more inclined to keep a flamenco’s fingerboard either flat or, if I do want to drop the bass, with a very slight twist. It would be interesting to know how other makers on here approach it (tapered or flat fingerboard).

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 4 2022 14:39:13

Stu

Posts: 2522
Joined: Jan. 30 2007
From: London (the South of it), England

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to RobF)

quote:

For a flamenco you can look at the bass taper as optional, IMO. One reason is the difference of height between the two ‘E’ strings is quite a bit less than on a classical, so the delta at the bridge will be correspondingly less. The other is due to the use of a capo in flamenco. Because of the capo it’s sometimes better to treat the taper as more of a twist, trying to keep the board as flat as possible at each fret. Even if you favor a slight crown to the fingerboard, it works better when approached as a twist than a bass-side taper (meaning the crown is consistent across frets, even if the surface is treated like a cone rather than a cylinder).

think im gonna grab a cup of coffee and re-read this a few times! haha.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 4 2022 14:43:25

JasonM

Posts: 2052
Joined: Dec. 8 2005
From: Baltimore

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to RobF)

quote:

I’m not sure how everyone else does it, I’ve done it different ways over the years, at this point I’m more inclined to keep a flamenco’s fingerboard either flat or, if I do want to drop the bass, with a very slight twist. It would be interesting to know how other makers on here approach it (tapered or flat fingerboard).

Rob, you’ve seen a lot of guitars so u might be best to answer that lol! But in my limited experience I have always noticed a slanted saddle on flamencos, like it’s the traditional, simple way. But I’d be very curious to play one with a twist and flat saddle

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 4 2022 23:52:08

Ricardo

Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

quote:

Had to remove and make a new one. I think I have some anxieties around this whole area of the build. kinda dreading the planing/sanding the bass taper into the ebony!!

Over the years, lots of internet poo pooing on Conde Hermanos, its all marketing hype etc. But they at least managed to figure out this neck angle/bridge height thing. So many examples I have held and even own, where they constantly get a 7mm comfy thing down at the bridge with no more buzz on the neck than a classical guitar with a 1.5 cm bridge height. Seeing inconstancy in other makes I always assumed it was the “secret” to their success. On foro here, Estebana admitted to how things “move” after the back gets glued on and the Luther has to adjust things later. Fine, but then why people are still not impressed with how Conde manages to hit it right all the time?

I discussed this much with a luthier a few years ago that scoffed at the entire thing. He insisted it was pure math and that he could hit any numbers he wanted perfectly every time. So I asked what his new build was going for…he said 8mm dead on, no buzz, etc. Easy. Well months later I visited and played that guitar. The bridge felt way over 9mm and buzzing like Niño Ricardo. I asked him what happened to the neck angle and bridge set up? He just shrugged his shoulders and admitted he couldn’t do it. So, yes, it is a thing.

_____________________________

CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Aug. 5 2022 17:08:17

Joan Maher

Posts: 213
Joined: Dec. 3 2013

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

Highly recommend Romanillos book on this topic https://romanillosguitarbooks.com/shop.html

_____________________________

Gracias!

Joan Josep Maher

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 24 2023 17:18:17

JasonM

Posts: 2052
Joined: Dec. 8 2005
From: Baltimore

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

quote:

Hello?? Anyone there? This section is deserted!

Yes Stu. Update Please!! How did she turn out?

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date May 10 2023 14:41:19

Echi

Posts: 1131
Joined: Jan. 11 2013

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

Maybe the Conde shop in Felipe V was more consistent with 7 mm action but the Faustino guitars definitely were not.
For Conde is somehow easier to be consistent as they manage to keep a 3 mm thick top.
A lighter top/bridge would follow the pull of the strings changing the doming to a certain extent

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date May 10 2023 21:43:11

estebanana

Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Ricardo)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

quote:

Had to remove and make a new one. I think I have some anxieties around this whole area of the build. kinda dreading the planing/sanding the bass taper into the ebony!!

Over the years, lots of internet poo pooing on Conde Hermanos, it’s all marketing hype etc. But they at least managed to figure out this neck angle/bridge height thing. So many examples I have held and even own, where they constantly get a 7mm comfy thing down at the bridge with no more buzz on the neck than a classical guitar with a 1.5 cm bridge height. Seeing inconstancy in other makes I always assumed it was the “secret” to their success. On foro here, Estebana admitted to how things “move” after the back gets glued on and the Luther has to adjust things later.

You’ll never catch me pooping 💩 in or on a Conde’ because I like some of them. My issue is aesthetic, they look like tarts. Not all of them are that revolting red/orange and weirdly the awful reds aren’t all the same tint, some are decidedly pukeyer ( pukier?) than others.

They smack of the cheap yellow grounded over varnished student violins made in the tens of thousands in Czechoslovakia and German between 1900 to 1999. Now the ugly violins are made in China.

That yellow ground with red is a vain attempt at signaling a reference to Golden Era Cremonese violins with the deep reds of Stradivari’s mid career period when his work showed a yellow/gold ground coat with a subtle crimson top varnish layer which causes the beautiful di-chroic two different varnish colors applied. The whole red Conde’ thing is a reference to the Cremona red varnish and it’s a complete disaster.

The other disgusting thing about Conde’ is the huge rise pattern rosette on a screaming white background. That’s just my my personal dislike, but the combination of red finish plus that godawful rose motif is something I can’t stand. How they play is a whole other thing.

So no poop 💩 from me, simply a smelly fart 💨 on the choice of color for the finish.

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date May 11 2023 6:50:26

estebanana

Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Stu)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stu

Hello?? Anyone there? This section is deserted!

What's the dimensions of the ebony?

Thickness at the nut? And thickness from the 12th fret to sound hole? Assuming I sand it down to fit the neck lean.

Stu - we’ve lost radio communication use Morse code with sound hole inspection mirror. Can you read me? Over.

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date May 11 2023 9:15:06

yourwhathurts69

Posts: 117
Joined: Sep. 16 2009

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Echi)

Considering that the bridge alone is 7mm on my '73 Faustino, it wouldn't even be possible to have a 7mm string height without hitting the wood.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date May 16 2023 0:52:00

Ricardo

Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to yourwhathurts69)

quote:

ORIGINAL: yourwhathurts69

Considering that the bridge alone is 7mm on my '73 Faustino, it wouldn't even be possible to have a 7mm string height without hitting the wood.

Well, some guitars built like that can be shaved down and assuming the holes in the tie block still allow a break angle, the bone can be lowered and still exposed. Although I would suspect your guitar already has enough buzz with bone at 8mm or whatever you are at?

_____________________________

CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date May 17 2023 13:10:06

yourwhathurts69

Posts: 117
Joined: Sep. 16 2009

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Ricardo)

On that guitar, the strings are already pretty low, so there's no reason to shave down anything. Given that it's not my only vintage guitar with a 7mm bridge height, I'm led to believe some makers wanted more than 7mm at the saddle.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date May 17 2023 23:48:54

Ricardo

Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to yourwhathurts69)

quote:

ORIGINAL: yourwhathurts69

On that guitar, the strings are already pretty low, so there's no reason to shave down anything. Given that it's not my only vintage guitar with a 7mm bridge height, I'm led to believe some makers wanted more than 7mm at the saddle.

Congratulations on your collection, but you didn’t even tell us the actual height of the strings. If the 7mm guitars with clean action on the fingerboard were the majority then there would be nothing special, (or difficult to construct?), about the “goldilocks” set up that clearly distinguishes a flamenco set up from a classical set up. Higher than a centimeter is perfectly normal for classical guitars. Lower than 7mm on flamenco guitars I have seen many times, where your nails pop into the soundboard with each picado stroke, where you realize a millimeter thick gopleador makes a difference. The main issue is that there is a general misconception that a low action (buzzing strings)=flamenco set up, and that it is “easy” to make the Goldilocks set up happen on each instrument if desired.

_____________________________

CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date May 18 2023 12:40:24

RobF

Posts: 1611
Joined: Aug. 24 2017

RE: Finger board thickness (in reply to Ricardo)

quote:

The main issue is that there is a general misconception that a low action (buzzing strings)=flamenco set up, and that it is “easy” to make the Goldilocks set up happen on each instrument if desired.

This is true.

Except for a new guitar it’s nice to plan for future adjustability and many makers will aim for 8mm and won’t mind if they end up with 7.5mm on a new guitar. 7mm can be nervous making because there’s not a lot of wiggle room left for adjustments, which is desirable to have on a new instrument (they can settle over time and also different players will want different string heights at the 12th and the saddle height will have to change to achieve that). Plus, nowadays people seem to want to see a lot of bone sticking up out of the bridge, which isn’t easy to achieve with 7mm. I think that comes from a cross pollination of modern steel string world sensibilities coupled with a lack of understanding of why the traditional bridge was designed the way it was to start with, most likely.

It also can depend on the maker’s strategy (or business case). High volume places will want to make every guitar dimensionally identical and will adjust their design to allow for this while a lot of smaller quantity makers, by nature, will approach each guitar as a separate project falling within a slightly looser set of dimensional parameters and that will naturally lead to small variations in setup. Within reason, of course, there’s no need to re-invent the wheel each time.

But, you’re right. It’s hard to nail it. Making every guitar come out at 7mm saddle and, say, 2.8mm at the 12th with optimal sound and playability would be bloody difficult. I wouldn’t even claim it, too stressful and too much chance for embarrassment. As that pirate guy said about parlay, it’s better to see the numbers as guidelines, rather than rules.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date May 18 2023 13:31:42