Neck Resets
Comments
Common on vintage National's
It's not exclusive to Martins, any acoustic guitar can need it after varying amounts of time, though some newer makers have attempted to design extra rigidity into the neck block area in the hope of avoiding movement. And of course Taylor have their bolt-on design that makes adjusting the neck angle a much smaller job.
I see a lot of lower end guitars on the used market that show every sign of needing a neck reset - saddle cut down and action still excessively high. But at the bottom end, the cost of having the work done exceeds the value of the guitar and they're either sold as-is or with various bodgey attempts to get them playable without.
It may just be that Martins are a higher value guitar that's relatively common on the used market, so neck resets are discussed more frequently. But I have seen some discussion of whether recent Martins have sometimes had a shallow neck angle from new, necessating a reset earlier in their lives than most guitars.
Very common on old 60s/70s Yamahas - much more so than any other brand I can think of, even Martin. The problem is that firstly Yamaha used a type of glue which makes getting the neck off extremely difficult, and secondly that they're not worth enough for it to be economically sensible - so you see a lot with the bridge shaved down to little more than a veneer, and then sound terrible.MartinB said:I see a lot of lower end guitars on the used market that show every sign of needing a neck reset - saddle cut down and action still excessively high. But at the bottom end, the cost of having the work done exceeds the value of the guitar and they're either sold as-is or with various bodgey attempts to get them playable without.
The only realistic way of evaluating an acoustic guitar to determine whether it might need a neck reset is to physically measure it while strung to tension and then with no tension. There are a few variables that can cause terrible action that might be corrected by other means without resetting the neck angle, and in fact a neck reset would not resolve anyway. For example:
- A permanent up-bow in the neck that cannot be corrected by tightening the truss rod and more (or no adjustable rod in old guitars) and would either need a heat press OR pulling the frets, planing the fretboard flat and refretting it.
- The soundboard and fretboard extension in front of the soundhole is being deflected downwards by continual string tension and the side of the guitar at the heel is being pulled slightly inwards at the top.
- The soundboard behind the bridge is being pulled upwards into a pronounced belly and/or the soundboard in front of the bridge is being forced downwards into a pronounced concave.
The way the guitar is braced internally makes some guitars more susceptible to the above. Ladder bracing (all braces go across the width of the guitar) doesn't give nearly as much rigidity to the soundboard as X bracing for the above issues, and lack of a lollypop stick reinforcement on the soundboard in front of the soundhole can make guitars crumple more easily in that area.
On a guitar that doesn't have a distinctive and excessive up-bow on the neck a luthier will usually project the level of the frets with a straightedge to the bridge and guage whether there is sufficient saddle height left to adjust the action to an acceptable height, and will measure the amount of deflection in the soundboard. This will be repeated with no string tension to compare, because these aspects must be taken into account when calculating the saddle height and new angle on the heel for a neck reset.
On a guitar that's had a neck reset there are sometimes tell-tale signs to look for, but they may take very close scrutiny to be detectable.
- If the neck has been angled back more than it was previously, the fretboard extension will sometimes now be above the soundboard towards the soundhole and a thin tapered shim has to be glued in to take up the gap. A good luthier will disguise this well, but it may still be evident in the visual thickness of the fretboard above the soundboard and there may be evidence of lacquer touch-up on the soundboard around the fretboard extension.
- Most guitars will have lacquer applied after they are assembled, so this has to be carefully sliced through around the heel to body joint before the neck is removed or else it would crack the lacquer. Depending on the skill of the luthier, re-lacquering of the joint may be evident.
- Some luthiers pull the fret just behind the neck to body joint, drill fine holes through the bottom of the fret slot, and inject steam to loosen the glue. When the fret is reseated you may see tiny quarter moons in the fretboard on either side of the fret where the drill bit was larger than the width of the fret and were infilled. On some makes of guitars that make neck resets quite difficult, a luthier may actually saw through the fretboard in a fret slot to separate the extension from the main board. In these cases you may just be able to see where the saw line was later infilled.
Thank you for such an informative reply.
Perhaps you can comment on this please. A while back I was told by a guitar guy that if the saddle needs lowering by 1.0mm or more then this will nearly always have a detrimental effect on the tone and volume of the guitar as the string angle from saddle to the pins has been reduced. The solution being to also shave down the saddle depth where the pins are fitted so that this string angle is maintained.
Is this how you see it.
Perhaps you can comment on this please. A while back I was told by a guitar guy that if the saddle needs lowering by 1.0mm or more then this will nearly always have a detrimental effect on the tone and volume of the guitar as the string angle from saddle to the pins has been reduced. The solution being to also shave down the saddle depth where the pins are fitted so that this string angle is maintained.
Is this how you see it.
It all depends on how much angle there was before the saddle was shaved down. Yes, in general there will be a detrimental effect on the sound of an acoustic guitar that has a shallow angle from bridge pin hole to the saddle, and if it's too low you will get sitar type sounds at the breakover point.
On some guitars with a particularly thick wooden bridge it may be possible to plane down the overall height a bit while still having a respectably thick bridge, but you would have to be careful with how deep the saddle slot was. If the saddle isn't down deeply enough in a slot it could start leaning forward and possibly even crack the wood between the saddle and the front of the bridge. Maybe the saddle slot could be deepened and a taller saddle inserted so it sits deeper in the slot and there is more wood around it for support, but that could cut through the bottom of the bridge into the soundboard.
One technique used to increase string angle up to the saddle is to file tapered slots in the front edge of the holes in the bridge so that the strings go over a curved slope down into the hole and make contact with the bridge pin further down into the hole rather than right at the top edge of the bridge.
Good illustrated article here: https://hazeguitars.com/blog/acoustic-guitar-tone-and-string-break-angle
Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this.
Oh, and one other important thing to mention. You used an example of lowering the saddle height by 1mm. When you are trying to work out a desired new action and how much to sand off the bottom of a saddle, as a general guideline (not a rule) if you want to lower the action by 0.5mm you would take 1mm off the saddle height, or to lower it by 1mm you would take 2mm off the saddle height. To lower the action by a given amount you have to take roughly double that measurement off the saddle height. It's for this reason that somebody with experience can make a fairly quick evaluation of whether there would still be enough height for a good breakover angle if the saddle height was reduced. 2mm off a saddle is a fair amount to gain 1mm of better action.
Another good article from the same author illustrated to show the above calculation: https://hazeguitars.com/blog/acoustic-guitar-action-geometry-class
One of the most informative ways to help determine if a guitar needs a neck reset imho, with a long straight edge along the fretboard. The end of the straight edge should just about touch the top of the bridge; if it touches the bridge half way down its height then the neck angle needs sorting.
My GS Mini needs a change of neck angle because there's only about 1mm of saddle protruding at the high e. You'd think it sounds terrible but it sounds fine. Of course it might sound better with more saddle protruding, and being a Taylor, it will be a quick job for a tech to fix it (when I get round to arranging it).
I bought a used Martin a few weeks ago, 4-5 years old and well-looked after. The action was quite high but I could see there was too much relief and plenty of saddle height. I gave the truss rod a tweak and sanded the bridge down to the point where I didn't want to take any more off, but the action is still higher than I'd like. I plan on showing to a luthier (someone who builds acoustics for a living) to get his opinion.
My GS Mini needs a change of neck angle because there's only about 1mm of saddle protruding at the high e. You'd think it sounds terrible but it sounds fine. Of course it might sound better with more saddle protruding, and being a Taylor, it will be a quick job for a tech to fix it (when I get round to arranging it).
I bought a used Martin a few weeks ago, 4-5 years old and well-looked after. The action was quite high but I could see there was too much relief and plenty of saddle height. I gave the truss rod a tweak and sanded the bridge down to the point where I didn't want to take any more off, but the action is still higher than I'd like. I plan on showing to a luthier (someone who builds acoustics for a living) to get his opinion.
But don't take that much off in one go! A good rule of thumb is about 3/4 of it - ie if you want to lower the action by 1mm, take 1.5mm off the saddle, not 2mm. The reason is that with the saddle lower, there is less upward/forward force on the bridge and so the top won't be pulled up quite as far as before under full string tension. If you take off the full 2mm (or whatever your initial calculation is) at the first attempt, you will very often end up with an action which is now too low, and have to shim or replace the bridge saddle. I learned that the hard way with a couple of my first set-up jobs - it took me a while to realise what the cause was, because I had measured carefully...BillDL said:Oh, and one other important thing to mention. You used an example of lowering the saddle height by 1mm. When you are trying to work out a desired new action and how much to sand off the bottom of a saddle, as a general guideline (not a rule) if you want to lower the action by 0.5mm you would take 1mm off the saddle height, or to lower it by 1mm you would take 2mm off the saddle height. To lower the action by a given amount you have to take roughly double that measurement off the saddle height.
If it's still fractionally too high it's easy to take off the remaining height once you know where you are - such a small difference then won't affect the pull-up much if at all.
So did I, but it was long after I thought I had reached the confident stage of competency and it was the first time I had just for it in one go rather than bit-by-bit and testing repeatedly between stages.ICBM said:But don't take that much off in one go! ..... I learned that the hard way with a couple of my first set-up jobs
What gap between strings and the 12th fret do you aim for and what would you consider too high
It’s a personal thing and depends on your playing style. I like about 2mm or a shade below.kmajor said:What gap between strings and the 12th fret do you aim for and what would you consider too high
Some people that play their acoustics hard might get on OK with a 12th fret action of up to 4mm (8 to 10/64") on the bass side and up to a bit more than 3mm (7 to 9/64") on the treble side. For most people that's WAY too high for comfort. On average most acoustic players will play comfortably with an action of around 2.5mm on the bass side and 2mm on the treble (6/64" and 5/64" respectively). If you play very lightly you can usually get away with 2mm and 1.6mm (5/64" and 4/64" respectively). Some players that like an average action might prefer all the strings to have the same action, whereas most people like the action to get lower towards the treble side (hence the offset radius of the top of the saddle curve).
Most ELECTRIC guitar players tend to aim for the above lowest action or even lower if the guitar permits, but acoustic guitars usually need a slightly higher action to play well.
Of course the measurements above are all dependent on the neck relief being set optimally to a very, very slight forward bow and the nut slots cut well so that there isn't excessive clearance of the strings over the 1st fret. When I say "very slight forward bow" I mean that if you hold down a string at the 1st fret and the fret and the neck to body joint, there should only be a gap from the top of the 6th to 8th frets to the underside of the string of about the thickness of an unwound "10" or "11" gauge high E string. Hard players may need it a tiny bit more and light players might get away with a tiny bit less, so this is just an average guide.
Thank you
You hear more about Martin neck resets than you do about other makes for three reasons:
1: Martin is a popular make, there are quite a lot of them about
2: Martins cost a lot to buy so expensive surgery like a neck reset is justifiable where you wouldn't do it on as cheaper guitar.
3: Martin still use an old-fashioned dovetail neck joint which, on average, is more prone to needing a reset than more modern designs.
Mind you, Martin aren't the only maker still using dovetails. Others include Lowden, Guild, Maton, Larrivée, Gibson, Dowina, Takamine, and Yamaha
Many other fine makers have long since switched to a modern bolt-on neck joint system. Examples include Furch, Lakewood, Taylor, Collings, Bourgeois, Tacoma, Huss & Dalton, Brook, Breedlove, Atkin, and the vast majority of small high-end boutique builders.
Others again use the time-honoured Spanish heel system. These include almost all classical and flamenco guitar makers, and in the steel-string world Cordoba, Stoll, and Cole Clark. Spanish heels are the hardest of all to reset, but also the least likely to need it.
Would I make a buy/don't buy decision on the basis of the type of neck joint? No. What do I own myself? (counts on fingers) 1 Spanish heel, 3 dovetail, 5 bolt-on.
1: Martin is a popular make, there are quite a lot of them about
2: Martins cost a lot to buy so expensive surgery like a neck reset is justifiable where you wouldn't do it on as cheaper guitar.
3: Martin still use an old-fashioned dovetail neck joint which, on average, is more prone to needing a reset than more modern designs.
Mind you, Martin aren't the only maker still using dovetails. Others include Lowden, Guild, Maton, Larrivée, Gibson, Dowina, Takamine, and Yamaha
Many other fine makers have long since switched to a modern bolt-on neck joint system. Examples include Furch, Lakewood, Taylor, Collings, Bourgeois, Tacoma, Huss & Dalton, Brook, Breedlove, Atkin, and the vast majority of small high-end boutique builders.
Others again use the time-honoured Spanish heel system. These include almost all classical and flamenco guitar makers, and in the steel-string world Cordoba, Stoll, and Cole Clark. Spanish heels are the hardest of all to reset, but also the least likely to need it.
Would I make a buy/don't buy decision on the basis of the type of neck joint? No. What do I own myself? (counts on fingers) 1 Spanish heel, 3 dovetail, 5 bolt-on.
There has been a lot of interesting and informative postings. It almost seems that if you do buy something like a Martin then it is best to assume that sometime you may need a neck reset.
I have seen a Martin guitar for sale but the gap at the 12th fret is approx 3.0 to 3.5mm. If I want this lowering to 2.0 to 2.5mm it would mean reducing the saddle height by 2mm which would not be acceptable. But, what else affects string height, is it a case of tweaking the truss rod.
I know what a good guitar sounds like and how well it plays but when it comes to needing adjustment then I just haven't a clue which I suspect is common with a lot of guitar owners.
Thanks again for all you helpful comments
I have seen a Martin guitar for sale but the gap at the 12th fret is approx 3.0 to 3.5mm. If I want this lowering to 2.0 to 2.5mm it would mean reducing the saddle height by 2mm which would not be acceptable. But, what else affects string height, is it a case of tweaking the truss rod.
I know what a good guitar sounds like and how well it plays but when it comes to needing adjustment then I just haven't a clue which I suspect is common with a lot of guitar owners.
Thanks again for all you helpful comments
@kmajor measure the neck relief. (Don't guess, measure.)
To measure neck relief, hold the guitar in playing position, capo the 1st fret, and fret the string at the neck-body joint. Now measure the gat between the top of the 6th fret and the bottom of the string, using a feeler gauge. (Doesn't have to be the 6th fret, anywhere around about the middle so long as you pick one and stick to it.) If the relief is about right (more than zero, less than about 0.25mm, ideally around about 0.1 to 0.15mm, give or take) then you need to lower the saddle (may not have much room for that) or go for an expensive neck reset.
If there is far too much relief, adjusting the truss rod will lower the action. Whether that is all that's needed, well, that depends on particular cases.
Link to a set of feeler gauges: https://gtse.co.uk/feeler-gauge-set-metric-set-of-13-blades
To measure neck relief, hold the guitar in playing position, capo the 1st fret, and fret the string at the neck-body joint. Now measure the gat between the top of the 6th fret and the bottom of the string, using a feeler gauge. (Doesn't have to be the 6th fret, anywhere around about the middle so long as you pick one and stick to it.) If the relief is about right (more than zero, less than about 0.25mm, ideally around about 0.1 to 0.15mm, give or take) then you need to lower the saddle (may not have much room for that) or go for an expensive neck reset.
If there is far too much relief, adjusting the truss rod will lower the action. Whether that is all that's needed, well, that depends on particular cases.
Link to a set of feeler gauges: https://gtse.co.uk/feeler-gauge-set-metric-set-of-13-blades
kmajor said:
I have seen a Martin guitar for sale but the gap at the 12th fret is approx 3.0 to 3.5mm. If I want this lowering to 2.0 to 2.5mm it would mean reducing the saddle height by 2mm which would not be acceptable. But, what else affects string height, is it a case of tweaking the truss rod.
In some cases yes, but other potential causes were mentioned in previous comments. The truss rod should not be used as the means to adjust the overall action. It will have an effect on the 12th fret string clearance but, because it where it acts on the neck, it will have detrimental effects on other areas of the neck if you tighten the truss rod to reduce the action.
You may find the following video that makes use of a model helpful in visualising the geometry of the nut, string, saddle relationship and how changes affect the playability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_4eHPgrpmk
Bear in mind that Martins made before 1985 don’t have truss rods, which is probably one reason you see more with resets. (Even though they actually solve different problems.)
Great video, thanksBillDL said:kmajor said:
I have seen a Martin guitar for sale but the gap at the 12th fret is approx 3.0 to 3.5mm. If I want this lowering to 2.0 to 2.5mm it would mean reducing the saddle height by 2mm which would not be acceptable. But, what else affects string height, is it a case of tweaking the truss rod.In some cases yes, but other potential causes were mentioned in previous comments. The truss rod should not be used as the means to adjust the overall action. It will have an effect on the 12th fret string clearance but, because it where it acts on the neck, it will have detrimental effects on other areas of the neck if you tighten the truss rod to reduce the action.You may find the following video that makes use of a model helpful in visualising the geometry of the nut, string, saddle relationship and how changes affect the playability.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_4eHPgrpmk
That answer one of my queries. The Brands I have been mainly looking at are Martin, Atkin, Bourgeois and Huss & Dalton and as you mention only Martin have used the dovetail neck joint so therefore I have seen a lot of references to Martin neck resets.Tannin said:You hear more about Martin neck resets than you do about other makes for three reasons:
1: Martin is a popular make, there are quite a lot of them about
2: Martins cost a lot to buy so expensive surgery like a neck reset is justifiable where you wouldn't do it on as cheaper guitar.
3: Martin still use an old-fashioned dovetail neck joint which, on average, is more prone to needing a reset than more modern designs.
Mind you, Martin aren't the only maker still using dovetails. Others include Lowden, Guild, Maton, Larrivée, Gibson, Dowina, Takamine, and Yamaha
Many other fine makers have long since switched to a modern bolt-on neck joint system. Examples include Furch, Lakewood, Taylor, Collings, Bourgeois, Tacoma, Huss & Dalton, Brook, Breedlove, Atkin, and the vast majority of small high-end boutique builders.
.
I am now thinking I will forget about Martin guitars and continue looking at the other 3 brands.
All I have to do now is find a nice small bodied guitar within budget and near enough for me to see and try.
As others have mentioned neck resets on older guitars is very common. A good luthier can reset a neck, but from experience not all Luthiers can do it well.
kmajor said:That answer one of my queries. The Brands I have been mainly looking at are Martin, Atkin, Bourgeois and Huss & Dalton and as you mention only Martin have used the dovetail neck joint so therefore I have seen a lot of references to Martin neck resets.Tannin said:You hear more about Martin neck resets than you do about other makes for three reasons:
1: Martin is a popular make, there are quite a lot of them about
2: Martins cost a lot to buy so expensive surgery like a neck reset is justifiable where you wouldn't do it on as cheaper guitar.
3: Martin still use an old-fashioned dovetail neck joint which, on average, is more prone to needing a reset than more modern designs.
Mind you, Martin aren't the only maker still using dovetails. Others include Lowden, Guild, Maton, Larrivée, Gibson, Dowina, Takamine, and Yamaha
Many other fine makers have long since switched to a modern bolt-on neck joint system. Examples include Furch, Lakewood, Taylor, Collings, Bourgeois, Tacoma, Huss & Dalton, Brook, Breedlove, Atkin, and the vast majority of small high-end boutique builders.
.
I am now thinking I will forget about Martin guitars and continue looking at the other 3 brands.
All I have to do now is find a nice small bodied guitar within budget and near enough for me to see and try.
The dovetail joint is not why a guitar needs a neck reset - it's the body/ bridge that move over time, and sometimes the neck wasn't set properly in the first place. A bolt-on neck doesn't prevent a neck-reset, it just makes it a bit easier to do. Also if you added together all the guitars ever made by Atkin/Bourgeois/H&D, they would probably be less than Martin sells in a week. I would suggest you look at a new guitar, check the action and make sure you have enough saddle, and don't worry about whether it might need work in a few decades time.
Why? Martin have made some of the very best guitars ever built.kmajor said:I am now thinking I will forget about Martin guitars and continue looking at the other 3 brands.
I’ve played one Atkin and two each of H&D and Bourgeois - which I admit isn’t a huge number - but I wouldn’t have taken a single one of them over a decent Martin.
Whether that has anything to do with the neck joint type, I have no idea.
I suppose we all have different experiences and preferences and I often wonder if folk are attracted to Martin guitars because of the name. I have heard some very good Martins but wouldn't say they stand out above other makes.
I'm not sure if there's an average luthiers charge for a fairly straightforward neck reset (i.e. not a "repair" of a damaged guitar) on a known brand of guitar like a Martin, but it's certainly an expensive business. One example of pricing is from a bespoke luthier from Scotland:
Instrument needs to be inspected first, and the cost depends on the style of neck. For example
* Electric guitar bolt on neck such as Stratocaster £100 upwards.
* Acoustic guitar bolt on / bolt off neck £250 upwards.
* Bolt on neck with glued fingerboard extension £350 upwards.
Instrument needs to be inspected first, and the cost depends on the style of neck. For example
* Electric guitar bolt on neck such as Stratocaster £100 upwards.
* Acoustic guitar bolt on / bolt off neck £250 upwards.
* Bolt on neck with glued fingerboard extension £350 upwards.
* Acoustic guitar glued in neck £500 upwards.
THIS is why you will see so many Martin guitars having neck resets. It's simply down to how expensive the instrument is, and that goes hand-in-hand with the longevity of the guitar or how much money people are willing to spend getting it maintained, refretted, and repaired over the years. Unless it's a particularly sentimental or collectible guitar, most people wouldn't dream of having a neck reset that costs almost as much or more than the guitar cost, so you won't see that many Yamaha guitars having neck resets unless they are rarer older ones. That doesn't mean that Yamaha guitars are more immune to the movements of the wood over time that then require a neck reset, but you will find that in most cases somebody might try to rectify the soundboard deformation with a "Bridge Doctor" device and ditch the guitar if that doesn't make it playable.
kmajor said:I suppose we all have different experiences and preferences and I often wonder if folk are attracted to Martin guitars because of the name. I have heard some very good Martins but wouldn't say they stand out above other makes.
He, he. Which one will that open? ;)
Also, from what I have read online it seems that Martin guitars bought in the UK only have a 12 month limited warranty which if true does not give me a lot of confidence. How come smaller UK manufactures can offer a limited lifetime warranty to the original buyer but a volume USA manufacturer can't.
If a guitar has had a neck reset then is it obvious that it has been done.