String height question: Adj neck brake angle or raise/lower bridge? Difference?

[Wharfcreek]

Assume a neck / fret-job that is basically done properly, relief adjusted correctly, frets leveled, no twists or other known problem issues. Neck gets set into the body pocket and secured. strings installed, and 'adjustments' made. You get to that point where you're adjusting string height and you're not quite happy-- too high, too low, either. There's enough room at the bridge to get it acceptable, but an adjustment on the neck brake could also give satisfactory results. The question here is:

Assuming the neck itself is all good, is adjusting the break-angle to raise or lower the action any different than raising or lowering the bridge? Obviously if you can't adjust the bridge to get string height where it should be (or where you want it) without adjusting the neck, then that must be done. But when you get down to the splitting hairs end of the set-up, is there a good reason to either tip the neck or raise/lower the bridge?

The guitar I'm working on now is a Maestro LP Jr, 4-screw neck, and a wrap-around tailpiece/bridge. Currently there are no shims at the neck joint, and I have the string height 'almost' where I want it. But, my bridge is about one post turn from being bottomed out. If I shim the neck back I might actually be able to raise the bridge and still have a lower string height. To get that now I'd basically have to bottom out tbe bridge posts. Maybe that would be a good thing?? .... or better than the shim and raise program? Not sure! Tell me which way to go, and 'why'! Thx!

 

[Freeman Keller]

Assume a neck / fret-job that is basically done properly, relief adjusted correctly, frets leveled, no twists or other known problem issues. Neck gets set into the body pocket and secured. strings installed, and 'adjustments' made. You get to that point where you're adjusting string height and you're not quite happy-- too high, too low, either. There's enough room at the bridge to get it acceptable, but an adjustment on the neck brake could also give satisfactory results. The question here is:

Assuming the neck itself is all good, is adjusting the break-angle to raise or lower the action any different than raising or lowering the bridge? Obviously if you can't adjust the bridge to get string height where it should be (or where you want it) without adjusting the neck, then that must be done. But when you get down to the splitting hairs end of the set-up, is there a good reason to either tip the neck or raise/lower the bridge?

The guitar I'm working on now is a Maestro LP Jr, 4-screw neck, and a wrap-around tailpiece/bridge. Currently there are no shims at the neck joint, and I have the string height 'almost' where I want it. But, my bridge is about one post turn from being bottomed out. If I shim the neck back I might actually be able to raise the bridge and still have a lower string height. To get that now I'd basically have to bottom out tbe bridge posts. Maybe that would be a good thing?? .... or better than the shim and raise program? Not sure! Tell me which way to go, and 'why'! Thx!

My rule of thumb regardless of the kind of guitar, neck joint, bridge, etc is to make the geometry such that I can get good playable action (whatever that means) AND have enough adjustment or travel to be able to make small changes in the future. In almost all cases with steel string acoustic and electric guitars that means that I want the fret plane to just touch or be a hair above the saddle(s) when they are at their lowest adjustment. That can mean a ToM with the studs screwed all the way down, a tele with the barrels sitting on bridge plate or the top of an acoustic guitar bridge.

When I build the guitar I usually have two things to work with to achieve this, neck height ("overstand") and neck angle. Some guitars obviously are easier to adjust - screw on necks are dead simple, set necks harder. It is the whole reason that we do "neck resets' on acoustics, remove the neck and change the angle so we can get playable action.

I don't like to be at the limit of any adjustment, thing change and I might want to raise the action a few thousands. It all starts with geometry.

 

[schmee]

Assume a neck / fret-job that is basically done properly, relief adjusted correctly, frets leveled, no twists or other known problem issues. Neck gets set into the body pocket and secured. strings installed, and 'adjustments' made. You get to that point where you're adjusting string height and you're not quite happy-- too high, too low, either. There's enough room at the bridge to get it acceptable, but an adjustment on the neck brake could also give satisfactory results. The question here is:

Assuming the neck itself is all good, is adjusting the break-angle to raise or lower the action any different than raising or lowering the bridge? Obviously if you can't adjust the bridge to get string height where it should be (or where you want it) without adjusting the neck, then that must be done. But when you get down to the splitting hairs end of the set-up, is there a good reason to either tip the neck or raise/lower the bridge?

The guitar I'm working on now is a Maestro LP Jr, 4-screw neck, and a wrap-around tailpiece/bridge. Currently there are no shims at the neck joint, and I have the string height 'almost' where I want it. But, my bridge is about one post turn from being bottomed out. If I shim the neck back I might actually be able to raise the bridge and still have a lower string height. To get that now I'd basically have to bottom out tbe bridge posts. Maybe that would be a good thing?? .... or better than the shim and raise program? Not sure! Tell me which way to go, and 'why'! Thx!

I think there is no difference. The string is a straight line between two points, the relationship to the frets "is what it is" once adjusted.

"is there a good reason to either tip the neck or raise/lower the bridge?"
Mostly so the bridge screws you have don't dig into your palm on guitars fitted with individual height screws like Tele's or Strat's.

A thin shim at the neck heel will give you a bit of adjustment and not bother anything. If you are almost there, I'd try as little as .006-.008" thick and no more than one third of the pocket length. That thin clear plastic off packaging works well and some of it comes that thin.

 

[Boreas]

Another thing to consider is your break angle at the saddles. If your bridge/saddles are decked and your break angles (behind the saddle) are minimal, it usually yields inferior tone due to lack of downforce and odd transient overtones. I generally like to keep my saddles low enough to allow for future adjustments downward, but high enough to get a good break angle.

If a shim is indicated, so be it. Some of the best playing instruments out there have shims. Some people actually like a taller bridge for fingerpicking or "digging in". It is all a matter of taste and preference.

 

[Wayne Alexander]

1. Make the height of the bridge saddles what you want - meaning there's some room to adjust upward and downward.
2. If once you've done that you can't get action (string over fret height) you're happy with, shim the neck (in front or in back) until you're happy with the action.

 

[Wharfcreek]

Seems the general consensus is that there's no clear benefit one way or the other, as long as the end result is a playability that suits your desired objective!

 

[philosofriend]

When adjusting pickup heights to balance the output between pickups, or to change the tone quality, sometimes shimming the neck is needed. If you want to lower a pickup that is all the way down, it is easier to raise the bridge and shim the neck than to carve the pickup hole deeper.

 

[msalama]

than to carve

That's a good point all too often overlooked, thanks for the reminder.

 

[Monoprice99]

I would start with a full length flat neck pocket shim and trial & error it for a geometry correction with the bridge, heel of the neck & nut for alignment. Totally reversible if you go too thin & as long as your shim material is too thick, you can always sand it thinner. Just remember that raising the neck like that,the pickup heights need to be raised by the thickness of the shim. I have a 6 saddle bridge, not the 3 barrel saddles. It was easier to raise the saddles to where no post adjusting screws stuck thru the top of the saddles and then raise the neck pocket 1/16 inch, trial & error that for string action height at the last fret. The 3 barrel saddles the radius of the fretboard pretty much requires uneven screw posts/feet. And its going to be more of a challenge to intonate the saddles as 3 barrels is 2 strings per barrel.

 

[Harmonic]

You might have a look at the depth of the nut slots also. If the strings are high at the nut, then the action might be high and adjusting the bridge likely won't solve it.

 

[hemingway]

A shim is a last resort for me, but one I'm quite happy to use if I need to.

 

[Wharfcreek]

All good advice, and much appreciated. What I was thinking might be commented on was any 'tonal' impact that might be a factor in this. As I mentioned, right now the neck of the guitar I'm working on is simply 'in' the pocket, no shims, and the bridge (2-post) is about 1 or 2 post threads from being bittomed out. I was wondering if 'sustain' or 'timbre' might be adversely affected if you shimmed the neck or raised the bridge. Seems thats not of any major concern.

 

[GTO]

I've only one guitar that's shimmed at the moment but my rough rule of thumb is to get the correct string height but with a bit of adjustment left to theoretically go either up or down and to never have the saddles or bridge on the stops. So I don't think adding a shim hurts if it stops adjustments being max'ed out and screws and tensions on very the edge of where they need to be.

 

[Boreas]

All good advice, and much appreciated. What I was thinking might be commented on was any 'tonal' impact that might be a factor in this. As I mentioned, right now the neck of the guitar I'm working on is simply 'in' the pocket, no shims, and the bridge (2-post) is about 1 or 2 post threads from being bittomed out. I was wondering if 'sustain' or 'timbre' might be adversely affected if you shimmed the neck or raised the bridge. Seems thats not of any major concern.

Choice of shim material could make a difference. Marshmallow or rubber would be poor choices. Hardwood or hard plastic a better choice. Cardboard somewhere in-between. Most luthiers loathe plastic. Probably more tonal changes by altering the neck/bridge/break angle geometry than the actual shim material used. Then there is also the debate between using a full shim or a partial shim.

I personally tend to use the expensive Stew-Mac (hardwood) angled shims. There are cheaper wooden ones available (often warped or split) and plastic ones as well (often thicker). I don't buy them by the hundreds, so it isn't big deal for me to spend a little more. I prefer them pre-shaped just to save time and waste from splitting/damaging them trying to modify them.

 

[old school fender]

All good advice, and much appreciated. What I was thinking might be commented on was any 'tonal' impact that might be a factor in this. As I mentioned, right now the neck of the guitar I'm working on is simply 'in' the pocket, no shims, and the bridge (2-post) is about 1 or 2 post threads from being bittomed out. I was wondering if 'sustain' or 'timbre' might be adversely affected if you shimmed the neck or raised the bridge. Seems thats not of any major concern.

I personally have never noticed any tonal impact after shimming a neck although you may find there are those with differing opinions. I'm of the school of thought that any change could potentially have an effect, but in practice these minor changes rarely manifest themselves to any reasonable degree. YMMV

 

[Swirling Snow]

All good advice, and much appreciated. What I was thinking might be commented on was any 'tonal' impact that might be a factor in this. As I mentioned, right now the neck of the guitar I'm working on is simply 'in' the pocket, no shims, and the bridge (2-post) is about 1 or 2 post threads from being bittomed out. I was wondering if 'sustain' or 'timbre' might be adversely affected if you shimmed the neck or raised the bridge. Seems thats not of any major concern.

They used to debate neck angles on the LPF, but I don't think they ever reached a consensus. The angle doesn't matter as much as the glue joint, I think. And now's your chance to add some glue!!

There are two theories on the bridge. Some believe screwing it down tight will "transfer more vibration" and others believe longer posts have more leverage. Of course, some believe the string's vibration goes down into the body, others believe the body vibrates from the neck, and then passes that vibration back to the strings. Uhm, maybe that's four theories.

The guys here with experience seem to feel there's no detrimental effect from shimming a bolt-on neck. I have never heard anyone say, "My tone is off a bit. Should I raise my bridge?"

People listen to Hendrix hold one note for 2:30 and say, "I want sustain!". That was his amp feeding back. You don't really want your guitar to sustain like that. Then it plays like an organ, not a piano.

In other words, Freeman got it right, right off the bat. Adjust your bridge so it's in the middle of its travel. Shim the neck to match. Later on, it's a lot easier to adjust a bridge than shim a neck.

 

[Bob M]

I personally would only adjust neck angle if the bridge adjustment was at extremes.

 

[Wharfcreek]

Well, as I said, this was kind of a ; What's the modern day opinion? on the issue. I've been playing with guitars for 60+ years... and done a LOT of neck-shimming in that time! Credit cards, business cards, match book covers...I've even used the thin clear plastic from the pendiflex file label holders!! My experience has been that both the shim AND the neck pocket where you place the shim will compress over time. Hence a 'readjustment' becomes necessary. Was thinking about using some feeler guage metal and making shims where I could actually keep track of the shim thickness and the affect on the degree of neck angle change! But that may be just going from the sublime to the ridiculous!! But at least the thin metal won't squash-out over time!!

 

[Boreas]

Well, as I said, this was kind of a ; What's the modern day opinion? on the issue. I've been playing with guitars for 60+ years... and done a LOT of neck-shimming in that time! Credit cards, business cards, match book covers...I've even used the thin clear plastic from the pendiflex file label holders!! My experience has been that both the shim AND the neck pocket where you place the shim will compress over time. Hence a 'readjustment' becomes necessary. Was thinking about using some feeler guage metal and making shims where I could actually keep track of the shim thickness and the affect on the degree of neck angle change! But that may be just going from the sublime to the ridiculous!! But at least the thin metal won't squash-out over time!!

"But at least the thin metal won't squash-out over time!!"

True, but you could actually indent the wood if you use a material that cannot compress at all. Wood swelling with humidity changes could be enough to do it. Not that it would be a huge deal, but this is one of the reasons I stick to full-length angled hardwood shims.

 

[badinfinities]

Every luthier I've dealt with only uses full pocket wood shims. They say partial shims and the micro-tilt function can cause neck problems (e.g. the dreaded ski-jump).
It all makes good sense to me.

The case against Fender's Micro-Tilt - Strange Guitarworks

Today, I’m going after one of my least favorite features on the world’s most popular guitar: I’m making a case against Fender’s Micro-Tilt. Fender introduced the Micro-Tilt in the early 70’s, and this has been causing problems with their necks for over 50 years. This was designed to angle a...

www.strangeguitarworks.com