Mile high action... actually, make that two miles

[mongo2]

The bass was refretted about a year ago and had the frets leveled. The neck was leaning back, it was pretty clear to see.

Right, I do any shimming after any required fret levelling, crowning and end-dressing.

 

[allexcosta]

Thank you for that.
So many times people talk about effects that may be real, like here, but of a such small magnitude that it can be ignored practically.

These are just guesses. No one has proved a point here...

 

[mongo2]

These are just guesses. No one has proved a point here...

Not so sure about that, there is the underlying cause of the requirement for intonation that is a fact.

 

[SGD Lutherie]

The bass was refretted about a year ago and had the frets leveled. The neck was leaning back, it was pretty clear to see.

It's suppose to lean back. That's called a neck angle. That way the strings angle up to the bridge height.

Some basses have more of a neck angle than others. Rickenbackers have none at all, but the bridge is recessed into the body to compensate.

With Fenders it's normal to place a shim in the neck pocket, and Fender does that right from the factory. Then they also had the microtilt neck with the set screw adjustment.

You are not suppose to remove the bridge angle.

If you neck was refretted and you still have buzzing at the end of the fingerboard, then they did not do a good job.

 

[JLS]

Some basses have more of a neck angle than others. Rickenbackers have none at all, but the bridge is recessed into the body to compensate.

And, man oh man, are you ever screwed, when a Ric neckset goes to hell...

With Fenders it's normal to place a shim in the neck pocket, and Fender does that right from the factory. Then they also had the microtilt neck with the set screw adjustment.

Whatever happened to the guy who claimed that, "Quality instruments should never have to be shimmed", who used to post here?

If you neck was refretted and you still have buzzing at the end of the fingerboard, then they did not do a good job

That's putting it mildly...

 

[JLS]

Some basses have more of a neck angle than others. Rickenbackers have none at all, but the bridge is recessed into the body to compensate.

And, man oh man, are you ever screwed, when a Ric neckset goes to hell...

With Fenders it's normal to place a shim in the neck pocket, and Fender does that right from the factory. Then they also had the microtilt neck with the set screw adjustment.

Whatever happened to the guy who claimed that, "Quality instruments should never have to be shimmed", who used to post here?

If you neck was refretted and you still have buzzing at the end of the fingerboard, then they did not do a good job

That's putting it mildly...

 

[SGD Lutherie]

And, man oh man, are you ever screwed, when a Ric neckset goes to hell...

Tell me about it. I own two '73 4001s. "truss rods? what truss rods?" Oh, those things...

Whatever happened to the guy who claimed that, "Quality instruments should never have to be shimmed", who used to post here?

We are talking about Fenders, right? They could have machined the neck angle into the neck pocket, or on the neck heel. But you know Leo liked to keep things simple. Except for the way he installed truss rods.

That's putting it mildly...

Yeah.. "it was fixed, but now it's worse..."

That's actually how I got into lutherie. I took my '74 P bass to have the neck/frets fixed (was like a roller coater), and it came back worse then when I took it in. My wallet was much lighter as well. I vowed "never again", and started doing all the work on my own instruments, and then friend's instruments, and so on.

I insist on starting with very low action and zero buzzes (well the bad kind of buzzes, I like the "good" buzzes). If I want higher action, I can take it from there.

 

[mongo2]

It's suppose to lean back. That's called a neck angle. That way the strings angle up to the bridge height.

I've had many Fenders that didn't have a shim installed so I don't think it was put there because thje neck was "supposed" to be tilted back. The strings angle up to the saddles regardless of whether there's a shim or not.

It appears the factory shim may have been used to correct for production variations between the thickness of the neck heel and/or the depth of the neck pocket which could have caused the neck to sit a bit too deep in the pocket.

 

[allexcosta]

The strings angle up to the saddles regardless of whether there's a shim or not.

But the angle changes and adding a shim may contribute to a lower action and better playability, mostly at the end of the fretboard.

 

[SGD Lutherie]

But the angle changes and adding a shim may contribute to a lower action and better playability, mostly at the end of the fretboard.

Those illustrations did not have the strings anchored at the nut. On the last one it was floating several inches above the nut!

The strings start their angle at the nut, so a steeper neck angle only means that the bridge has to be higher.

The only way the strings will hit the end of the fingerboard is if the bridge is adjusted too low, or if the end of the fingerboard is higher than the rest of the neck.

It's more like this:

 

[MikeBass]

But the angle changes and adding a shim may contribute to a lower action and better playability, mostly at the end of the fretboard.

Again, respectfully no.

Your diagram while nice and colorful, has some very basic geometry flaws.

The nut for this discussion follows the Y plane, the neck joint is the intersection of X&Y planes, and the bridge is a parallel plane to Y (or Y-a).

You didn't maintain the constraint of the string to the nut and that relation to the end of the fingerboard.

The nut travels on the Y plane based off the XY intersection (X being held by the top of the body) and same for the bridge on Y-a

By changing the height of the saddle (Y-a), it is changing the relation to the nut through XY using the string as the variable to measure the angle relationship to the fingerboard.
The same as shimming the neck to move the nut through the Y plane.

The string is the variable as it relates to the fingerboard.
I could do this all day, I'm a 3D mechanical design engineer.

By shimming the neck, you'll see the most difference at the end of the fingerboard. But in truth, you'll see lower action all the way down the neck to the nut.

Keeping a consistent height at the bridge (Y-a) and maintain the constraint of the nut/string/end of finger board (Y) and just simple change the angle of the fingerboard at the neck pocket (XY intersection) and you'll see exactly what I mean.



edit...Oh hell, just see David's post above!! LOL!!!

 

[mongo2]

But the angle changes and adding a shim may contribute to a lower action and better playability, mostly at the end of the fretboard.

True. A shim that tilts the neck up at the end can lower the action without requiring the saddles to be moved. I even used that method way back when.

In SGDs diagrams shown subsequently, notice how the saddles are hard against the body/baseplate? That can cause the breakangle from the saddle to the string anchor to be to be too shallow (on a top loading bridge) and compromise the transfer of energy into the body and ultimately the tone of the bass, especially with the thinner old style Fender saddles and thin bridgeplates. I've run into just this condition on quite a few '70s Fender basses and a few old Danos. To me makes them sound dead.

Also, neck relief causes the fingerboard to dip in the middle causing a relative rise at the nut and last fret. I prefer to keep the last fret relatively lower and the fingerboard at the end of the neck more parallel to plane of the body rather than raise it using an shim that causes the neck to tilt or a microtilt mechanism.

Hence my preferred use of a flat shim. It raises the fingerboard relative to the strings and saddles which will increase the range of adjustment on the saddles for fine tuning the action and, if sufficient (when required), it increases the string to anchor breakangle for better transfer to the body without messing with the basic neck/body geometry by raising the end of the fingerboard. However, I've dfound there is a point of diminishing retures with the breakangle and IME, through body stringing eliminates the issue entirely.

 

[allexcosta]

Your diagram while nice and colorful, has some very basic geometry flaws.

It was just an illustration. My "paint" skills are not the best. SGD's drawing explains what I was trying to say a lot better...

 

[MikeBass]

It was just an illustration. My "paint" skills are not the best. SGD's drawing explains what I was trying to say a lot better...

Gotcha.
I kinda thought that it was maybe more to magnify a point.

 

[SGD Lutherie]

True. A shim that tilts the neck up at the end can lower the action without requiring the saddles to be moved. I even used that method way back when.

In SGDs diagrams shown subsequently, notice how the saddles are hard against the body/baseplate? That can cause the breakangle from the saddle to the string anchor to be to be too shallow (on a top loading bridge) and compromise the transfer of energy into the body and ultimately the tone of the bass, especially with the thinner old style Fender saddles and thin bridgeplates. I've run into just this condition on quite a few '70s Fender basses and a few old Danos. To me makes them sound dead.

I found that graphic somewhere on the 'net and edited it to show the negative neck angle. The original also showed neck relief. I did not put the bridge into the graphic or change it.

But your bridge saddle would be adjusted to where you need it. I agree too low an angle from the tailpiece can cause a number of things, including the string buzzing on the saddle, or even popping off, which used to happen on my Rick with a Schaller 3D bridge.

Increasing the angle on the neck with a partial shim will also allow you to raise the saddles, and in fact you would have to raise them higher than with a full shim, since that doesn't increase the neck angle.

But that can work too. It ends up being more or less the same.

Also, neck relief causes the fingerboard to dip in the middle causing a relative rise at the nut and last fret. I prefer to keep the last fret relatively lower and the fingerboard at the end of the neck more parallel to plane of the body rather than raise it using an shim that causes the neck to tilt or a microtilt mechanism.

Relief actually causes the headstock end of the neck to move up. This looks like a dip in the middle, but the middle can't move down. Many people use way too much relief.

I prefer to start with a totally dead straight neck. If the fretwork and fingerboard are true, then you wont get any buzzes. If you want a little more room for the string arch, then add a little relief.

There's no real reason to have the fingerboard parallel with the body.

The problem people run into with low action, or a higher neck angle is that the fingerboard on bolt on necks often develops a hump over the body, and a rise on the end of the fingerboard, resulting in the last two or three frets being too high. You can fudge this by adjusting the neck/bridge, but it's really something that needs to be addressed. It is so common that I fear many players think it's normal.

You also should not think that just because you bought a "quality" brand like Fender, that it left the factory with no fret or neck issues. Brand new Fenders, even the US made ones, often need to have the frets leveled and do develop a hump at the end of the fingerboard. They don't have time to do this stuff, they need to ship basses and make money. The cheaper import versions get less attention. So unless you have a boutique bass, your factory bass will probably need fret work before it will play as well as it should.

You can remove these defects by dressing the frets, but you often have to remove a lot of fret height on the last few frets. That's not a bad thing though, and many luthiers build a drop off into the end of the fingerboard to stop this from ever developing. But many techs who do fret dressing never remove enough off the last four or so frets, so the problem is never really fixed.

The best way to fix this is to remove the last six or so frets and dressing the fingerboard level, and then adding a drop off and re fretting. When people get to play a bass with easy action and zero fretouts, you will see there's no reason to have mile high action, which is usually done to get a clean buzz free sound.

Some builders who make bolt on neck instruments build both the neck angle and drop off into their necks. Fender should be doing this, but as with Gibson and Rickenbacker, just keep making the instruments the same as they always were, even if there is room for improvements. This is of course partly because players think they want the basses exactly as they were 45 years ago. A lot of gear sucked back then!

Hence my preferred use of a flat shim. It raises the fingerboard relative to the strings and saddles which will increase the range of adjustment on the saddles for fine tuning the action and, if sufficient (when required), it increases the string to anchor breakangle for better transfer to the body without messing with the basic neck/body geometry by raising the end of the fingerboard. However, I've dfound there is a point of diminishing retures with the breakangle and IME, through body stringing eliminates the issue entirely.

There is no real "transfer to the body" thing going on. You hear people saying this all the time as if it's something you actually want. You really want the opposite. A solid body stringed instrument is basically a platform to hold the strings at pitch. This is done mainly by the neck. The neck needs to be stiff enough to not overly flex and vibrate, or else it will absorb the energy from the strings, and that will give you a dead lifeless tone with little sustain.

The same holds true for the body. You don't want the body to rob too much of the energy from the strings. This is why it's solid with a lot of mass. This is also why an electric bass had more sustain than a acoustic instrument like an upright. On an upright the body is converting the energy from the string into movement of the top plate, and into sound. Because of that you have the quick attack in the note, and then it dies out quickly.

Taken to the extreme, you have a banjo. You have maximum energy transfer from the string to the head, a loud tone, and almost zero sustain.

But even a solid body acts like a comb filter, and the material it's made from, as well as the bridge material, colors your tone, usually in a good way.

 

[mongo2]

There is no real "transfer to the body" thing going on. You hear people saying this all the time as if it's something you actually want. You really want the opposite. .

But even a solid body acts like a comb filter, and the material it's made from, as well as the bridge material, colors your tone, usually in a good way.

Those two statements seem contradictory. Without transfer to the body there can be no comb filtering due to the body/neck to influence the tone.

Don't misunderstand, what I do, I do out of personal preference. There's more than one way to skin a cat...none of them approved by the cat.

 

[SGD Lutherie]

Those two statements seem contradictory. Without transfer to the body there can be no comb filtering due to the body/neck to influence the tone.

Don't misunderstand, what I do, I do out of personal preference. There's more than one way to skin a cat...none of them approved by the cat.

You are always going to get some transfer. But solid bodies were invented to get very little transfer. Then you have the Alembic inertia block under the bridge. That was also to further isolate the strings from the body.

My point was that people worry about transference of vibrations, either from neck shims, glue lines, or even finishes!

But it's a non issue. The whole mass of the bass vibrates together. You wont get "better" tone with more transference.

I think the real problem with the break angle over bridge saddles is not having enough downward pressure, and a poor witness point. So it's not quite sitting on the saddle enough.

You don't even need a bridge saddle though. There was a guitar bridge back in the 70s that utilized Fender Super Bullet strings, and just held the string by the ball end at the right height. I made a similar bass bridge that used small keyless drill chucks. You stuck the string through and tightened the chuck. It worked and sounded fine, and there was no bridge saddle at all.

I wasn't critiquing your way of doing things, just making general comments on how it all works for the thread.

 

[mongo2]

You wont get "better" tone with more transference.

IME, it's very possible to get a difference in tone. Whether it's "better" is subjective.

But solid bodies were invented to get very little transfer.

Interestingly enough, the original P bass had the strings through the body which coincidently provides the maximum chance for transfer.

I don't know of Fender designed it that way specifically for that reason but I have seen the legendary reason for his solidbody bass was to make it more portable compared to the doghouse and so his guitarist friends could double on bass.