Double Bass The Great "How High Does My Action Really Need To Be?" Thread

[dkziemann]

For me, I have it on the lower side- but high enough I can still bow it and get my ideal "big" sound out of my bass. I'm strung up with the spirocores (red on top and bottom) and love it. I think bringing up the action way too high isn't always the best move. After a certain point the tone doesn't get any better- it may almost start to die away (same as if it's too low). All my favorite bass players have a great combination of string sound and bass sound (Ray Brown, McBride, Sam Jones, etc), and that's what I strive for.

 

[Valis]

The height at the end of the fingerboard means very little on its own

This is exactly what i was thinking... especially, won't the numbers change depending on the length of the fingerboard?

Or are they cut precisely, considering the final string lenght, so that we're all measuring at the same point?

 

[jstiel]

I think Steve at Invalid Link Removed will tell you that their set up is fairly rudimentary, as you might expect from a $100 set up. I purchased one of his Wilfers and took it in to a luthier for a set up. A good set up will make a big difference.

 

[arseniotall]

also depends on where your right hand hits the strings. I play at the very end of the fingerboard. Some people have higher action, but play so far up the fingerboard it gives them a looser feel.

 

[drurb]

The height at the end of the fingerboard means very little on its own.

This is exactly what i was thinking... especially, won't the numbers change depending on the length of the fingerboard?

As Matthew pointed out, there are other parameters that come into play besides this one number. Still, string height is measured as the distance off the end of the board. It's not a matter of different board lengths at all. The other factors that come into play are not only the scoop, as mentioned, but several other details of the setup. Again, it's still the case that if you ask one to specify string height, that measurement is made with a standard method.

The height at the end of the fingerboard means very little on its own; you can have G=4mm there and still have 10mm under the octave if the scoop is just so.

Whoa! How often have you seen a scoop like that? Seems extreme, no?

 

[bonaventura]

Drurb, where are you measuring? End of the fingerboard to the bottom of the string? Never done this before. -S-

The measurement is made at the end of the fingerboard and is the distance between the surface of the fingerboard and the bottom of the string. Having these measures will help folks here to evaluate objectively what are your heights. One player's "really high" can be another player's "medium." ...

...Still, string height is measured as the distance off the end of the board...

Not to overly complicate things or make a science out of this stuff... it's art!

But measuring from the end of the FB to the bottom of the string doesn't account for string thickness. Your gut E string is always going to be so much fatter than a Spiro Weich G, so my question is: Does measuring to the string bottom give a full picture of your action?

I've always measured the distance off the end of the FB to the CENTER of the STRING. I can't remember who, but I think it was my luthier who told me that long ago.

To me, measuring FB to string center is a more meaningful measurement because the string center is the acoustic focal point. Measuring that is maybe a better reflection of where the sonic "action" is.

Thoughts anyone? Maybe it's just my inexperience showing agin...

 

[drurb]

Not to overly complicate things or make a science out of this stuff... it's art!

But measuring from the end of the FB to the bottom of the string doesn't account for string thickness. Your gut E string is always going to be so much fatter than a Spiro Weich G, so my question is: Does measuring to the string bottom give a full picture of your action?

I've always measured the distance off the end of the FB to the CENTER of the STRING. I can't remember who, but I think it was my luthier who told me that long ago.

To me, measuring FB to string center is a more meaningful measurement because the string center is the acoustic focal point. Measuring that is maybe a better reflection of where the sonic "action" is.

Thoughts anyone? Maybe it's just my inexperience showing agin...

I think you are right. Height alone certainly does not give a complete picture of "action." The gage of the string can be expected to make a difference. That's just one of the many other factors I was alluding to in addition to what Matthew mentioned. Still, it is the case that string height is routinely measured from the surface of the board to the bottom of the string. The issue really is how meaningful is that? Many other parameters come into play, one of them being which strings one is talking about. To bolster your point, the regulars here (you being one of them) have read many times of players switching strings and having to change the height. Stiffness, gage, tension, fingerboard scoop, and string height (from the surface of the bottom of the string), as well as other factors all come into play (pun intended).

 

[Marc Piane]

Yup. So get adjusters. Turn 'em 'til the thing plays that way you like. Forget about the numbers. We mainly use them so we can talk objectively about it on the interweb.

 

[drurb]

Yup. So get adjusters. Turn 'em 'til the thing plays that way you like. Forget about the numbers. We mainly use them so we can talk objectively about it on the interweb.

Absolutely! I don't know how many times in the winter I've turned the adjusters say, a half turn, to get the "feel" back. I'm convinced of the difference yet, just try to measure it. I've tried and the change is within the error of my ability to measure.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Yup. So get adjusters. Turn 'em 'til the thing plays that way you like. Forget about the numbers. We mainly use them so we can talk objectively about it on t3h 1nt3rw3bz LOL OMG 11!1!11!1!111!.

Agreed, and fixed.

 

[Matthew Tucker]

Whoa! How often have you seen a scoop like that? Seems extreme, no?

Not often, but I've come across it. I didn't say it was desirable ...

But it's not uncommon to see the height at the end of the fingerboard less than that at another point on the string, and more so if the nut slots are higher than they need be.

Does measuring to the string bottom give a full picture of your action?

Its pretty much all you can manage to measure, and it DOES tell you some practically useful information - how far you have to press the string to stop a note, and how far the string can vibrate before knocking the fingerboard. A floppier string will need more room to vibrate, so maybe more scoop or string height might be needed. A high-tension string will be harder to stop, so a lower string height might be indicated.

I'm not sure what measuring to the centre of the string will tell you. What do you think the advantage might be?

 

[bonaventura]

...I'm not sure what measuring to the centre of the string will tell you. What do you think the advantage might be?

I don't think there's any advantage, and no difference, as long as we are talking about the same thing.

If I measured to the center and didn't say so, and you thought it's to the bottom, and if it was important for you to know, then oops, didn't communicate well...

So no advantage, just a different point to measure from.

 

[bonaventura]

But one further point is: When you measure strings laterally, say the distance between strings on the bridge and nut grooves, I think the standard procedure is to talk about the distance center-to-center. So why not use the same language when talking vertical. It's at least consistent. So there is your advantage... Consistency.

 

[Matthew Tucker]

It depends on what you're measuring, and why. And how accurate you want to be. MUCH easier to measure a clearance from surface to surface, and it gives you the information you want to know.

You measure string spacing for another purpose - symmetry.

 

[bonaventura]

I guess I can't see how that's MUCH easier. Certainly not any easier on the eyes, methinks. And the "surface" we are talking about is round and has a center. For me it's easier to measure from FB to center because that's my habit.

As for symmetry, let's turn the logic around: One can measure across the strings just like you like to measure their height. You can measure from the inner edge of the E over to the closer edge of the A in setting up bridge or nut grooves -- if you want. But for me it is clear that this is not the same kind of meaningful or helpful or accurate measurement you get from center-to-center.

I am not saying there's a right or wrong way to measure string height. I do think that in stating a string height measurement, it is helpful to say that it is "to the bottom of the string" or "to the center". Which is why the TBer earlier in this thread asked how the measurement was done.

Whatever works. Hakuna mutata. Enjoy...

 

[Jake deVilliers]

Bill, measuring from the board/fret to the bottom of the string is The Standard. Guitar, double bass, banjo, mandolin, fiddle. You are measuring a 'clearance' - sometimes its useful to use feeler gauges and measure to the thousandth of an inch. If you think you can measure to the centre of a 9 thou string or even a 48 thou one, you're crazy!

At the bridge and especially the nut, we're measuring spacing, so centre to centre is most appropriate since that's what our fingers are looking for.

 

[drurb]

...At the bridge and especially the nut, we're measuring spacing, so centre to centre is most appropriate since that's what our fingers are looking for.

...and because it is consistent to express the spacing measure center-to-center because it allows measurement to the same point from either side. That is, the expression of "spacing" between, say E/A and A/D would each be made from the same point on the A-- it's center.

 

[bonaventura]

Okay you guys:

Bill, ...if you think you can measure to the centre of a 9 thou string or even a 48 thou one, you're crazy!

Jake, that's actually one of the nicer things any TBer has said about me or to me for that matter.

Can you measure with accuracy any string height from the FB to bottom any more than if you base your reading on the center? We are talking which margin of error is greater, right?

But with all due respect to you I have actually heard both (actually the center point method is not my invention but learned from my luthier, Horst Gruenert). And I accordingly tolerate both. I think it is, however, important to say what it is you refer to when you talk measurement. That is, if you want to communicate what it is you are saying. Amen.

 

[Matthew Tucker]

In particular, I want to know if I should be toughing it out with a higher action and/or toughing it out with living with minimal clearance for the D string - or if I should be looking for another setup?

I think the OP was talking about clearance, and subsequent discussions talked to the same thing. So surface to surface it is. Amen!

 

[bonaventura]

Matthew,

Okay, that's what you are talking about. "Clearance". Clearance is the space between the bottom of something and a surface below it.

Is "string height" the same thing? I've made the case here that "string height" is other than, maybe more than, mere clearance. And the majority here have clearly said I am wrong in that.

But I had you seriously thinkin about it, didn't I?

You have a wonderful avatar. The mouth and eyes move, how cool is that.

Bill