Warwick Thumb 4 setup

[michele]

I’ve recently bought a Warwick Thumb brand new from a shop. They set it prior to shipment and I found the bass OK .. it played nicely but of course it wasn’t 100% to my liking. I’m very picky about set up and I’ve always setup my instrument by myself. I don’t want to sing my praises but after 25+ years and having owned and set up more than 50 instruments including a lot of boutique big names, I’m confident to say I know a couple of things about set up.
This time however I decided not to mess with it and just play it until the first strings change… yesterday I ordered some strings and gave the bass a preliminar look.

I took note of various measurements and here is what I found:
1) The trussrod is in perfect position (already checked that from the very first day …): neck has just a tiny relief, 0.30 mm at 7 fret with capo at first fret and E string depressed at 24th. I know Warwick Setup guide recommend 0.60mm but 0.30 mm is a good number for me…
2) Strings action is 2.25, 2.00, 1.75 and 1.5 respectively on E, A, D, G string 12th fret. Measurements stay almost constant up to the 24th. No fret buzz anywhere.

Since day one I noticed this string height decreasing from E string to G string, which I'm not a fan at all. I know a lot of players and manufacturers as well recommend doing this but to me this whole thing throw away the purpose of matching the arc of the strings with the fretboard radius and make for an uneven feeling of the strings especially under the plucking hand (for the fret hand it's very minimal because we are talking fractions go millimeters before the string makes contact with the fret but moving through the strings with the plucking hand it's very noticeable... playing with a pic? even more).

On a closer inspection I noticed that this kind of setup was achieved by a strange interaction between the adjustability of the Just-A-Nut and the bridge. First thing I saw is that the nut height on the G string side is at the recommended height of 0.30 mm at 1st fret (depressing string at 3rd) but on the E string side is way less... about 0.10 mm! Nonetheless no buzz at all....
This uneveness of the nut height is kinda of counterbalanced at the bridge... the E string side of the bridge is way higher from the body than the G side. So we have kind of lower nut/higher bridge on the E side and higher nut/lower bridge on G side. Slanted nut (lower on the E side) and slanted bridge (lower on the G side).. that’s it.

I know... a lot of guy would say no buzz and decent strings action is all that counts but, as I said, I'm picky and always in search for the best, smooth, effortless playing experience and IMO there's something wrong with this setup.
Maybe the guy that performed this setup first set the arc of the strings with bridge saddles, then (to achieve that "desired" height drop on the treble side) lowered the whole bridge on the treble side and finally (to maintain an even strings height) compensate lowering the nut on the E string side???
I'm curious to know what do you guys think...

 

[2thAche]

Sounds like you're trying to fix problems that don't exist. You've played it through a set of strings and liked the way it plays. Now you're "being picky about setup", but why? Picky about setup applies when there are issues with playability. You're obsessing about numbers rather than improving playability.

In bourbon circles, there's a thing where people convince themselves they like or don't like certain brands or mashbills etc, right up until they do blind tastings and find out that what they thought wasn't true at all. This bass has already told you it's OK, the playability is the "blind tasting". Trust the playability, it's already telling you things are fine. Numbers help you when there is a problem. It doesn't sound like there is a problem.

 

[onda'bass]

.30 is a crazy amount of relief. I always disagreed with warwick's numbers on relief.

 

[96tbird]

I think he found his answer: just set the nut up first to what’re you like then setup the bridge.

 

[96tbird]

.30 is a crazy amount of relief. I always disagreed with warwick's numbers on relief.

Just remember, factory numbers are what they aim for at the factory to pass QC. That is the standard.

The. They publish it in the manual because it’s the starting point, especially for newbs.

That has nothing to do with where each owner will setup their own instrument to own liking.

Edit: it reminds me of motorcycles. All publish a spark gap in their manuals for overall best performance for pumpgas , but owners have their own ideas and fuel selection and additives, often over-gap the plugs to personal preference

 

[2thAche]

.30 is a crazy amount of relief. I always disagreed with warwick's numbers on relief.

That's mm, not thousandths. .3mm is .0118 which is right on. I like .01 to .011 thousandths relief and 2.0mm action on the E, he's not out of the ballpark

 

[michele]

Sounds like you're trying to fix problems that don't exist. You've played it through a set of strings and liked the way it plays. Now you're "being picky about setup", but why? Picky about setup applies when there are issues with playability. You're obsessing about numbers rather than improving playability.

In bourbon circles, there's a thing where people convince themselves they like or don't like certain brands or mashbills etc, right up until they do blind tastings and find out that what they thought wasn't true at all. This bass has already told you it's OK, the playability is the "blind tasting". Trust the playability, it's already telling you things are fine. Numbers help you when there is a problem. It doesn't sound like there is a problem.

there is a problem indeed. As I said, I don’t like the concept of having higher strings closer to the fretboard… it defeat the whole concept of having strings matching the fingerboard radius, it’s responsible for inefficient plucking hand tecnique…
Please, re-read my OP

 

[michele]

That's mm, not thousandths. .3mm is .0118 which is right on. I like .01 to .011 thousandths relief and 2.0mm action on the E, he's not out of the ballpark

Absolutely

 

[2thAche]

there is a problem indeed. As I said, I don’t like the concept of having higher strings closer to the fretboard… it defeat the whole concept of having strings matching the fingerboard radius, it’s responsible for inefficient plucking hand tecnique…
Please, re-read my OP

Are you having problems with technique on this bass? I'm just saying, reality may be telling you different than what you want to think based on strings having to match radius as a rule. If you do a bunch of work to match the string radius to the board/frets and end up with a buzz, then what?

 

[Turnaround]

there is a problem indeed. As I said, I don’t like the concept of having higher strings closer to the fretboard… it defeat the whole concept of having strings matching the fingerboard radius, it’s responsible for inefficient plucking hand tecnique…
Please, re-read my OP

Have it the way you like it. The reason the E string is usually set higher than the G is because the fatter strings often have more excursion when plucked. A little extra clearance is added to that it vibrates cleanly. If you don't need the extra height, then you don't have to have it.
Don't get me started on the JAN - I think it solves nothing and just creates problems, not the least of which is that people can't resist adjusting it.

 

[michele]

Are you having problems with technique on this bass? I'm just saying, reality may be telling you different than what you want to think based on strings having to match radius as a rule. If you do a bunch of work to match the string radius to the board/frets and end up with a buzz, then what?

Then I would say I have a bass with problems. Because if the neck isn’t warped, the trussrod works properly and the frets are correctly installed then there won’t be buzz.
And I don’t see a reason for a nut slanted in one direction and the bridge slanted in the opposite direction. Other the bizarre attempt to mantain that (IMO) wrong mismatch between the strings arc and the fretboard radius…

 

[Derek Kay]

I think ypu are right to lower the nut and raise the bridge, or vice versa, to even out the action.

An over-plucked string will tell you all you need to know by where on the fingerboard it rattles. An open string rattle - raise the nut etc. Adjust the bridge after that is set.

 

[michele]

Have it the way you like it. The reason the E string is usually set higher than the G is because the fatter strings often have more excursion when plucked. A little extra clearance is added to that it vibrates cleanly. If you don't need the extra height, then you don't have to have it.
Don't get me started on the JAN - I think it solves nothing and just creates problems, not the least of which is that people can't resist adjusting it.

that’s exactly my point. As I have light touch I generally don’t need to raise the E string, especially on well made instruments. On less well made ones I usually end up with the E rised just a hair…

 

[michele]

I think ypu are right to lower the nut and raise the bridge, or vice versa, to even out the action.

An over-plucked string will tell you all you need to know by where on the fingerboard it rattles. An open string rattle - raise the nut etc. Adjust the bridge after that is set.

In fact my plan is to raise the nut on the E string side to make it even with the G side (which is at the correct height), then even the bridge by dropping it all the way down, then matching the strings to the fretboard radius and finally rising the bridge to obtain the desired action…

 

[2thAche]

Then I would say I have a bass with problems. Because if the neck isn’t warped, the trussrod works properly and the frets are correctly installed then there won’t be buzz.
And I don’t see a reason for a nut slanted in one direction and the bridge slanted in the opposite direction. Other the bizarre attempt to mantain that (IMO) wrong mismatch between the strings arc and the fretboard radius…

One thing I've learned is, trying to solve a problem where there is none often creates one. It sounds like there's no question or discussion here. You're gonna mess with it no matter what, so best of luck.

I spent alot of time on a '69 JB to get low, clean action. It ended up with a .05 degree full pocket shim, .010 relief and low action, and now plays like a dream. I will not check the radius of the strings, because it doesn't matter since it plays so well. I record the relief and the string heights, and then I'll never touch anything on it EVER again unless it has a problem, because it plays so well as it is and sometimes the difference between great and annoying is one little tweak.

 

[David McIntire]

there is a problem indeed. As I said, I don’t like the concept of having higher strings closer to the fretboard… it defeat the whole concept of having strings matching the fingerboard radius, it’s responsible for inefficient plucking hand tecnique…
Please, re-read my OP

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. The bigger strings need more room to vibrate. Strings don't vibrate in a line, side to side. They vibrate elliptically. Means the bigger strings need more room. So, they need be a bit higher than the smaller strings. Picking isn't affected, as the position of the bass and hands changes constantly when picking, and that small arch affects me not at all. Plus, bigger strings are bigger both ways and over pickups, bigger strings need more clearance for vibration reasons, and for magnetic/warbling/sustain issues.

Roger Sadowsky taught me tons bout setup in ancient articles in BP magazine. He sets a bass up at the nut so the height of the open string over the first fret is the same height as fretting the string at the first fret, and measuring over the 2nd fret, and so on. Approximately. We don't all have adjustable nuts. But this is my goal.

Another lesson was with an Alembic I used to own. Individual string height is not adjustable on their bridges. They cut the string slots to follow the fingerboard radius. When you raise one side of it, the bigger string side, the radius is still matched, but just turned a bit. Again, reasons being clearance for string vibration, and proper string height for each string.

And finally, string tension. Smaller strings have more tension. Raising bigger strings does not add tension, however, the increased distance of the bigger strings creates an illusion of, for me. I raise the bigger strings' action so that the time to press a string to the fret feels the same, to me. These are my setup preferences, and some reasoning.

I don't believe each strings action should be identical.

 

[bass12]

On my last Warwick I did away with the JAN completely.

 

[michele]

One thing I've learned is, trying to solve a problem where there is none often creates one. It sounds like there's no question or discussion here. You're gonna mess with it no matter what, so best of luck.

I spent alot of time on a '69 JB to get low, clean action. It ended up with a .05 degree full pocket shim, .010 relief and low action, and now plays like a dream. I will not check the radius of the strings, because it doesn't matter since it plays so well. I record the relief and the string heights, and then I'll never touch anything on it EVER again unless it has a problem, because it plays so well as it is and sometimes the difference between great and annoying is one little tweak.

Sir, I don't know why you continue to assume that there's no problem. To me there is. Uneven string height across strings IS a problem to me. If my Thumb played TO ME like your 69 Jazz plays TO YOU then we wouldn't read this thread. But I agree with you that sometimes a little tweak could make things worse.. in that case there's always a little tweak back. Or the fireplace.

 

[michele]

I disagree with this wholeheartedly. The bigger strings need more room to vibrate. Strings don't vibrate in a line, side to side. They vibrate elliptically. Means the bigger strings need more room. So, they need be a bit higher than the smaller strings. Picking isn't affected, as the position of the bass and hands changes constantly when picking, and that small arch affects me not at all. Plus, bigger strings are bigger both ways and over pickups, bigger strings need more clearance for vibration reasons, and for magnetic/warbling/sustain issues.

Roger Sadowsky taught me tons bout setup in ancient articles in BP magazine. He sets a bass up at the nut so the height of the open string over the first fret is the same height as fretting the string at the first fret, and measuring over the 2nd fret, and so on. Approximately. We don't all have adjustable nuts. But this is my goal.

Another lesson was with an Alembic I used to own. Individual string height is not adjustable on their bridges. They cut the string slots to follow the fingerboard radius. When you raise one side of it, the bigger string side, the radius is still matched, but just turned a bit. Again, reasons being clearance for string vibration, and proper string height for each string.

And finally, string tension. Smaller strings have more tension. Raising bigger strings does not add tension, however, the increased distance of the bigger strings creates an illusion of, for me. I raise the bigger strings' action so that the time to press a string to the fret feels the same, to me. These are my setup preferences, and some reasoning.

I don't believe each strings action should be identical.

Let me, please, disagree with your disagreement.
I know that bigger strings need more room to vibrate but it's all relative. If you setup your bass with all the string at 2.5 mm at 12th fret, or even 2 mm, on all strings do you think your E will buzz? I bet it only will if you have an hammer in your plucking hand. Also there are many factors in play... your touch, your technique, the stiffness of your strings ... on the Smiths, Foderas, Alembic, Carl Thompson and others nice instruments I've had the pleasure to own I've been able to play E strings setup at 1.5 mm without any buzz. If needed, on lesser quality instruments I could raise the E string juuust a hair... but that doesn't annoy me so much. What I really dislike is the drop of the higher strings.

Also, tell me... what's the purpose of having the strings arc matching the fretboard radius in the first place if you then alter that arc bringing your highest strings progressively closer to the fretboard? Is like your hands work on two different planes.
Try playing fast 16th octaves patterns moving along your neck using different strings pairs (a la Chromatic Fantasy so to say): do you like constantly changing your wrist angle to accomodate for the different height of the A and the G strings, or the E and D? Me not.
Try playing your favorite scale in fourths. Do you like that feeling of your fretting fingers "climbing" as you descend the scale moving from G to D string, from D to A string, from A to E string? Me not.

Everything is relative. We all play different styles of music, on different instruments, strings, whatever... If I should play Louie Louie and I have to do it with a broomstick with two strings attached, well .. I could make it work. But in my book if something is "good" there's always the possibility to make it "better".

 

[David McIntire]

Let me, please, disagree with your disagreement.
I know that bigger strings need more room to vibrate but it's all relative. If you setup your bass with all the string at 2.5 mm at 12th fret, or even 2 mm, on all strings do you think your E will buzz? I bet it only will if you have an hammer in your plucking hand. Also there are many factors in play... your touch, your technique, the stiffness of your strings ... on the Smiths, Foderas, Alembic, Carl Thompson and others nice instruments I've had the pleasure to own I've been able to play E strings setup at 1.5 mm without any buzz. If needed, on lesser quality instruments I could raise the E string juuust a hair... but that doesn't annoy me so much. What I really dislike is the drop of the higher strings.

Also, tell me... what's the purpose of having the strings arc matching the fretboard radius in the first place if you then alter that arc bringing your highest strings progressively closer to the fretboard? Is like your hands work on two different planes.
Try playing fast 16th octaves patterns moving along your neck using different strings pairs (a la Chromatic Fantasy so to say): do you like constantly changing your wrist angle to accomodate for the different height of the A and the G strings, or the E and D? Me not.
Try playing your favorite scale in fourths. Do you like that feeling of your fretting fingers "climbing" as you descend the scale moving from G to D string, from D to A string, from A to E string? Me not.

Everything is relative. We all play different styles of music, on different instruments, strings, whatever... If I should play Louie Louie and I have to do it with a broomstick with two strings attached, well .. I could make it work. But in my book if something is "good" there's always the possibility to make it "better".

First, I don't see rotating the radius as changing the radius, string arc still follows it, to me, tho rotated. Slightly. Not an immense amount.

I've set up lotsa Warwicks. Owned a lot from old to new, from Rockbass to custom. There is no real radius on the Warwicks. Or, didn't used to be. Similar with other high end instruments, fingerboard radius grew, vs a Fender or Fender style instrument. That would change things, again, Slightly. Far easier to set all string the same height. I play smaller radius instruments. If I set them up to perfectly follow that radius, and plucked them all at identical angles, and at the same location constantly, my picking style would have higher strings hitting the fingerboard. For this reason, it makes sense to me to change my wrist position, again, slighty to also follow the radius. Whether that came naturally, or I acquired it thru practice I don't know. And my intention isn't to get the lowest action. My intention with setup is to get the best response and performance of my bass guitars for my style, yer correct. My action is set at 3.5mm for my B strings, down to 2mm for the G strings. I do play hard. But not so hard I can't adjust to other basses.

You asked in yer original post if folk thot it crazy to have the bigger strings with higher action than the smaller. I just listed why I think this is smart. And not an issue. Most of my friends set em up that way, tho there are those who prefer strictly even. If you were just gonna make the strings all the same regardless, why ask the question? I agree, it is all about style and personal preference. You asked, so I answered, is all. The differences are slight. I can play basses set up either way. But in my mind, there's nuttin wrong with having bigger strings higher, in fact, there are reasons for it. Plus, plucking hands, for me, are a constant adjustment for dynamics, tones, and different techniques. I like a bit of fret buzz. All my heroes have a bit of it. But my strings are set up high enuff I can control the amount, again matching what sound or tonal quality I'm looking for. It never occurred to me to pluck every note identically. As that ain what my heroes did. I didn't mean to offend. Just listing reasons why I wouldn't. That doesn't mean you shouldn't. We are all different. That is true.