Official Luthiers Forum!

Was asked to do something today that on paper I would turn away and strongly make the case it was not possible.

I was wrong.

Dave took in a PRS C24 Ten Top and the guy wanted uber low action. Dave asked me to set it up with the high e at the 12th being 2.8/64th" and the low e being 3.3/64th" at the 12th.

The neck was excellent and I used every trick I know and in no time really I had 2.8/64th" high e and 3.1/64th" low e at the 12th and no rattling or buzzing.

It does require a light touch and to make things worse for me the client is using 9's. If you don't know it's more difficult to get rattle free low action with 9's than 10's. Less massive strings have less inertia to overcome and therefore lash out further and faster.

Anyway this was a learning experience for ole Hesh here I did not think this was possible. Dave calls it "touch-screen" action it's so very low.

If you are wondering what the tricks to get here were:

1) A very good neck with excellent fret plane provided by PRS and straightening it to have the least amount of relief possible provide by me.

2) Scary low nut slots.

3) A simulated attack like the clients to check things.

And she sings pretty now and played like butter.

PS: Low action for this guitar is considered to be 4/64th" and 4.5/64th" so you can see we took it down much further.

I prefer units that low to be expressed in thousands of an inch, lol…are you really gonna make me crack out the calculator to know what 2.8 64ths of an inch is?

.016x2.8 = .0448”

.016x3.1 = .0558”

How do you accurately measure 2.8 of 1/64”?

2.8 -> the string just covers the '3' line on the setup gauge

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

Lols…

That's your preference not ours so it's on you to do the conversion math.

It's an estimate based on reading a clear engineer's scale, I use Starrett and in my case readers with 2.5 magnification. It's pretty easy to see 1/64th, half of that and which half of the half one is in. So it's an estimate but likely not more that +/- 1/64th.

What's most important is this is the language that Dave and I speak with each other AND even more important.... understand each other. If he asks me to provide his client with 3.3/64th" I clearly know what that is and I can still, with assistance at 67 see it reliably.

NOTE: All measurements are taken in the playing position. Why? Because when shooting for sub 1/64th variance necks commonly move that much just flipping the guitar around in various positions.

NOTE 2: We have never found a reliable way to measure action that's any better than a quality engineer's scale. It's the most used tool in our shop.

When he told me about it on the phone I rolled my eyes like I'm supposed to even be capable of seeing this.... So I can relate. But I am wearing 1.75 readers for most of my work and 2.5 readers for this kind of thing and it works very well, better than Optivisor with a shout out to Dan E.

Anyway it's a learning experience for me and the lowest I have ever taken a guitar action and have it work for the client.

Assuming you mean '.1/64'. What radius is that board? I'm assuming 12'. So why would normal low action be higher than normal 9.5' Strat action? Shorter scale?

Also, you are using a factory fret plane??

BTW good job and thanks for sharing!

Sent from my SM-A526B using Tapatalk

_________________
Pat

Pat I don't understand your questions. Dave and I and many others in the trade use 1/64th" to describe action. There is no standard, lots of people use other things. We like 1/64th because both of us can see fractions of a single 64th" and although not precisely we can generally as I described above know if something is in the upper or lower half of a 64th" and then we guess as to the degree. Hence a number like 3.3/64th" where we combine fractions and decimals so we can communicate with each other.

Remember too and again we can see this. If I deal in metric or other graduations I can't see it as well.

The radius although it matters on bends more so than anything else is kind of moot because it's fixed and yes this is a factory neck which is part of the reason why this is an exceptionally low set-up for someone to have.

A note on the player as well. Some players can play touch-screen action and most can't. The light touch also has to do with the attack from a pick and in what direction toward the instrument, away from the instrument, etc. If I gave this guitar to Stevie Ray RIP it would buzz out and he would break the strings.

Necks can be awful and all over the place and some have more relief on the treble side than the bass side, not what we want. This one Dave thought when he took it in would do very low action just from his visual evaluation with the client present. He was right, this was the lowest working.... working set-up meaning bends don't fret out and it does not rattle with a light attack that I have ever done.

I was happy to learn something as well I go long periods of time now doing the same things over and over and it's not as interesting as it used to be.

Yes, I like readers. I use mine almost all the time. I like the ones that are also safety glasses and have the protective shield on the side of the lens. I haven’t tried using a higher magnification pair, I usually use an optivisor over my readers. Guess I’ll order some 2.5’s and try them.

I’ve got one client, a pro, who requires super low setups. Over the years I suppose I’ve done a dozen electrics for him. I’d have to check my log to be sure but I think I’ve been doing his around 3.5T, 4.5B (1/64’s). That requires a super level board with extra relief on the bass side and some fall away. He’s got a light touch. He came over this weekend to play an acoustic gig with us and left his Martin with me, be interesting to see what I can get out of that one.

edit: checked the log and his electrics are at 4T and 5B, not quite as low as I guessed

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

Hey Buddy hope you are doing great.

I tried 3.0 readers and the depth of field is too shallow for me so 2.5 is the strongest useful magnification that I can handle. I really only need them for nut slots and setting the action at the 12th.

I had one cataract removed and opted for the super duper lens that when I get the other one done is supposed to let me not use glasses at all and 1.25 for very close stuff. Hope to have the other eye done soon so I can take advantage if the new, better vision.

Hey Hesh, doing well here, hope you are also doing good. I just ordered some 2.5 readers so glad I didn't go for 3. I've had cataract surgery on both eyes (about 15 years ago) and I can read without glasses ok but find it more comfortable for longer periods to wear 1.5 readers. Hope all goes well when you get the other eye done!

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

Now we know for sure Hesh is a dedicated photographer…


Pierre
Guitares Torvisse

_________________
Pierre Castonguay

I'm not really a player, so the strings always seem high to me. My archtop is at 5 and 3/64ths. They still seem high, but I only have the one unadjustable bridge. The Staffer with light nylgut strings with rayon basses seems crazy high at 7 and 5/64ths. I can adjust the neck pretty easy, but I do have to change the shim. I don't have it just adjusted with the bolt. Put it where you want it, then bolt it down.

I had 3 X "readers" made up with my prescription for astigmatism and slightly different eye to eye for close work. Those things are crazy. My progressives are 3 X but they don't show ANYTHING like the readers do. Last night I was using them with a 3x lighted magnifier on viola edgework. It is scary to see how sloppy my work is! With the magnifier the FOV is small, and you don't have much space to work under the lens. With the readers I have lots of room. The edge work isn't so awful. You just can't get up and walk around.

_________________
Why be normal?

Well for Dave and I when we speak of action we always mean the 12th fret, high e first and low e last. Low e may be a B for a 5 string bass and something else entirely for a 7 or 8 string 6 string.

So we measure at the 12th and work to a spec at the 12th too. It's also a requirement for us to work sequentially so that the very last thing we do is set the action. Prior to this the relief is set, nut slots are cut (low) and it's always done tuned to pitch and when setting action in the playing position.

Some specs for those who like to spot a gem of a post once in a while and print it for future reference.

I set-up a lot of instruments, a lot... and I set to specs and have a return rate of less than 1/2 of 1%. When someone does come back it's usually for lower action but they need a fret dress to get there. I won't let an instrument leave our shop(s) rattling.

So the point is that these specs work for a very wide swath of players.

Acoustic Dread with 12's: 4 and 6 (meaning 4/64th high e at 12th and 6/64th low e at 12 and again with the relief set and nut slots cut, low)

Acoustic OOO, OO, O, OM, other smaller styles, 4 and 5.5

FIngerstyle player 4 and 5.5

blue grassing flat picker with a banjo in the band 4.5 and 6.5

acoustic with 13's 5 and 7 for heavy hitters

bass 5 and 7

mando <3 and <4

12 string acoustic <4 and 5

banjo 5 and 7

I've found that I can work by myself in the middle of the night and set-up hundreds of instruments using these specs and never meeting or having any contact with the client and 99.5% of the time they are thrilled.

Ain't life great

Ken (and others) there are different ways to get magnification. Progressives (and bifocals) give you magnification by power while readers (single vision) have magnification by power and by thickness. As an example; before intraocular lenses, a person would typically need glasses of approx. +16.50 and that would magnify everything by 33%. However, if I fit the same person with a contact lens of +16.50, the magnification would only be 1.5%. Big difference. If anyone is using 'off the shelf' readers, don't wear them for extended periods of time, or you can cause problems with the eye muscles you use to converge at near distances.

Brent

Perhaps that could explain why my eyesight has been getting worse wearing readers constantly…

Ed, Presbyopia is a slow process. On average, people usually find problems with near vision somewhere between forty-five and fifty. At that point, the addition for near vision is +1.25. After two or three years it will go up to +1.75 and then again up to +2.50. At that point, you typically lose mid-range vision. So, you can read your watch and see what bus is coming four blocks away, but things at an arms length aren't clear, ie:a computer screen or sighting down a guitar neck. This is why Progressive (variable focus) lenses are so popular, but the mid-range area isn't very wide. What I usually recommend is a bifocal with mid-vision in the top and reading in the bottom (shop glasses). NOTE: unless you specify a distance, the Dr will assume a distance of 30cm, for reading. With 'off the shelf' readers, most people will be looking through a prism effect, and that will cause problems with the muscles the eyes use to converge.

OK it’s time for a vet visit I guess…

2.8 mm = .109"

3.1 mm = .120"

3.3mm = .128"