Conference napalm::guitar

    I know that using Brass parts on a guitar (often found on Electrics,
    not so often on Acoustics) will increase mass, and this will often
    change the sound. If you add additional mass to the neck, the
    instrument tends to become a bit louder. If you use a harder material
    at the nut, and bridge, then the material absorbs less of the vibration
    (to visualize this, consider the differeance between foam rubber
    and a piece of iron - one absorbs the shock, the other transmits
    shock). As for the difference the bridge pins make, that's hard
    to say, Again, I feel that it relates to mass. Martin is known for
    it's reponsive tops, so these minor adjustments may have helped
    quite a bit. If you are interested, you can experiment with
    modifications tothe mass with a little bit of modeling clay. You
    might try and put a small piece (a few ounces) on the bridge & compare
    the tone with / or without. Also, try the end of the neck, near
    the nut, or towards the middle area of the tuning keys. Adding mass
    to the end of a Violin will often make a major improvement to the
    sound, as the density of wood (especially in cheaper factory produced
    instruments), is not always up to the the standards that some of
    the old master craftsmen would have used (add the mass to the end
    of the violin neck).  In an acoustic instrument, subtle and sometimes
    seemingly irrational changes can improve the sound.
    
    						Jens   

>    I know that using Brass parts on a guitar (often found on Electrics,
>    not so often on Acoustics) will increase mass, and this will often
>    change the sound. If you add additional mass to the neck, the
>    instrument tends to become a bit louder. If you use a harder material
>    at the nut, and bridge, then the material absorbs less of the vibration
>    (to visualize this, consider the differeance between foam rubber
>    and a piece of iron - one absorbs the shock, the other transmits
>    shock). 

You're right about the increase in mass - however I've found that isn't always
desirable.  The brass bridge pins will transmit the string vibrations, but they
add enough additional mass that they also have a negative, damping effect on
the top.  That's they key to the dinosaur teeth that Lashbrook (Dan Lashbrook,
luthier mentioned in .1) uses - a very hard, very light material which
transmits the vibration without damping the top. 

        
>	As for the difference the bridge pins make, that's hard
>    to say, 

	Easier for me to say, as I had Dan put the bridge pins in my
D-28 last September at Winfield.  I noticed an immediate, positive improvement
in the sound and responsiveness of the instrument.  (He custom fits the
pins, so you shouldn't just buy a set and slap them in yourself).  
        
>	Again, I feel that it relates to mass. Martin is known for
>    it's reponsive tops, so these minor adjustments may have helped
>    quite a bit. 

Again, I feel that it's the addition of a hard, light material that gives the
most benefit.  The addition of some weight to the neck might help, but be
careful not to use too much or you'll destroy the balance of the instrument.
Frets has recommended experimentation with a C-clamp on the headstock.  That
quickly adds some mass and you can see what the addition of the mass might do
for your sound.  Lashbrook and John Ramsey (Ramsey built my D-18 - he makes
custom copies of pre-war Martins that are fantastic instruments, reasonably
priced.  Look him up in Colorado Springs) use very light material, including
replacing the Grover/Martin type tuners with pre-war type - (they are lighter).
They build some amazing guitars. 

		[Mike_M]

    I've been to his shop - Ramsey makes an excellent guitar. As I said,
    Additional mass can help, or it may not. Too many variables to just
    say what exactly to do. The best thing to do is experiment in a non-
    distructive way. The C-Clamp Idea is ok, but, The though of mashing
    the wood doesn't appeal much to me. I'd love to see your guitar
    (I live in Colorado Springs) - Next time you are down this way,
    look me up.
    
    								Jens

    re:2
    Mike -
    Nice to know someone else has experimented in these areas.  I agree
    with you about the need for lightness in the bridge area.  Dan and
    I were talking last week and he has another D-18 he has been working
    on for himself.  One of the things he does is have the bridge plate
    on newer Martins replaced with smaller plates.  I have seen some
    guitars with brass bridge oins and have noticed some improvement.
    But the biggest issue is _ What's improvement?  The whole thing
    is so subjective.  What I like most about what Dan did for my guitar
    was the improvement in volume while maintaining the balance.  It's
    not your usual D-28 in that it was never a boomy bass guitar.  It
    always recorded well without any eq.  Now, it still has that balance
    plus more volume and sustain.  Dan does very nice work.  He called
    to say that he was moving back to Alaska (he's from there) and will
    be leaving Denver May 1.  Too bad.  But he really is very good.
    By the way, you make a good point about the bridge pins.  He fits
    each one individually and he cautioned me about changing strings.
    Do them one at a time so that the pins remain in their respective
    holes.  All in all, I am very pleased with the results of the work
    on the D-28.  It has made the instrument a real pleasure to play
    again and in many ways, it's like finding an old friend.
    
    Paul
    

    Well, I was back to see Dan Lashbrook last week.  He's come up with
    another tweek that's rather interesting - he scallops the nut. 
    What he does is simply take away some of the nut material from between
    the strings, leaving the string sitting on what looks like a small
    pedastal.  It nets another 5-10% in overall volume.  It is also
    a "tuning" mechanism.  Dan is able to balance the guitars sound
    doing this.  For example, if you have a guitar with lots of bass,
    like and old D-28, he can bring out the highs by removing more material
    from the treble side and less from the bass side.  I don't understand
    why this should work at all, but I could hear the difference in
    my D-28.  The guitar is, in my opinion, better than almost any other
    D-28 I've heard except two or three old (<1945) D-28 that had scalloped
    braces.  I may have John Ramsey scallop the braces in the future,
    but for now I really love the sound.
    One other interesting note that tracks with what Mike said in an
    earlier reply, brass is too dense for use on acoustic guitars. 
    It absorbs the vibrations, especially the bass, and creates a very
    tinny, metalic sound.  Works nice for electrics, but doesn't give
    what I would call a great sound in acoustics.
    
    Paul
    

    re: .5
    
    That technique is called 'fluting' the nut...as I understand it
    it's done more for appearance than anything else.
    
    db2

    re .5
    
    I have to be skeptical.  For one thing, anything you do to the nut
    only counts when a string is played open.  Also, a 5-10% *percieved*
    increase in volume could be due to a lot of things, including
    imagination or inability to remember just how loud it played before
    the operation.  
    
    
    Aluminum makes a good saddle.
    
    
    Bob

    re:.7
    I was like you, skeptical.  But both Dan and I played the guitar
    in the workshop for 10 minutes or so before he did anything.  He
    then worked on the nut and we played it again.  There really is
    an improvment.  Like you, I tried to "reason" out the net.  Couldn't
    do it.  Dan then put the guitar back on the bench, took a little
    more material out of the bass side for better string-to-string balance
    and we played it again.  More sound!  We then changed the strings.
    The guitar is more alive today than it has ever been.  I don't know
    if I understand all that's happened, I only can tell you that everyone
    who has heard the guitar is impressed.  Dan doesn't like the fact
    that I play light-guage strings (he's a bluegrasser and likes mediums).
    But I believe that if I were to string the box up with some mediums,
    it would be even more responsive.  I love it, so I guess I don't
    have to understand all of it.
    
    Paul
    

    re .8
    
    Oh, well.  I'll soften my skepticism and maybe try it sometime.
    When I was in grad school, I reviewed some attempts by physicists
    to model the guitar and improve the sound.  They didn't get very
    far in developing a useable mathematical model.  It's just a very
    complex machine, even when you leave out things like neck stiffness,
    which definitely affects the sound.  
    
    Maybe this guy would be interested in publishing some of his ideas
    in GP or Frets.  
    
    Bob

    re: .9
    Yeah, I agree that it does not lend itself well to modelling.  I
    understand that they have tried to model a Strad and find many of
    the same issues.  I think that there are so many variables in the
    machine that it is virtually impossible to cover them all.  One
    thing struck me, most of the improvements that Dan brings to an
    instrument, other than the fluting of the nut, are really returns
    to the earlier methods.  The extention of the bridge saddle, and
    the better material for both saddle and pins are really what Martin
    used to do in the 30's and 40's.  Dan has suggested to me that I
    consider putting in a smaller bridge plate of maple and that I scallop
    the braces.  Again, these aren't new tricks.  In fact, Martin is
    doing just that on many of their new guitars.  As much as anything,
    it has been fun seeing what he has done and enjoying the results.
    Three of my friends have now been to see him and are having him
    do work on their guitars.
    
    Paul
    

    How hard is it to lower the action of an acoustic?  I've never
    attempted this before but my action is too high and it is frustrating
    me.  Has anyone posted a procedure in here?  Any 'gotchas' to watch
    out for?
    
    Or should I just take into a shop to have a guitar tech do it?
    
    Mike

    You can very carefully sand the bottom of the bridge insert (that
    plastic/bone peice that the strings sit on). Caution, this change
    is semi-permanent in that to raise the action again you have to
    replace that piece. I've done this myself, an additional caution:
    the strings lower at a rate that seems much faster than the amount
    I sanded off, in other words sand lightly, test it, and sand more
    if you need to...a small amount of sanding makes a big difference
    in string height.
    
    dbii

    dbii, what grade of sandpaper would you recommend?  The plastic/bone
    piece you referred to, are those the 6 white pins the strings are
    held in place with?
    
    Thanks,
    Mike

re: < Note 561.11 by PNO::HEISER "B#, not Bb, you'll B(natural)" >


>    How hard is it to lower the action of an acoustic?  I've never
>    attempted this before but my action is too high and it is frustrating
>    me.  Has anyone posted a procedure in here?  Any 'gotchas' to watch
>    out for?
    
>    Or should I just take into a shop to have a guitar tech do it?
    
>    Mike


Where is it high?  The bridge end or the nut end?  It's not real hard to 
cut down the saddle (.12), but if the nut end is too high, I'd recommend
taking it to a qualified person.  Maybe they'll let you watch and see if you 
want to try it next time.  If you sand the saddle, be sure to keep it square.

Action adjustment isn't hard to learn, but it's best to see it done correctly
before you try it.

Bob

Pardon me, dbii, but I'll go ahead and answer this, since I'm already here.


RE: < Note 561.13 by PNO::HEISER "B#, not Bb, you'll B(natural)" >


>    dbii, what grade of sandpaper would you recommend?  The plastic/bone
>    piece you referred to, are those the 6 white pins the strings are
>    held in place with?
>    
>    Thanks,
>    Mike


No.  He's talking about the slender piece that the strings break over.

Bob

    I know what you're talking about now.  The piece with the
    uneven/sloping edge to compensate for the differences in string
    thickness.
    
    I think I will probably take it in and watch.  :-)
    
    Thanks for the advice,
    Mike

    If you were to sand the bridge piece yourself, I'd recommend some
    220 wet sand paper.  Available at all auto-body and hardware stores
    for the astronomical price of $ .75/sheet.  One sheet should be
    enough for ten bridge pieces and a Yugo.
    
    ;^)

    
    
    
    	Having just finished my second successful (a real luthier might
    have an issue with it but it works fine for me) I feel qualified
    to talk about action setting.
    
    	The first thing I do is set the neck straight and check for
    flatness down the neck (acoustics usually have truss rod adjustments
    just like electrics...) I use a long carpenter's rule to gauge the
    neck... if the frets are level I move on.. if they aren't I dress
    them (masking tape over all fret board wood, shop file till all
    frets show wear, then 400 grade sand paper to crown each fret..
    this last step takes me about 4 hours.. I can't do it in one sitting
    and it raises many blisters)...  THEN I cut the nuts deeper if it
    looks like the strings are away from the neck at that end.. THEN
    I do the bridge.... I find this fret work really gratifying and
    I'm not sure why... seems to me that starting at the bridge would
    be premature.. what do you folks think??
    
    
    
    	Ohhhhh... your acoustic doesn't have a truss rod!!!  Never mind....

    re: .-1
    
    >then 400 grade sand paper to crown each fret..
    >this last step takes me about 4 hours.. I can't do it in one sitting
    >and it raises many blisters)...
    
    You might want to consider getting a fret file for this job. It is a
    file that is specially designed for crowning frets. They come in
    various sizes. I know Luthier's Mercantile carries them. They aren't
    exactly cheap, but neither is 4 hours of labor and a box of band-aids.
    
    - Ram

    The fret files I have still leave 'em pretty rough.  I suppose it's
    better than having to do that recrowning with the sandpaper, but still
    requires lotsa elbow grease afterward to get the frets really
    sparkling.
    
    You can also get fret files from Stewart Mcdonalds.  23.49 or 24.86
    each for one type or a 'three-in-one' set for 29.95.
    
    Greg

    
    
    
    	Yeah, I've considered purchasing a good fret file from
    Stewart-MacDonald's and always felt like it was a lot of money for
    a tool that I wouldn't use much.... but it seems like I keep doin'
    fret jobs....<grin>

    In the EVH biography I recently finished, it was mentioned that
    he files his frets so that they are practically pointed.  Have any
    of you tried this on an acoustic or do you stick with the flat frets?
    He claimed that it increases intonation.
    
    Mike

RE: < Note 561.22 by PNO::HEISER "B#, not Bb, you'll B(natural)" >
                           -< pointed frets anyone? >-

>    In the EVH biography I recently finished, it was mentioned that
>    he files his frets so that they are practically pointed.  Have any
>    of you tried this on an acoustic or do you stick with the flat frets?
>    He claimed that it increases intonation.
>    
>    Mike


I don't know what it means to increase intonation.  Improve intonation?
Anyway, I'm having a hard time understanding how it might improve anything.
Sounds like it would make slides (glissando) uncomfortable.

Bob

As far as Pointed Frets are concerned, they won't be pointed for long.
Fret wire is not that hard of a material & it can wear quite quickly.
Unless you want a re-fret job in the very near future, this is probably
not a good idea.

I find that some instruments (A Fender Strat, for example) have narrow
width frets that are fairly tall. Other Instruments (A Gibson Les Paul,
for example) Has wider frets & are not as tall. The fret wire on the
Strat is also harder than that on the Les Paul. The height/width of
the fret wire does change the feel & potentially the sound generated by the
guitar neck.

I can see how it could improve intonation, but I don't think that it will
make a significant impact unless the intonation is severly off on just
a few frets (good luck at fixing this problem).

				Jens_who_prefers_wide_frets

    There was one major luthier that used a triangular shaped (or filed?)
    fretwire for awhile.  I think his name started with a "P".  Something
    like Pedulla or something like that?
    
    Anyway he claimed improved intonation.  I'd think that the placement of
    the frets would be much more critical then the shape though.
    
    As Jens said, fretwire is fairly soft material.  I'd think they would
    wear exceptionally fast too.
    
    Greg

    At the risk of being a pin-head, I just have to say this is a crock
    (pointed frets improving intonation, that is). On any fret, whether it
    is rounded, pointed, or even flat on top, there is going to be one
    place at the front edge of where the string contacts the fret that is
    going to define the pitch. If this point is not there (i.e., there is
    more than one point of contact) you will get fret "buzzing".
    
    The only justification I can see at all for filing the frets to a point
    is that it might be a little easier to set exactly where this point of
    contact will fall. But in order to do it effectively, you would have to
    constantly test the intonation on each string at each fret as you were
    filing. This seems ridiculously difficult, to me.
    
    As has been mentioned, the frets are going to wear more quickly if
    filed to a point, so whatever effect might have been gained is going to
    be lost shortly as they start to flatten. In fact, if they were really
    filed for correct intonation to begin with, as they flatten they will
    cause the intonation to go bad. Whereas a rounded fret will cause less
    change in intonation as it wears. Think about it.
    
    - Ram

    re: fast wear
    
    Yep an interview I read with Eddie long ago indicated that he changed
    the frets (yep the frets) on his guitars frequently since by filing
    them pointed they wore out in a very short period of time...
                                                                     
    Sounds like too much work to me..and since he's such a whammy/bender
    I wonder how he can tell the difference anyway?
    
    dbii

    
    Re: .25
    
    You are thinking of Phil Petillo of NJ.  He was one of the founders
    of Kramer and his "Petillo frets" were used on the old metal-neck
    Kramers. I believe he even patented the design, but don't quote
    me.
     

    Yes!  That's him.  Thank you.

Ya know, the more I thnk about it (from a physics point of view), the 
more I believe it just might give you a cleaner note.  But I can't see
putting up with sharp frets that wear out every two months just to get 
a very slight improvement in the sound.  I agree with Ram that it shouldn't 
make a perceptible difference in the intonation.

Bob