Setting string height ?

[worth]

When setting action on electric guitars , Dan Erliwine uses a capo on the first fret.. Fender doesn't. But both use the same specs , ( 4/64 at the 17th fret on an American Tele ). There's quite a different end result in height between the two... which is "correct " ?

[Raybob]

They both are but string height at nut fret is CRITICAL.  If there's a big difference, you need to take down that nut.  When putting your finger down between second and third fret, you should see about .010 above the first fret under the strings.

Raybob

[Fresh_Start]

IMHO the "correct" string height is the lowest height possible without buzzing.  That will be a function of (1) neck relief, (2) how level your frets are, and (3) how you play.  Erlwine's instructions for guitar setup are just a starting point.

Raybob is talking about the height of the nut slots (I think), not overall string height.  Yes, it's very important and needs to be addressed before setting overall string height.

BTW this belongs in the guitar forum.

Chip

[worth]

Just talking about the string height at the 17th fret. Relief has been measured , and is correct at .010. Anyway.. Erlewine uses a capo on the 1st fret fret to completely ELIMINATE the nut from the equation when setting string height.  I wonder why Fender does not. By the way.. this is a brand new American Standard Tele I'm setting up.. so I'd be surprised if the nut slots are too high.

[tubesornothing]

There is no "correct" string height.  Purely preference.  If some metal players tried my guitars, they would freak at how high I have it.

[HotBluePlates]

Does Fender really measure string height at the 17th fret?

I used to work in the Gibson Nashville factory, and string height was measured and spec'd at the 12th fret.

The reason is grade-school geometry: the concept of similar triangles. If the 12th fret is nominally half the total string length (it is not, due to string-length compensation), then you have a fast way of knowing how much change to create at the saddle when you want a change at the 12th fret; it is double the amount of change in height at the saddle as what you want to see at the 12th fret (double the length of the base, so double the height at the saddle end).

There are subtle errors with this idea when applied to a guitar, but it comes really, really close. It also applies more to acoustic guitar saddles, as adjustable electric guitar saddles can be altered while still holding the ruler at the 12th fret.

By the way, the Gibson standard is 4/64th for the high E and 6/64th for the low E, at the 12th fret (for electrics; it's 5/64th and 7/64th, respectively, for acoustic models).

[Raybob]

Just talking about the string height at the 17th fret. Relief has been measured , and is correct at .010.

I wasn't speaking of neck relief, I was speaking of how low the strings sit in the nut.  If you had a difference between using a capo or not when measuring higher up (thought you meant 12th fret, not 17th speaking of high e string), then the nut is too high.

... By the way.. this is a brand new American Standard Tele I'm setting up.. so I'd be surprised if the nut slots are too high.

I did repairs for a music store that wasn't a dealer for Fender but handled many other brands.  EVERY new guitar that came in needed to be set up.  I've also done setups on brand new Fender guitars that had come from Musician's Friend.  They my be friendly to musicians on price but not on setups.

Raybob

[HotBluePlates]

  EVERY new guitar that came in needed to be set up.  I've also done setups on brand new Fender guitars that had come from Musician's Friend.  They my be friendly to musicians on price but not on setups.

Raybob

You're absolutely right that *every* instrument needs its setup checked when it arrives at the store.

I do know that Gibson does a basic setup for every guitar leaving the factory, and every Taylor I've seen at a store has a good basic setup. But I know you know that a true setup is individual to the player's style and preference, and ideally the store would do a setup for the player when they buy a new instrument and before it leaves the store.

That used to be the general practice in the old days of stores that specialized in service, and is extremely rare in the modern days of big-box stores...

[jjasilli]

Erlewine describes "Fender's ten-step setup", and does use a capo! Step 3.  Step 5: set string height to factory specs 3/32 - 1/8. That equals 6/64's to 8/64's.

But the Fender sight (no capo) recommends 4/64's.  http://www.fender.com/support/stratocaster.php
That should reconcile the seeming discrepancy.

[G._Hoffman]

We used to have a saying in my Time Code for Audio class at Berklee, and I'm sure most engineers have heard it;  "The great thing about standards is there are so many of them!"


Manufacturer's specs are just that - what the manufacturer uses to setup a guitar coming out of a factory.  and they do an OK job, when you remember what they are after.  They are NOT trying to put out the best playing guitar you have ever held.  What they are after is a guitar that plays pretty well, and will never, EVER, buzz while it is on the wall in the store.  Why?  Because they have been told over and over again by all of their dealers that if a customer picks up a guitar that buzzes, they will put it down and never pick it up again.  Ever.  

And you know what?  If you are a Bluegrass strummer who is banging out chords and bass runs all day, that setup might work for you.  If you want a guitar with a bit more subtlety to it (and that isn't a knock on Bluegrass), you are probably going to want a bit more carefully adjusted setup.  And THAT is a highly personal thing.  Some players (well, lets be honest, most of them) want their action as low as possible without buzzing.  This depends on so many things, though, that numbers and specs are pretty hard to come up with accurately.  They can be a starting point, but for a really good setup that is usually all they are.  

Lets take two of my customers.  Both great players; one of them is a world class acoustic fingerstyle innovator.  He's been making records for more than 40 years now, and spends about 200 nights a year on the road.  He is one of the best players in the world (no joke, he really is), and he pushes his guitar really hard (though not as hard as he used to).  The other is largely an electric session guy, and does a similar number of gigs every year, though more of them are local.  He also puts out instrumental jazz records, and does a fair bit of touring to support them.  

The fingerstyle guy likes his action to fight back a little.  His necks will usually have a bit more relief in them because he drives the strings so hard, and his action is a bit higher than others would prefer.  I find his guitars pretty tough to play, but they are his thing.  He's also pretty comfortable with things not being exactly where he might prefer (which is good, with as many climate changes as his guitars go through), so if things are acting up a bit he can bring the action up and be OK.  

The session guy has had some health problems that keep his hands a little weaker than he would like.  Because of this, he needs his guitars pretty easy to play, but he also needs to have enough room that he can get some real dynamic range (which you loose as your action goes down).  So, his necks are pretty straight, and his action is pretty low.  This leads to a bit of a problem for him, though, which is that his frets are critical.  He ends up having to get his frets dressed (very lightly, mind you) quite frequently, because any small spot of wear will cause his guitars to buzz.  (we've been moving him to stainless steel frets because of this, though he is always a bit skiddish about new things).  

So who is right?  Both of them.  But they are not aiming for the same target.  Fender is aiming for something that is tolerable by most people.  Dan is looking for a starting point at a more complete setup.  

Finally, if you really do want the "as low as possible without buzzing," setup, don't expect to get your guitar perfect yourself.  It takes a lot of practice, and a lot of expertise.  


Gabriel

[jjasilli]

So who is right?  Both of them.  But they are not aiming for the same target.  Fender is aiming for something that is tolerable by most people.  Dan is looking for a starting point at a more complete setup. 

Well put. But I don't think this is tenessee's question.  Rather I think he wonders why the 2 recommendations seem to be inconsistent.  The answer is that they are not inconsistent, because they call for different string heights at the 17th fret, depending upon whether a capo is used or not.  So tenessee is wondering what starting piont to set his string height at the 17th fret.  Use the Fender height with no capo.  Use the Erlewine height with a capo.  Tweak from there. 

As to string height at the nut, there are 2 operating parameters, hi & lo.  Too low and there's buzz.  Too high and the strings will bend out of tune when you fret then at the first fret.  Anything in between is fine, to your taste. 

[Fresh_Start]

Getting to HBP's question about 12th fret vs. 17th fret, perhaps it has to do with neck relief instead of triangulation?  IOW most guitars are darn near flat from the 17th fret to the bridge.  Whatever relief there is probably starts at or very near the 17th fret, so maybe that measurement point takes your choice regarding neck relief out of the equation...

2CW (or less)

Chip

[G._Hoffman]

For what its worth, we always measure string height at the twelfth fret.


Gabriel

[worth]

Reading responses to my posts can be very odd...it seems that jjasilli is the only one who really read it.

[GuitarPilot65]

This book has been my go-to reference for many years:
http://www.amazon.com/Guitar-Handbook-Ralph-Denyer/dp/0679742751/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299861046&sr=1-1

It includes a technique for restringing and setting the "action."