Dear Timothy, I'm glad to hear you managed to solve the problem. You could also have replaced the fingerboard with one which was thicker at the nut end. I agree that trying to remove the neck and reglue it is an absolute last resort.
Best wishes, Martin Timothy Motz wrote: >Michael, >No, it resulted in the opposite problem. The strings were about 2 mm >above the neck at the join with the body, and there wasn't enough of an >angle to the strings for them to clear the frets as I played, no matter >how much I dropped the diameters of the frets as I went down the neck. >I ended up making a new bridge that was higher and increased the angle >of the strings (I also made the bridge higher on the bass side by about >1 mm, since most of the problem was on the 6th and 7th courses). I had >angled back the neck on purpose (as you say, I was following Lundberg's >advice), but I over-did it. The thought of taking the neck off and >re-angling it was more than I wanted to contemplate, so the bridge >seemed like the only alternative. In a way, it was an interesting >problem and taught me a lot about string set-up and how to deal with >problems. I learned that I could remove a bridge that had been glued >(firmly) with hide glue and not damage the soundboard. Fortunately, >I'm not making a living doing this, so I can screw up without it >affecting my income. I would have been very unhappy if this lute had >been intended for a client. > >Tim > >On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 05:57 PM, Michael Thames wrote: > > > >>> I just got finished fixing a problem with the >>>neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know >what the >>>effect of neck angle will be >>> >>> >> Timothy, sounds like you were reading Lundberg's bad advice about >>angling the neck back. It should be angled forward. As you see this >>doesn't >>work out so well. Unless you like the strings to float 10mm off the >>top. >>Michael Thames >>www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "timothy motz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>; >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:52 AM >>Subject: Re: Built-in action? >> >> >> >> >>>Michael, >>> >>> >>Sure it does. If the neck angles back it brings the strings closer >>to paralleling the neck, assuming that the height of the nut and >>bridge stay the same. That in turn means that there is a limit to >>how high you can raise the action by raising the nut before the >>strings actually angle the wrong way relative to the neck. But the >>angle of the neck doesn't have much affect on how high up off the >>soundboard the strings will be. That is mostly determined by the >>height of the bridge. I just got finished fixing a problem with the >>neck angling back too much, so I've had reason to know what the >>effect of neck angle will be. >> >>Tim >> >> >>>---- Original Message ---- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>To: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED], >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: Re: Built-in action? >>>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:20:55 -0600 >>> >>> >>> >>>>>Vance wrote, >>>>>This is not entirely true. The most significant influence >upon >>>>> >>>>> >>>the action >>> >>> >>>>>of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the >bridge and >>>>> >>>>> >>>how >>> >>> >>>>large >>>> >>>> >>>>>the clearance is at the joint between the neck and the >belly. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Vance this isn't true either. The only thing the angle of the >>>> >>>> >>>neck >>> >>> >>>>will affect, is how high off the top the strings ride at the bridge. >>>> >>>> >>>It has >>> >>> >>>>nothing to do with the action. >>>>Michael Thames >>>>www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com >>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>From: "Vance Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>To: "lute list" <[email protected]>; "Herbert Ward" >>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:34 AM >>>>Subject: Re: Built-in action? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>>From: "Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>To: <[email protected]> >>>>>Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:35 PM >>>>>Subject: Built-in action? >>>>>Hi Herbert: >>>>> >>>>>You wrote: The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets >>>>> >>>>> >>>are, >>> >>> >>>>>>which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret >>>>>>diameters. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>This is not entirely true. The most significant influence upon >>>>> >>>>> >>>the action >>> >>> >>>>>of the Lute is the relationship between the nut and the bridge and >>>>> >>>>> >>>how >>> >>> >>>>large >>>> >>>> >>>>>the clearence is at the joint between the neck and the belly. If >>>>> >>>>> >>>this is >>> >>> >>>>>not right it does not matter what kind of frets you choose to put >>>>> >>>>> >>>on the >>> >>> >>>>>Lute, the action will forever suck. The reason that a Lute over >>>>> >>>>> >>>time will >>> >>> >>>>>develop a slower or higher action is due to this joint becoming >>>>> >>>>> >>>less than >>> >>> >>>>>180 degrees because the tension of the strings has pulled the neck >>>>> >>>>> >>>higher. >>> >>> >>>>>Vance Wood. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I have a regard for the dedication and talent of luthiers, >>>>>>who build fine instruments from unformed chunks of wood. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nevertheless, I do not quite understand why they are >>>>>>credited with the action of a lute. >>>>>> >>>>>>The luthier's work merely determines where the _bottoms_ >>>>>>of the frets are. >>>>>> >>>>>>The action depends on where the _tops_ of the frets are, >>>>>>which is controlled by the person who chooses the fret >>>>>>diameters. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>To get on or off this list see list information at >>>>>>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >
