How low is low action?

[river251]

How do you define low action? Luthiers never get my strings down where I want them, except Tom Jones, owner of TV Jones guitars and who no longer works on guitars. Nobody has ever been able to do a neck like him.

How many 64ths between the strings and the 12th fret? One dime?

Jim

[Flint]

If I can stick a 1mm pick between the 12th fret and the high E string and it stays there when I shake the guitar, then I'm happy.

[Spook410]

It helps if you can communicate in actual values when talking to your tech. I've enjoyed having one of these around:
STEWMAC.COM : String Action Gauge

[PTChristopher]

Do you mean, "What is commonly considered to be low action when measured as clearance of the E strings above the 12th fret?"

If so then in my opinion, something around 1.5 mm (= 1/16", = 4/64") is generally considered "low".

Now with a poorly set up nut and poorly set neck relief, this sort of action can be both buzzy up the neck and miserably difficult to play in positions near the nut.

So far better, in my view, to think of action that way your guitar and strings do:

1. Start at the nut. Get the nut slots DOWN. I mean down so that they are at the same height as the frets. This is rarely the case, and unfortunately even some formally trained techs/luthiers will still leave the nut too high for reasons that seemingly are more anthropological then otherwise.

2. Set neck relief based on some reasonable limits. Call "zero" the low limit, and as much as .020" to .025" (about 0,5 to 0,65 mm) the upper limit. Although some really heavy low position chord chompers might like SLIGHTLY more relief. If you have no idea, make your relief about the same as the thickness of your B string. If this seems like too little, stay with it anyway - in my opinion.

3. Now if your nut is too high and your relief is excessive (and we have described the majority of guitars on shop walls), then an action of 1/16" at the 12th fret will be difficult to get to without significant trouble. The poor nut and relief will lift the string way above the 12th fret, so your bridge will have to be absurdly low.

Or in short, "about 1/16" inch or less is low action, but there is more to making this happen."

Chris

[jazzrat]

I'd say under 1/16th would considered low but I run mine under that.
Depends on the guitar but somewhere around 2.5- 3 64ths

[PTChristopher]

Oh, I meant neck relief as measured as clearance above the 6th fret when the strings are pressed down at the first and 14th fret.

Or, more or less - press down the strings at the first fret and the fret were the neck joins the body, then look at the maximum clearance above the fret about half-way along this space.

In my opinion. Others may have a more useful way to do this.

Chris

[paynow]

It helps if you can communicate in actual values when talking to your tech. I've enjoyed having one of these around:
STEWMAC.COM : String Action Gauge

Thanks for this. I really need one of these and I'm a Stew fan so it's a no brainer.

Do you go with the metric or inches?

[jdaguitar2]

At work I measure guitars every day for specs when selling them online.

In general for solid body electrics I find that .030" to .060" measuring at the 12th fret is a generally "comfortable" action for most players. Archtops and steel string flat-tops I see from .040" to .100" to be acceptable and or preferred.

I prefer measuring in thousandths so I can get a more precise reading.

I believe that neck relief should be adjusted prior to tweaking string height (action). I see that most necks play and feel best with no more than .030" neck relief (which is a lot).

Most solid bodies will range from 0.002" (shred metal, .009 gauge strings, flat fingerboard radii) to .012" for strat style guitars to .012 to .020 for heavy stringed archtops and flat-top steel strings.

I recommend a Mitutoyo 500-196-20 and a Craftsman 40081.

[lotsofguitars]

depends on your preference, as long as there's a decent space between the strings the fret bars you're good to go.

[Spook410]

Thanks for this. I really need one of these and I'm a Stew fan so it's a no brainer.

Do you go with the metric or inches?

Inches.. they didn't have the metric when I got mine. For my purposes either would be fine. Just like how handy it is.

(when I worked at NASA there was a government poster promoting the adoption of metric. Got a tape measure. Poster was 30" X 20".)

Used this thread as an excuse to check relief on a couple of guitars. There is more than there should be.

This Stewmac 'how to' on nuts has sample set ups for various factories and artists. STEWMAC.COM : Nut Making and Setup Free information

[PTChristopher]

Hiya Spook,

In my opinion measuring nut slot height as a clearance above the first fret is remarkably and profoundly ill-conceived. But I though the same thing about "The Brady Bunch" yet it was a hit.

If you raise or lower the action at the bridge, or adjust neck relief, you will change the clearance of the string above the first fret. Yet neither of these adjustments has anything whatsoever to do with nut height.

I still can not believe that Stewmac would use this absurd and misguided metric.

Actually I can sort of see why they would promote it as a method, but my view results in considerable cynicism that would serve no purpose to mention here.

The nut height is only optimized when set relative to the height established by the frets. Neck relief and bridge height have no bearing whatsoever on this.

Measuring clearance above the first fret per Stewmac, measures an unknown combination of all three things: nut height, neck relief, bridge height.

Actually it is a little worse than that even,...

Amazingly unfortunate advice and methodology from the fine folks at Stewmac.

All in my opinion, especially about "The Brady Bunch".

Chris

[Spook410]

Making and/or modifying the nut is still an advanced topic around here. This time around I was just looking at relief. I put a capo on the first fret, held down the 14th fret and measured relief in the middle. Both guitars I looked at were well over the .001" to .002" range. It's possible I'm missing something very basic, but I may need to adjust a truss rod or two.

Edit: There is something basic I'm not getting here. Stewmac shows .002" for an acoustic. Frets.com suggests .013" - .026". I can experiment with what 'feels' right but it would be nice to have some reasonable starting point.

[paynow]

Thanks Spook. I'll take the word of a NASA employee and go with inches. I figure if you folks can send those little ships to Mars, you must be pretty good at measuring. Much better than me, that's for sure.

[Spook410]

Thanks Spook. I'll take the word of a NASA employee and go with inches. I figure if you folks can send those little ships to Mars, you must be pretty good at measuring. Much better than me, that's for sure.

Well.. um.. except for that part where they didn't convert from feet to meters in some key software and crashed a Mars lander some year back.

[PTChristopher]

[Spook] >>> There is something basic I'm not getting here. Stewmac shows .002" for an acoustic. Frets.com suggests .013" - .026". I can experiment with what 'feels' right but it would be nice to have some reasonable starting point.

In my opinion, there are two reasons for neck relief. One really good one, and one sort of arguable one.

1. The good one:

Strings vibrate in what is very roughly an arc. If the neck follows such an arc to some extent, then you can get slightly lower action with limited buzz.

The extent of the optimum neck relief depends on the extent of the string arc, and this varies from player to player, and from guitar to guitar.

2. The sort of arguable one:

Relief, especially pretty significant relief, results in progressively more clearance of the string above the nearest fret as you play in lower positions. So things get more buzz free down low, but your "action" feels lower up high.

This helps you slash though clean chords down low, but play fast and acurate up high.

I am not a big fan of reason #2, but sure enough, for some players a touch more relief works perfectly for their style and combination of Blues/Rock CAGED chords down low and minor pentatonic solos up high. So if a player complains of buzz down low and too much action up high, and everything looks fine with the frets, I'll sneak in a bit more relief.

How much relief?

I suggest that jdaguitar2 gave a great summary of this above. My earlier summary is also not too bad, and for the most part gets you to the same place as jda's summary.

OR

Set your relief to the thickness of your B string for starters. Use your 1st and 14th fret method. Now play and see how it goes. Let us know what you think.

>>> Stewmac shows .002" for an acoustic. Frets.com suggests .013" - .026".

.002" is really very little relief and consistent with a very light touch on the strings. Not that anyone asked, but in my opinion Stewmac is a wonderful business with great products and services. They do, however, sometimes give advice that is not entirely optimal in my opinion.

.013" to .026" is a pretty wide range and .026" is really getting toward the extreme in my opinion. This sounds like a great range for a strong-playing acoustic guitarist. In my view this is the focus of Frank Ford and frets.com, so no surprise there. Great website and superb (really superb) views, info, and advice on guitars.

Irritating note: In my opinion, you can only really set relief and bridge height after the nut is optimized. It is a pain, but getting the nut right is really the key to an optimal setup - if really optimal is the goal.

Chris

[bborzell]

At work I measure guitars every day for specs when selling them online.

In general for solid body electrics I find that .030" to .060" measuring at the 12th fret is a generally "comfortable" action for most players. Archtops and steel string flat-tops I see from .040" to .100" to be acceptable and or preferred.

I prefer measuring in thousandths so I can get a more precise reading.

I believe that neck relief should be adjusted prior to tweaking string height (action). I see that most necks play and feel best with no more than .030" neck relief (which is a lot).

Most solid bodies will range from 0.002" (shred metal, .009 gauge strings, flat fingerboard radii) to .012" for strat style guitars to .012 to .020 for heavy stringed archtops and flat-top steel strings.

I recommend a Mitutoyo 500-196-20 and a Craftsman 40081.

I get the Mitutoyo, but why the framer's gloves?

[Stevebol]

I always thought the nut slot height should be equal to the fret height for the sake of intonation. It's fairly easy to do with a pencil ground down to the center to mark it. If the slots are too high intonation will be off- and noticeable when playing first postion chords.

[paynow]

Well.. um.. except for that part where they didn't convert from feet to meters in some key software and crashed a Mars lander some year back.

I'm completely fascinated that people can get anything into space and make it work, even if it crashes on occasion.

[Tom Karol]

@ PTChristopher (re: The Brady Bunch):

Yes, the show was incredibly lame, but you have to agree that Marcia was hot!

[oldane]

I'm not a big fan of a very low action. A very low action will diminish the potential amplitude of the vibrating string. Even if the string doesn't buzz, it will slap against the frets when hit harder. A higher action wil provide a greater dynamic range (more potential volume) and absense of string slap (= a cleaner tone). One gets used the higher action after a while. The added benefit of this is that one will be able to play pretty much any guitar that is handed over.

My Painter archtop (amplified) has just under 3mm action at the 12th fret (with La Bella 15-56 flatwounds). My Triggs archtop (acoustic, used for rhythm) has 4mm action at the 12th fret (with 13-56 bronze strings) and a bit more relief.

[PTChristopher]

[Stevebol] >>> I always thought the nut slot height should be equal to the fret height for the sake of intonation.

>>> If the slots are too high intonation will be off- and noticeable when playing first postion chords.

I agree. The nut needs to be at fret height for playability and limited low position intonation trouble. We were just talking about action in the thread so I try not to drift off the main point.

Actually, even with the nut exactly at fret height, there is still a small effect that causes low position intonation issues. It is a small effect compared to the effect that is compensated at the bridge, so it is commonly ignored.

It is much easier to discuss this low position intonation issue (even with the nut set up perfectly) if one is 100% familiar with bridge compensation and how/why it is used.

But yes, absolutely. Then nut has a huge bearing on both intonation and playability. A high nut is more evil than,... well maybe we have a "what is evil" rant going on on the forum already, so refer there.

Get them nuts down. Only then is relief and bridge height really able to be set up.

In my opinion.

Chris

[PTChristopher]

[Tom Karol] >>> but you have to agree that Marcia was hot!

Yeah, she could really fill her tic-tac-toe box.

Chris

[oldane]

I always thought the nut slot height should be equal to the fret height for the sake of intonation. It's fairly easy to do with a pencil ground down to the center to mark it. If the slots are too high intonation will be off- and noticeable when playing first postion chords.

I prefer it just a slight tad higher. When exactly level with the frets there will be high pitched buzzes between the nut and the fretted note - especially if there is almost no relief, which many prefer these days. I find that buzz annoying.

[PTChristopher]

Oldane is sneaking us into the very advanced (in my opinion) parts of this question.

In my view, I understand the buzz to which OD refers, but I have never had a practical problem with it. But in other news,...

1. The vast majority of nuts are so silly high, that a blanket, "Get the nuts down." seems best.

2. But yeah, there is more to it. But get the nuts DOWN.

3. There is some danger for an inexperienced, or unobservant, or hurried, tech/luthier setting up the slot with brand new strings that are not settled into a bend over the nut. I was going to say "nut horizon" but then it sounds as dreary as that awful Stephen Hawking book.

If the strings are not settled in, you can accidentally make the slots lower than the frets, which is the only thing worse (but not by much) than high slots.

But get the nuts DOWN.

4. Strings are not infinitely or perfectly flexible. This is not new info. But it does have an effect on how the vibration arc is shaped at the ends. You might think this would help first fret clearance, but a sort of node develops in stiffer strings and this can make for an odd transient vibration on open strings. So, if a player has:

a. a very strong attack
b. plays downward on the strings vs. very perpendicular to them
c. wants virtually no relief (and .002" is virtually none)

then yeah, you might want to sneak the low E and A higher by almost less than you can see.

But get the nuts DOWN.

In my opinion.

Chris

[PTChristopher]

OD,

I made a minor edit to my above post since I seemed to (and did) originally ignore your point.