The Loar LH-600 - Heavy Strings

[Jwr]

Hello,

I hope someone with knowledge about this instrument could help me:

Will I with an «extreme» setup (strings 14-60, 9mm action) risk damage to the neck, joint or top?

Am I right to assume that a resonant, carved guitar will be a lighter build than the pressed top, stiff and robust german-ish thing i have today?

Also, should I expect The Loar to continue to deliver more volume with increased tension, or will it at some point be choked?

I don’t have the opportunity to try one before I order, and the whole point of it is to play louder :-)


J

[Cunamara]

I have never played one of those guitars, nor have I used the kind of set up you are talking about; 9 mm action? It would be almost impossible to properly intonate the instrument. An archtop is a pretty robust instrument, thanks to the structural strength of the arch, and I wouldn't be surprised if it would tolerate those string gauges just fine. The neck joint is the real issue, IMHO, and with the action that high you are moving the loading angle further away from the strongest axis of the neck and neck joint. Tune it down a half step, probably no problem.

I have found most instruments do eventually start to choke when string tension is too high. For every guitar there is a point of diminishing returns. I am not a member of the cult of heavy strings.

In my experience, heavier strings do not necessarily produce more volume; they produce fewer overtones. No acoustic guitar, except possibly a resonator, is going to compete with a saxophone or trumpet or drums or piano for volume. If you have to be that loud, amplify.

[mr. beaumont]

9mm action sounds insane, but the Loar necks are fat as hell, they can take the heavies.

[Christian Miller]

Hello,

I hope someone with knowledge about this instrument could help me:

Will I with an «extreme» setup (strings 14-60, 9mm action) risk damage to the neck, joint or top?

Am I right to assume that a resonant, carved guitar will be a lighter build than the pressed top, stiff and robust german-ish thing i have today?

Also, should I expect The Loar to continue to deliver more volume with increased tension, or will it at some point be choked?

I don’t have the opportunity to try one before I order, and the whole point of it is to play louder :-)


J

Ive not put that heavy a bottom on a Loar but I’ve gone up to 15 on the top and as far as I know you can continue to crank that action as much as you like. No issues with the neck or neck joint so far and I’ve had the guitar for 10 years

ive settled down to nickel bronze 12s which so the job nicely. I don’t think going heavier adds much, but people say you need at least 12s to drive the top. Rhythm action is typically around 5mm for me, jazz action down to 3mm or less, perfectly playable.

in practice I think you’ll find the guitar is plenty loud and after a while there’s a law of diminishing returns for any guitar no matter how loud.

Adjusting the action is very easy with the thumbwheels. I often do it on the gig; so if I’m playing rhythm acoustically with a loud band and need more sound I can raise it; if I’m playing more intricate music and am amplified I can lower it. It’s pretty cool. It can be made to play very easily if you set the truss rod right even with monster strings, and so you can easily experiment.

they are built pretty solidly. I imagine the real thing is a bit lighter although I can’t remember.

bloody love this guitar. Was a bargain when I picked it up. The only problem has been finding a perfect pickup. The Krivo micro Manouche is good, but I need a bit closer to the strings ideally.

Guitar is very directional - the f holes really ‘beam’ the sound. In traditional swing guitar position (f holes facing up) I think the idea is that the sound bounces off the ceiling and radiates into the room.

[Christian Miller]

Oh one thing I should mention- mine was not a guitar that was perfect out of the box. In particular the low E was buzzy. I built up the bit a little with superglue and talcum powder and that helped a lot, but these are not high end instruments with immaculate fit and finish. Given I picked mine up for a song, I was happy to look at it as a little bit of a fixer upper; as they are more expensive these days YMMV. But there’s nothing else like them in that price bracket.

A lot of people really hate the triangular neck profile. If you are into this sort of style and now what it’s for, you’ll like it; it’s designed to help extreme actions be more playable.

[Jwr]

Cunamara, mr.Beaumont and Christian Miller!
Thank you for your replies.
Yes, 9 mm is too much, and with a better neck angle probably unnecessary for me.( would be nice to manage to fret a second string sometimes)

Christian Miller:
there’s no doubt anymore, this is what I need. Thanks.

[RJVB]

Yes, 9 mm is too much, and with a better neck angle probably unnecessary for me

Mind you, the neck angle isn't the steepest on Loars. I don't know if it's still necessary to check this parameter on a new instrument but know that the discontinued LH-650 was known to come with almost no angle at all in some cases.

Also: what 60-gauge low E were you thinking of? IIRC the one from the Plectrum AC112 set is already a 59-gauge, but of rather modest tension not uncommon for a set of 12s. I've moved down a bit nonetheless because I find that such a thick string is tricky to hold down properly even when it doesn't have as much tension as you'd expect.

[Jwr]

Hi RJBV.
I was wrong about the gauges. It’s 14-59, PB.
My current setup is just to make an old pressed top, with a slightly warped neck, do the four to the bar thing. If the Loar doesn’t need it, my fingers will be grateful.
I’ll pay extra attention to the neck angle when shopping. Thanks.
J

[Christian Miller]

Don't worry about the neck angle. This doesn't indicate neck creep, it's just that not all arch tops were built with a lot of neck angle to them. Loar's don't have much (and low clearance for a pickup as a result unfortunately) but this is how they are designed.

It's not like an old Hofner or something.

[RJVB]

Don't worry about the neck angle. This doesn't indicate neck creep

Indeed it doesn't; I mentioned QC and the fact this was a thing with the LH-650 (which has a different neck anyway), right?

[John A.]

Don't worry about the neck angle. This doesn't indicate neck creep, it's just that not all arch tops were built with a lot of neck angle to them. Loar's don't have much (and low clearance for a pickup as a result unfortunately) but this is how they are designed.

It's not like an old Hofner or something.

I'm not sure what neck creep is (sounds a bit like someone you'd want to avoid in a public park), but the issue with Loars is not so much design as execution. On many of the earlier ones the neck angle was so shallow that even with the bridge screwed all the way down the action was unplayably high. From what I understand, Loar corrected this from some point in time forward, and new ones are a safe bet. But there are still a lot of used ones on the market that have this problem. A couple of years ago, I tried an LH-600 that had action that was close to 1/2" at the 12th fret. If buying a used Loar online, I think it's very important to get the seller to provide neck action measurements and agree to accept a return if you can't get the action down to a reasonable height (e.g., no higher than 6/64") with adjustment room left on the bridge. I was interested in a LH-650 at one point, but the seller was vague about neck angle and action, and wouldn't budge about his no-return policy. Fuggedaboudit.

[Jwr]

Hi again.
I got myself a LH-700, and it’s great.

However, with my preferred 5 mm action, the saddle is at its maximum height. This looks a bit unsafe, with the thumbwheels at the tip of the post.
I also wonder if the bridge will be less effective with a weak connection from saddle to base.
I see no sign of top sinkage, and the neck has plenty of relief.
Strings:80/20 13-56

I could:
-Get a taller saddle.
-Install taller posts.
-Taller base.
-Not worry, because its perfectly normal.

Too many options….could you please help me?

jwr

[deacon Mark]

If a guitar needs 9 mm action to get it to punch, then it was carved wrong. Play with normal action on an acoustic 5/64 and 6/64. That is plenty and more than I ever go.

Heavy strings not an issue but to me you are fighting a battle. Relax and use 13-56 bronze wound. If you cannot get punch on that then get another guitar. Your hands and health are important.

Also size makes a difference. 18 inch box is called for in pure 4 bar power. If you have deep pockets go for an 18. Play with a sane touch and it will even sound better l
Ok I am done.

[campusfive]

Also size makes a difference. 18 inch box is called for in pure 4 bar power. If you have deep pockets go for an 18. Play with a sane touch and it will even sound better l
Ok I am done.

Hard disagree. Most of the 18 inch guitars I've played has less power and projection than their 17 inch counterparts.
And the extra bottom end fullness is useless in a full band context.
Heck my 16" L-5 was bigger and punchier than the Super 400's I've compared it to.
I've compared my 1939 17" L-5 to early small top-bout Super 400's, to a practically matching 1939, and several post-was ones, and none of them had the power of an L-5. I've had better luck with Emperors, but I still think a the 17" options almost always have more projection and power.
(I'm speaking of pre-1950's acoustic version of these guitars, obviously....) And not to say that a Super 400 can't be lovely... but there's a reason while I've often heard them referred to as "Silent Giants".

Of course, if you can get yourself a Stromberg Master 400... a properly set-up one of those is almost like playing a cello or a string bass, in terms of power.
But I'd say that's an outlier anyway.

As the the OP, I think your action and bridge is probably fine. I'd spend as much energy and effort as you can into playing it, and if you have something left to worry about the "gear side" of it, look for a Triumph or L-7 to upgrade to eventually rather than trying to change the bridge.

I'm going to be honest and say that PROPERLY fitting a new bridge to a carved top guitar is something for a truly specialist luthier, because if it's not done right... the guitar will never sound right. If you happen to live close to somebody who does a LOT of acoustic archtops... then sure upgrade the bridge to something with some more range. If the top of the existing bridge were short, you could swap just the top more easily, but the bridge base is where the all of the vibrations get translated from the strings to the top - it's literally where the "rubber meets the road", so to speak. But yeah, I'd suggest living with it, and save up for something vintage eventually.

[RJVB]

Of course, if you can get yourself a Stromberg Master 400... a properly set-up one of those is almost like playing a cello or a string bass, in terms of power.

Is that what Freddy Green played? Al Carruth has a story about that: "My voice teacher, who had a masters in guitar from Berklee, saw a guitar that had been owned by Freddie Green at a vintage show. It was a 19" wide Stromberg, a top of the line carved top guitar. The strings were about 1/4" (6mm) off the frets at the 12th fret, and the low E was about .070" (~1.8mm) diameter. He asked if that was the way Freddie played it, and was told it was. He picked it up, and after struggling to form a chord, strummed it. Everybody in the hotel ballroom jumped, and looked in his direction. "

[RJVB]

Congrats with the find!

However, with my preferred 5 mm action, the saddle is at its maximum height.

That sounds about right; I think my LH650 would also max out its stock saddle to get that kind of action.

It's a lot though, even if not Deacon's 9mm; even classical guitars do not usually have that kind of action.

To quote your own words about what you're coming from:

My current setup is just to make an old pressed top, with a slightly warped neck, do the four to the bar thing. If the Loar doesn’t need it, my fingers will be grateful.

Is it possible that your preference will evolve to something a little more ergonomic and friendly to your fingers, if you allow it?

I don't do comping, but I fingerpick trying to get an acoustic sound that can compete with classical guitars. That's much harder than one might think and requires really digging into the strings. I'll get the occasional fret buzz with my current action and relief setting but it's definitely not at 5mm. The buzz I get is also more a result of a few high spots and a barely visible humb at the start of the neck extension (fortunately mostly on the bass side). If you want to spend money on "upgrades", get a fret dress-and-level (or even a plek) done, let tte luthier set action and relief to ideal values, and then work with those - bottom-up rather than top-down

[coyote-1]

Ultimately it ain’t about the thickness of the strings. It’s about the interaction of the strings, the top, and the air in the box.

It’s also about the interplay in the music. In an ensemble like Basie’s, where Greene was unamplified and setting a pulse for an entire orchestra, what really mattered was that pulse. Sustain? Irrelevant. His role was to create a rhythmic pulse that helped establish the tonal center below all those textured horns and whatnot.

The choice of strings & guitar size that worked in that configuration would not work at all for, say, John Abercrombie. Or Jimmy Bruno.

[ccroft]

Hi again.
I got myself a LH-700, and it’s great.

However, with my preferred 5 mm action, the saddle is at its maximum height. This looks a bit unsafe, with the thumbwheels at the tip of the post.
I also wonder if the bridge will be less effective with a weak connection from saddle to base.
I see no sign of top sinkage, and the neck has plenty of relief.
Strings:80/20 13-56

I could:
-Get a taller saddle.
-Install taller posts.
-Taller base.
-Not worry, because its perfectly normal.

Too many options….could you please help me?

jwr

Congratulations on the new baby! Others will know more about this than myself, and may actually have direct experience: I've read about people beefing up a saddle simply by gluing a chunk of matching wood to the base and shaping it to match.

[daverepair]

To the OP, JWR: I have sometimes, when an acoustic archtop bridge must be adjusted high(leaving most of the threaded studs exposed, and little of the saddle supported by the studs):

Added to the bottom of the saddle, by gluing a piece of rosewood or ebony(depending) to the bottom of the saddle, then shaping it to match, and redrilling the holes. This 'shim' adds thickness to the saddle, and increasing it's support by the threaded studs. I like to see the saddle well supported(from leaning) by the studs.

The alternative would be to make a new saddle, from one piece, but that's a fair bit more work.

[Jwr]

Thank you everybody for your answers.

I will secure the saddle with extra rosewood, and go back to not worrying.

I find the high action necessary in some situations, but of course for less harsh conditions, I go back to a normal set up.
JWR