Quote:
Or, more accurately, optimal neck angle and saddle height on new guitars which allow the player enough saddle to lower the action if they so choose to do so at time of purchase, not to mention lowering it over the years as the neck angle changes with guitar aging. From Frets.com; http://www.frets.com/FRETSPages/Musi...neckangle.html And from William Cumpiaon; http://www.cumpiano.com/Home/Newslet...wsletter3.html From the end of his discussion; "I recently visited a major guitar factory to assist a good friend in selecting a guitar (he was an ace dealer and his reward was to pick one out). Only one guitar in a dozen had anything even approaching an ideal neck angle. He couldn't believe it. The guys in the factory got most upset at me. I felt like the messenger with bad news that was about to be killed. Most of the guitars we examined (which, indeed, were ready for shipping), had string actions higher than would be comfortable for the ordinary player, and saddles which invariably were too low. When a new guitar like that reaches its destination and its already-low saddle is adjusted (by the music store techie) down even further in order to remedy the stiff action, there will be nothing left to adjust over the guitar's long future of progressive settling-in. Virtually all the guitars we examined in the shipping room of that guitar factory were candidates for an expensive neck reset barely five or six months down the road -- if not right then and there. After examining about fifty guitars, we found one that happened to have nice low action, and a full-height saddle. I don't want to go through that ordeal again. Ideally, after a guitar receives its first readjustment following an initial settling-in period, there ought to be sufficient saddle height left for a long lifetime of downwards adjustments. On all these guitars, a better neck angle would have assured this "quality." Sadly, the production engineers at that factory missed a golden opportunity to impart this additional measure of value into their instruments. " I agree with Bill's comments. Seems like it is more common to see new guitars in stores with improper neck angles than proper ones. BTW, Thanks for fighting the good fight Larry. Bad neck angles on brand new guitars is one of my pet peeves, and one of the reasons I generally avoid purchasing new guitars on line. |
Quote:
CA guitars are unibody. The back and neck and created as one single unit from a mold. There is no neck set, and there is never the need for a neck reset. And carbon fiber has a much higher strength to weight ratio than wood. It is very light and stiff, which is why you don't need or want much string energy to drive the top. I'm sure that's why the neck and bridge and scale are *designed* as they are. The designer understood the sonic properties and material properties of carbon fiber. The lack of a truss rod is also by design in the CA guitars. |
Quote:
Quote:
If there is not enough saddle showing to allow it to be adjusted, then the original design is off...whether or not the guitar is as stable as a rock. The lack of an adjustable truss rod means a "one size fits all" relief. Don't find it comfortable? Too bad. Glad Peavy stepped in. Lets focus on continual product improvement now. |
FWIW, I play my Cargo with low action and medium strings. The strength of the neck is more than sufficient to maintain relief when switching from lights to mediums. The saddle height is perfectly sufficient to drive the top.
What problem are we trying to fix? The only improvement I can envision is a retractable neck for travel. :) |
Quote:
Adjusting the neck relief. If your guitar works for you, great. You got one set up the way you like it. That won't be the case for everybody...obviously isn't the case for somebody like Larry. Why not improve the design? Seems like the "fix" is a simple one. Tweak the neck angle specs and add a truss rod. I am a fan of Martin guitars. Having said that, I believe the could do a better job on their neck angles and set up. I've played too many brand new ones where the neck angle was low. |
Quote:
For you, not for me. The relief changed noticeably in going from lights to mediums with the two Cargos that I owned. Not to an unplayable condition, but a change was easily noticed....and a changed that made the guitar that much less playable. I am not attacking you or anyone that is happy with the CA product. I am pointing out that there is room for improvement, and hoping for them to make an even better guitar. ...but this being a guitar-forum and all, I know that folks take things rather personally at times. I know I do, and sometimes I'm wrong in this. Quote:
Well, it's my understanding that CA's production manager came from the auto-industry. No guitar background. I believe that Peavy may be in a position to improve the product, from a guitarists standpoint. You are correct in pointing out that the CA product is made with a mold, and that a neck re-set is not possible....but they did choose a certain neck-to-body (angle or neck set) relationship when the mold was created...and IMO the relationship they choose was an incorrect one. The question *I* have is whether or not Peavey will recognize the need for a slightly better angle, and if they want to discard some *very* expensive molds to improve things. If memory serves, the aluminum molds may be in the range of $20K per. Some folks are perfectly happy with what is...but not me. I see where a better, more versatile product could be created. Give me a better neck angle, and give me relief choice. Even C.F. Martin gave up on non-adjustable truss-rods in 1981... ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Perhaps they would have many more satisfied customers if the guitar could have a wider range of set-up configurations. It's major product flaws to me, the neck-angle and not having an adjustable truss-rod! As I mentioned earlier, I had several stores checking Cargos as they came in for any that seemed outside of the standard specs; that is, with a slightly better neck angle to accomplish my goals. In doing this, I was dealing usually with the shop's set-up guys. Each and every one was sympathetic to my issues, and were fully aware of the set-up limitations that were present on the Cargo. Look, I feel that the Cargo *is* a good product, but that it has flaws...like many things (most things!) in life. We're chatting about guitars here, on the AGF, and I'm in a mood to pursue pointing out how *I* believe this product can be improved. That's okay with you, right? We're not going to change each others mind, but that's okay, too... |
I would not buy another CA guitar until they got a truss rod. My action on the CA GX I had was on the high side. higher than say Taylor recommended 6/64 and 4/64--- Low E / High E I did sand the saddle some and there was plenty of exposed saddle to do so but I hit a point wjherew if I would sand anymore I would be buzzing and rattling the strings in the lower frets. the ONLY way to remedy this would be to ad a touch of relief then I could have gotten the saddle down. The neck was too straigt and without a truss rod you are basically left to what you have--- Notice I now am Back to a Taylor as playuing with high action and stiff Phos/Bronze strings were giving me issues with finger tip pain. The point of not have to baby sit the guitar with climate issues was nice but not worth it when it is unenjoyable to play!
|
Quote:
I love the Cargo as-is. I have no idea what increasing the saddle height (or decreasing the bridge height) would have on the tone, but I assume the designers chose based on something other than pure randomness. And the lack of a truss rod was clearly a conscious design issue. Perhaps it was economic. Or perhaps they believe it was the Right Thing to do: Q: Why do your guitars not have a truss rod? A: Because our guitar is so stable, we don't need a truss rod. i.e.; no movement... no need! Truss rods became a part of the typical construction of wooden acoustic guitars to allow the ability to adjust the curvature of the neck, which generally changes over time due to repeated or severe moisture changes in wooden guitars. Adjustment of the truss rod is a final step in the set-up of all guitars that have them - it allows makers to compensate for changes in the wood during the manufacturing process or variation in the build process. The truss rod adjusts the curvature of the neck, or relief. Relief is measured by holding the string down at the first and 14th frets and checking the gap under the string at the 7th fret. If you search literature, the web, and talk to experts, you will get a wide range of opinions as to the correct relief for an acoustic guitar, most estimates range from 0.005" to 0.012". We actually created computer models to determine optimum, which is in the range of 0.006' to 0.009". We have designed our guitars so that string tension puts the right amount of curvature in the neck. To some degree, our neck is self compensating - if you play mainly plugged in and use extra light strings, you don't need as much relief, and the lower string tension of lighter gage strings gives you a little less. On the flip side, if you use heavier gage strings, you generally need a bit more relief, which the higher string tension will provide. We are 100% confident that our approach is tecnincally sound, and have found that it works for almost all players - our goal is to provide you a consistent, worry free, guitar - to us, a not having a truss rod is just one less thing to worry about. |
Quote:
Gosh, that last part now has me convinced... ...not. They are 100% wrong, in fact. A higher tension string will have a smaller arc of vibration (if the attack is the same), and can be set-up to lower tolerances, including the relief. This is, in fact, one of the most *wrong* things I have ever seen stated on a guitar manufacturer's website (or wherever you got it from). Quote:
This really is a bit too funny for me...must excuse myself... |
Quote:
Re; your not having any idea on how saddle height affects tone, I'll refer you to the article by William Cumpiano which I linked to earlier, and also to Brian Kimsey's web site. (Brian is a very well known guitar tech/set up pro.) http://www.bryankimsey.com/setup/actions.htm |
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps they would have many more satisfied customers if the guitar could have a wider range of set-up configurations. It's major product flaws to me, the neck-angle and not having an adjustable truss-rod! |
"When a new guitar like that reaches its destination and its already-low saddle is adjusted (by the music store techie) down even further in order to remedy the stiff action, there will be nothing left to adjust over the guitar's long future of progressive settling-in."
Yes, that is exactly what happened to me with a Recording King RO 227 Orchestra model that I bought from Elderly and which had a bad neck angle. The action was OK but the saddle was extremely low, there was no room for sanding it further down in the future. More over, the strings angle with the bridge was very soft. I returned the guitar back. It was put again on sale. Regarding CAs, I had five CAs in the past - the first one eight years ago !- a Legacy, a Bluegrass Performer, two X, a GX. The only one that did not have any set up issue was the Bluegrass Performer. I must say that, based on my personal experience, Rainsong appear to be much more consistent and well set up, with good neck angle. I had several Rainsong and never had a set up or neck angle problem. |
For God sakes, the Cargo serves a niche (for hacks like me) which I doubt was intended for perfectionist professionals (not the target market). It's the consummate travel guitar (and as it turns out, couch guitar) that blows the doors off most, if not all, in it's category. It was affordably priced. If a truss rod and other so-called improvements are introduced, the price will probably go waaay up and that little winner could turn into a loser.
|
Quote:
You've entirely missed my point. So it goes. |
Quote:
They need not necessarily throw away the molds to make the changes you suggest. A GOOD prototype machinist can modify molds to achieve the desired results. Elias Eleftheriades is one such machinist in the San Francisco Bay Area that did exactly for several years that I worked with him. |
Quote:
Just have to change the neck mold to include a truss rod channel, a one time change I suspect, and lay the rod in. Perhaps, what with Peavy taking over the operation, now would be the easiest time to make a few changes to the design? |
Quote:
George! I was just about to email you, since we haven't heard much from you of late. Hope the ol' noggin is healed, and that you're having a nice summer! Hey, let's have J.R. get a hold of this guy, and introduce him to Hartley! |
Quote:
I'm sure you're aware that carbon fiber differs from wood, but you may not be aware about how it differs tonally. The designers take pains to damp the vibrations. That was CA's claim to fame -- they managed to get a "woody" sound out of carbon fiber by a combination of materials, bracing, and geometry. You seem to want to change the geometry because somebody thinks it's the Right Thing to do for wooden guitars. What makes you certain it's the Right Thing to do for carbon fiber guitars from CA? |
Quote:
Believe whatever you like. Hope Peavy is successful with their new acquisition. The world can never have too many good guitars. |
Quote:
I'm always looking for good guitars. Perhaps I'll find a good super-short-scale carbon-fiber Peavey down the road... |
Quote:
I imagine they could make slight changes to the neck angle in the clone molds without any great expense if they wanted to. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's such a little thing (and not expensive despite a previous poster's concern), but it'll make a HUGE difference. For those who really believe it doesn't need one .... just don't turn it! Bong. |
Quote:
Perhaps they'll be able to harvest carbon from buckyballs found in outer-space: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...ef=online-news Maybe this will keep the cost down, and they'll be able to afford a design that includes a proper neck-angle and adjustable truss rods.... P.S. The geniuses at CA were unable to keep their business afloat. Plenty of discussion here (and elsewhere) on that, but no facts. Apparently not *all* was perfect with their products and/or their company. Remember, they went belly-up. |
Quote:
Judging by Peavey existing products, there is a good possibility that Peavey will actually produce cheaper but lower quality carbon fiber guitars. I don't know how they will cut corners, perhaps in materials, or finishes, or maybe outsource to China. They will very likely target the lower-end segment of the CF market. This may not necessarily hurt Rainsong / Emerald, because Peavey may actually enlarge the CF market by reaching the lower-end market segment. If this is the case, then Rainsong / Emerald will become the Martin / Taylor of the CF world, while Peavey-CA will become... well... the Peavey of the CF world... or if they can sell plenty of CF guitars, the Yamaha of the CF world. |
One of the things you have to remember is the guitars carbon.
I forget what the word is that describes the behavour of the fibers in carbon fiber, I think it's isotropic. Basically once the fibers have been impregnated with eopxy or what ever they use, the fibers will always want to return to their original position or alignment. This is why carbon is so popular for top of the line bicycles, tennis rackets, paddles etc. when the fiber bends it has this natural need to return to the original fiber alignment, so the fibers create or absorbs energy based on the application. With a monocoque design like the Cargo, it would be difficult to stop the fibers trying to return to their original position after trying to adjust a neck. Based the Cargos current design a truss rod would probably result in cracks or damage around the rod. The guitar and neck would have to be separate units. For myself I took a little off of the saddle and put medium strings on the guitar, nice action , no buzz and an instrument I don't have to worry about. There's no doubt in my mind a cargo with a truss rod would require twice the tooling, molds for neck and body, some kind of attachment which would not be as strong as the one piece design. More labour, two layups, more assembly time ( labour ) all of a sudden my reasonably priced camp fire , trash it, beat of the crowds guitar is going to cost 2 grand. For my wood instruments I want the full ability to change the setup and fine tune the instrument. For my Cargo, the less things I have to worry about, the less things can move, the less care I have to give the instrument, the better. |
Quote:
Truss Rod: No truss rod (doesn't need it, the neck is too stiff for it to work) But I am proud to be a member of a forum that can get so excited by something as mundane as a truss-rod. :) |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, The Acoustic Guitar Forum