What is a neck reset? Is a neck reset really necessary? Why would I want one? How do I determine if my guitar actually needs a neck reset?
So, the strings are so far off the fretboard of the guitar that it actually hurts to try to press them sufficiently to clearly sound a note or chord. The saddle on the guitar has already been reduced in height in an (increasingly unsuccessful) effort to maintain playability. Even if reducing saddle height was the right way to go about correcting action height, there is insufficient saddle projecting above the surface of the bridge to do so. This results in no one wanting to play the guitar. Someone suggested that the guitar probably needs a "neck reset".
A neck reset could also be termed a "neck angle adjustment", or a "neck angle correction", or a "neck geometry modification".
Technically, a neck reset is the process of removing, modifying, and re-attaching a guitar neck for the purpose of establishing optimal neck geometry for improved playability.
Ironically, all of the terms used to describe this effort imply there is something about the neck that needs fixing. While it is true that making changes to the neck, specifically to the heel of the neck, is likely the most appropriate way to resolve the playability issue, the problem is almost always not with the neck.
The problem is with the body of the guitar, but I will address that later in the article.
Perhaps the proper way to explain a neck reset is to understand its purpose; that being, to accurately set the string action height, having taken into account and addressed all related factors. String action height is the responsibility of the neck-to-body angle. Components shift over time and, thanks to an extremely flex-prone design, that neck-to-body angle likely needs to be adjusted.
A neck reset can only be performed on a guitar whose neck is constructed independently from the body, such that the neck can be removed, have its geometry (the angle at which it contacts the body) altered, and then be re-attached. Because a neck reset involves removing the neck completely from the guitar body, it is important to know how the neck was last secured to the body. If the neck was attached using glue, the glue bond must be softened (using heat or steam) prior to removal.
Necks are attached in a number of ways, be they bolted on and/or glued-on, straight mortise and tenon, dovetailed mortise and tenon, loose tenon, doweled, etc. On all but elevated fretboard necks, the fretboard extension, that portion of the fretboard that extends out over the soundboard, must be secured in some manner to the soundboard. For neck removal, the fretboard extension must also be detached.
Measurements are taken prior to commencing neck removal. After removing the neck from the body, small adjustments are made to the heel to correct the angle at which the neck intersects the body. The fretboard extension may be shimmed or shaved. The neck (including the fretboard extension) is then re-attached having correct(ed) geometry.
Finish work or touch-up may or may not be required (or afforded).
The issue is playability. The objective of a neck reset is to restore or improve playability. Several things must come together for an acoustic steel string guitar to be considered eminently playable.
Action, or the measured distance between the top of the 12th fret and the bottom of the string(s), is perhaps the most significant factor considered when determining whether a guitar is playable, or not. The action is considered to be too high when the strings are difficult to press. The action is considered to be too low when the strings are constantly contact the frets and making a buzzing sound.
Nut slot height (or depth) determines how close the strings are to the frets at the headstock end of the neck. There is an optimal height/depth setting for the nut slots. It is common to encounter an acoustic guitar whose action, as measured at the 12th fret, is perfectly fine, yet the guitar is uncomfortable to play due to the strings sitting much too high at the nut.
The saddle, residing in a slot cut into the bridge, determines the height of the strings at the other end of the fretboard. Most guitar owners and players are under the mistaken impression that action height is adjustable via a truss rod (if the guitar in question has one) and/or the saddle, with repair shops reinforcing the notion.
While it is true that the plane of the strings can be raised and lowered to some extent by bowing or flattening a neck, as well as by increasing or decreasing the height of the saddle, that is not (and should not be) their function.
The angle at which the neck is joined to the body of the guitar controls the relationship between the plane of the fretboard and the plane of the strings. In other words, action is set/established when the neck is attached. Whoever is setting that neck needs to get the geometry right.
Making an after-the-reset saddle height adjustment is a "fix" for not nailing the geometry during the reset.
Using a truss rod to bow or flatten a neck in an attempt to "fix" the action immediately following a neck reset is a clear indication that somebody goofed.
When action becomes too high for the guitar to be playable, the neck geometry must be altered. This is how a neck reset affects playability.
To quote more than one luthier, guitar maker, builder, repair technician, owner, player, etc:
Neck resets are fairly common on steel string guitars and you can almost guarantee that a guitar will need one at least once during its lifetime.
Well, there you have it: A neck reset is inevitable.
NOTE: As a guitar maker, I believe this inevitability is due entirely to a design decision and, as a result, is entirely avoidable by altering the design. But that is a topic for another article.
I can identify three classes of guitars:
A common practice used to check to see if a neck reset is required is to rest a straightedge across the top of the frets of the fretboard. For this test, you need a true straightedge. It should be slender enough to sit between the strings and of sufficient length to fit between the nut and the front of the bridge.
I first verify that one end of the straightedge is in contact with the top of (ideally, fret #0, but, if non-existent,) the first fret. The next point of contact for the straightedge is the fret at the body joint. That will typically be the 12th, 13th, or 14th fret, depending on the design of the guitar.
As the test is commonly presented, IF the end of the straightedge just kisses the top of the bridge AND if you have "at least a little saddle showing", meaning that the saddle has not already been lowered to the point of being buried in the bridge slot, you are to conclude that no neck reset is required.
Using that criteria, the neck in the photo below "is fine". I happen to know better. The action height on the guitar in that photo was ridiculously high, at 0.157" (5/32nds" or 4.0mm).
To be accurate, the target height for the straightedge test SHOULD BE a point above the top of the bridge that would be equivalent to the height of a fret (were it to be installed on the bridge). That means there should be a gap between the bridge and the straightedge. That gap typically amounts to ≈ 0.040" to 0.050" (3/64ths" or 1.2mm), though you can go as high as 0.0625" (1/6th" or 1.6mm).
A lot more guitars out there should be having neck resets a lot sooner.
If you conduct a straightedge test, and the end of the straightedge closest to the bridge is WELL BELOW the top surface of the bridge, then YES, you can be fairly confident that your guitar needs a neck reset.
HOWEVER, this straightedge test does NOT tell you the whole story. It is quite possible that your guitar can pass the straightedge test, yet may be in desperate need of a neck reset.
If the action is raised due to excessive forward bow in the neck, such that it obviously fails the straightedge test, correcting the excessive forward bow may be all that is needed. Sometimes that is as simple as adjusting a truss rod.
If the neck is not expressing excessive forward bow, but the action is high and you are convinced that lowering the height of the saddle will keep the guitar playable, who am I to stand in your way?
In an effort to lower the action, many a guitar has had a saddle shortened in height to the point where its crest is even with, or sometimes below, the surface of the bridge. The bridge is then shaved (planed, sanded) down just enough to prevent string contact. This practice is not recommended.
If the action is raised due to bellying, bridge lift, or soundboard rise, the cause should be investigated. Repairs may resolve the action height issue.
While I may be successful, at least for a time, in staving off the neck reset, my guitar is most likely becoming less and less capable of optimal volume and tone.
The neck set determines the action height. However, as I have pointed out, other factors can and will affect the action. Only after systematically addressing and successfully ruling out each of those factors as the cause of my troubles can I proceed with a neck reset, assured it will resolve the issue.
While the straightedge test may provide insight into potential string plane, fret plane and neck geometry issues, it is insufficient, by itself, to determine if a neck reset is warranted. There are seven (7) assessments needed to accurately determine if a neck should be reset on any given acoustic guitar:
I need a reference from which to begin. That reference is the flat plane of the fretboard.
I am checking for forward neck bow (or "curl"). Under no string tension, the fretboard should be perfectly flat. Under string tension, the neck should either be perfectly flat or have the slightest forward bow. If relief (a shallow concave recess in what would otherwise be a perfectly flat plane across the surface of the frets) is permitted, it should be in a very small range, with 0.001" to 0.003" being subtle relief and 0.006" to 0.008" being considered "high" relief. Anything beyond this is considered "excessive".
Relief and forward neck bow are (should be) considered independently of one another. Sadly, the invention of the dual-action truss rod has blurred the lines between the distinction, but I digress.
Relief, as a result of forward neck bow from string tension, is most often induced or permitted. Relief raises action height. This detail cannot be ignored or overlooked, especially by those that able to induce relief using a 2-way adjustable truss rod.
Relief can also be shaped into the surface of a fretboard on an otherwise dead-flat neck.
For fretboards whose necks are adjustable using a truss rod, I can physically flatten the entirety of the fret plane for measurement purposes.
In the cases of fretboards that cannot be physically flattened, those that have fixed stiffeners instead of adjustable truss rods, and are bowing forward under string tension, as well as those perfectly flat fretboards that have relief shaped into their surface, I must make some assumptions regarding "flatness". I still require that reference.
To establish such a reference, ideally, I would lay a perfectly flat straightedge on fret #0, make contact again with whatever fret I encounter at the neck-to-body joint (typically fret 12, 13, or 14 - presumably the highest point along the fret plane), and note the point at which the plane formed by the straightedge intersects the front face of the bridge.
Most acoustic guitars are not equipped with a physical fret #0, so I must compromise and begin with fret #1. Most guitar shop straightedges are too short and another compromise is made, where the straightedge must be slid across the frets in order to make contact with the bridge. Granted, these compromises produce tiny numerical distinctions, but they are measurable and affect outcomes.
If the fretboard cannot be flattened, either by adjusting a truss rod on so-equipped necks, or by removing string tension on necks having fixed stiffeners, there is a problem with the neck that should be be resolved prior to proceeding. This may involve steps such as removing the frets and (re-)planing the fretboard, or removing the fretboard to repair/replace/install a faulty truss rod or fixed stiffener, perhaps replacing the fretboard, or maybe even as drastic a step as replacing the neck altogether.
Once a flat plane of the fretboard can be verified, the next measurement/assessment step can be taken.
Technically, bridge lift involves an unwanted separation between the base of the bridge and the surface of the soundboard.
If the adhesive holding the bridge to the soundboard lets go completely, the bridge tears loose from the guitar and must be re-attached. In a more destructive scenario, due to some combination of glue-to-bracing failure, soundboard thickness, and/or severe runout, the bridge not only tears loose, but rips a section of the soundboard loose with it. This could involve a much more extensive effort to rectify, including a replacement of the soundboard.
Short of such drama, and often due to a common, cosmetically-driven practice of bridge attachment that leaves the very back edge of the bridge un-glued, a bridge may begin to tilt forward and lift up and away from the soundboard.
Related, but not technically classified as "bridge lift", is the condition of excessive forward bridge rotation. This often leads to literal bridge lift, or worse, but I will address it in the next section, under the issue known as "bellying".
Bridge lift results in the raising of the string height off the fretboard and must be repaired before proceeding.
Bellying is a deformation of the soundboard caused by the pull of the strings on the bridge. It often occurs as a result of the forward rotation of the bridge, where the bridge literally tilts toward the soundhole (fretboard, headstock, etc). The soundboard in front of the bridge may or may not be depressed, but the soundboard behind the bridge is visibly pulled upwards. The causes of bellying are typically insufficient bracing, insufficient soundboard stiffness (for the corresponding string tension), or failure of the brace-to-soundboard adhesive bond.
Depending on the severity of the lift and whether you consider this to be a preferred condition or something to recoil from in terror, soundboard bellying also results in the raising of the string height off of the fretboard ("high action") and must be repaired or, at the very least, acknowledged and accounted for before proceeding.
If bellying is permitted, measurements must be taken that record the difference in the height of the bridge and the saddle RELATIVE to the fretboard plane before and after the strings are loosened. This is factored back in when the time comes to calculate the change to the neck geometry.
It is at this stage that a shortcut is offered to seasoned luthiers and guitar technicians alike to determine if a neck reset is needed. Establish each of the following three factors:
Under these conditions, IF the action is high and the saddle is buried in the saddle slot such that the strings are laying on the bridge, then we can be assured that the neck should be reset.
No straightedge test is required! In order to determine the metrics to use for correction, it is necessary to continue with the measurements/assessments, but we do not require more proof of the need for a neck reset.
For the traditionally built, center soundhole, X-braced, steel string acoustic to produce both maximum volume and optimum tone, it is necessary to achieve maximum optimum height of the strings off of the soundboard as measured directly in front of the bridge. Insufficient string height will result in weak(er) output.
With the strings tuned to pitch, measure the height of the strings from the soundboard, directly in front of the bridge. From decades of repairing X-braced acoustic guitars and benefitting from Before/After testing, I have determined this measurement should be ≈ 1/2″ (12.7 to 14 mm). But for some rare exceptions, all of them being extremely light and fragile builds, if you are getting a lower number measurement, it is safe to say that your neck geometry is off, and your guitar is not performing optimally.
Of course, you will decide whether you wish to have it corrected, or not. Such a correction may be as simple as adding a taller saddle, and resetting the neck. But it may also require a new, taller bridge to properly support the taller saddle (to mitigate splitting out the front of the bridge).
RABBIT HOLE: Increasing the size of the bridge will impact the output of the guitar. Before you assume this to necessarily produce a negative impact, realize that on all but a very few acoustic guitars, there is little to no "scientific" pairing of bridge mass to the soundboard on which it will reside being conducted.
It has often been the case (and may also be in your own case) that a larger (or taller, or wider, or deeper, etc) bridge actually improves the output of a given guitar. The opposite (reducing the size of the bridge) is rarely found to be beneficial, as few guitars suffer from bracing that is too light and bridges that are too large.
After establishing that the guitar has a flat fret plane, there is no bridge lift (of concern), and there is no bridge rotation/bellying (or there is not enough to worry about), if it is obvious that setting the saddle at optimal height will cause the plane of the strings above the fretboard to be either too low or too high, it is likely that the neck will require a reset.
But two additional factors should be considered to confirm (prove beyond a shadow of a doubt) that a neck reset is needed.
At this stage I assume that the fretboard is now flat, the fret surface plane is perfectly level and any and all crowning/polishing fret work is complete.
The strings are suspended in a flat plane between the nut and the saddle. If your guitar is fitted with a Zero Fret on which the strings rest as they emerge from the nut, no additional measurements are necessary. Move on to the last Measurement/Assessment.
If the nut on your guitar is acting as fret 0, as is the case with most acoustic guitars, and you are familiar enough with proper setups to know that your nut slots are cut and filed perfectly, and are as low as they can go without introducing string buzz, no measurements are necessary. Move on to the last Measurement/Assessment.
Without exception, the bottoms of the string slots should position the strings as though they were resting on fret #0.
You can verify the proper height using a dial indicator made for the purpose, or feeler gauges, or a single-bevel marking knife, or you can even sand a pencil in half, lengthwise, lay it across frets 3, 2 and 1 and use the super-sharp pencil point to mark a line across the front edge of the nut.
This is the lowest that any of your individual string slots can be cut without permitting a string-to-1st fret contact. If your slots are sitting above that mark, they can and should be lowered.
Very often, this little detail gets overlooked. In conjunction with action height, nut slot height is the subtle distinction between a guitar that "plays like butter" and one that "cuts into my fingers." Let's move on to the final Measurement/Assessment.
Ultimately, action height is a primary contributor to playability. We have seen that string action is determined by a relationship between the fret plane, the nut slot height and the saddle height. The saddle is an independent component that is understood by most to be modifiable in height after the guitar is assembled. If you believe that "as long as a little saddle is remaining above the bridge, all is well", you will most likely be shortening the saddle to lower the action and adjust the string height.
The claim I am about to make should no longer be controversial, but it may rock your world if you are unfamiliar with it:
Establishing the string height for player comfort is the primary role of the neck geometry, not the saddle.
Establish the optimal overall string height in front of the bridge, then adjust string action height at the neck joint (Note the benefits of a bolt-on neck, let alone one of the newer neck designs that allow for action height adjustments with the strings attached and tuned to pitch).
Sadly, for many builders, overall string height (measured in front of the bridge) was (and remains) an arbitrary measurement. Necks get attached to bodies at some approximate, or "close enough" angle. Bridges are then sized in height to accommodate the string path as determined by the pre-set neck.
This may be efficient by factory production standards, but it is backwards, as it is detrimental to the acoustic output of the guitar. The bridge height (bridge and saddle height combination) should be determined, first. Then the neck should be fitted to target that established height.
Maintaining that optimal overall string height at the saddle, slotting the nut to the zero fret depth, and finally setting the neck such that the string path above the fret wire is as low as it can go for your style of playing makes for a perfect setup. If you have achieved that, you do not need a neck reset.
If you are new to the guitar, don't really know what "as low as it can go for your style of playing" means, or just like measurements, here are some details.
Conduct two (2) measurements, one for the outer-most string on the bass side and one for the treble string on the opposite side. Measure the distance between the bottom of the string and the top of the metal fret wire beneath it (not the fretboard) at the fret that is closest to halfway between the nut and the saddle. It is typically safe to conduct your measurement at the 12th fret.
Measure strings 1 and 4 on a Tenor guitar, or strings 1 and 6 on a 6-string guitar. For a 12-string guitar, measure string 1 and the larger diameter string of the 6th course (typically string 11, or string 12 for Rickenbackers).
Commonly used heights are as follows (fingerstyle players may prefer lower action, aggressive flatpickers may need higher action):
Overall string height (at the bridge) measuring below 1/2″ may be corrected by installing a taller saddle, though a new bridge may also be required to avoid splitting out the front of the saddle slot. If correcting the overall string height results in raising the action such that my guitar is now uncomfortable to play, my neck geometry is off and I will require a neck reset to correct it.
If my overall string height is acceptable, but my action is too high, and adjusting that action (such as by shortening saddle height, for example) would drop the overall string height below 1/2″, my neck geometry is off and I will require a neck reset to correct it.
Whether or not I want to reset the neck (or pay someone else to do it) is immaterial to concluding that a neck reset is necessary to restore correct neck geometry.
My guitar, the one in the photo that inspired this article, the guitar that passed the straightedge test, is suffering from a slight belly due to both body flexion and bridge rotation. Let's assume I have determined to live with this condition. I note that the saddle projects 1/8″ above the bridge (which, by the way, is a mere 1/4" tall). Many would (wrongly) suggest that "there is plenty of saddle left" and start sanding away.
Plenty of saddle remaining to do what with, exactly? This is akin to saying that, since the tires on my vehicle are not completely bald, there is "plenty of tread left". Tread has a direct relationship with traction, and traction is a performance metric.
If the worn tread remaining is below recommended (or legally regulated) height, I should replace the tire(s). Expecting maximum performance from worn tires would be foolish. Driving on them would be consequential.
On this guitar, when bridge and saddle height are added together, the overall string height only barely comes up to 3/8″, falling short of an optimal height of 1/2" to produce sufficient torque on this heavily-braced, X-brace guitar.
Compounding the problem, action at the 12th fret is a whopping 5/32" (or 10/64″)! Do the math: Lowering the action from 10/64" to 6/64" would require removing 8/64" (4/64" x 2) from the saddle height. There is only 8/64" (1/8") remaining above the bridge.
Taking such a step would literally bury the saddle in the slot. Most importantly, it would further reduce the overall string height in front of the bridge. Essentially, if I were to take conventional steps to make this guitar more playable, I would kill (deleteriously affect) what remains of the sound of this guitar. Do you see the problem, now?
Without question, I have but one choice before me and that is to reset the neck of my guitar.
If you have made it this far into my article, you may have gained some insight as to how to determine whether or not an acoustic guitar requires a neck reset. But you may be prompted to ask, "Why would a well-built guitar ever need a Neck Reset?"
Many appear to be under the impression that acoustic guitars require a neck reset because they are "settling in", or "opening up". Some will attempt to explain it with something like, "Over time, the body of the guitar is deforming under string tension, causing the neck to rotate."
This doesn't address the question at all. It excuses the status quo. For an in-depth look at what actually lies behind the need for a neck reset, and my understanding of how to build a better "well-built" guitar, see my article » Body Flexion - Neck Block Shift and Soundboard Shear.
This isn't just a "used guitar" issue. We'd like to assume that every guitar ever made had its neck set properly prior to being offered for sale. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
More than one brand new guitar has needed a neck reset right off of the showroom floor to be optimized for performance. In such cases, a neck reset is necessary to correct a mistake made during initial construction.
In most cases, however, a neck reset is needed to correct for some combination of glue and/or structural failure along with wood movement that has occurred later on in the guitar's life.
If each and every component of a wooden acoustic guitar simply stayed put, precisely where it was placed when the guitar passed its initial Quality Control inspection, and there was no wood movement due to environmental changes, no guitar would ever require a neck reset. And there would be no need for truss rods. And saddles would never need to be lowered.
And frets would never need replacing, either. But things don't always stay in place. Over time, and subjected to various environmental changes and wear, things move away from their original locations.
In addition to the shape, width, thickness, and overall weight of a given acoustic guitar neck, the angle of incidence at which that neck joins the guitar body is a critical factor in both realizing the sonic potential of the guitar and determining its playability.
On an aircraft, such as the high-wing Cessna in the drawing below, the Angle of Incidence between the chord (different meaning of the word) of the wing (imagine a straight line drawn through the center of the leading and trailing edges, shown by the red line) and the longitudinal axis of the body (shown by the green line) can be clearly seen.
When applied to the guitar, there are two angles of incidence that can be considered. The first is the plane (as in planar, not airplane) of the neck and/or neck/headstock in relation to the plane of the body. The second is the string path in relation to the body and neck.
Consider the side profile of a Fender Stratocaster. The longitudinal axis of the body is shown by the green line. The red line shows the string path. Notice how the neck, body, and headstock are all (nearly) in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the body. The "chord" formed by the string path in relation to the longitudinal axis of the neck/body unit demonstrates a very shallow angle of incidence.
Contrast the Fender Stratocaster with the Gibson Les Paul. Again, the longitudinal axis of the body is shown in by the green line, and the red line follows the string path. Note how the neck deviates from the longitudinal axis of the body, and the headstock deviates from the longitudinal axis of the neck. Compared with the Strat, the "chord" formed by the string path in relation to the longitudinal axis of the neck/body unit demonstrates a sharper angle of incidence. This is closer to what we saw with the Cessna.
As you can see in the illustration, below, the angle of incidence of the typical acoustic guitar neck, as well as the angle of incidence of the typical acoustic guitar string path sits somewhere in between the Les Paul and the Strat. The shallow angle of incidence of both the neck and the string path of an acoustic favors that of the Strat, where the steeper angle of incidence of the headstock of an acoustic is more akin to that of the Les Paul.
The angle at which the neck joins the body is not arbitrary; it is intrinsic to the design of that guitar. Failing to target the optimal neck angle, an under-set or over-set neck will negatively affect playability, at the very least, and actually affect the overall tonal quality of the instrument.
ONLY NOW are you able to determine the proper neck angle, the angle that you will accurately set your neck to.
What, exactly needs to be corrected in order to improve playability?
The most common approach to resetting the neck, and that endorsed by guitar techs and repair shops throughout the Earth, is to entirely ignore Overall String Height, instead using the height of the existing bridge as the reference against which measurements will be taken and calculations will be made.
While there are obvious financial considerations being made (the cost of replacing a bridge and saddle), there are sonic considerations, as well. Optimal sound is most likely being sacrificed.
Among the instruments on which this approach is taken, most will require a negative reset. This means that material will need to be removed from the heel in order to drop the headstock and raise the plane of the frets above the soundboard. There is such a thing as a positive reset, where material (shims) must be added to the heel to prevent the strings from laying on the frets, but that is atypical.
A straightedge is laid across the tops of the frets on a flat fretboard. An assumption is made that the top surface of the (existing) bridge should be on the same plane of the tops of the frets. When the plane of the tops of the frets falls below the surface of the bridge, the measured difference between the two is multiplied by the length of the neck heel, and the resulting product is then divided by 1/2 the scale length.
This determines the maximum amount of material that will be removed from the heel cap, that number being gradually reduced to 0.00 where the heel meets the bottom of the fretboard. A "wedge" will have been removed (shaved, planed, chiseled, sanded) from the heel that lets the neck tilt farther back and away from where it was before beginning the neck reset.
When I am resetting a neck, to determine how to address the neck heel, I ignore the existing bridge and make my calculations against my target overall string height. If I can achieve that height using the existing bridge (and typically fashioning a new, taller saddle), great. If not, I make a new bridge and swap out the old one.
While this approach is not dissimilar to setting a neck on a brand new guitar, there are additional factors to consider when resetting a neck on an already built guitar, factors that will affect the measurements used to determine how much material to remove from the neck heel. These factors include bellying behind the bridge, sinking in front of the bridge, potential shift/collapse at the neck block, and bowing of the neck.
TIP: Worth mentioning again is that, prior to beginning a neck reset, it is highly advisable to take measurements with the guitar strung to pitch and then compare those results with measurements taken after the strings are loosened/removed. This will provide insight into the movement of the soundboard, bracing, bridge, and neck that must be factored into the neck heel adjustment.
For the soundboard measurements, you can use a dial indicator that references the rims. A more crude, but effective method, involves laying a straightedge across the top, parallel with the bridge, and measuring the deviation from a flat plane.
To be continued ...
I design and build acoustic guitars. Each instrument is created to be a unique visual and sonic experience.Where a factory may faithfully produce a given model thousands of times, every guitar I make is intentionally distinct. I have written several articles that acknowledge, explore, challenge, and at times defy traditional steel-string acoustic guitar convention.
Gain insight and benefit from my experiences
