|
Post by sigmadel on Oct 23, 2013 8:21:41 GMT
I was wondering if anyone knew why some makers such as Taylor and Gibson have the truss rod adjustment at the headstock end and some others inside the sound hole . Is there any benefit other than ease of acssess . Probably a silly question I know but its a horrible October morning here and I'm a bit bored .
|
|
davewhite
Luthier / Guitar Maker
Luthier
Aemulor et ambitiosior
Posts: 3,544
|
Post by davewhite on Oct 23, 2013 9:06:58 GMT
I think probably from the use of dovetail joint neck attachment in the early history of steel string acoustics plus ease of access for the headstock adjustment - although taking off the truss rod cover, not losing the little screws and not rounding off the adjustment nut or scratching the head-plate with the wrench as the angle through the headstock hole is often too steep makes me wonder about this sometimes Also in theory you can adjust the truss-rod without slackening the strings with the headstock end method. Cons are that you are drilling a hole at a potentially weak area of the neck - although using veneer "back-straping" on the headstock and carbon fibre rods in the neck that are inlet into the headstock help a lot here - and you don't get the clean look of the headstock that you do with soundhole adjustment. Apart from a couple of electrics I've made for my daughters where there's no soundhole I've always prefered and used the soundhole adjustment method.
|
|
|
Post by sigmadel on Oct 23, 2013 13:56:57 GMT
Cheers for that Dave .
|
|
davewhite
Luthier / Guitar Maker
Luthier
Aemulor et ambitiosior
Posts: 3,544
|
Post by davewhite on Oct 23, 2013 16:09:19 GMT
Also, I think that the early design of adjustable truss-rods required the end opposite the adjustable nut to be well anchored down into the neck and had a "lug" for this making the rod deeper at this end - not much "meat" to fit this at the headstock end but lots more at the neck heel end.
|
|