Neck tension on a V63

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:18 am

Just curious, the neck on my V63 is straight as an arrow, and the truss rod nuts are completely relaxed. Should I be concerned about this? Im afraid she'll develop a backbow.

I use D'Addario XL-170 nicklewound strings guaged: .45 .65 .80 .100

Im thinking of trying higher tension strings to create some relief. Good idea or not??

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:28 am

Sorry, I guess I should have listed this in the "Technical" spot.

thx1955 · Post by **thx1955** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:32 am

No worries Scott ...

I checked my v63 and I'd say the rods are not fully relaxed, but they're not under a lot of tension either.

I'm using Ernie Ball Super Slinkies which don't require a lot of tension.

If you're happy with the sound, and the action then why alter it, if not then give it a try and monitor the reaction of the neck.

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:52 am

It sounds great, and plays like a dream, I just dont like that possibility of the neck going south, and not being able to adjust it.

Kinda crazy though, its a '00 model and the neck has never moved. I am the original owner.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:47 am

If you haven't had any problems by now your not going to.
Not that you should anyway.

Its the 60s Ric's that developed neck problems[some of them]nothing that is[or was] incurable.

david_schwab · Post by **david_schwab** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:27 am

I like my neck as straight as possible. I don't use any relief at all, and I don't play lightly either! The only downside to a very straight neck is you need perfectly leveled frets, which of course you would want anyway!

I wouldn't worry about it until you develop a backbow. It doesn't sound like you will, but it you did, the neck could be clamped and heated.

jps · Post by **jps** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:07 pm

With a perfectly straight neck, wouldn't you also need high action when playing hard not to get any buzzing? After all, the strings do vibrate in an arc, and you'd need room for that arc to avoid the strings hitting the frets.

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:35 am

When I say "straight as an arrow", what I really mean is straighter than all my other "non-rick" basses. It has minimal relief.

david_schwab · Post by **david_schwab** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:00 am

Jeffery, you would think so, and as a luthier I know this to be true, but in real world playing I don't hear any buzzing besides what's normal (i.e., you always get a little with low action). I think there are two reasons for this.

First is I did a very careful job leveling my frets. Just recently I had the pleasure of playing Jeff Berlin's Dean bass, and was amazed at how low his action was! (everyone who tried it said "wow!"...) And his neck was perfectly straight. The secret seemed to be that he had his frets leveled very low, kind of the way Ricks are, only they were wide frets. So I went home and dressed mine lower and that did the trick. So any buzzing you hear is almost like a fretless bass.

The other thing is that when I hit the strings hard, I expect to hear a certain sound, which is why I might choose to pluck hard, and that sound is basically the strings hitting the frets. I do it more for the effect, since when I want a cleaner sound I pluck softer. This is something I started doing with Ricks and playing with a pick. That "Heart of the Sunrise" type of crunch. Also gets a good John Wetton sound.

I have zero relief on my neck.

johnashfield · Post by **johnashfield** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:49 am

I have somewhat higher than average action on my bass because I like that 'kerplunk" sound you kinda get when it's higher.

Though I had to tighten the rods a bit when I went back to using fender 9050's. They don't seem so tight once you get the neck set right.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:55 am

David, seems like you're a man after my own heart in many ways. I've had so much grief about using low action over the years, but I never saw why playing should be made more difficult, particularly seeing as I like playing quick, fluid stuff (in my own time at least); I also play very lightly most of the time. I couldn't tell you how many times I've had luthiers tell me I can't have my action as low as I like (around 2/32nds at the 12th across the board, which I don't feel is THAT low). In fact I've only come across 1 luthier who's happy set up my basses the way I want them (thank you Martin Petersen!). Must be fantastic being a luthier yourself....

Quote -"The other thing is that when I hit the strings hard, I expect to hear a certain sound, which is why I might choose to pluck hard, and that sound is basically the strings hitting the frets. I do it more for the effect, since when I want a cleaner sound I pluck softer. This is something I started doing with Ricks and playing with a pick. That "Heart of the Sunrise" type of crunch. "

Exactly! Me too....but far more importantly, HOW low was Jeff's action

? We need figures (or estimates at least!)! Just so when someone says to me "you can't have your action that low", I can say "Jeff Berlin's is blah blah blah"! I know Flea used to use 1/32 at the 12th (E), which is pretty darn low (he's now up to 2/32nds)......and I've heard from a reliable source that Matt Garrison's is extremely low too. Heard a great story about Entwistle from someone who'd been speaking to Rob Green at Status; when John went to pick up his first Buzzard Rob had spent ages setting it up, getting it as low as he thought right without buzzing; John walked in, took one look and said "it'll go much lower than THAT!" And lo and behold, after a bit of fiddling from John, it did....the folks at Alembic have said that hardly anyone could play John's Alembic basses, they were set up so low. And as I own a bass made by them and that they set up, if it was lower mine then it was VERY low!!!

Of course the downside of liking low action is playing basses in shops. It's almost impossible....

80stingray · Post by **80stingray** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:44 pm

Different players, different styles,different tastes. John Entwistle used to say he liked the action so low it was on the other side of the fretboard. It makes sense if you look at the speed and fluidity he could generate. James Jamerson on the other hand prefered pretty high action and used only his right index finger(The Hook). I prefer very low action but have been comming up a little over the last few years. Low action is a trade off, too low and you run the risk of excessive fret and string noise. I try to find the best compromise.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:03 pm

Absolutely Joseph. I've always believed that the player is right; surely it's up to the player how he/she wants his/her instrument to play? My problem is all the luthiers I've been to who won't have it that how I like my basses set up works for me. And these are guys who've never even seen me play; I understand that from a technical point of view some things shouldn't work too well, but it all depends on the player.

When I read about Flea's action I felt kind of vindicated, in that he spent half his career with an action lower than mine and seemed to do ok. Mind you, I once had someone tell me, in my extra-light string days (now long gone), that you couldn't use 30 gauge strings either. I had 4 words to say; Stanley Clarke, Mark King. What does irritate me is the assumption that the bass will sound better if it has higher action; that depends entirely on what sound you're after and how you play. If you're after big, sustaining notes that really ring, yes it will. But I'm not really. I want zing, and as fluid a sound as possible. Without exception my basses have sounded better to my ears the lower I go (up to a point obviously). I can guarantee that I do NOT sound better with higher action; it just means I can't play! (although some would doubtless say that IS an improvement, LOL!)

david_schwab · Post by **david_schwab** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:52 am

I have somewhat higher than average action on my bass because I like that 'kerplunk" sound you kinda get when it's higher.

Stanley Clarke has said he keeps the action on some of his basses very high. He said that when he recorded Silly Putty it was so high and hard to play he thought he might have had made it too high! His reason is the same, he likes the way it sounds, especially for slapping.

david_schwab · Post by **david_schwab** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:35 am

but far more importantly, HOW low was Jeff's action

Man, it was LOW! It was so low that the three people that tried his bass (including me) said "wow!" when first touching the strings. It felt like the strings were loose and just lying on the frets. The only other bass I ever played with action that low was an Alembic. The thing is that Jeff uses pretty light strings (I think it was a .035 G string) too, and his frets are very low. Jeff plays very lightly, and I did hear some buzzing when I was playing his bass unamplified, but you sure couldn't hear any when he played.

This lead me to going home and lowering my frets and action. From what I have since discovered is the lower the frets, the lower the action, or at least it feels lower.

I currently use D'Addario XLs with a .045 for the G, but my favorite set was Ken Smith's in .040/.060/.080/.100/.120. I buy the twin pack of XL's and haven't found them in the lighter gauge. I might tty lighter strings at some point.

As far as low action, I once had a guitar playing customer with a new Strat that wanted his action lower. I discovered that new Fenders don't have very good fret dressing! After doing a thorough leveling, I got his strings so low that I didn't even like playing it! He actually asked me to raise them slightly! I used to leave my basses action kind of medium low, which was a good compromise between clear sounding notes and playability, but since lowering my frets I like it lower.

Now I see why Ricks have such small/low fret wire!

I mostly pluck with my right index finger too, unless I'm playing fast stuff. It sounds more even that way.