Curious about the "flat" neck for RICS.

[Ric_MEL]

Maybe someone can shed some light on the "flat as a board" set up engineering for RICS.

When first looking into guitar set ups.. we learn that guitar necks need RELIEF.. to accommodate the circular motion of a plucked guitar string.. so it doesn't hit the frets during it's "orbit" per se.

What is it about the engineering of a RIC? that uniquely requires a perfectly FLAT neck. -- NO RELIEF - .

Is the nut, frets. bridge, radius somehow oriented differently than "normal" guitars - and how does this eliminate the need for the slight bow in the neck yet not result in strings hitting the frets

and is it just RODeo / roDEO -it's just different ...

- or is there a benefit from this unique set up ?

.. went from just going " OK " .. RICs need perfectly flat necks..

to ... WHY ?

[jimk]

Yo, Paul! (jingle_jangle) This one's for you!
JimK

[Clint]

I can't speak for anyone else, but my Rics play best with a wee bit of relief. That's the way I like them so that's the way I set them up. As far as your question goes, I really don't see anything unique in Rickenbacker's engineering. I suspect you could set up a Fender or Gibson to have little or no relief as well, if you really wanted. In fact, my Strat has the same wee touch of relief as my 360/12. No problems.

[jingle_jangle]

Ricks are designed for no relief...the 12 strings definitely play best this way, as you don't need to really hammer them to get them to chime. Just set them up for your own playing style, taking into account fingering resistance and pick attack.

6-string Ricks, if you're the type who plays hard and bends a bit, can stand a bit of relief if you feel that setting the strings a bit higher at the nut makes them too resistant to your fretting efforts. If you find that dialing in a bit of relief helps your playing and tone, go for it.

This can become a complex discussion, because it reflects personal preferences in string choice and playing style.

[Ric_MEL]

Hi Paul,

Since "set-up" is a combination of a number of factors.. that all combine to contribute to a guitar plays in tune, and accommodates player preferences.

In absolutely EVERY guitar set up guide I've seen.. a fair amount of time is spent on explaining - introducing "Relief" into the neck, and usually as a starting point.. before dealing with nut height, slot depth, radius, bridge height, fret specifics, intonation, string gauge , scale length, break over angle.. and on and on.

and in almost every reference I've seen for RICS.. right off the bat is the notion that they were designed for a dead flat neck. No relief, as opposed to the normal convention for setting up Guitars.

Often this is noted when a guitar tech who is NOT familiar with Rickenbackers. goes wrong.

and you note the same " RICS ARE DESIGNED FOR NO RELIEF " .. a conscious, planned facet of design, where that particular aspect of guitar setup - the Relief - is to be flat.

That in my head suggests that some of the OTHER aspects then are adjusted accordingly, to work with a flat / no relief neck - as set up is a combination of all these little adjustments.

( once a good starting point is established.. understand then that slight deviation accommodates personal style ) .

Maybe over thinking it. .but I was wondering then: are any other parameters then ALSO different than "normal" guitars..

else: why couldn't any guitar, any neck - be set to dead flat and not have any playability issues ?

.

[Ric_MEL]

if you feel that setting the strings a bit higher at the nut makes them too resistant to your fretting efforts. I

maybe you answered the question right there..

if the RIC design calls for a nut set a tad higher <than normal> .. to lift the strings UP in those first few frets.. to provide the space between bottom of string/ top of fret - normally done with neck relief.. < ?? >

[jingle_jangle]

if you feel that setting the strings a bit higher at the nut makes them too resistant to your fretting efforts. I

maybe you answered the question right there..

if the RIC design calls for a nut set a tad higher <than normal> .. to lift the strings UP in those first few frets.. to provide the space between bottom of string/ top of fret - normally done with neck relief.. < ?? >

Nope. The design calls for no such thing. Note my wording. IF you feel that setting the strings, etc.

The factory setup is merely a good starting point, although it does accommodate a fair percentage of players, right out of the box.

[Ric_MEL]

Ricks are designed for no relief...

If RIC does not alter in any way. .any OTHER parameter - but at some engineering or executive level: decided they wanted their necks perfectly flat. and this is part of their " design "

then: I don't understand why there is not the problem associated with the cure that nearly every other guitar calls for: Neck Relief.

I humbly remain: .. officially: confused.

[Hotzenplotz]

Last week I adjusted the neck the way the manual suggests: dead straight. The guitar is new and was never adjusted before.

For me it is important to get the strings as close as possible to the neck - of course without no buzzing. So the Rickenbacker just needs my fingers "in the near of the strings". This is the difference between normal and really good guitars.

So, the fist step was to straighten the neck, then I adjusted the bridge. The height of the bridge was good, no need for adjusting.

Today I played with my band the first time after the procedure: great, perfect!!!

As I understand the double truss rod offers this way of a dead straight neck: If there is only one truss rod, You have to take care of both sides of the neck, but You can only change the bend by one screw. That means all the time there is a compromise. When the fist side is straight there is no way for further adjusting. Rickenbackers offer more nuances in adjustment by seperating in two sides.

But everybody who wants to have a slight bow can have it.

To answer the question as a "normal player":
A Rickenbacker does not "need" a dead straight neck -but it offers the possibility. One of the reasons why I bought a Rickenbacker.

[jingle_jangle]

Well said, Sascha.

I might add: When I say "Ricks are designed for flat necks", I'm speaking of pure geometry. That's where I start--with all straight lines--when I begin to do a set up or if I'm trying to diagnose a problem with a specific instrument.

[Hotzenplotz]

Well said, Sascha.

Thank You! I tried to explain in an language that is not originally mine...

Yes, pure geometry is what I thought of. As closer the fingers are to the bridge the bigger is the angle of the strings. - No reason for buzzing with a straight neck. - And no need for a bow, too.

I do not know much about other factories. Are there other ones that offer two truss rods and the possibilities that result from?

[Ric_MEL]

I can certainly fathom the concept of : pure geometry. A straight line from nut. to bridge over a flat neck , strings close to the frets etc. OK.

No reason for buzzing with a straight neck. - And no need for a bow, too.

If a straight neck is a desireable ingredient of a good set up - My curiosity is/was more : why don't all of the millions of : Strats. Tele's, Les Pauls, SG's, Taylors, Martins . etc etc. call for the same - - - why is Rickenbacker brand guitar the only guitar I've heard of : that specifically calls for a dead flat neck.

Theoretically: if it works on one, should work on the others.

The suggestion that the dual truss rods provide a superior level neck control that is not available to < all other guitars > is plausible. Something has to account for the difference between RICS... and the rest of the guitar world.

Still strikes me as odd that basically the "relief" approach that is employed by <countless guitars> to get strings low but avoid buzzing - is a compromise method because they all have inadequate control of neck ( because only one truss rod ).

I also accept quantum fluctuations and probability waves - as true - even though I don't completely understand them

[Clint]

...why couldn't any guitar, any neck - be set to dead flat and not have any playability issues ?

.

I believe many can. Like I said, I leave in a wee bit of relief. Mostly, it's to prevent backbow caused by atmospheric changes. Now, when I say wee I mean wee. And not just my Rics. I've set up many Fenders and Gibsons with that same wee bit of relief with no problems.

Maybe it's just the easiest way for techs to get low action without buzzing. So the conventional wisdom became, "guitar necks need relief."

[iiipopes]

6-string Ricks, if you're the type who plays hard and bends a bit, can stand a bit of relief if you feel that setting the strings a bit higher at the nut makes them too resistant to your fretting efforts. If you find that dialing in a bit of relief helps your playing and tone, go for it.

This can become a complex discussion, because it reflects personal preferences in string choice and playing style.

Indeed. I am one which has the high E string side flat and the low E string side with the slightest bit of relief.

[iiipopes]

If a straight neck is a desireable ingredient of a good set up - My curiosity is/was more : why don't all of the millions of : Strats. Tele's, Les Pauls, SG's, Taylors, Martins . etc etc. call for the same - - - why is Rickenbacker brand guitar the only guitar I've heard of : that specifically calls for a dead flat neck.

Actually, older Martins are designed to be flat as well.