Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

iiipopes wrote:

jingle_jangle wrote: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.

...and this is where Sascha's comment needs its own comment...The low "E" string vibrates the most, with the biggest nodes. So, if you're gonna need relief because of an aggressive playing style combined with low action, it's the low "E" side that'll get it.

Geometrically speakin'.

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

this is the phrase that is my sticking point..

"are Designed to be flat "

What is the DESIGN difference ?? .. what's different? .. in the overall design
between THOSE Martins.. and todays Martins.

or even in this thread:

jingle_jangle wrote:Ricks are designed for no relief...

"Designed Different" infers [to me] - some aspect of the multiple factors that are involved.. was done intentionally different.. that ended up with a set up NOT calling for relief to achieve low action, no buzzing, good intonation.

In my simple mind: if it should work for one.. it should work for all, unless taken as a whole there are intentional variances in: ( nut, bridge, neck angle, frets, etc ) in the overall Design.

Thus: ALL guitars should strive for a totally flat neck.. but only some can pull it off because of superior control ( ie Rick with 2 truss rods ).

By "designed", in reference to truss-rod-equipped guitars, I'm referring to geometry, not engineering...in all cases that I'm aware of, the geometry is based on no relief, with relief being recommended to make room for string vibration.

Older Martins (pre-truss rod) were designed/engineered to have flat necks, so that the major determinant of action and string relief would be neck angle, with bridge saddle height and nut slot depth being two ways to fine-tune action. Older Martins are not known for the kind of action that's become the norm for quality electric guitars. In my memory, two things remain from the first time I played a Rick 12 string, back in '65: The color and visual impact, and the amazing playability. Both spoke to me about the quality and the money it took to achieve it and acquire it...

The quality of today's Rickenbackers, in my experience and opinion, are head and shoulders above anything made back then. And they're still mostly hand-made, too.

This is the most OCD discussion I can recall in eons.

Ric_MEL wrote:

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

Ummm...I never said that, nor would I...that was Sascha.

I don't want to be guilty of beating a horse..

Merely curious how Ric is able to achieve what they do.. and yet not rely upon what is a conventional approach - re: relief. They are unique in this regard.

.. If it just boils down to meticulous high quality - then that's great. There's my answer, to my question.

Off topic ( on my own thread... )
We are indeed fortunate to have the scenario where they can produce this caliber of instrument, stay true to a design philosophy, and not at insane prices.
.. when I see <other brand> long time classic models being released - at: $4k, $5k, $6k, $7k ! .. makes me shudder when I think of RIC would be charging.. if they were in the hands of other owners. !

Ric_MEL wrote:this is the phrase that is my sticking point.."are Designed to be flat "

Can we look at it this way, the neck is designed to be flat so the player has the option of adjusting the guitar to however it plays best for them? This makes sense to me. No size (or set up) fits all. Honestly, I don't see RIC as unique in this regard. I just think it boils down to a well designed, highly adjustable neck.

Let's forget the buzzing part of what I wrote.

What I ment in the end is that the guitars build in that accurate way we do not have to compensate bigger mistakes in producing by adjusting. And so we can go closer (and more detailed - because of two rods) to the limit of details in adjusting. Better expressed this way?

In my opinion another detail is very important for a straight neck: an equal as possible level of the frets. If there is just one fret that is elevated out of tolerance region, the bow has to be more - to equalized that "mistake".

The whole Rickenbacker thing reminds me of the old Volkswagen cars. They changed all the times the details, not the idea itself. And an experience of decades with the "same" model offers an unbeatable knowledge in details.
(Fortunately the possible steps of progression in building guitars are much smaller than in cars. So even in 20 years our axes are not "out of fashion".)

Clint wrote:

Ric_MEL wrote:this is the phrase that is my sticking point.."are Designed to be flat "

Can we look at it this way, the neck is designed to be flat so the player has the option of adjusting the guitar to however it plays best for them? This makes sense to me. No size (or set up) fits all.

+1