what about these low saddles?

[rar]

After all this great discussion, I'd like to return to the original question. (Maybe I'm just dense, and everyone else has figured out what the answer is.)

 

Let me try putting it a little differently. Suppose that you have a guitar with a properly cut nut, a perfectly straight neck with perfectly level frets, and the top of the bridge perfectly aligned with the top of the frets. If this ideal guitar is set up so that the clearance of the low E string, say, at the 12th fret is 6/64", and the distance from the nut to the saddle is exactly twice the distance of the nut to the 12th fret, then the height of the saddle above the bridge at the low E must be 6/32". A quick perturbation analysis shows that neither reasonable neck relief (say, 0.010") nor adjustment of the saddle for improved intonation significantly affects that 6/32" figure.

 

But there is a claim that, on many recent J-35s, the height of the saddle is much less. Why? Very high nut slots might contribute some: raising the bottom of the nut slot by h while lowering the saddle by h preserves the clearance at the 12th fret. Excessive neck relief together with use of an 18" straightedge to check whether the height of the bridge is correct could contribute. It could be lots of things. But what, if anything, is actually going on with these J-35s? Has anybody taken one to a qualified expert-type for examination? What about these low saddles?

 

-- Bob R

[chasAK]

Wow, too much information for my small brain to process. I take my guitar to reputable luthier and try to keep it properly humidified. If I like how it plays I'm good! Now that my curiosity has gotten the best of I am going to get my straight edge out. I hope it comes out right! I won't take it in unless there is another problem like buzzing, undesirable playability, or intonation. I understand the financial gain aspect, but has Montana said anything about this issue on the j35?

 

Charlie

 

[Sitedrifter]

I checked out frets.com and read it very carefully. Since my ruler is 20" that may be an issue in itself since everyone says from the 1st fret to the bridge the straightedge must sit on top. Well the 20" does not make it to the 1st fret. So I read where Frank Ford has an alternate method to check the neck angle if the proper straight edge is not available. I measured my action at the 12th fret low E and it was 3/32 on the nose and the high E was 2/32. I then measured the low E string height off the sound board and it was 13/32 which is above the dreaded < 3/8". Using that method it seems the neck angle is proper for my guitar. No?

[duluthdan]

I checked out frets.com and read it very carefully. Since my ruler is 20" that may be an issue in itself since everyone says from the 1st fret to the bridge the straightedge must sit on top. Well the 20" does not make it to the 1st fret. So I read where Frank Ford has an alternate method to check the neck angle if the proper straight edge is not available. I measured my action at the 12th fret low E and it was 3/32 on the nose and the high E was 2/32. I then measured the low E string height off the sound board and it was 13/32 which is above the dreaded < 3/8". Using that method it seems the neck angle is proper for my guitar. No?

Sounds good to me, not being an expert - I've only had one guitar that needed a neck worked on, and it was so obvious even my limited mind could tell something was severely out of whack. Plays well? Trust the force.

[blindboygrunt]

After all this great discussion, I'd like to return to the original question. (Maybe I'm just dense, and everyone else has figured out what the answer is.)

 

Let me try putting it a little differently. Suppose that you have a guitar with a properly cut nut, a perfectly straight neck with perfectly level frets, and the top of the bridge perfectly aligned with the top of the frets. If this ideal guitar is set up so that the clearance of the low E string, say, at the 12th fret is 6/64", and the distance from the nut to the saddle is exactly twice the distance of the nut to the 12th fret, then the height of the saddle above the bridge at the low E must be 6/32". A quick perturbation analysis shows that neither reasonable neck relief (say, 0.010") nor adjustment of the saddle for improved intonation significantly affects that 6/32" figure.

 

But there is a claim that, on many recent J-35s, the height of the saddle is much less. Why? Very high nut slots might contribute some: raising the bottom of the nut slot by h while lowering the saddle by h preserves the clearance at the 12th fret. Excessive neck relief together with use of an 18" straightedge to check whether the height of the bridge is correct could contribute. It could be lots of things. But what, if anything, is actually going on with these J-35s? Has anybody taken one to a qualified expert-type for examination? What about these low saddles?

 

-- Bob R

 

Cheers bob. That's the gist of the question.

[RayWhitley]

6/64" on the bass side @12th fret is pretty much perfect. Any lower and it will probably buzz. I would say anything up to just below 8/64" plays really well for most people. At or above 8/64" you'll probably want to bring the saddle down, or if there's none left, reset the neck.

 

Another rule of thumb is that the top of the saddle should be about 1/2" above the soundboard in the center. That's about optimum to drive the top and get the best sound. Now, every bridge is different, they are not all the same height. Some have more or less saddle sticking out by design. That's why the combined height can be helpful.

[Del Nilppeznaf]

I checked out frets.com and read it very carefully. Since my ruler is 20" that may be an issue in itself since everyone says from the 1st fret to the bridge the straightedge must sit on top. Well the 20" does not make it to the 1st fret. So I read where Frank Ford has an alternate method to check the neck angle if the proper straight edge is not available. I measured my action at the 12th fret low E and it was 3/32 on the nose and the high E was 2/32. I then measured the low E string height off the sound board and it was 13/32 which is above the dreaded < 3/8". Using that method it seems the neck angle is proper for my guitar. No?

 

 

There you go SD

 

you need a long enough straight edge to line the FULL fingerboard up with the bridge......otherwise as you slide it toward the bridge the end at the bridge is going to rise slightly..yes ?

 

good man for having a look at frets.com....

 

As I say... these kind of thread can cause us to worry needlessly sometimes. Again..if your guitar sounds and plays well..then it probably is well :)

 

your measurements are good... so no sweat. It's a pretty simple test..if you have the right tools... but if things dont work out exactly

 

Rar makes some fine points.... humidity ect..; we can all learn from some fine folk here. Over my time I have also learned not to jump to conclusions about my guitars if something is stated and my guitar does not match exactly.

 

As I say my J35 saddle is low.... I would like it to be a little higher...but it works.....

[Del Nilppeznaf]

After all this great discussion, I'd like to return to the original question. (Maybe I'm just dense, and everyone else has figured out what the answer is.)

 

Let me try putting it a little differently. Suppose that you have a guitar with a properly cut nut, a perfectly straight neck with perfectly level frets, and the top of the bridge perfectly aligned with the top of the frets. If this ideal guitar is set up so that the clearance of the low E string, say, at the 12th fret is 6/64", and the distance from the nut to the saddle is exactly twice the distance of the nut to the 12th fret, then the height of the saddle above the bridge at the low E must be 6/32". A quick perturbation analysis shows that neither reasonable neck relief (say, 0.010") nor adjustment of the saddle for improved intonation significantly affects that 6/32" figure.

 

But there is a claim that, on many recent J-35s, the height of the saddle is much less. Why? Very high nut slots might contribute some: raising the bottom of the nut slot by h while lowering the saddle by h preserves the clearance at the 12th fret. Excessive neck relief together with use of an 18" straightedge to check whether the height of the bridge is correct could contribute. It could be lots of things. But what, if anything, is actually going on with these J-35s? Has anybody taken one to a qualified expert-type for examination? What about these low saddles?

 

-- Bob R

 

Rar

 

yes back to the OP's query

 

My saddle sits 2/32" at the low E string...rising to 4/32" at the D and G strings... so its quite low. The Optimum being 6/32" as you state.

 

I have an action of

 

7/64" low E

4/64" high E both at 12th fret

&

2/64" low E

1/64" high E at the nut

 

the relief is approximately 0.010"

 

So as you say

 

just what about these j35 saddles :)

[guitarstrummer]

Rar, didn't they tell us at the Homecoming that the tops are a bit thinner on the J-35s and that's one of the reasons they sound better? If so, could that have anything to do with it?

[rar]

Rar, didn't they tell us at the Homecoming that the tops are a bit thinner on the J-35s and that's one of the reasons they sound better? If so, could that have anything to do with it?

I don't see how the top enters into it, other tha indirectly through its effect on bridge height. And the reports are that the bridge height is right on.

 

Seems like if the height of the saddle is equal to the 12th fret clearance, then the string is running parallel to the line from the top of the bridge to the top of the 12th fret, and the bottom of the nut slot must be on the higher line rather than the lower line. But such a guitar could not possible pass the straightedge test unless the too-hight nut slot is due entirely to the nut slot being cut too shallow, and a guitar with a nut slot that is 3/32" too shallow would only be playable with a slide. In a nutshell, I just don't get it!

 

-- Bob R

[bobouz]

Interestingly, we have had multiple reports of low saddles on J35s, and multiple reports of tall saddles, including the only J35 I've had in hand.

 

In setting up my acoustics, I first dial in a virtually straight neck, then shape the saddle, and finally the nut. If I can get a break to the bridge pins in the neighborhood of a 45 degree angle, all is usually good with the world (assuming no neck twists or fret issues).

 

The J35, with it's very narrow & long bridge, has little distance between the saddle & the bridge pin holes. This is the opposite extreme compared to a four ribbon J200 bridge (which places the pin holes far away from the saddle). Therefore, a low saddle on a J35 would probably still yield a good break angle to the pins. If the angle is indeed good & it notes well without tinny overtones (with all other aspects of the setup being to the players satisfaction), the setup will most likely be fine for the long haul.

 

Back to the one J35 I played. With such a tall saddle on a narrow bridge, the break angle easily exceeded 45 degrees to the pins. Going strictly on feel, for me, a saddle this high usually results in stiffer playability, and I look specifically for a light touch.

 

Not stating any right or wrong here, just adding to the fact that there are multiple factors to be considered in this discussion. In effect, there will be a "range of acceptability" which depends in part on the preferences of the player.