high action or low/hollow body?

[jzucker]

And then, after you get the perfect guitar, your tastes may change. You play different music, you learn new techniques, you get tired of your usual sounds. I may be joking here, but this may be an argument to get an L5. I can't recall meeting anybody who ever said, "I used to play an L5". Maybe that's a guitar you stick with <g>.

I used to play an L5. I've owned 4 of them. At various times, I had a 64, a 75, an 82 and an '92 L5 Wes. When I had the wes, I picked up a single pickup heritage eagle and felt that the heritage had a prettier sound. The L5 isn't for everyone. The CES and the Wes have a very bright attack which I didn't care for a lot.

The like the '63 Barney Kessel i have a lot more and I also liked the '89 175 a lot more.

But I agree that your tastes will change and you may just get tired of having the same sound after a while.

[christianm77]

I think Peter Bernstein had an L5, he told a friend of mine he never got on with that particular guitar.... (that that particular guitar wasn’t a good one.)

Isn’t a lot of his older stuff on a 175?

I think in many ways the 175 is more practical than the L5, it’s good to have both. Unless you have a Zeidler of course.

[DanielleOM]

I just brought my Eastman FV guitar in after having it almost a year for some fret leveling and set up. Noting I play chord melody, the luthier suggested a lower action as one would normally do for an electric guitar. I think that makes sense. I am thinking if the frets are leveled in properly and the action is set low, the bridge could always be adjusted higher at a later date, if wanted use the guitar as an acoustic guitar. I suspect I will be using it in situations where it's plugged in.

I like the guitar and I find it sounds good when played with a light touch. But it also sounds great unplugged when you put some real energy into the top.

Next time Frank Vignola plays in this area I am going to try and see him. I really want to hear his live sound.

[Greentone]

Since I have several archtops, I have decided to experiment with different actions. On one carved body 17" guitar I keep the action sort of medium to medium+plus. This makes the guitar sound superb as both an acoustic and acoustic-electric. (This guitar has a floating pickup.)

Another carved body 18" guitar with two humbuckers I keep with a low action. This guitar I play primarily as an electric guitar. The neck is quite flat (little relief). The frets are perfectly filed. With the low action this guitar just shines as a jazz electric.

An antique carved body 16" archtop I have without electronics I keep with a moderately high action. This guitar produces a BIG sound for a smallish guitar with this setup.

Another 17" archtop (a laminate body) I keep with a medium action. I tried the low action as with the 18, but this guitar sounds better with the medium action.

I don't notice much of a guitar-to-guitar transitional problem when switching. I have had the guitars long enough such that they all feel great.

(With my solid body guitars I favor medium-to-high actions. It's just the way I grew up playing them. I met Roy Buchanan as a young guitar player and he advocated a high action. I noticed that his Telecaster had a fairly high action. I made the switch and never looked back. The only exception is if I consciously want a spanky/funky sound. I generally keep one Fender around set up for that sound.)

[mr quick]

Depends of your playing style and what you use the guitar for. Common setups i believe are, heavier strings with a lower action, or lighter ones with a higher action. Whatever someone chooses to use, it should feel comfortable and easy to practice with. Safety and health of the hands should be the number 1 concern.

I broke that rule years back, chasing the tone of high setup and heavy strings, and paid the price with tendinitis and neck problems that took years (and a change of technique) to overcome. So now, i tend to use medium/low action everywhere. The thickness of the strings doesn't seem to matter that much.

I had the same problems as you! I got so caught up in the whole "perfect jazz thunk" thing that I thought playing through the pain was a good idea. When I was around 18, I was playing 012 flats way up high on a jazz box, and practicing for hours every day because of a jarring video I'd seen of myself performing and realizing I sucked. Naturally, I got tendonitis in both arms and had to wear those rails for 3 months, and even had to get a cortisone injection in my left wrist, which has left a permanent discoloration (and healthy reminder) at the point of injection.

About 2 or 3 years later, I was using 11 flats at a medium height on my ES guitar, but this combined with my job and lots of organ gigs brought the tendonitis back again, once more in both arms. This time around I only had to wear the rails for a month or so, but I had to leave my very well-paying factory/assembly job at a medical technology firm, and I went on sick leave until my contract expired...

Now, I've learned my lesson and play round 10's with a low setup. It's a much more contemporary tone, and a million times easier to play, but sometimes I miss the old-school and dry thunk of fat flats. Unfortunately the tendonitis is ever-lingering, so I don't dare to try it out.

So once more, quoting the above post: Safety and health of the hands should be the number 1 concern!

[christianm77]

I actually find .10 or .11 roundwounds very hard to play. They wiggle around so much!

But then, I find it a different bag to play electric generally.

A well set up guitar should make heavy strings easy to play, but a lot of guitarists seem to play what I would think of as badly set up guitars. Get your frets looked at, and get your neck set up right, you should be able to get a lowish action without buzz.

[Greentone]

+1 Christianm77

Light gauge strings are wiggly.

Also, the tone of 10 rounds is quite a bit different than 12 flats. I prefer the latter, even for pop/rock.

[rio]

I put .010s on my Tele since I’m having hand issues after many years of not going below .012s on any guitar, .013 or .014 on some. Except for picking being harder due to not having the string tension I was used to, it sounded fine at home but once I got to playing with a group I was really not happy with it. The lack of dynamics was hard to deal with and I found it interesting that at home it sounded ok but didn’t like it with a group. I went back to my L5 with .012 Bebops and found it just as easy, if not easier to play since I could have lower action due to the tension (1.25mm at the 12th fret). I can’t get that low on all of my guitars without buzzing though.

As I was dealing with that I was thinking, what measurement do you all consider to be “low action”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[fep]

I just set it up as low as I can where there is no noticeable fret buzz when I go for a thunk (i.e. a heavy handed strum and a heavy handed rest stroke with a pick). I usually pick lighter than that though. I don't understand how action could affect tone other than fret buzz.

(I've got my hollowbody set up with 12s.)

[Greentone]

Rio is correct that the L5 will accommodate a low action. Gibson historically did a great job on the L5 nut, neck, frets, and bridge. The guitar can be set up as low as any guitar I have seen.

[ScottM]

This question has probably been asked on another thread, but can someone define high action? Low? I'm set up to where I can get a D'andrea ProPlec to to stay put, in playing position, wedged between the high E and the crown of the 12th fret. Is that high, low, what? i've always wondered. I'm guessing it's low?

After seeing the Freddie Green video I'm kind of in the dark. LOL

[ScottM]

Sorry, all. I just noticed this post. I'm not too observant, today.

I went back to my L5 with .012 Bebops and found it just as easy, if not easier to play since I could have lower action due to the tension (1.25mm at the 12th fret). I can’t get that low on all of my guitars without buzzing though.

As I was dealing with that I was thinking, what measurement do you all consider to be “low action”?

[rio]

This question has probably been asked on another thread, but can someone define high action? Low? I'm set up to where I can get a D'andrea ProPlec to to stay put, in playing position, wedged between the hight E and the crown of the 12th fret. Is that high, low, what? i've always wondered. I'm guessing it's low?

After seeing the Freddie Green video I'm kind of in the dark. LOL

That is how I set up my guitars before getting a measurement card and I would consider it to be low action. I am also curious if there is some standardized measurements concerning what is low, medium and high action. I can approximate based on what I like to play but knowing some exact measurements would be interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[whiskey02]

Just about anything you think of or come across in this life is a tradeoff of some sort; make the best trade for you.
They do call it playing, not fighting guitar, so you know where I stand.

[Carloscepinha]

I put .010s on my Tele since I’m having hand issues after many years of not going below .012s on any guitar, .013 or .014 on some. Except for picking being harder due to not having the string tension I was used to, it sounded fine at home but once I got to playing with a group I was really not happy with it. The lack of dynamics was hard to deal with and I found it interesting that at home it sounded ok but didn’t like it with a group. I went back to my L5 with .012 Bebops and found it just as easy, if not easier to play since I could have lower action due to the tension (1.25mm at the 12th fret). I can’t get that low on all of my guitars without buzzing though.

As I was dealing with that I was thinking, what measurement do you all consider to be “low action”?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sorry to dig up such old topic,I was searching for info about setups because I'm running 2mm[4/64"] (high E) and 2,5mm[6/64"] (low E) at this moment with 013-056.
So is this considered heavy or would it be just "normal"?
What did guys like Wes, Burrell, Kessell, Grant Green, use?
(couple of years ago I used to play with Thomastik bebop 012s at 1,5mm wich was fairly low and soft, I met local rock star, neo classical virtuoso kind of guy and his strings where higher than mines at 1,5)

My local luthier can get me at almost 1,2mm without buzzing ofc, but the sound and dinamic is so much weaker. Specially when I rehearse a guitar duo without an amp.

[mr. beaumont]

This question has probably been asked on another thread, but can someone define high action? Low? I'm set up to where I can get a D'andrea ProPlec to to stay put, in playing position, wedged between the high E and the crown of the 12th fret. Is that high, low, what? i've always wondered. I'm guessing it's low? After seeing the Freddie Green video I'm kind of in the dark. LOL

That'd mean you're under 1.5mm at the 12th...that's pretty damn LOW.My happy zone is about 2mm for electrics, 2.5mm for acoustics.

[Tatayoyo]

Lowest action I've played in my life was recently on an Ibanez Pm200 with 13-56 I think. The impression is the strings are touching the frets on the whole neck but with zero buzzing.Overwhelming Ibanez necks, very straights and fret levelling is at the quantic-scale. Probably under or around 1mm at 12th fret.It's more an invitation to Scofield style than Freddie Green heavy comping.

[sgosnell]

Ideal action depends on playing style and individual preference. Jerry Reed said he wanted the action so low that he could just blow on the strings and fret them. Freddie Green, OTOH, used incredibly high action. I prefer it low, but not as low as Jerry liked. Tone starts to suffer for me when it gets too low. I tend to lower the action as far as I can to start, then raise it a little at a time until I'm satisfied. I may have to tweak it every now and then as the environment changes.

[coolvinny]

I think action should be as low as possible to avoid any fret buzzing when playing with one's desired level of "touch" (whether light or heavy), using one's desired string and pick thicknesses. As long as the strings are freely vibrating, then I don't think having any "extra" action is helpful.

[Cunamara]

Unless you are playing like Freddie Green, acoustically in a big band so that you are really thwacking the instrument, it shouldn't be necessary to have high action to get a good tone. I keep my action at about 4/64" (1.6mm) which is fairly low and very comfortable. If you have to have the action high to get a good clean note, it's likely that there is some problem with how your guitar is set up in terms of fret leveling, neck relief, etc. 4/64" ought to be plenty high; 5/64" if strictly acoustic, maybe.

[JazzNote]

I play with a very low action of approx 1.2 mm or 1mm @ 12th fret and all my guitars are okay with this. On some i could go below 1mm if i wanted to. My guess is that using quite heavy (and on most guitars flatwound) strings which vibrate less than light strings help the cause. Lowest gauge for high E i'm using is .013 on some guitars i prefer using .014 . It's possible that dynamics are suffering, but i feel that i can compensate for this by using stone picks wich enable me to articulate better then any other materials i've used over the years. This said i have to add that i rarely play unamplified, so volume is not an issue.

[Carloscepinha]

I keep my action at about 4/64" (1.6mm) which is fairly low and very comfortable.[...] 4/64" ought to be plenty high; 5/64" if strictly acoustic, maybe.

I play with a very low action of approx 1.2 mm or 1mm @ 12th fret and all my guitars are okay with this. On some i could go below 1mm if i wanted to.

Thanks for your info guys!
One of the examples that I allways remember about string height (but also its the diferent instruments) is the sound I hear in these kind of acoustic clips.
(I know the cellphone quality but just hear the solos :P)

[christianm77]

Thanks for your info guys!
One of the examples that I allways remember about string height (but also its the diferent instruments) is the sound I hear in these kind of acoustic clips.
(I know the cellphone quality but just hear the solos :P)

Peter plays with such clarity of purpose doesn’t he? That instrument has a beautiful well balanced voice if not super loud in the room per se. But Peter’s projection goes beyond mere acoustics.

You probably know the story about him studying with Jim Hall where Jim would make him project his playing to him while he went into the other room to make a coffee.

Also lovely playing yourself! Apologies if you posted this info above, but what’s your axe?

[JazzNote]

Thanks for your info guys!
One of the examples that I allways remember about string height (but also its the diferent instruments) is the sound I hear in these kind of acoustic clips.

Imho the acoustic properties of the instrument are much more important for the acoustic sound than the string height. I have a 18" Elferink Excalibur which was built by Frans with the specific purpose to be loud. I've equipped it with a TI Bebop set .014 to .055 and i play it with an action of 1.2mm @ 12th fret. It's clarity and projection is incredible, it's much louder than any of my other guitars and has a similar voice to Peter's guitar on the clip (which i can't figure out what it is).

[christianm77]

Imho the acoustic properties of the instrument are much more important for the acoustic sound than the string height. I have a 18" Elferink Excalibur which was built by Frans with the specific purpose to be loud. I've equipped it with a TI Bebop set .014 to .055 and i play it with an action of 1.2mm @ 12th fret. It's clarity and projection is incredible, it's much louder than any of my other guitars and has a similar voice to Peter's guitar on the clip (which i can't figure out what it is).

It’s a Zeidler.

There’s loud and there’s loud. My Loar LH 600 almost deafened the poor man when I had a lesson with him, much louder guitar, but that instrument has clarity, balance and sustain that the Loar obviously lacks (the Zeidler is worth I think 50-100x more?) Peter said the instrument had changed the way he hears chords.

Design factors into it. Most of today’s jazz players don’t want the kind of acoustic cannon the Loar is designed to replicate (and does a very good job. People are shocked at how loud that guitar can be) and want something less brash, cutting and lacking in sustain. Tbh I’m not sure I want that sound any more!

But the Z has a strong voice. When I hear Peter play solo I can certainly hear that as part of the tone, and it has that old school archtop crunch. You can hear that when he strums chords.

You just aren’t going to get, say, a modern L5 to sound like that. Mind you I tried one from the 60s and it was very resonant.