VanKirk Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 It seems like this thread is little more than a battle of the legalists(myself included). ← It may be difficult for others to look back on this thread and know exactly where you're coming from. Especially, when your comments sparked a large part of this debate. If you have something to clarify in your earlier statements then add to them. Why go back and edit out your posts? It looks to me like you can't handle it when others pick out discrepencies in your posts which in turn lowers your credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southpa Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 All I know is the lower the strings the more sustain and tone is sacrificed. With extremely low action you can't pluck the string very hard or else buzzing will occur. When the strings are higher you can get away with hitting the string harder, giving you more amplitude in string vibration which allows the string to vibrate longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soapbarstrat Posted November 25, 2005 Report Share Posted November 25, 2005 Well, I'm also not such a believer in the idea that more sustain/loudness = more pleasing tone. I guess the income made by some players with low action and light strings would go along with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhoads56 Posted November 26, 2005 Report Share Posted November 26, 2005 It seems like this thread is little more than a battle of the legalists(myself included). ← It may be difficult for others to look back on this thread and know exactly where you're coming from. Especially, when your comments sparked a large part of this debate. If you have something to clarify in your earlier statements then add to them. Why go back and edit out your posts? It looks to me like you can't handle it when others pick out discrepencies in your posts which in turn lowers your credibility. ← GOOD CALL I quoted his first message, its the others we now cant see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegarehanman Posted November 26, 2005 Report Share Posted November 26, 2005 (edited) Good grief. My biggest complaint was that it was claimed that strings travel in an elliptical pattern; that's simply not true. A wave's crest and trough form a 2-d elipse, but a wave does not spin elliptically like a jumprope. I have a problem with people saying engineers and whoever else they please are wrong, simply because they hold a grudge. I had said that strings only vibrate on a 2-d plane; I was wrong. They do vibrate in 3 dimensions, but their movement is far more complex than you could glean simply by looking at a blur of vibrations. Can we please stop this frivolous personal attack now? Just because someone speaks with more authority, does not mean they are correct. That said, please take a look at the posts that assured us that strings move in an elliptical pattern; then take a look at the links I've provided in previous posts. Photographs of blurs hardly count as emperical evidence. I'm done with this thread, and I've restored what I could of the deleted posts for the sake of the continuity of the thread. peace, russ Edited November 26, 2005 by thegarehanman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGM Guitars Posted November 26, 2005 Report Share Posted November 26, 2005 The lowest action I ever acheived without buzzing was 0mm, but I could only play E, A, D, G, B, E off the 24th fret, but damn it was low and fast action, I could play those notes as fast as I could strum back and forth, didn't matter how far I bent the note either, they never fretted out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegarehanman Posted November 26, 2005 Report Share Posted November 26, 2005 Good call Jeremy. Ok, now I'm done... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 26, 2005 Report Share Posted November 26, 2005 well said thegarehanman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lietuvis Posted November 26, 2005 Report Share Posted November 26, 2005 (edited) The action on my Jackson DXMG is the lowest I've had it without any fret buzz. Currently, it is 2 mm off of the 12th fret, with 10s(GHS Boomers), and tuned a full step down(D-G-C-F-A-D). But ya, this thread is kind of pointless... Edited November 26, 2005 by Lietuvis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghwar Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Yes it is Digi. Its called bragging rights. Seriously low action impresses your mates, but not the guys who record or want to ability to "slack off" and actually dig into the string to get those nicer tones. Seriously, I personally think that putting .10 or .11 strings will do MUCH more for your tone than higher action..... ← what about 10's AND high action my strat has the action as high as I could get it and i think it's 2.1mm at low e.. . i dont understand how peopple play at 1mm let alone 1.5, or even 1.75. it feels too easy to press the strings in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mailman Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 i cant believe one guys obviously wrong post about 1mm string height has spawned 4 pages of arguing whether its even possible....god Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Well wethere you care or not about low action, alot of people do and prefere it low rather than high. So I see no surprise that there has been a large debate. One thing I noticed was that people who don't seem to care much for low action, seemed to do most of the flameing of the posts from the opposite side of the argument. Some people seem to take the low action argument really badly and get really defensive about it. Others try and state some bullcr@p theory of how a guitar string vibrates when they clearly know nothing about it and seem to tottaly forget what a guitar string actually looks like when they pluck it. In my opinion, Id rather have low action with heavier guage strings (which DO actually have the most effect on tone rather than hieght) than spindley strings that are higher up, which to my ears, just sound the same but harder to play. The effect of having high action means that you have to put more effort into playing the guitar and so more feel and more of a 'connection' between player and guitar. By having heavier strings, not only do they have greater moving mass and so have a more 'meaty' sound but also vibrate less to get the same theoretical output as thinner ones. Also becasue of the higher tension that they are under, it means that they are also harder to press so easily against the fb, and so in turn have a similar argument to the high action side of the debate. In my view, no arguments are pointless if they have a realative goal and are put across in a structured and constructive way, that everyone can feed off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soapbarstrat Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Well, it's gone on for 5 pages because people keep saying how wrong someone is for saying they got 1mm string action, in which case THEY are wrong, because 1mm isn't THAT low. 1mm is well over 1/32" (1mm = 0.039") (.031" = 1/32") Check it out on StewMacs converter, if needed : http://www.stewmac.com/conversion Or maybe we're dealing with a situation of people thinking : "action lower than what *I* like is not possible". In which case, we're probably also dealing with people who are thinking : " don't make me think about getting my frets perfectly level, because I want to concentrate on how cool the flamed maple top looks on my guitar, so it has a chance in GOTM ". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 I think you have hit the nail on the head there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guitarfrenzy Posted November 28, 2005 Report Share Posted November 28, 2005 Or maybe we're dealing with a situation of people thinking : "action lower than what *I* like is not possible". In which case, we're probably also dealing with people who are thinking : " don't make me think about getting my frets perfectly level, because I want to concentrate on how cool the flamed maple top looks on my guitar, so it has a chance in GOTM ". ← I hope that's not the case, but you never know. I would like to think that everyone is striving to build a great playing guitar also, not just one for looks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrummerDude Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Well guys, thanks for all the replies. It's 2 years later now and I still love ultra-freaking-low action. Every time I watch "Speed Kills" by Michael Angelo Batio, i get amazed by the freaking low action on his signature guitar - it is like 0.000000001 microns at 12th fret. Seriously, if you wanna shred like a pro, you need to have the lowest action pssible on your axe. Any tips about how to build a guitar that has the lowest action ever? Fret leveling? Nut height? Neck angle? Bridge type? I need a practical guide on ultra low action guitars. Anyone into building them? Any shred masters around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegarehanman Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Uh oh, here comes the storm again. For what it's worth, I recently was enlightened to the way a string vibrates. It does make a circular pattern, but it's not quite that straightforward. Apparently the string vibrates in an elliptical pattern which spins about its center, thereby forming what looks like circles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soapbarstrat Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Wanted to watch an action film, but was lazy and left the channel on PBS. Lowest action ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhoads56 Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Uh oh, here comes the storm again. For what it's worth, I recently was enlightened to the way a string vibrates. It does make a circular pattern, but it's not quite that straightforward. Apparently the string vibrates in an elliptical pattern which spins about its center, thereby forming what looks like circles. Glad to see you changed your opinion. Too bad it was an argument way back when.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrummerDude Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 So, how to make those circular/eliptical/whatever vibrating strings not buzz when they are 1 mm away fromt he frets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitar2005 Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 To me, the trick to low action with minimal or acceptable buzz is gauge 10-46 strings on a 16" radius fretboard. You can get away with using 9-42 gauge strings but to me, it just doesn't sound right. I usually set the action at 1/16th of a inch on the high e and a little over 1/16th of a inch on the low E, measured at the 12th fret. Not sure if that qualifies as low action or not. I just found that anything under that decreases sustain and generates more buzz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegarehanman Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Meh, whatever. Young and hasty and all that jazz. Not that I'm not young now, just more enlightened. peace, russ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soapbarstrat Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I just found that anything under that decreases sustain and generates more buzz. Should read : I just found that anything under that,* on this particular guitar, with the way it's been setup, and how level the frets are*, decreases sustain and generates more buzz. 1/16" for the high E is on the high side. That's almost twice as high as I normally set them up, or to put it another way, that's about twice as high as it needs to be set by my customers. I got one guy who puts it lower than 1/32", because he can't hear the slight buzz through his amp. Does anyone have the actual set-up numbers for Angelo's guitar ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhoads56 Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Does anyone have the actual set-up numbers for Angelo's guitar ? My experience (up to 45 setups in one week, average being around 10-15), is that shredders dont neccesarily have super low action, but they can play extremely well on even high action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soapbarstrat Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Many guitarist (including all kinds of really famous ones) don't *want* to play on high action, even if they *can*, and those ones don't, because they don't have to. But one thing that's kept this "discussion" going in a vicious circle, is these generalized terms of " high, low, super-low action ". Sounds like a carpenter asking his helper for a measurment, and the guy yells " it's really long ". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.