Stew-mac Steel Tube Leveler

[CrazyManAndy]

I'm building up my tool collection for my first build, and I was looking at getting one of these 16" levelers from stew-mac. They seem like the best option to me, especially with regard to versatility. Anyone fans or detractors of the tool here?

CMA

[thegarehanman]

I have the 16" model. It's nice in that it's pretty heavy, so all you have to do is slide it across the frets, its own weight provides enough pressure to remove material. If you want to level frets with the strings off, than that tube is a pretty good way to do it.

peace,

russ

[soapbarstrat]

I had two and sent them both back. They were far from being dead flat. I checked with a very accurate precision ground straight-edge. You need such a straight-edge to check them yourself; you have to be your own quality control for stewmac products, and I've found that having stew-mac employees checking the tool for you doesn't mean much. They want the less than perfect tools to still get bought.

I know of at least one other repairman who sent his back for the same reason. I also know one builder who bought one, and says it checked out perfect with his precision straight-edge.

[CrazyManAndy]

I had two and sent them both back. They were far from being dead flat. I checked with a very accurate precision ground straight-edge. You need such a straight-edge to check them yourself; you have to be your own quality control for stewmac products, and I've found that having stew-mac employees checking the tool for you doesn't mean much. They want the less than perfect tools to still get bought.

I know of at least one other repairman who sent his back for the same reason. I also know one builder who bought one, and says it checked out perfect with his precision straight-edge.

Well that doesn't sound to encouraging. And here I thought stew-mac was supposed to be top quality. I'll buy one and get it checked out. We'll see what happens.

CMA

Edited August 26, 2007 by CrazyManAndy

[ooten2]

I have a 16" also, and I second everything that Russ said. I don't have a precision straight edge to check flatness, but it's done a better job than anythng else I've tried so far. It flattens not only frets but fretboards, too.

[low end fuzz]

+1

that + flush pliers and fret saw are the only things ive been tottally satisfied with from stew mac;

[Xanthus]

Now I don't have or have tried either product, but I'd think that a radiused aluminum beam would work better at getting frets leveled, no?

[soapbarstrat]

...but I'd think that a radiused aluminum beam would work better at getting frets leveled, no?

Man oh man, how old does that question/statement get ?

Ok, yeah, the radius is so superior. Us guys that use a flat beam are just secretly trying to ruin as many guitars as possible. We were hired by the National Glockenspiel Institute to make the guitar less popular, by making them harder to play.

[thegarehanman]

Soapbar! The secret! How many people will we have to kill before you stop blabbering about our plot?! You'd better not clue them onto the fact that a guitar whose strings have one radius at the nut, the same radius at the bridge, the same radius fretboard, and a tapered neck means that the strings at the sides of the neck need to be higher than on a guitar with a compound radius board! Oh, nuts.

Edited August 26, 2007 by thegarehanman

[Xanthus]

Thanks, guys.

[Magnus]

Thanks, guys.

If you want a low-cost alternative, go get an aluminum level at the hardware store. I've got one, it is very straight, and it works well for me.

I can definitely see how the radiused aluminum beam is superior.

[thegarehanman]

I can definitely see how the radiused aluminum beam is superior.

You'd better not clue them onto the fact that a guitar whose strings have one radius at the nut, the same radius at the bridge, the same radius fretboard, and a tapered neck means that the strings at the sides of the neck need to be higher than on a guitar with a compound radius board!

Play with a soda can and a ruler for a few minutes and you'll see what I mean.

Edited August 27, 2007 by thegarehanman

[Magnus]

I can definitely see how the radiused aluminum beam is superior.

You'd better not clue them onto the fact that a guitar whose strings have one radius at the nut, the same radius at the bridge, the same radius fretboard, and a tapered neck means that the strings at the sides of the neck need to be higher than on a guitar with a compound radius board!

Play with a soda can and a ruler for a few minutes and you'll see what I mean.

I meant for leveling the frets quicker. I like the way i'm leveling now, with the aluminum level, so I can put a slight compound radius on the frets.

Besides, I don't see any reason to shell out that much money for a tool I won't use a whole lot, when I have something that works just fine.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Magnus

[GregP]

Now I'm confused. You seemed to be in support of the radiused aluminum beam as being superior. But then you talk about a slight compound radius. You need a straight beam for that.

So confused...

[thegarehanman]

Well, I get the impression he would like to use the radiused block to remove the bulk of material. The truth of the matter is that you should spend the time getting the fretboard level so that there is no "bulk" of material to remove once the frets are installed. Just tweaking

[Magnus]

Well, I get the impression he would like to use the radiused block to remove the bulk of material. The truth of the matter is that you should spend the time getting the fretboard level so that there is no "bulk" of material to remove once the frets are installed. Just tweaking

Nope. What I mean, is that if i'm not doing a compound radius on the frets, then I could get the job done a lot faster with the aluminum radius block.

I make sure my fretboards are level, before I ever reach for the frets or fretting tools.

Learned from past experience.

[thegarehanman]

Ok, well what I was getting at earlier, is that (from both experience and simple geometric logic) regardless of whether your strings form a conical surface or a cylindrical surface, because of the paths of the individual strings and the fact that in almost all situations the strings are slightly(or sometimes dramatically) lower at the nut than the bridge, the fretboard should always have a conical surface to some extent if you're aiming for low action.

peace,

russ

[Magnus]

Cool.

[soapbarstrat]

After you add fret height to your perfect radius board, things change slightly. The fret tops are now a slightly flatter radius than the fret-board. Then factor in different thicknesses for different sandpaper grits stuck on your radius block. I guess in most cases we're talking about a couple thou difference (?), but on a well done fret-job, you only have to mill off .001" or .002" thou to get everything perfectly level, and I wouldn't want a couple more thou added for radius mis-match.

[Ifixguitars]

Out of curiosity, what kind of tool do you use to test how true these tools are and why are you certain that they are more accurate than what Stewmac uses?

[soapbarstrat]

Can't answer for the others, but I run deep into the woods and find an old rusted barbed-wire fence and lay my fretting tools on that to see how flat they are.

[Ifixguitars]

Thanks, I'll have to get me some of that.........

[87kevin]

sorry for bringing this up again.. I've been debating this with myself for a while now (straight vs radiused leveler). I've done it both ways with success both ways, but my calculations point to the radiused being more accurate on a non-compound fb. Forget about the strings, as long as we're leveling frets that were on say a 12" rad fb, the level of the frets should be 12+plus a bit. On 2 1/4" (wide end of fb) with a fret height of .05" the difference is .0004". Thats less than half of a thousandth - not anything we can accurately measure. So that being said, leving with a radius should preserve the fb radius more accurately than trying to mimick it with a straightedge. Not saying it cant be done because i've done it MANY times, I just like to keep things as accurate as possible, even if nobdy else notices. Now to cough up $150+ for the stewmac beam.....

[j. pierce]

Thing is, the radius is the least important bit in the equation - how level the frets are along the string path is the most important bit. If you don't have the second, you'll notice it very quickly - buzzing and all the other problems that come along with unlevel frets. If you're radius isn't a perfect 12" inches (or whatever the board radius you choose is)… well, by the time it gets far enough that you notice that, you've got more serious issues than an imperfect radius.

If you can machine a radius block to tight enough tolerances to do frets with, I think the benefit for a cylindrical, non-conical fret-board is not increased accuracy, but rather that I'd assume you could (possibly) level the frets faster, because you can do the entire width of the fret-board with each pass.

[Woodenspoke]

Been away, Always late to the Party. Stumac tools I am not impressed. Unless you do have a precision straight edge to check their tools I would be skeptical about anything they sell with an accuracy claim.

I have wondered how the 16" sanding beam I received was so straight and why the slotted straight edge was so off as to be unusable. My best guess is they have it made it and ship it. If its not right you are own your own too figure it out. It must have been a business decision as to how may returns vs how many people will actually believe in the tools accuracy at face value. Yes they replaced the slotted straight edge and the second one was almost perfect.

As a general rule I check every tool I buy just in case it was made on Friday around 5PM, LOL

Sorry to bring this back off the subject; If your fingerboard has a compound radius you cannot use a fixed radius block.

Edited May 25, 2008 by Woodenspoke