String height

[tbeltrans]

Does anybody here adjust the string height on their Taylor guitars to change it from what the factory settings are?

I have done some experimenting and currently have mine set as follows at the 12th fret (bottom of string to top of fret:

Low E: 4/32"
High E" 3/32"

This is not far below what th factory setup was (1/32" lower across the strings), but the change seems to make the strings a bit easier to work with, while not causing any buzzing under any conditions.  By the way, I am using D'Addario EJ-16 light (.053 - .012).

My guitar is a 2016 Taylor 914ce.  It plays beautifully as it is, but could/should it be better in terms of string height?

Since I play fingerstyle, I am interested in setting the action as low as possible without causing buzzing or otherwise compromising the guitar.  Maybe where I currently have it is best?

Whenever I read what various fingerstyle players have theirs set to, it seems I should be able to go lower by another 1/32".  However, I don't want to get that buzzy or "slappy" sound to my guitar from having it too low, or resulting from playing it too hard.  I don't want to have to "baby" it to keep the strings from buzzing.  I do want to be able to play with dynamics and also to continue using open/alternative tunings without buzzing.  Right now, it does all this just fine, with being 1 /32" lower than factory string height.

In the long run, I don't want to unduly stress my hands or wrists from having to strain them on the strings.  I want to start putting in more hours on the guitar and don't want to start having hand/wrist problems.  Any thoughts appreciated.   

Tony

[Edward]

Hi Tony,

The "proper" setup is the one that works for one's individual playing style.  And to that, there is no way to find out what is the lowest string height you can go without first going too far/low, then bringing it back a hair; simply no way to predict what is "acceptable" since it's your playing style, and only you can decide what is/isn't acceptable.

That said, you are pretty low already (BTW, I presume you really mean 4/64ths and 3/64ths, since 32nds would be high!).  Before dropping string height any more, have you checked your neck relief?  At your fairly low string height, you may get a smidge lower action setting your relief to just-barely-bowed from dead straight ...in other words, only a sliver of relief at the 7-8th fret.  OTOH, if you already have very little neck relief, then yes, you'd have to lower string height before you find out what is too far.

Edward

[tbeltrans]

The 32nds vs 64ths is interesting.  I have a metal ruler that has 32nds marked on one edge and 64ths on the other.  I took the measurements on the 32nds side.  Adam Rafferty has a blog page on which he discusses string height.  He said his guitar is set up at 4/64 and 3/64.  He has a picture of the same ruler measuring his string height for the low E string.  The picture looks identical to my measurement.  So you hit directly on a point of confusion for me.  I need to get that verified one way or another before I can continue with any more adjusting.  If what I have is really 64ths, then I should keep it as is.

Tony

[tbeltrans]

I printed out a chart from Taylor showing factory string heights for their various models.  According to their measurements, my Taylor 914ce should be approximately 4/64 for the high E and 5/64 for the high E. 

When I measured these using my metal ruler on 32nds edge, I got these measures as 4/32 and 5/32. What this indicates to me is that my ruler has the numerator correct, but the denominator is WAY off.  How odd!

So, taking that oddity into consideration, and having lowered the string height again to match that of my Kelday 000 12 fret (same scale, same strings), I should now have 3/64 for the low E and 2/64 for the high E.  I have absolutely no explanation for the discrepancy between 32nds and 64ths on my metal ruler.  I agree with Edward that if these measurements are indeed 64ths, then 32nds would indeed be quite high.  As it is now, my guitar plays VERY comfortably with no buzzes and I intend to leave it as is.  I do intend to continue to dig into the 32nd vs 64ths discrepancy on my ruler.  I find that quite disconcerting.

I know that, due to fretboard geometry, if I want to lower the string height by, say 1/32", I have to lower the saddle by 2/32".  Is there something like that involved in measuring string height?  Since my claim of 32nds is double that of what both Taylor and Edward say, am I missing something so that just reading the actual string height on the ruler is not correct? 

I am absolutely certain that the edge of the ruler I am looking at (and the edge in Adam Rafferty's photo) is measuring 32nds.  I am equally certain that Edward in this thread, Taylor in the chart, and Adam Rafferty on his blog, are all correct too.

Tony

 

[tedtan]

Tony, do you have a set of feeler gauges you can use for the measurement instead of the ruler? You might eliminate a bit of error that way and get an answer to your 32/64 question.

[Craig]

I thought you guys used quarter coins as a height reference?
Not having one to hand, I can't say how thick they are.

Craig

[tbeltrans]

Tony, do you have a set of feeler gauges you can use for the measurement instead of the ruler? You might eliminate a bit of error that way and get an answer to your 32/64 question.

No, I don't.  Thanks for the suggestion.  I will look into getting some.  I used to have a set when I worked on my own cars to set the gap in spark plugs.

Tony

[tbeltrans]

I thought you guys used quarter coins as a height reference?
Not having one to hand, I can't say how thick they are.

Craig

Nice one!  OK, a quarter just fits under the low E string at the 12th fret, and a dime fits nicely under the high E string, also at the 12th fret.

The quarter measures 3/32" on my metal ruler, and the dime measures 2/32".  These are consistent with my own measurements of string height at the 12th fret after this morning's final string height adjustments.

With this said, and being so consistent, I am curious if when people are saying 3/64 and 2/64, they are accounting for something else other than just what is exactly seen on the ruler (similar to the concept that you take off twice as much from the saddle as you want to lower the string height).  This 2:1 ratio seems consistent (i.e. 32nds vs 64ths and taking twice as much off the saddle as you want string height to be).

Having just talked to my local luthier who also does repairs, he will look at it and get this cleared up with a proper setup on Friday.

Tony

[michaelw]

I thought you guys used quarter coins as a height reference?
Not having one to hand, I can't say how thick they are.

Craig

i don't, seeing that i rarely have 2 nickels to rub together





the average thickness of a quarter is 0.069", which
roughly converts to 1.75mm, or just over 4.4/64th"

some other fun facts -
taking 1/32" off the height of the saddle generally results in
lowering the action 1/64" at the 12 fret (on a 14 fret model)

on a NT neck, this is not the suggested method of adjusting the
action, but taking 1/64" off the saddle to get it all 'dialed in' is ok

[Edward]

Hi Tony

My guess is that your ruler is simply mismarked!  Any Home Depot or lowes tool area has these 6" rulers with said markers. And yes, you are measuring correctly as it is simply the edge of the ruler on top of the 12th fret, then to the bottom of the E and e strings. Buy a ruler with proper 64ths and you'll be right on

Which, btw, you already are right on since your action is clearly low and it pleases you as is!  It's simple enough to experiment with the neck relief, though, as I had referenced earlier. An 1/8th turn of the TR nut is enough to change the bow (and resultant neck relief) quite a bit. And the nice thing is you can easily change the relief and play it for a few days to test it, then simply make minute adjustments to tailor it to you exact liking. 

Edward

[tbeltrans]

Hi Tony

My guess is that your ruler is simply mismarked!  Any Home Depot or lowes tool area has these 6" rulers with said markers. And yes, you are measuring correctly as it is simply the edge of the ruler on top of the 12th fret, then to the bottom of the E and e strings. Buy a ruler with proper 64ths and you'll be right on

Which, btw, you already are right on since your action is clearly low and it pleases you as is!  It's simple enough to experiment with the neck relief, though, as I had referenced earlier. An 1/8th turn of the TR nut is enough to change the bow (and resultant neck relief) quite a bit. And the nice thing is you can easily change the relief and play it for a few days to test it, then simply make minute adjustments to tailor it to you exact liking. 

Edward

Thanks Edward.  Mismarks on the ruler is certainly possible.  I intend to take my guitar to my repair person though.  He has worked on many Taylor, and I trust him to look it over to make sure I did not mess anything up.  The only thing I touched is saddle height, and I do have a brand new spare saddle from Taylor just in case.

Tony

[tbeltrans]

I thought you guys used quarter coins as a height reference?
Not having one to hand, I can't say how thick they are.

Craig

i don't, seeing that i rarely have 2 nickels to rub together





the average thickness of a quarter is 0.069", which
roughly converts to 1.75mm, or just over 4.4/64th"

some other fun facts -
taking 1/32" off the height of the saddle generally results in
lowering the action 1/64" at the 12 fret (on a 14 fret model)

on a NT neck, this is not the suggested method of adjusting the
action, but taking 1/64" off the saddle to get it all 'dialed in' is ok

I did take that fun fact into account.

However I did not know about the NT neck.  Thanks for that info.

Tony

[tbeltrans]

Today, I brought my Taylor 914ce in to the luthier/repair person.  He said that I had the saddle height just fine.  He cut a bit deeper into the nut and adjusted the neck relief.  The guitar now quite literally "plays like butter".  I just knew that a Taylor could be set up so that it takes very little pressure to finger the strings, and it really is true.

There is nothing wrong with the setup out of the factory, but having a luthier do a setup to really "dial it in" is well worth it, especially for those of us who are getting older and want to have as little hand strain as possible so we can play longer and/or more frequently.  Taylors really do set up especially well (at least my 914ce did...).

As for string height, a quarter barely slides under the low E, and a dime under the high E, whatever those measurements are.  At this point I don't really care because it all FEELS just right.  After the adjustment, I tried several other guitars in the shop (Goodall, Martin, Collings, ...) and my Taylor just felt so much easier to play.  Of course, all of those still have their default factory setups, so it is entirely possibly that any of them could be adjusted to play like my Taylor. 

As for sound, my Taylor stacks up against those just fine (i.e. it sounded good, but they are all different).  I think if there was one guitar in the shop that REALLY stood out above the rest (including my Taylor), it was a Goodall RJC.  That guitar has a really full, thick, rich sound unlike any other.  But, that is what people buy Goodall for.  If it had a cutaway, I might have been all over it.  However, my Taylor is perfectly fine.

Tony

[Edward]

Glad that worked out for you, Tony!

Indeed, a good setup (whether by its owner or a skilled tech) is almost always guaranteed to improve the feel of any guitar.  And on any fine instrument, it can make an already good guitar a great one that begs you to play it.  Enjoy in good health! 

Edward