Truss rod question

The Suhr trussrod is accessed via a notch in the pickguard. The neck does not need to be removed for adjustment. I suppose it preserves a vintage look. I don't know if there is any tonal difference between this setup versus the access at the headstock, would be interested to hear others chime in.

 

my understanding is that leo initially intended for nobody to adjust anything on his fenders, thinking they would be sent back to the factory for all servicing.

look at the first teles (broadcasters), with the neck pickup height screws hidden under the pickguard, the bridge height screws and saddles hidden under the ashtray cover, and the truss rod hidden in the neck joint.

i think having the truss rod access at the body might make for a slightly stronger neck (no hole through the neck right at its thinnest point, under the nut), but probably not a big deal mechanically either way.

suhr's new 24-fret shred monsters have the rod access at the headstock.

 

I have yet to find a headstock adjuster that sounds exactly like the vintage type at the heel. It may be subtle, but whatever it is, of all the head adjustable fenders i never found one i felt sounded good enough to keep. On the other hand, with the vintage style i rarely find one i don't like. So i've come to the conclusion theres something to this and i stay away from any fender with a head adjuster.

 

The truss rod we put in the modern as headstock adjust is identical construction to our normal vintage rod. So for this reason it does sound the same.

Why dont we do this on all the guitars? mainly cause people tend to bugger up the headstocks and it isnt as easy to hide and make look pretty. Why do we do it this way on the Modern? Because there is no room for the butt adjust.

 

Having the rod adjust at the heel rather than the headstock keeps all the wood at the weakest part of the guitar--the headstock--in tact. It may mean that the neck has to be removed in order to adjust the rod, depending on the builder, of course, but it saves from removing alot of wood to make the truss rod cavity. At MTD, the rods adjusted at the heel, where we then made covers to hide the access. The necks didn't need to be removed to adjust the rods--worked great, and we never saw a headstock break.

Aside from that, I would be hard-pressed to say that you would ever hear any tonal differences between a rod that adjusts at the nut as opposed to the heel. Just my opinion.

 

There's the difference of mass moving to the thinnest part of the neck vs the thickest part that changes. That, and drilling a hole in the weakest part of the neck is potentially a disadvantage, although in practice does not seem to be an issue.

Easy to make a case for there being a difference; difficult to prove the case.

 

I'm not even saying there is a tonal difference, tho from the last few posts and from my experience it seems there probably is. I was only saying that i never found a head adjustable neck that i felt sounded good enough to keep, yet almost every heel adjustable has been form good to fantastic. But there could be other reasons, who knows. for example, it seems most head adjustable necks have a flatter radius. And a flatter radius may not change the tone of a maple board, but with rosewood i always find it seems to because there is more rosewood influencing the tone. I find they tend to sound thinner and brighter than the amount of rosewood on a vintage style neck, which has less rosewood and always has the heel adjuster. of course that doesn't speak to why all maple would sound different with a head adjuster, but just saying....you never know. the only thing i do know is that for whatever reason i have infinitely better luck tonally with necks that have a heel adjuster and always have. So much so that i stopped buying fender style necks or guitars that have head adjustment. It does sound likely tho that the argument that more wood removed at the head would change things to some degree. whether noticable or not is the debate. But that may be responsible for what i have been noticing.