# Fret levelling - creating a fall-away on the upper registers



## jonsick (Nov 14, 2017)

I was chatting with a buddy of mine about guitar set ups recently. I'd certainly consider this guy more advanced than me when it comes to the art of guitar setups and he mentioned a trick that he does when levelling frets.

My standard course of action is to level across the whole neck. However he came up with this prospect of creating an angle on the level as you do the higher registers (e.g. fret 14 upwards).

That is you level of frets 1-13 as normal. Then when doing the rest of the neck, you add a couple of layers of tape between the levelling file and the top of fret 13, something for the file to glide over. That way you create a really shallow angle between the file and the neck and level that way. The result is frets 1-13 are flat as you expect, but as you progress upwards from 14, the fret height will fall away naturally. He reckons this is a little secret he's been using for years to stop things like choking off on the higher registers and creating a nice place to solo for us metal players.

So basically, anyone ever heard of this? Anyone do this? Anyone feel like expanding on the technique? It sounds neat for sure and tempted to try it on one of my subjects in need of a fret dress. Just wondered about feedback?


----------



## Knarbens (Nov 14, 2017)

I also do a fall away after leveling frets. To me it really makes sence.


----------



## jonsick (Nov 14, 2017)

Well, every day is a school day


----------



## marcwormjim (Nov 14, 2017)

Long-winded rant to kill time at work:

Because people are perpetually discovering fall-away leveling, they are perpetually posting fall-away speculation.

It has a single purpose: If your neck tilts at a sufficient back-angle to make strings choke on the highest frets when the action is lowered to preference, then fall-away leveling is a solution.

However, I’ve seen too many threads of amateurs showing off Dutch angle photos of a strat they unwittingly ruined with fall-away leveling that has only raised the action in a way that can’t be compensated for without a refret.

To reiterate the obvious: Action is the distance between the bottom of the string and the tops of the frets. When you make a fret lower, the string is further away from it. Those who have performed fall-away-leveling surgery on the frets of a guitar that doesn’t need it, _just because_ they thought they were hip to a Setup Hack, have only accomplished a labor-intensive way of raising your action in a way that makes uniformly-low action impossible. And, more often than not, in the name of achieving low action.

If anyone reading this does happen to be one of those players who wants low action on the low frets, but a higher action in the upper registers for the sake of “digging in”, here are some alternatives to fall-away fretting:

1. Raise the action. If your nut is at the proper height and your truss set to have your neck relief flat or at a sleight back-angle, then raising the strings at one end of the guitar won’t make them feel higher at the other end.

2. Scalloping the fingerboard under the high-register frets. This way, you have low action and can get your fingers under the strings, if that happens to be your bending technique.

3. If your neck is bolt-on, you can affect the back-angle with a shim made from anything.

4. Use lighter or heavier gauge strings. “Digging in” for some means pressing the string into their finger, which thinner strings will do. Others dig in by putting more of the string in contact with their finger, which thicker strings are good for. Additionally, thicker strings allow for a lower action, whereas thinner strings can be easier to play after raising the action.

5. Make sure your bridge saddle radius matches the fingerboard radius. This is commonly overlooked by both players and manufacturers.

Those suggestions may be obvious, but they’re reasonable alternative to a leveling technique with pitfalls that aren’t as obvious.


----------



## Knarbens (Nov 14, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> However, I’ve seen too many threads of amateurs showing off Dutch angle photos of a strat they unwittingly ruined with fall-away leveling that has only raised the action in a way that can’t be compensated for without a refret.



A fall-away doesn't mean to remove half the fret height.

Since we're talking about a very slight additional removal of the fret crowns of the highest frets, a proper fall-away isn't noticable in looks and feel.


----------



## marcwormjim (Nov 14, 2017)

It’s your guitar; Level it however you want. I’ve said my piece.


----------



## Lemons (Nov 14, 2017)

@marcwormjim you make some interesting points. As far as I was aware it was to account for the larger amount of string travel up around that area of the neck?


----------



## marcwormjim (Nov 14, 2017)

As in the elliptical vibration of the strings against the fret-tops? If so, that’s what the alternative suggestion of heavier gauge strings addresses.

If you’re referring to fret-out, then that’s using “fall-away” to impart a conical (“compound”) radius in the frets; in which case using a flatter-radius block on the higher frets will achieve the result.

Again; my post is about suggesting alternatives to those under the impression that fall-away leveling is the cure for ______, along the same lines as a BKP memebucker prescription to fix one’s sound.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Nov 14, 2017)

Fall-off/fall-away is solving a problem you shouldn't have in the first place with a perfect fret job and all components on the guitar 100.00% aligned. However, building guitars is not a Disney Movie and nothing's ever perfect: the neck can bend in sub-mm range due to humidity, your levelling bar might not be laser-straight and maybe you just want to be a little quicker with your build. I also use this method and see no real disadvantages. If you can't live with the string action increasing by 0.2mm on fret 24, you need to get a Plek machine...


----------



## Lemons (Nov 14, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> As in the elliptical vibration of the strings against the fret-tops? If so, that’s what the alternative suggestion of heavier gauge strings addresses



And that's what I get for skimming over your reply instead of reading it properly... 

What if I have small girlish hands though?


----------



## marcwormjim (Nov 14, 2017)

I assure you, I will kiss your hand like a gentleman.



Lemonbaby said:


> If you can't live with the string action increasing by 0.2mm on fret 24, you need to get a Plek machine...



That’s the point I’ve been skirting: If 0.2mm shouldn’t be a dealbreaker, then just raise your action by that much at the bridge. This is like the other guy who rebutted a point I didn’t make by saying (paraphrasing for sake of terseness) “Fall-away is harmless - You don’t even notice anything!”: The case made is self-defeating. We’re all entitled to level our frets the way we prefer, but trying to justifying it is rarely worth the typing.

As I made a point of saying out the gate, fall-off/away is clever in some circumstances - But the enthusiasm I see pseudoanonymous “converts” expressing sometimes takes its prescription to levels of hyperbole along the lines of “Screw the appropriate tool - Just use a dremel!”


----------



## Knarbens (Nov 14, 2017)

@marcwormjim No offense meant. I totally got your point in your first reply.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Nov 14, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> That’s the point I’ve been skirting: If 0.2mm shouldn’t be a dealbreaker, then just raise your action by that much at the bridge. This is like the other guy who rebutted a point I didn’t make by saying (paraphrasing for sake of terseness) “Fall-away is harmless - You don’t even notice anything!”: The case made is self-defeating. We’re all entitled to level our frets the way we prefer, but trying to justifying it is rarely worth the typing.
> 
> As I made a point of saying out the gate, fall-off/away is clever in some circumstances - But the enthusiasm I see pseudoanonymous “converts” expressing sometimes takes its prescription to levels of hyperbole along the lines of “Screw the appropriate tool - Just use a dremel!”


I assume that some guys simply leave the nut height at a "safe level" and set the bridge levels too low in return, which is why the fall-away appears to be a magic tool to make fretbuzz go away while it wouldn't be needed in the first place if everything else was set up correctly...


----------



## odibrom (Nov 14, 2017)

I've been trying the fall away fret leveling recently (since last year or so). I find it useful for doing some trem pulls (Floyd Rose user here) at higher register (12th fret and beyond) without string choque on even higher frets. It also seems to do it's job well at avoiding 1+ tone bending choques also at higher register frets. These are my main reasons on the fall away leveling. In the end it also feels (keyword here) easier to play, but it's MY FEEL on MY GUITARS, may or may not be your on yours.

As for the technique used for the fall away, I've been doing it a little differently than the one described. With a proper radius block (matching the fretboard, obviously), I sand only in one direction (from Nut to Bridge and never back'n'forward) and I gradually insist a bit more on higher frets, say 1 or 2 more passages every 5 frets. Then, when crowning the frets, I use the same principle with the crowning file, adding passages as I move up in the neck (again from nut to bridge), if you're going to try this, find your progression according to your tools for the task, some grind more than others.

For far so good. The point for me is NOT to get low action, but to allow for some techniques (described earlier) to work better without buzz or choque. Low action comes as a plus in my guitars, may or may not be on yours, so take this as my 2 cents.

Another KEYWORD here is not being brute with this thing, take it as a meditation with the guitar, it has to be a sensible job, so it will take its time. Doing it for the sake of "it has to be" or "I NEED THIS, because I saw it on the net and everyone +1 is doing it" is not the way to get it working properly. If in doubt, ask someone professional.


----------



## ixlramp (Nov 17, 2017)

This technique makes no sense, falling away on higher frets is no different to adjusting neck curvature to get a similar curvature to the fretting surface, just a labour intensive way to do the same thing, with more chances for mistakes and complications. Flatten the neck and raise the saddles instead.
However advanced a tech may seem, they can still have crazy ideas.


----------



## odibrom (Nov 17, 2017)

Setting up a guitar is a compromise between what one wants, needs and can be done with the tools one has. If it is more labor intensive, well, I guess it is up to each one to decide or not to use. As said before, what works for some may not work for others. To me this makes sense as it addresses levels of refinement I couldn't achieve before and I like those levels, so why shouldn't I do that? I've been achieving lower action than before in all my tested guitars.

I got to do this not from reading "here'n'there", but from thinking about the problem and realizing this could be a way to get my action lower. I'm still testing, but so far so good.


----------



## Durero (Nov 18, 2017)

Good discussion of this topic here: http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&p=617097#p617097


----------



## GunpointMetal (Nov 20, 2017)

ixlramp said:


> This technique makes no sense, falling away on higher frets is no different to adjusting neck curvature to get a similar curvature to the fretting surface, just a labour intensive way to do the same thing, with more chances for mistakes and complications. Flatten the neck and raise the saddles instead.
> However advanced a tech may seem, they can still have crazy ideas.


No, not really. With a fall away and the proper set-up you can set the neck up with almost ZERO curve and have a relatively flat playing surface, allowing for lower action. I had this done on several guitars when I was playing six strings and it absolutely is different then setting the relief a certain way.


----------



## Bobro (Nov 21, 2017)

Never heard of "fall-away" before, but reading through the thread, it sounds like a description of how I learned to fret a guitar in the first place: with a compound curvature. So you have three sanding blocks, the first one for nearer the nut with a more rounded radius, then kinda medium, then nearly flat, almost like a classical guitar, for the highest notes. It is my understanding that Carvin guitars are done this way. I think it's great, and certainly easier to get a low clean action- if the frets of the highest notes are strongly radiused, you have to really work with the truss rod to get it low and clean all the way up the neck. 

Personally I don't play fast enough to really be able to nitpick over very low action.


----------



## marcwormjim (Nov 21, 2017)

GunpointMetal said:


> had this done on several guitars when I was playing six strings and it absolutely is different then setting the relief a certain way.



Did every guitar neck have the same back-angle you were compensating for, or was it more just leveling the high frets until it “felt” right?


----------



## GunpointMetal (Nov 21, 2017)

I'm not sure what you mean by back angle. The guitars were set with the neck basically flat (as in no relief or back angle) with the strings basically a uniform low action from open to the 24th fret then the frets were finished to fall away every so slightly from 12-24.


----------



## odibrom (Nov 21, 2017)

Bobro said:


> Never heard of "fall-away" before, but reading through the thread, it sounds like a description of how I learned to fret a guitar in the first place: with a compound curvature. So you have three sanding blocks, the first one for nearer the nut with a more rounded radius, then kinda medium, then nearly flat, almost like a classical guitar, for the highest notes. It is my understanding that Carvin guitars are done this way. I think it's great, and certainly easier to get a low clean action- if the frets of the highest notes are strongly radiused, you have to really work with the truss rod to get it low and clean all the way up the neck.
> 
> Personally I don't play fast enough to really be able to nitpick over very low action.



It is not the same as compound/conical fretboard curvature, though the result may lead to similar goals - easy play... This fall away fret treatment is meant to have frets at higher register smaller than those at the nut. One can do it gradually or from some point onward. I think this may be applicable to compound radius also, though I've only done it to 16" as are those on my guitars.


----------



## marcwormjim (Nov 22, 2017)

GunpointMetal said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by back angle.



Apologies if the image is too small - It was the first result when I googled “back angle”:







Basically, guitar necks often angle backward from the body in order to exert a downward force upon the strings - Without it, it would be difficult to keep strings in their respective saddle and nut slots, as well as to achieve a low action. The literal downside of this is in how the fret heights are necessarily staggered, relative to the string path. A difference of degrees in the angle is what can result in fall-away leveling being a necessary compensating measure - Otherwise, you can only lower the strings so much before they choke by coming into contact with the higher frets.

Anecdote: Ibanez wasn’t using stainless steel frets; so I purchased a used Indonesian RG with poor fretwork specifically to refret. I observed that the neck needed a shim for additional back-angle, if I was going to get the action as low as I wanted.

After refretting, leveling, and shimming the neck in reassembly, the combination of new frets and shim resulted in _too much_ back-angle; with the strings coming into contact with the last three frets when lowered in the desired vicinity. If the guitar was brought to someone else in this condition, their first thought may be “FALL-AWAY, BRO.” Whereas I knew there was a shim to be removed.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Nov 22, 2017)

Ohh, I guess thats what I thought you meant, but wasn't sure why that would effect a fall away. I see what you're saying though. In my case, the guitars were neck-through with locking nuts/trems.


----------



## odibrom (Nov 22, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> Apologies if the image is too small - It was the first result when I googled “back angle”:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do not agree with this statement. Neck's back angle has the only purpose to compensate for the bridge height. The other option is to deepen the bridge at the body. Shimming the neck has the purpose to acquire a better action with a tall bridge in bolt on guitars and can be with or without angle. Neck's back angle and neck shimming has nothing to do with keeping strings in saddles at the bridge, nor downward force upon the strings, that is done at the headstock and at the bridge, not at the neck angle or neck shimming tricks. Also, frets heights aren't necessarily staggered in these situations, only if the user needs or wants them to be.

Again, fall-away fret treatment isn't a necessity in guitar setup, it's a choice with specific purposes and is a refinement of a general good setup. Neck angle or shimming is something dependent on the guitar's construction and hardware and may or may not ask for a later fret fall-away. I think you've got some confusion there on the geometry and setup of a guitar, but that's only my humble opinion.


----------



## marcwormjim (Nov 23, 2017)

Humility has a way of getting lost in google translation.


----------



## Ernesto (Nov 25, 2017)

I only do a fall away if the person I'm setting the guitar up for likes really low action but also strums/picks really hard, and even then, I only do it if there's buzz with a normal setup. 99% of the time, or more, it's not necessary at all.


----------



## marcwormjim (Nov 25, 2017)

I used to think so, too - Until someone informed me that _I’ve got confusion on the geometry of the guitar._


----------



## Ernesto (Nov 25, 2017)

I think he was talking about the back angle thing?? I can't say I really get your logic there either, unless it's for a tailpiece type guitar/cello/bass/violin. Most bridges for electrics and one piece acoustic bridges inherently create a pretty big angle between the string attachment point output and the saddles. Its something I actually eliminated on purpose in my constant tension tremolo eight string bridge. I'm thinking that it will significantly decrease string breakage. Everything else you've been posting seems spot on though.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Nov 26, 2017)

I think we can all agree that the clearance needed below a string is defined by physics and has a certain shape that your frets must follow for lowest possible action. No magic involved and also independent of the player picking hard or soft - this will only change the amplitude, not the shape.


----------



## Ernesto (Nov 26, 2017)

Lemonbaby said:


> I think we can all agree that the clearance needed below a string is defined by physics and has a certain shape that your frets must follow for lowest possible action. No magic involved and also independent of the player picking hard or soft - this will only change the amplitude, not the shape.



The shape in action reflects the amplitude, which intensifies then dissipates as it gets further from the pick point. The Animals as Leaders official video for CAFO shows some great views of resonating strings. Same wavelength up the string, with some fundamental harmonic variations, but the string is oscillating on a larger radius closer to the pick point compared to at the nut or fret point, peaking somewhere between the pick point and midway between the pick point and the halfway point between the nut or fret point, depending upon the frequency being played. I used to fall asleep with the book Fundamentals of Mechanical Vibration so I can see this stuff in my head now. It sounds cool but it's kind of a curse.

If they want super clean tone, people that strum open chords hard and solo hard between the nut and the seventh fret generally need a little more clearance up high if they want nice low action down low. It seems to be more of a country thing but one of my virtuoso friends likes them that way too and he plays everything, with everything he's got most of the time, and doesn't want the buzz that most people just assume is normal when flailing on an old acoustic like he does.


----------



## StratMan (Apr 25, 2022)

If you set your truss rod for a flat level neck then fallaway is irrevelent. If you set some relief then you must realize that relief is only an arc on the fretted part of the neck with the low point about the 8th fret and the high points at fret 1 and the last fret. So that relief is not helping the string vibrate in an arc from the bridge through the scale length, hence some need for fall away if you want lowest possible action. Is it worth it to try to thread that needle, you decide. At the very least know why you are doing it.


----------



## StratMan (Apr 25, 2022)

Lemonbaby said:


> I think we can all agree that the clearance needed below a string is defined by physics and has a certain shape that your frets must follow for lowest possible action. No magic involved and also independent of the player picking hard or soft - this will only change the amplitude, not the shape.


The amplitude of the arc of string vibration is directly proportional to how hard the player strikes the string, so yes of course that matters. The frets do not have to follow the arc they only have to clear the high point of the arc. You are correct there is no magic involved but you have to get the physics right. I'm not trying to give you a hard time there are numerous posts in this thread that are total BS. I guess that's one of the hazards of trying to learn from the internet.


----------



## StratMan (Apr 25, 2022)

Lemonbaby said:


> I assume that some guys simply leave the nut height at a "safe level" and set the bridge levels too low in return, which is why the fall-away appears to be a magic tool to make fretbuzz go away while it wouldn't be needed in the first place if everything else was set up correctly...


Lemonbaby, you just pointed out the number one guitar set-up problem. I totally agree that a high nut which is how most guitars come, and most people leave them is exactly the reason people try to lower their action in inappropriate ways. Big dividends are had by those who get nut files and learn to set up nuts correctly. Having said that there is a place for fall-away but it's well after a correct set up to include the nut and not much if any relief. And because fall-away adjustments should be very small they probably are best done with care by someone who actually knows why they are doing it. There is no doubt that a very small amount of relief with proper fall-away can result in lower action than can be achieved with a flat neck but we are not talking about a big difference.


----------



## CanserDYI (Apr 25, 2022)

Love when threads get necrobumped to call out misinformation in 5 year old conversations.


----------



## dmlinger (Apr 25, 2022)

StratMan Googled "fall-away," found this thread in the results, read the thread, disagreed with the advice (rightfully so, I also disagree with the need for fall-away), and made an account just to bash the previous posts.

I love the internet


----------



## LiveOVErdrive (Apr 25, 2022)

The name "Stratman" wasn't taken already? Damn, you can tell this is a forum full of metal heads.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Apr 26, 2022)

LiveOVErdrive said:


> The name "Stratman" wasn't taken already? Damn, you can tell this is a forum full of metal heads.


Creating new accounts called "Teleman", "LesPaulMan" and "JaguarMan" right now!


----------



## StratMan (Apr 26, 2022)

CanserDYI said:


> Love when threads get necrobumped to call out misinformation in 5 year old conversations.


Yea, sorry about the necrobump, took me a while to figure out what that was, I don't do this often. I do agree it was a 5 year old conversation in more than one way. At least when someone googles it now there is some balance.


----------



## LiveOVErdrive (Apr 26, 2022)

StratMan said:


> Yea, sorry about the necrobump, took me a while to figure out what that was, I don't do this often. I do agree it was a 5 year old conversation in more than one way. At least when someone googles it now there is some balance.


Hey no complaints here. I agree, I'd rather the latest info be in the thread that comes up on Google. 

Also you've already become a legend based on your name alone, so well done!


----------



## Grindspine (Apr 27, 2022)

marcwormjim said:


> To reiterate the obvious: Action is the distance between the bottom of the string and the tops of the frets. When you make a fret lower, the string is further away from it. Those who have performed fall-away-leveling surgery on the frets of a guitar that doesn’t need it, _just because_ they thought they were hip to a Setup Hack, have only accomplished a labor-intensive way of raising your action in a way that makes uniformly-low action impossible. And, more often than not, in the name of achieving low action.



Yay! Someone has actually stated exactly what I have thought about fall-away on fretboards since I first learned of it!

In my experience, the guitarists and techs who said they really like fall away on fretboards are the same ones who want a straighter neck to eliminate fretting out between the nut and 9th fret...


----------



## BComer (May 3, 2022)

jonsick said:


> I was chatting with a buddy of mine about guitar set ups recently. I'd certainly consider this guy more advanced than me when it comes to the art of guitar setups and he mentioned a trick that he does when levelling frets.
> 
> My standard course of action is to level across the whole neck. However he came up with this prospect of creating an angle on the level as you do the higher registers (e.g. fret 14 upwards).
> 
> ...


Makes sense. I looked at my old guitar frets, and realized that I couldn't get the action down because the 21st was so high. It had worn unevenly and made a obstacle. Really, the whole thing probably needs a refret.


----------

