It is currently Mon Mar 16, 2020 7:52 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 139 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:45 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:41 am
Posts: 9
I really like the vintage radius, i find it much more comfortable to play than any other radius. Guitar players nowadays are sold this myth that vintage radius is harder to play, and it's easier to bend notes on a flatter board. I really don't think it is, i find even bending notes to be easier on the 7.25 radius. The only thing that is maybe a bit more difficult is setting the guitar up, you do need to spend a little longer setting them up or maybe get a good technician to do it for you. Apart from that there really is no down sides, if you have never spent much time with the vintage radius then really give it a go.

I can see the vintage radius disappearing from the product lines in the next few years, even all the Custom Shop vintage models have 9.5 radius. It's only the AVRI and the Classic series that still have 7.25. I would potentially look at the American Special and Standard range if they offered 7.25 as an option.

Anyway, i am going to finish with an appeal to all 7.25 lovers to show support This radius board is one of the main characteristics that differentiated Fender and helped give Strats and Teles their unique feel. Plus i'd also like to see more guitars in the range, i think if there were more in the shops maybe more people would try them and buy them.


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:49 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:28 pm
Posts: 25
The day Fender stops selling 7.25” fingerboards, is the day I stop buying new Fenders.

You might as well buy them while you can; no amount of education is going to wipe out years of interweb myth. Most people don’t buy guitars in stores anymore; they read a few reviews, look at some pictures and then have it delivered. You can’t turn back the hands of time…


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:42 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
Telerick wrote:
Guitar players nowadays are sold this myth that vintage radius is harder to play, and it's easier to bend notes on a flatter board. I really don't think it is, i find even bending notes to be easier on the 7.25 radius.

It's pure geometry, and not really open to opinion or feel. When you bend a string on a non-flat fretboard, you drag it closer to the wire of the above fret, because the string is straight and doesn't curve with the fretboard. The smaller the radius, the closer it gets. To avoid strings hitting other frets when bending, you have to raise the action compared to what you can get away with with a bigger radius. The smaller the radius and the bigger the bends, the higher the action you need, especially for the bass strings which swing a greater distance.
If playing with a high action is fine with you, with the kind of music you're playing, good for you. But there's no way you can bend more than half-notes without ringing on a 7.25" fretboard without a really high action. Geometry doesn't allow it.

Edit: typo


Last edited by arth1 on Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 6:11 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:41 am
Posts: 9
damesandhotrods wrote:
The day Fender stops selling 7.25” fingerboards, is the day I stop buying new Fenders.

You might as well buy them while you can; no amount of education is going to wipe out years of interweb myth. Most people don’t buy guitars in stores anymore; they read a few reviews, look at some pictures and then have it delivered. You can’t turn back the hands of time…


Yes good point - times have changed in how people assess a guitar and, as you rightly point out, shop for guitars. It's not going to change now. All the same i think the disappearance of 7.25" would be real shame. It's part of Fender's history.

I'm taking your advice and saving up for a couple of AVRIs, 52 & 58, whilst i still can. But, having said that, the music instrument industry always has been very fickle and fad orientated, it only takes one player to come along and make some waves with a vintage spec instrument and their popularity can take a sharp upturn. After all, we forget that the Les Paul Standard actually went out of production altogether for a number of years, then a few people released albums with them on and they are saved from extinction. Let's not write off the old 52 Tele just yet, there have been bigger comebacks.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 3:14 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
Telerick wrote:
I really like the vintage radius, i find it much more comfortable to play than any other radius. Guitar players nowadays are sold this myth that vintage radius is harder to play, and it's easier to bend notes on a flatter board. I really don't think it is, i find even bending notes to be easier on the 7.25 radius. The only thing that is maybe a bit more difficult is setting the guitar up, you do need to spend a little longer setting them up or maybe get a good technician to do it for you. Apart from that there really is no down sides, if you have never spent much time with the vintage radius then really give it a go.

damesandhotrods wrote:
The day Fender stops selling 7.25” fingerboards, is the day I stop buying new Fenders.

RIGHT ON BROTHERS!!!!!
It is a complete myth that the vintage radius is harder to play, and that it is easier to bend notes on a flatter fret board.
Tell that nonsense to Roy Buchanan, Albert Collins, or G.E. Smith (7-1/4" radius).
There are a lot of these ridiculous myths in guitar land, in addition to the completely false 7.25" radius myth.

ALL OF THE FOLLOWING MYTHS ARE ALSO FALSE
- Vintage size frets are harder to play than larger size frets.
- Jumbo frets are the easiest to play.
- Tonewood - the type of wood in the body and neck affect the amplified sound of an electric guitar.
- A rosewood fretboard has a warmer amplified sound than a maple fretboard.
- The type of bridge and bridge saddles discernibly affects the amplified sound of an electric guitar.
- A "top loader" Tele bridge has a discernibly different amplified sound than an electric guitar with a bridge where the strings pass through the guitar body, due to the angle of the strings at the saddle or due to body vibration affecting the strings.

All of the following Fender Telecasters still have 7.25" necks with vintage frets:
http://www.fender.com/guitars/telecaste ... 02850.html
http://www.fender.com/guitars/telecaste ... 02801.html
http://www.fender.com/guitars/telecaste ... 00801.html
http://www.fender.com/guitars/telecaste ... 20800.html
http://www.fender.com/guitars/other/cla ... 02303.html
http://www.fender.com/guitars/telecaste ... 63701.html
http://www.fender.com/guitars/telecaste ... 02306.html
http://www.fender.com/guitars/telecaste ... 12303.html
http://www.fender.com/guitars/telecaste ... 00309.html
http://www.fender.com/guitars/telecaste ... 02306.html
http://www.fender.com/guitars/telecaste ... 02321.html
You have to hope that Fender will continue to produce the Classic '50s Telecasters with a 7.25" radius and vintage frets, and I cannot imagine that Fender would be crazy enough to eliminate the American Vintage '52 Telecaster.
However, you have to wonder about the future of these features continuing when all of the "Vintage" Custom Shop Telecasters that are specially made for Wildwood Guitars seem to have 9.5" or larger radius necks and taller profile, 6105 frets.


Last edited by MickJagger on Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:15 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
arth1 wrote:
Telerick wrote:
Guitar players nowadays are sold this myth that vintage radius is harder to play, and it's easier to bend notes on a flatter board. I really don't think it is, i find even bending notes to be easier on the 7.25 radius.

It's pure geometry, and not really open to opinion or feel. When you bend a string on a non-flat fretboard, you drag it closer to the wire of the above fret, because the string is straight and doesn't curve with the fretboard. The smaller the radius, the closer it gets. To avoid strings hitting other frets when bending, you have to raise the action compared to what you can get away with with a bigger radius. The smaller the radius and the bigger the bends, the higher the action you need, especially for the bass strings which swing a greater distance.
If playing with a high action is fine with you, with the kind of music you're playing, good for you. But there's no way you can bend more than half-notes without ringing on a 7.25" fretboard without a really high action. Geometry doesn't allow it.

Arth1, you never disappoint!!
You have brilliantly, and with your usual pseudo-scientific certainty, laid out the absurd myth of the 7.25" radius neck by stating:
"It's pure geometry, and not really open to opinion or feel. When you bend a string on a (7.25" radius) fretboard, you drag it closer to the wire of the above fret, because the string is straight and doesn't curve with the fretboard."
I assume that by discussing "the above fret" that you actually mean the fret "below" the bend, or closer to the bridge.

As you bend a string on a 7.25" radius neck, the string follows the radius curvature of the fret that you are on.
This keeps the string "which is straight" at the same string height above the lower frets as the string is bent and moved laterally across the radius of the fret that you are on.
This of course assumes that all of the lower frets are level.
This is pure geometry, and not really open to opinion or feel.

While it can argued that the lower saddle height of the high "E" string and "B" string will produce a lower string height as either of these strings are bent toward the crown of the neck, with a proper setup, with low action, I have never experienced either of these strings ever fretting out on a lower fret closer to the bridge, while bending either string at any location on the neck.
It just doesn't do it.
The elevation of the fret that you are on as the string is bent, elevates the string as you bend, and these smaller diameter strings do not fret out due to lower bridge height as a result of the elevation of the string.
Once you get to bending the "G" string, the bridge saddle is adjusted relative to the crown of the neck and the "G" string does not fret out.

What is open to opinion and feel is that some people prefer the feel of a 7.25" radius neck better than necks with a larger radius.
The trend toward 9.5" radius necks, and the recent trend toward compound radius necks, is completely subjective.
The current, and apparently prevailing subjective opinion, is that it is easier to play leads, particularly at the lower part of the neck, if the radius is larger and the fretboard is flatter.
You might say that this is possibly a Gibson influence regarding this subjective opinion.
It has nothing to do with the mythical allegation that the geometry of a 7.25" radius fretboard does not allow for proper string bending.

For these reasons, there is absolutely no need to raise the string action when using a 7.25" radius neck because there is absolutely no reason to compensate the string height or action, just because you are using a 7.25" radius neck.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:05 am
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:31 am
Posts: 14045
Location: Province de Québec, Canada
Except Fender no other guitar company make a 7'25 fret board radius why ? .

My answer ; Nobody need or want


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 3:05 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
I don't agree with arth1's "there's no way you can bend more than half-notes without ringing on a 7.25" fretboard without a really high action" statement letter by letter, but the general principle applies. The geometry of a 7.25" fretboard brings the string closer to upper frets when bending, because the other end anchor point (=saddle) stays in place.

MJ's partly right; this hasn't prevented those helluvabig bends with the 7.25" radius. But "choking when bending" is a problem that mostly relates to that radius, and is almost unknown to flat (12"<) radiuses.
On geometric issues; think about the string's line when you bend the B-string over the hilltop (= over the centerline of the fretboard)...
BTW, the solutions for choking also work - flattening the radius by (1) raising the action (a little - we're talking some tenths of a mm here, and often only on highE&B strings), and/or (2) shaving the frets (again, very small amounts).

I won't go deep into the other mythbusting MJ mentions, but it would be interesting to hear a reasoning for how a guitar can sound different when picked close to the bridge vs. picked above 12th fret, if the amplified sound is only string vibration picked up by pickups..?


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:43 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
MickJagger wrote:
As you bend a string on a 7.25" radius neck, the string follows the radius curvature of the fret that you are on.

You don't need to be a genius to see how mindbogglingly incorrect what you just said is. A string under tension is always straight (not counting vibration, of course). It never follows a curvature, but goes the shortest possible distance; a straight line.
It doesn't even know about the curvature, unless it hits it.

The smaller the fretboard radius, the higher action you need when bending to not hit higher[*] frets.
This isn't even open for discussion. You only get to pick your own opinions, not your own laws of physics.

[*] They're called higher frets not based on how you hold a guitar, but because they're (a) numbered from one and up, and (b) because higher frets produce higher frequencies.
The fret above the ninth fret is the tenth, not the eighth.

MickJagger wrote:
This keeps the string "which is straight" at the same string height above the lower frets as the string is bent and moved laterally across the radius of the fret that you are on.
This of course assumes that all of the lower frets are level.
This is pure geometry, and not really open to opinion or feel.

LOL! You don't even realize how ignorant this sounds, do you?

If the fretboard has a radius, you do not move the string laterally when you bend. You move it to the side and down. The anchoring point at the bridge does not follow your bending movement, so you lower it in one place, making the angle vis-a-vis the fretboard sharper for every point inside the triangle between the bridge, the point you bend from, and the point you bend to. I.e. the string gets closer to the fretboard.

Geometry 101. Should be simple enough for most here:

From a viewpoint of the bridge along a string:
An unbent string has anchor points of (x,y,z) at the fret and (x.y,Z) at the bridge
A bent string has anchor points of (x+a,y-b,z) and (x,y,Z) at the bridge, where "a" is the horizontal movement, and "b" is the vertical movement.
The smaller the fretboard radius, the larger b is.
Now, sight from the bridge to a higher pitched fret than where you bend.
You'll sight from (x1,y1,z1) to (x1,y1,Z1). Here y1 is lower than y, by an amount that depends on the action of the guitar. But the fret height is obviously not affected by your bending, so it stays at y1. Your string when passing it will necessarily have a height between y and y-b, and because b is non-zero for curved fretboards, it will be closer.
How much closer depends on the radius of the fretboard; the smaller the radius, the closer the string gets. Whether closer will cause a problem depends on the action of the guitar and the amplitude of the string vibration. But due to b>0 for r<infinity, it will always be closer.

This is also the introduction to hyperbolic functions, which I believe they still teach in high school.
Look at this pic, and note how the strings are closer to the middle, because the anchoring endpoints are at a different position along the two "frets". It's the exact same thing that happens when you bend a string.

Image

It may seem counter-intuitive, but all those strings are, in fact, straight. Not one of them curves.

If that was beyond you, experimenting with a rubber band and a pencil should show you how this occurs. And, like what I have a suspicion of, you think that a guitar is magically different from other objects, adjust the action on your guitar to as low as you can get away with without bending, and then bend and see what happens. Like the strings in the hypertoroid string cage above, the strings stay straight, but the midpoint is lowered compared to unbent strings.

MickJagger wrote:
I have never experienced either of these strings ever fretting out on a lower fret closer to the bridge, while bending either string at any location on the neck.

In other words you either play with a high action, or you're just not bending much, especially not in the area closer to the nut than the bridge.

MickJagger wrote:
What is open to opinion and feel is that some people prefer the feel of a 7.25" radius neck better than necks with a larger radius.

Oh, absolutely. No one has argued otherwise. Many find chords to be a lot easier with a small radius, and especially rhythm guitarists tend to avoid the flatter guitars. But if you bend a lot, and especially below the 12th fret, there's no question that a larger or hybrid radius lets you get away with a lower action. Some can live with a high action, and all the more power to them.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:40 pm
Offline
Roadie
Roadie

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:00 am
Posts: 261
MickJagger wrote:
- Tonewood - the type of wood in the body and neck affect the amplified sound of an electric guitar.
- A rosewood fretboard has a warmer amplified sound than a maple fretboard.
- The type of bridge and bridge saddles discernibly affects the amplified sound of an electric guitar.
- A "top loader" Tele bridge has a discernibly different amplified sound than an electric guitar with a bridge where the strings pass through the guitar body, due to the angle of the strings at the saddle or due to body vibration affecting the strings.

Not this $@!& again.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:09 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
jmattis wrote:
I don't agree with arth1's "there's no way you can bend more than half-notes without ringing on a 7.25" fretboard without a really high action" statement letter by letter, but the general principle applies. The geometry of a 7.25" fretboard brings the string closer to upper frets when bending, because the other end anchor point (=saddle) stays in place.

MJ's partly right; this hasn't prevented those helluvabig bends with the 7.25" radius. But "choking when bending" is a problem that mostly relates to that radius, and is almost unknown to flat (12"<) radiuses.
On geometric issues; think about the string's line when you bend the B-string over the hilltop (= over the centerline of the fretboard)...
BTW, the solutions for choking also work - flattening the radius by (1) raising the action (a little - we're talking some tenths of a mm here, and often only on highE&B strings), and/or (2) shaving the frets (again, very small amounts).

I agree that the geometry of a 7.25" fretboard will bring the high "E" and "B" strings closer to frets below the fret, where the string is bent.
My argument is that if a 7.25" neck Tele is set up properly and the frets are level, the high "E" and "B" strings will not "choke out" on a 7.25" neck Tele.
The reason for this is in part, due to the fact that you generally never bend these strings above the 5th fret, and when you move the string laterally across the 5th fret or a lower fret, the string follows the radius curvature which generally should maintain a clearance above the frets above the 5th fret, toward the bridge, if the Tele is set up properly and the frets are level.
A "proper setup" does NOT equate with "high action".
I reject the "myth" that 7.25" neck Teles have limitations regarding string bending because that is simply not my experience.
The preference for larger radius necks is primarily a subjective evaluation, with larger radius necks allowing for an easier setup.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:14 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
arth1 wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
As you bend a string on a 7.25" radius neck, the string follows the radius curvature of the fret that you are on.

You don't need to be a genius to see how mindbogglingly incorrect what you just said is.
A string under tension is always straight (not counting vibration, of course).
It never follows a curvature, but goes the shortest possible distance; a straight line.
It doesn't even know about the curvature, unless it hits it.

As the Warden in "Cool Hand Luke" would say:
"What we have here is failure to Communicate. Some men you just can't reach."
Repeat: The string follows the radius curvature of the fret that you are on (as you bend the string).
Said another way: The sting elevates consistent with and equal to the radius of the fret, relative to the saddle height, when the string is bent and moved laterally across the fret.
arth1 wrote:
The smaller the fretboard radius, the higher action you need when bending to not hit higher[*] frets.
This isn't even open for discussion. You only get to pick your own opinions, not your own laws of physics.

LOL! You don't even realize how ignorant this sounds, do you?
Is there an echo here...???
Repeat: The string follows the radius curvature of the fret that you are on (as you bend the string).
Said another way: The sting elevates consistent with and equal to the radius of the fret, relative to the saddle height, when the string is bent and moved laterally across the fret.
The only variable that reduces the string height over frets closer to the bridge is the lower saddle height of the high "E" and "B" strings which is set relative to the radius curvature of the neck.

Due to the elevation of the bending string by the radius of the fret, and due to the fact that you normally do not bend strings before the 5th fret, you normally do not need higher action for a smaller fretboard radius, to eliminate the strings "choking" or "fretting out" on frets closer to the bridge, while bending a string, if the guitar is properly set-up and the frets are level.
Even on a flat fret board, you are limited as to how low you can set the action, for reasons that are completely unrelated to string bending.
For these reasons, low action is very similar for both types of guitars.
arth1 wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
This keeps the string "which is straight" at the same string height above the lower frets as the string is bent and moved laterally across the radius of the fret that you are on.
This of course assumes that all of the lower frets are level.
This is pure geometry, and not really open to opinion or feel.

LOL! You don't even realize how ignorant this sounds, do you?
If the fretboard has a radius, you do not move the string laterally when you bend.
You move it to the side and down.

Dictionary .com definition of "laterally":
"Of or relating to the side; situated at, proceeding from, or directed to a side."
As regarding the assertion that you move the string "down," I suspect that this is just some sort of miscellaneous gibberish....???
arth1 wrote:
The anchoring point at the bridge does not follow your bending movement, so you lower it in one place, making the angle vis-a-vis the fretboard sharper for every point inside the triangle between the bridge, the point you bend from, and the point you bend to. I.e. the string gets closer to the fretboard.

I agree with you that the anchoring point at the bridge (is fixed and) does not move as the string is bent.
I also agree that the high "E" and "B" strings get closer to the fretboard as the strings are bent.
But this is ONLY due to the high "E" and "B" bridge saddle height being set lower than the "D" and "G" saddles in a 7.25 set-up.

While the high "E" and "B" strings get closer to the fretboard as the strings are bent, the high "E" and "B" stings follow the radius curvature of fret on which it is bent, which elevate the strings at the fret while bending, relative to the bridge saddle.
Due to the fact that strings are generally never bent between the 1st and 4th frets, and because the high "E" and "B" strings are small diameter strings, if the guitar is properly set up and the frets are level, these strings should not "choke" or "fret-out" on frets closer to the bridge when the string is bent.

This is due to the fact that the strings follows the radius of the fret on which it is bent, as the string moves laterally across the fret.
It is also due to the slightly increased angle of the string to the bridge saddle, when bent at the 5th fret, and when bending strings at frets that are closer to the bridge.
The string angle from the fret to the bridge increases slightly at every fret as you move toward the bridge, absent consideration of the elevation of the string due to the radius of the string while bending.
arth1 wrote:
Geometry 101. Should be simple enough for most here:
From a viewpoint of the bridge along a string:
An unbent string has anchor points of (x,y,z) at the fret and (x.y,Z) at the bridge
A bent string has anchor points of (x+a,y-b,z) and (x,y,Z) at the bridge, where "a" is the horizontal movement, and "b" is the vertical movement.
The smaller the fretboard radius, the larger b is.
Now, sight from the bridge to a higher pitched fret than where you bend.
You'll sight from (x1,y1,z1) to (x1,y1,Z1). Here y1 is lower than y, by an amount that depends on the action of the guitar. But the fret height is obviously not affected by your bending, so it stays at y1. Your string when passing it will necessarily have a height between y and y-b, and because b is non-zero for curved fretboards, it will be closer.
How much closer depends on the radius of the fretboard; the smaller the radius, the closer the string gets. Whether closer will cause a problem depends on the action of the guitar and the amplitude of the string vibration. But due to b>0 for r<infinity, it will always be closer.

This is also the introduction to hyperbolic functions, which I believe they still teach in high school.
Look at this pic, and note how the strings are closer to the middle, because the anchoring endpoints are at a different position along the two "frets". It's the exact same thing that happens when you bend a string.

Precisely Mr. Peabody!! Precisely!! LOL!!
Your psudo-scientific certitude is on full display!! :lol:
Image
arth1 wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
I have never experienced either of these strings ever fretting out on a lower fret closer to the bridge, while bending either string at any location on the neck.

In other words you either play with a high action, or you're just not bending much, especially not in the area closer to the nut than the bridge.

I don't bend any string to any substantial degree between the 1st and 4th fret, and I don't believe most other guitar players do either.
I also don't play with "high" action.
It is extremely presumptuous of you (some may suggest, "ignorant" of you), to make assumptions about my playing style, when you don't even know me.
I normally play .10s on my '52 AV Tele and bending normally does not pass the crown, or middle of the neck, at which point neither the high "E" and "B" string fret-out.

When string bending occurs at the 5th fret, and at frets toward the bridge, the action can be set low because the string follows the radius of the fret where it is bent, elevating the string relative to the height of the bridge saddle.
It is also due to the slightly increased angle of the string to the saddle at the 5th fret, and when bending at frets closer to the bridge .
Is this getting through to you yet???
Have you ever owned a '52 AV Telecaster?
<........Hello........>


Last edited by MickJagger on Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 4:10 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
jmattis wrote:
It would be interesting to hear a reasoning for how a guitar can sound different when picked close to the bridge vs. picked above 12th fret, if the amplified sound is only string vibration picked up by pickups..?

I believe the answer is that when a string is picked at two different locations, the vibrational motion of the string changes within the magnetic field of the pickups (and within the air if listened to acoustically).
This produces a different amplified sound (as well as a different acoustic sound), even thought the frequency of the vibration remains constant.
http://www.zmescience.com/science/physi ... s-vibrate/


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 4:12 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
ChrisH1 wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
- Tonewood - the type of wood in the body and neck affect the amplified sound of an electric guitar.
- A rosewood fretboard has a warmer amplified sound than a maple fretboard.
- The type of bridge and bridge saddles discernibly affects the amplified sound of an electric guitar.
- A "top loader" Tele bridge has a discernibly different amplified sound than an electric guitar with a bridge where the strings pass through the guitar body, due to the angle of the strings at the saddle or due to body vibration affecting the strings.

Not this $@!& again.

Only if you say so, Chris :lol:


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2015 4:02 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:53 am
Posts: 8
ChrisH1 wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
- Tonewood - the type of wood in the body and neck affect the amplified sound of an electric guitar.
- A rosewood fretboard has a warmer amplified sound than a maple fretboard.
- The type of bridge and bridge saddles discernibly affects the amplified sound of an electric guitar.
- A "top loader" Tele bridge has a discernibly different amplified sound than an electric guitar with a bridge where the strings pass through the guitar body, due to the angle of the strings at the saddle or due to body vibration affecting the strings.

Not this $@!& again.


You missed out the paint finish! You know how important that is!


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 139 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours

Fender Play Winter Sale 2020

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: