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 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:15 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:21 pm
Posts: 393
Location: Oklahoma
guitarman1984 wrote:
Hello, one last chance then I'll give up.
Anyone can trust what they want.

I made two 3d model with a 7.25" versus a 12" neck, by simulating a 1.5-2 tones bending on a fret, around 7th fret.
The only difference between the two models is the neck radius, all the rest of the measurements and geometry being the same.
I simulated a bent string, what you see below is the bent string; it'a a top view, on the left it touches the saddle, which is a fixed point, on the right it touches the fret where we are simulating the bending, which is the one to the right. It's a simple sketch, ok?

Image

Here you can see the two necks from a side view:
Image

Here a zoom of the saddle point, on the left:
Image

Here I show that the bottom part of the string is in contact with the fret where we are bending, 7.25" neck (sorry for the mistake in the picture, it's a 7.25" neck, not 9.25"):
Image

Here is the measured MINIMUM distance between the next fret and the bottom of the string, in mm:
Image

Side view:
Image

Zoom:
Image

Let's do the same for the 12" neck.
String in contact:
Image

Minimum distance:
Image

Side view:
Image

Zoom:
Image


So, what I conclude is that if you compare 7.25 to 12" neck radius, all the rest being the same, bending a string at around the 7th fret to 1.5-2 full tones bending, the string distance in the closest upper fret is:
0.111mm for the 7.25" radius neck
0.138mm for the 12" radius neck
which determines a difference of 0.027mm.


So, is there a difference? YES
Is it big? Not so much
Does the guitar player care? Probably not

With 3D model it's easy to simulate, so I raised the action on both necks at the saddles by 1mm compared to the situation above, the new measurements are:
0.171mm for the 7.25" radius neck
0.198mm for the 12" radius neck
which determines a difference of 0.027mm, which is exactly the same as before!!!


Another simulation, I changed the actions at the saddles on the two necks in order to have the same clearance between string and next fret, at the end this clearance is the one responsible for the fretting out , right?!?! here's what I got:
0.171mm for the 7.25" radius neck with a determined action at the saddle
0.171mm for the 12" radius neck with an action which is 0.45mm LOWER than the 9.25" radius neck


So, is there a difference? YES
The flatter the radius the lower the action can be? YES
Is this big effect? I would say not so much
Is this effect dependent on the action? NO, it's intrinsic to the neck radius.
Does the guitar player care? Probably not at all
This difference is [b]even smaller if you compare the 7.25" to the 9.5"
, which are the two most common for Fender.[/b]

This is where I believe the truth is.
Just my 2 cents...

Hopefully this post will knock us into page 8. Thank you for that presentation. I love pictures. I have no pony in this race and just enjoying the education. My only experience with a 7.25" radius guitar was my 1966 Strat that was given to me when I was 14. All I can recall is how much I loved that guitar. I was graduating from a Sears Silvertone. I also love my MIA 2014 Standard Strat with the 9.50" radius. In addition, I own a Guild 12 string acoustic with a 16" radius. I will not be doing any bends with that. Now I have a bug to test drive a 7.25" radius guitar. Don't tell my wife.:mrgreen:


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 1:12 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
Nice pics, guitarman1984.

guitarman1984 wrote:
So, is there a difference? YES
I agree.

guitarman1984 wrote:
Is it big? Not so much
Not on the CAD program - that's why I've not drawn any pics on the subject.

guitarman1984 wrote:
The flatter the radius the lower the action can be? YES
(...)
Does the guitar player care? Probably not at all
And that part is where we end to different conclusions.
IMHO&E(xperience), the significance of that difference is bigger in real world; the string acts differently from a CAD pic - depending e.g. on the fret you're bending on; all frets above it; relief; neck stiffness; the player's attack...

All that results in the need to compensate the radius (= flatten it by shaving the frets or raising the saddles). Provided of course, that a) one plays big bends, and b) the string height isn't already high enough.
That's standard operating procedure - might I suggest checking the "How the stars setup their guitars" link on page 3 of the topic.

But as you say,"anyone can trust what they want".
I've only been playing since the end of the sixties, setting up guitars (Fenders included) since the seventies, so what do I know.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:09 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:28 pm
Posts: 82
jmattis wrote:
Nice pics, guitarman1984.

guitarman1984 wrote:
So, is there a difference? YES
I agree.

guitarman1984 wrote:
Is it big? Not so much
Not on the CAD program - that's why I've not drawn any pics on the subject.

guitarman1984 wrote:
The flatter the radius the lower the action can be? YES
(...)
Does the guitar player care? Probably not at all
And that part is where we end to different conclusions.
IMHO&E(xperience), the significance of that difference is bigger in real world; the string acts differently from a CAD pic - depending e.g. on the fret you're bending on; all frets above it; relief; neck stiffness; the player's attack...

All that results in the need to compensate the radius (= flatten it by shaving the frets or raising the saddles). Provided of course, that a) one plays big bends, and b) the string height isn't already high enough.
That's standard operating procedure - might I suggest checking the "How the stars setup their guitars" link on page 3 of the topic.

But as you say,"anyone can trust what they want".
I've only been playing since the end of the sixties, setting up guitars (Fenders included) since the seventies, so what do I know.



+1

I play with a fairly high action undepending of neck radius, this allows me to overcome the main issues which can cause buzz and fretting out. But the main reason is I prefer it due to the IMHO better tone I get out of the guitar.
I agree with you.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:20 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:28 pm
Posts: 82
[/quote]
Hopefully this post will knock us into page 8. Thank you for that presentation. I love pictures. I have no pony in this race and just enjoying the education. My only experience with a 7.25" radius guitar was my 1966 Strat that was given to me when I was 14. All I can recall is how much I loved that guitar. I was graduating from a Sears Silvertone. I also love my MIA 2014 Standard Strat with the 9.50" radius. In addition, I own a Guild 12 string acoustic with a 16" radius. I will not be doing any bends with that. Now I have a bug to test drive a 7.25" radius guitar. Don't tell my wife.:mrgreen:[/quote]

Ahaha!!! You got it right we turned on page 8! The purpose of my post was to prove there's a difference, this doesn't mean that 7.25 is better or worse than 9.5 or 12". There are so many other parameters and at the end it goes back to feeling, personal preferences, that special neck on that unique instrument and so on.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:56 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
guitarman1984 wrote:
Hello, one last chance then I'll give up.
Anyone can trust what they want.
I made two 3D models with a 7.25" versus a 12" neck, by simulating a 1.5-2 tones bending on a fret, around 7th fret.

The only difference between the two models is the neck radius, all the rest of the measurements and geometry being the same.
I simulated a bent string, what you see below is the bent string; it's a top view, on the left it touches the saddle, which is a fixed point, on the right it touches the fret where we are simulating the bending, which is the one to the right. It's a simple sketch, ok? :

(I have omitted your beautiful illustrations for the time being).
guitarman1984 wrote:
So, is there a difference? YES
Is it big? Not so much
Does the guitar player care? Probably not

With 3D model it's easy to simulate, so I raised the action on both necks at the saddles by 1mm compared to the situation above, the new measurements are:
0.171mm for the 7.25" radius neck
0.198mm for the 12" radius neck
which determines a difference of 0.027mm, which is exactly the same as before!!!


Another simulation, I changed the actions at the saddles on the two necks in order to have the same clearance between string and next fret, at the end this clearance is the one responsible for the fretting out , right?!?! here's what I got:
0.171mm for the 7.25" radius neck with a determined action at the saddle
0.171mm for the 12" radius neck with an action which is 0.45mm LOWER than the 9.25" radius neck


So, is there a difference? YES
The flatter the radius the lower the action can be? YES
Is this big effect? I would say not so much
Is this effect dependent on the action? NO, it's intrinsic to the neck radius.
Does the guitar player care? Probably not at all
This difference is [b]even smaller if you compare the 7.25" to the 9.5"
, which are the two most common for Fender.[/b]

Thank you guitarman1984, for your serious contribution to this discussion.
With your assistance, I think we are certainly making real progress.
Your conclusion in part agrees with me, and serves to further dispel Arth1's theory, where he concluded that if the string action is not raised on a 7.25" radius guitar, it would fret-out on a fret, half way between the fret of the bend, and the bridge saddle, due to his inexplicable mathematical theory.

The issue in question as you have correctly defined it, is that any possible problem of a string fretting-out when the string is bent, is normally located at the very next fret up the fretboard toward the bridge, from the fret of the bend, assuming that the frets are level.
You provided the following as your initial drawing which provides a basis for your calculations:
guitarman1984 wrote:
Image

There is an initial problem with the methodology shown by this 3D model diagram.
Based on the end point of the string (at the bridge which is not actually shown), this position of the string requires the a string bend involving the "high E" string at the 7th fret.
Using .10 or heavier strings, the high "E" string will not normally bend to the middle of the fret in a "two-step" string bend as shown in the diagram above.
Only the "B" string will bend that far, to the middle of the fret, in a two-step bend using .10 or heavier strings (discounting any discussion of the "G" string as a potential problem, due to the height of the "G" string, saddle relative to the neck radius).

If your model focused on the "B" string, with a correct bridge end point of the string at the "B" saddle, the lateral bending angle of the string from the saddle, across the neck, to the mid-point fret, would be reduced.

Here is a natural two-step bend of the "High E" string at the 7th fret with .10 strings.
Image

Here is a natural two-step bend of the "B" string at the 7th fret with .10 strings.
Image

While it is indeed possible to bend these strings further, sonically you would go beyond a two-step bend if you did so.
So the bend should not "naturally" bend beyond the bending endpoints shown in the pictures above, using .10 or heavier strings.

In addition, your model, if focused on the "B" string, bending to the mid-point of the fret, would need to recognize that the "B" portion of the brass bridge saddle will initially be higher than the "high E" portion of the brass bridge saddle, as the saddle follows the radius of the neck (higher at the "B" string, lower at the "E" string) upon initial string height setting of the two string saddle, as shown below.

Image

guitarman1984 wrote:
Here I show that the bottom part of the string is in contact with the fret where we are bending, 7.25" neck (sorry for the mistake in the picture, it's a 7.25" neck, not 9.25"):
Image

Let's do the same for the 12" neck.
String in contact:
Image

I am not sure if this constituted a starting point for the bridge height of your model, because you later determine that both guitars can be setup with clearance at the 8th fret, one fret up from the 7th fret bend.
While I'm not sure what you are representing in this diagram, I argue that this fret-out at the 8th fret would not occur if the string on this model began at the higher portion of the brass "B" string bridge saddle, and ended at or before the mid-point of the 7th fret, as occurs when using .10 or heavier strings, and if the string was initially set at a height where there was no buzzing at any fret WITHOUT bending.

Your made the following conclusions based on your 3D models:

guitarman1984 wrote:
Here (on a 7.25"radius neck, bending at the 7th fret) is the measured MINIMUM distance between the next fret (8th fret) and the bottom of the string, in mm:
Image

Here (on a 12"radius neck, bending at the 7th fret) is the measured MINIMUM distance between the next fret (8th fret) and the bottom of the string, in mm: Image

So, what I conclude is that if you compare 7.25 to 12" neck radius, all the rest being the same, bending a string at around the 7th fret to 1.5-2 full tones bending, the string distance in the closest upper fret is:
0.111mm for the 7.25" radius neck
0.138mm for the 12" radius neck
which determines a difference of 0.027mm.


So, is there a difference? YES
Is it big? Not so much
Does the guitar player care? Probably not.

I have never argued that there would not be slightly less string height, one fret up toward the bridge from the fret of the string bend, on a 7.25" radius neck compared to a 12" radius neck, which is exactly what your model shows.
But the 0.027mm difference of string height, one fret up toward the bridge from the fret bend, has absolutely nothing to do with the initial "unbent" string height setting, or initial string action setting.

All of the "Fender Lounge Society of Guitar Alchemists," believe in the MYTH, that the initial action of a 7.25" guitar must be set higher, to prevent the "High E" or "B" strings from fretting-out when bending, as compared to larger radius guitars.

Conversely, I have argued that there is absolutely no reason to set the initial action of any string higher (WITHOUT BENDING), on a 7.25" radius guitar, as compared to a 12" radius guitar, because the radius of the neck has nothing to do with the initial string height or action.
On a 7.25" radius guitar, strung with .10 strings or higher strings, with level frets, and relief set at Fender specification; when the action is set at the lowest point possible, without the strings buzzing at any fret WITHOUT BENDING, the "High E" and "B" strings will NOT fret out when bent in a two-step bend.

guitarman1984 wrote:
Another simulation, I changed the actions at the saddles on the two necks in order to have the same clearance between string and next fret, at the end this clearance is the one responsible for the fretting out , right?!?! here's what I got:
0.171mm for the 7.25" radius neck with a determined action at the saddle
0.171mm for the 12" radius neck with an action which is 0.45mm LOWER than the 7.25" radius neck


[b]So, is there a difference? YES
The flatter the radius the lower the action can be? YES.

Here is where we disagree.

What you have done is to mistakenly, and for absolutely no reason, transfered the .027mm difference in string height difference between the two guitars, one fret up the neck at the 8th fret, when the string is bent at the 7th fret, to the initial string action setting.
Apparently you are claiming for some unknown reason, that the string height at the 8th fret should be equalized between the two guitars, or "MATCHED" by raising the bridge saddle height of the 7.25" radius guitar by .045mm, if I understand your reasoning, correctly.

You have multiple errors with this approach.
First, if the string on the 7.25" radius guitar is not fretting-out at the 8th fret when bent at the 7th fret, with the string height or action the same as on the 12" radius guitar, there is absolutely no need to equalize or "MATCH" the string height on the two guitars, at the 8th fret, one fret above the bend, by raising the bridge saddle .045mm and string height or action on the 7.25" radius guitar.

If this were not enough of an error in methodology, you apparently claim that the .045 raise at the bridge, should constitute to a .045mm increase in the string height or action of the string, measured "somewhere" on the fret board, if I understand you correctly.
This is not correct because the string runs a slight upward trajectory angle from the nut to the bridge, and any height adjustment measurement at the bridge, will be progressively less as measured at the string progressing toward the nut.

Again, all you have actually done by arguing that the bridge saddle should be raised .045mm, is to transfer the .027mm difference in the string height, at the 8th fret, one fret up from the bend, and raise bridge saddle height to equalize the string height of the two guitars at the 8th fret, when bent at the 7th fret.
It is completely unnecessary to raise the action of the string on the 7.25" radius guitar to make the string heights "MATCH," one fret up at the 8th fret, above the 7th fret bend, when the 7.25" guitar was not fretting out when bent to begin with, based on your model and the initial bridge setting.
There is absolutely no reason to raise to action on the 7.25" radius guitar to equalize or "MATCH" the higher string height of the 12" radius guitar at the 8th fret, when the string is bent at the 7th fret.

Finally, this methodology fails to account for initially setting the string height at the lowest possible string height, or action, so that the string does not substantially buzz when compressed at any fret WITHOUT BENDING.
The action of any radius guitar, can ONLY be set to the lowest functional height where the string will not fret-out or buzz on any fret toward the bridge (usually the next fret up the neck from compression), WITHOUT BENDING the string.
The action cannot be set lower on any neck, regardless of the radius, without compromising playability.
The radius has absolutely NO affect on setting the minimum string height or action possible.
That is because when set to the lowest playable action, a 7.25" guitar will not fret out if strung with .10 or heavier strings.

Again, as I have stated many times before in this thread:
MickJagger wrote:
A 7.25" radius guitar with level frets, a properly cut nut, and proper relief, with action set at the bridge, as low as you can go without buzzing at any fret without bending; should not fret-out when the string is bent, if the guitar is strung with .10 or heavier strings, as the string bend does not pass the top of the fret crown.

jmattis wrote:
guitarman1984 wrote:
jmattis wrote:
[Nice pics, guitarman1984.

So, is there a difference? YES
I agree.

For the above reasons, I believe that your agreement is in error, jmattis, as this methodological conclusion is based on fundamental errors in analysis, unless guitarman1984 can advise as to how and why I misunderstand his analysis.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:21 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
I asked this before: if you feel there's no need for different setups on a 7.25" radius and flatter radiuses, why would a 7.25" need the .010" string set?
And does that imply a 9.5" would play fine with a .007" string set?
:wink:


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:05 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:28 pm
Posts: 82
MickJagger wrote:
For the above reasons, I believe that your agreement is in error, jmattis, as this methodological conclusion is based on fundamental errors in analysis, unless guitarman1984 can advise as to how and why I misunderstand his analysis.


It's difficult to talk to each other through the forum, especially for me (English is not my mother tongue), so I'm not sure I fully understood your post.
Therefore, I'll attach more pictures in order to clarify even more the effect of neck radius during string bending.

Basically with a perfect straight neck and perfect frets...no matter where you bend up in the neck, which string you bend and how much you bend, whenever you bend a string the distance from the string to the next up fret will be reduced. This clearence reduction is more pronounced for 7.25" necks, medium for 9.5", fairly low for 12", it's absent for a flat fretboard. This clearence reduction may be the cause of the fretting-out phenomenon.
Add a non-perfect straight neck and worn out frets in some spots and you have a more complex picture.

So, I'll start again a simulation.
Simulation 1 - Bending at around 7th fret
Simulation 2 - Bending at around 18th fret
high E string
1 full tone bending
Same action of the string at the bridge (fixed point through the whole analisys)
7.25" and 12" radiuses being the only difference. The 7.25 is a nice maple neck, the 12" a glorious flamed maple neck :D

Image
Image

Here a picture from the top, where I show the 2 simulations at th 7th and at th 18th frets
Image


Simulation 1
String in contact at the bending fret, 12":
Image

Clearance from the fretted string to next fret without bending, 12":
Image

Clearance from the fretted string to next fret with bending, 12":
Image

String in contact at the bending fret, 7.25":
Image

Clearance from the fretted string to next fret without bending, 7.25":
Image

Clearance from the fretted string to next fret with bending, 7.25":
Image

So, all the rest being the same:

Neck radius 7.25 VS 12
Clearance unbended string 0.238mm VS 0.243mm (*small difference due to the 3D model)
Clearance bended string 0.164mm VS 0.198mm
Difference 0.074mm VS 0.045mm

Therefore with the 7.25" radius neck, while bending you "loose" more clearance increasing the risk of fretting out.
If you want to achieve the same clearence during bending, you are allowed to lower the action at the bridge in the 12" neck (or you can increase the action on the 7.25"neck). In the simulation below I decreased the action of 12" of 0.5mm.
Neck radius 7.25 VS 12
Clearance unbended string 0.238mm VS 0.210mm (*small difference due to the 3D model)
Clearance bended string 0.164mm VS 0.165mm
Difference 0.074mm [b] VS 0.045mm (still the same as before)



Simulation 2 - 18th fret
String in contact at the bending fret, 12":
Image

Clearance from the fretted string to next fret without bending, 12":
Image

Clearance from the fretted string to next fret with bending, 12":
Image

String in contact at the bending fret, 7.25":
Image

Clearance from the fretted string to next fret without bending, 7.25":
Image

Clearance from the fretted string to next fret with bending, 7.25":
Image

So, all the rest being the same:

Neck radius [b]7.25
VS 12
Clearance unbended string 0.186mm VS 0.188mm (*small difference due to the 3D model)
Clearance bended string 0.148mm VS 0.164mm
Difference 0.038mm VS 0.024mm

Therefore with the 7.25" radius neck you "loose" more clearance increasing the risk of fretting out (like before).
This is true all along the neck.
This is true disregarding of the string gauge size.
The more you bend, the worse the effect is (i.e. a 2 whole tones bending is much more critical than a 1 tone bending).

Hope this clear out some doubts...enjoy the pictures :D


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:45 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
guitarman1984 wrote:
Hope this clear out some doubts.

I predict that it won't. It involves geometry and simple formulas, which MickJagger calls "alchemy" and refuses to believe are valid on Fender guitars. It's faith for him, and there seems to be absolutely no way to convince him with mere facts. Half a dozen people have tried, half a dozen ways. At this point, it's only goading, and somewhat cruel.

That said, your drawings are for the next fret up. Which is well and good. But on a low action guitar with good frets, that's not where you see the brunt of the problem, but on the frets near the halfway point between the fret you bend at and the bridge. A full tone bend on the 7th fret (without raising the action or flattening the frets to compensate) should be even more of a problem around the 18th or so fret (judging by eyesight), because the straight line of the string would be at its lowest compared to the curved arc of the frets at that point. On a high action guitar, it doesn't matter, but on a low action one, it sure does, according to both maths, my experience with various fretboard radii including 7.25", and my luthier who even suggested filing down the highest frets to obtain a lower action on the smaller radius Tele. I bet he's an alchemist, tho...


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:57 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
arth1 wrote:
guitarman1984 wrote:
Hope this clear out some doubts.

I predict that it won't.

+1 :wink:

And continuing your "next fret up"/"near the halfway" subject; the string's vibration pattern is (I know: sort of) elliptical, so the largest vibration arc also occurs around the halfway point.
Therefore that "depending on (...) all frets above [the bending point]" on my post above.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:18 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:28 pm
Posts: 82
jmattis wrote:
arth1 wrote:
guitarman1984 wrote:
Hope this clear out some doubts.

I predict that it won't.

+1 :wink:

And continuing your "next fret up"/"near the halfway" subject; the string's vibration pattern is (I know: sort of) elliptical, so the largest vibration arc also occurs around the halfway point.
Therefore that "depending on (...) all frets above [the bending point]" on my post above.



I see yours point, I have to agree.
Anyway, disregarding of the final result, I have to say I have had a little bit of fun in creating the model and posting the pictures, it was a good opportunity to clear out some doubts (at least for me). What I wanted to highlight is this effect of the straigth string "climbing" on a curved fretboard, the string distance to the next up frets will decrease during bending. That's a fact, period.
Then, as already stated, anyone have the freedom to believe in what they desire, so I don't want to convince anybody. :shock:

Now it's time to go play the hell out of that guitar waiting for me... :lol:
I'll avoid too big bendings, just in case.... :mrgreen:


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:06 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 asked this before: if you feel there's no need for different setups on a 7.25" radius and flatter radiuses, why would a 7.25" need the .010" string set?
And does that imply a 9.5" would play fine with a .07" string set? :wink:

You have been around here for a while and I believe that you generally know the answer to your question.
The initial setup has nothing to do with string bending.
The initial setup has to do with setting the initial string height or action, at a point where there is essentially no string buzz, when compressing the string at any fret without bending.
As I stated on Page 5 of this thread:
MickJagger wrote:
Fender recommends the exact same string height on the high "E" string side of the neck on all guitars with 7.25" to 12" radius necks, measured at the 17th fret.
Neck Radius........................ Bass Side.....................Treble Side
7.25" .................................5/64" (2 mm)..................4/64" (1.6 mm)
9.5" to 12" ........................4/64" (1.6 mm) ..............4/64" (1.6 mm)
http://www2.fender.com/support/articles ... tup-guide/
Fender is not making this recommendation in error.
Fender is not advising that you setup a 7.25" radius guitar so that it will fret-out when the strings are bent.
But Fender does put .10 strings on their 7.25" radius guitars and .09 strings on larger radius guitars.
Fender also recommends slightly more "Relief" in a 7.25" radius neck, using the recommended capo and feeler gauge measurement procedure.
Neck Radius.....................................Relief
7.25"................................................ .012" (0.3 mm)
9.5" to 12" ...................................... .010" (0.25 mm)
http://www2.fender.com/support/articles ... tup-guide/

This difference in "Relief," is .05 mm, which is negligible at best, and is less than the normal width of a European human hair, and it is doubtful that it could be actually measured and has NO AFFECT on the action or string height.. (Citation omitted).
This is because the Fender recommends the exact same string height on the high "E" string side of the neck, on all guitars with 7.25" to 12" radius necks, which is set at the bridge saddle.

I have never tried .09 strings on a 7.25" radius guitar, but I assume that it may be necessary to raise the action on .09 strings to prevent the "B" and High "E" strings from fretting-out while bending.
I assume that the reason for Fender using .10 strings on 7.25" radius guitars (not heavier and not lighter), is to maximize playability without going too heavy, while eliminating the likelihood of the guitar fretting-out from the string bending too far past the mid-point of the fret due to the crowned nature of 7.25 radius frets.
What I do know is that .10 strings do not fret out on a 7.25" radius guitar when the strings are set to the lowest point possible without string buzz at any fret without bending.
As I have said, this assumes that the frets are level and the relief is within spec.

Does this imply a 9.5" would play fine with a .07" string set?
I have no idea.
I have felt strings that may have been that light, many years ago, and found them to be ridiculously loose and somewhat unwieldy.
So regardless of such strings fretting-out, I would argue that .07 strings "would not play fine," at least with my fingers.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:35 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
MickJagger wrote:
I assume that the reason for Fender using .10 strings on 7.25" radius guitars (not heavier and not lighter), is to maximize playability without going too heavy, while eliminating the likelihood of the guitar fretting-out from the string bending too far past the mid-point of the fret due to the crowned nature of 7.25 radius frets.

Sigh. This is not for you, but for the benefit of others who might come here and believe this utter poppycock for a short while:
The thickness of the string in no way changes the geometry. A bent string dips just as far down relative to the curved fretboard with .011s as with .009s.

The only difference is that thicker strings are under higher tension and allows you to get away with bending a smaller distance for the same pitch increase. But bending less doesn't make the geometry change, just the impact -- until one tries to bend more anyhow.

That Fender gradually changed "standard" thickness down to .009 after having delivered guitars with much thicker strings as standard before has everything to do with better string manufacturing techniques, and thinner strings being easier to play for many, if not most.
Before the 60s, thin strings would break if you looked at them hard, and playing with .009s was simply out of the question. Players generally didn't bend much either, not only because of the music, but because the crappy strings of yore would break if you did.
0.13 is still called "medium gauge", despite modern guitars being set up for 0.09 as standard. String quality is one of the things that really has improved, and while some still favor heavy strings (me being one, with .012 nickel-free being my standard), players now have the ability to choose lighter strings without cutting their eyeball open, and many do so.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:51 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:
guitarman1984 wrote:
Hope this clear out some doubts.

I predict that it won't. It involves geometry and simple formulas, which MickJagger calls "alchemy" and refuses to believe are valid on Fender guitars. It's faith for him, and there seems to be absolutely no way to convince him with mere facts. Half a dozen people have tried, half a dozen ways. At this point, it's only goading, and somewhat cruel.

Greetings to the snarky arth1, King of the Fender Lounge Society of Alchemists, who continues to confuse geometry with the ludicrous theory, previously put forward, which is completely different both in approach and result from the approach put forward by guitarman1984.
And yet arth 1, you claim that there are some "facts" that "half a dozen people" have failed to "goad" me into accepting as true.
That is because no "facts" have been offered by the 7.25" radius MYTH believers, which are true.

I have presented factual experience based on owning an American Vintage '52 Tele, and have also presented a geometric theory supporting my position that these guitars do not fret-out, setup with the lowest possible action, when string with .10 strings or heavier.

In contrast, you have presented only theory, with your unprincipled, undecipherable, and nonsensical "sagitta" theory, claiming that high action is necessary for $2,000.00 Fender guitars not to fret-out when strings are bent, despite the fact that Fender recommends the same string height setup for the High "E" string on 7.25" radius guitars, as on 12" radius guitars.

arth1, what is clear is that none of the Alchemist MYTH believers, including yourself, have any actual, real life, factual experience with a 7.25" radius guitar, despite your late in the game claim otherwise, which lacks credibility, as it took you at least 5 or 6 pages of this thread to claim that you had such a guitar, which I dismiss as having absolutely no veracity.

Secondly, your theory and Guitarman1984's theory are completely different, and are completely incompatible, to the extent that your "sagitta" theory, as presented, makes enough sense, that one could even compare the two, which is somewhat doubtful, except for the following nonsense, that you directed at guitarman1985:

arth1 wrote:
That said, your drawings are for the next fret up. Which is well and good. But on a low action guitar with good frets, that's not where you see the brunt of the problem, but on the frets near the halfway point between the fret you bend at and the bridge. A full tone bend on the 7th fret (without raising the action or flattening the frets to compensate) should be even more of a problem around the 18th or so fret (judging by eyesight), because the straight line of the string would be at its lowest compared to the curved arc of the frets at that point.

This is complete nonsense.
When a string is bent, if it is going to fret-out, it is going to fret-out on the next fret up the fretboard toward the bridge, assuming the frets are level.
No string vibration (as jmattis has used, trying to make sense of your nonsensical theory) or any other geometric factor, is going to interrupt the progressively elevated angle of the string, which creates a slight, progressive increase in string height above subsequent frets, moving toward the bridge from the fret point of the string bend.
I have previously presented this geometric principle.
At least this geometric principle is consistent with the approach of guitarman1984.
guitarman1984 wrote:
What I wanted to highlight is this effect of the straight string "climbing" on a curved fretboard, the string distance to the next up frets will decrease during bending. That's a fact, period.

I completely agree with guitarman1985 in this regard.
Arth1, your theory is completely at odds with both my theory and experience, and guitarman's modeling theory.
arth1 wrote:
...my luthier who even suggested filing down the highest frets to obtain a lower action on the smaller radius Tele. I bet he's an alchemist, too...

Birds of a feather......, flock together......
I guess he recommended that on the guitar you don't have........ :lol:


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:17 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
guitarman1984 wrote:
Basically with a perfect straight neck and perfect frets...no matter where you bend up in the neck, which string you bend and how much you bend, whenever you bend a string the distance from the string to the next up fret will be reduced. This clearance reduction is more pronounced for 7.25" necks, medium for 9.5", fairly low for 12", it's absent for a flat fretboard. This clearance reduction may be the cause of the fretting-out phenomenon.

Agreed. As I previously stated:
MickJagger wrote:
I have never argued that there would not be slightly less string height, one fret up toward the bridge from the fret of the string bend, on a 7.25" radius neck compared to a 12" radius neck, which is exactly what your model shows.

guitarman1984 wrote:
So, I'll start again a simulation.
Simulation 1 - Bending at around 7th fret
Simulation 2 - Bending at around 18th fret
high E string
1 full tone bending
Same action of the string at the bridge (fixed point through the whole analysis) with 7.25" and 12" radiuses being the only difference. The 7.25 is a nice maple neck, the 12" a glorious flamed maple neck :D
Here a picture from the top, where I show the 2 simulations at the 7th and at the 18th frets
Image
Simulation 1
String in contact at the bending fret, 12":

Image
Clearance from the fretted string to next fret without bending, 12":

Image
Clearance from the fretted string to next fret with bending, 12":

Image
String in contact at the bending fret, 7.25":

Image
Clearance from the fretted string to next fret without bending, 7.25":

Image
Clearance from the fretted string to next fret with bending, 7.25":

Image

So, all the rest being the same:
Neck radius 7.25 VS 12
Clearance unbent string 0.238mm VS 0.243mm (*small difference due to the 3D model)
Clearance bent string 0.164mm VS 0.198mm
Difference 0.074mm VS 0.045mm

Therefore with the 7.25" radius neck, while bending you "loose" more clearance increasing the risk of fretting out.
If you want to achieve the same clearance during bending, you are allowed to lower the action at the bridge in the 12" neck (or you can increase the action on the 7.25"neck). In the simulation below I decreased the action of 12" of 0.5mm.
Neck radius 7.25 VS 12
Clearance unbent string 0.238mm VS 0.210mm (*small difference due to the 3D model)
Clearance bent string 0.164mm VS 0.165mm
Difference 0.074mm [b] VS 0.045mm (still the same as before)


Simulation 2 - 18th fret
So, all the rest being the same:

(-Drawings omitted-)

Neck radius [b]7.25
VS 12
Clearance unbent string 0.186mm VS 0.188mm (*small difference due to the 3D model)
Clearance bent string 0.148mm VS 0.164mm
Difference 0.038mm VS 0.024mm

Therefore with the 7.25" radius neck you "loose" more clearance increasing the risk of fretting out (like before).
This is true all along the neck.
This is true disregarding of the string gauge size.
The more you bend, the worse the effect is (i.e. a 2 whole tones bending is much more critical than a 1 tone bending).

Hope this clear out some doubts...enjoy the pictures :D

I don't have any doubts, except, I don't understand why you want to do the following:
guitarman1984 wrote:
If you want to achieve the same clearance during bending, you are allowed to lower the action at the bridge in the 12" neck (or you can increase the action on the 7.25"neck). In the simulation below I decreased the action of 12" of 0.5mm.

There is no need for both guitars to have the same clearance, one fret up toward the bridge.
Both guitars in the models do not fret-out, at the same bridge saddle height, so there is no need to raise the action on the 7.25" radius guitar, or lower the action on the 12" radius guitar to equalize or "match" the string clearance with the 8th fret when bent.
In fact, if the 12" guitar was setup with the saddle at the lowest possible string height position without bending, it is unlikely that you could lower the bridge saddle and the unbent string height on the 12" guitar (as you suggest was done for the 18th fret model).

When setting the initial string height or action of a string without bending on either a 7.25" radius guitar, or a 12" radius guitar, you can only set the action to the lowest point where there is essentially no buzz at any fret without bending.

Your initial unbent string height states:
guitarman1984 wrote:
Simulation 1 - Bending at around 7th fret
Clearance unbent string 0.238mm VS 0.210mm (*small difference due to the 3D model)

You then stated that "In the simulation below (18th fret), I decreased the action of 12" of 0.5mm."
I am not sure why you did this?
I am also not sure where the 0.5mm measurement was taken.
Is the .05mm measurement taken at the bridge saddle in the 12" radius guitar?
Why are the following unbent clearance numbers still so close?

guitarman1984 wrote:
Simulation 2 - Bending at around 18th fret
Clearance unbent string 0.186mm VS 0.188mm (*small difference due to the 3D model)

These clearance measurements appear to be the "compressed," unbent measurements of the "high "E" string at the 18th fret.

Why is the unbent string clearances less at the 18th fret, rather than at the 7th fret ?
I would think that the opposite would be true.
And I do not understand the supposed .05 decrease in the "action" of the 12" radius guitar for the 18th fret measurements.
How and where this was measured, and why it was lowered?

Without understanding this part of your model, I cannot comment further.
But I note that in both models, you note that the unbent "compressed" string clearance is a "small difference due to the 3D model."
You have appeared to state that at least in the 7th fret model, that with equal saddle height on both the 7.25" and 12" radius guitars, that neither guitar fretted-out at the 8th fret.

I assume that the initial string height was set at the lowest possible string height on both guitar models.
Perhaps, guitarman1985, you can confirm that as well.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:28 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:
I assume that the reason for Fender using .10 strings on 7.25" radius guitars (not heavier and not lighter), is to maximize playability without going too heavy, while eliminating the likelihood of the guitar fretting-out from the string bending too far past the mid-point of the fret due to the crowned nature of 7.25 radius frets.

Sigh. This is not for you, but for the benefit of others who might come here and believe this utter poppycock for a short while:
The thickness of the string in no way changes the geometry. A bent string dips just as far down relative to the curved fretboard with .011s as with .009s.

Sigh. This is for you, as well as for the benefit of others.
I have never argued that string size alters the geometry of the neck.

.10 strings or heavier on a 7.25" guitar limit the extent of the bend, thereby limiting the possibility that the string can fret out on the fret above the bend, by limiting the "B" string to generally not bending past the mid-point of the fret.

Have you read anything that I have actually written, or are you just that thick?


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 139 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 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:  
cron