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 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:40 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
MickJagger wrote:
Without understanding this part of your model, I cannot comment further.

You've been commenting on all eight pages of the topic without understanding any of the basics, so why stop now?

BTW, a .010 string set needs similar extra clearance ("some tenths of a mm"...) on a 7.25" radius, compared to a .010 set on flatter radii. As above, the basic geometry doesn't change with string gauge...


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:41 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
MickJagger wrote:
At least this geometric principle is consistent with the approach of guitarman1984.

If you had understood what he and I wrote, you would have seen that him and I have no disagreement at all - we understand geometry. It's you who don't, and disagree with everyone here.
guitarman1984 refuted your claim, and showed with pictures (because you don't understand abstractions or formulas) how, all other things being equal, a smaller radius will require a higher action for any size bend, which is what you have denied all along. The formula his CAD program uses follows exactly the one was posted before, with the addition of showing the impact for a fraction of the sagitta for the next fret. We have no disagreement. You, on the other hand, disagrees with the entire world.

MickJagger wrote:
I guess he recommended that on the guitar you don't have........ :lol:

I have posted pictures of my 7.25" radius Tele (as well as a couple of other teles) here before.
But just to obliterate any doubt of who again and again is not willing to accept facts when presented with them:

Image


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:20 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
MickJagger wrote:
.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.

Geometrically, there is no midpoint of a fret that plays any part in these calculations. Every fret is an arc of a circle, and a circle has no beginning or end. Any arc is identical to any other arc of the same amount of degrees, no matter how much to a side it tilts. A bend from E to G is geometrically equal to a bend from B to D or G to A, just like a watch hand moving from 3 to 1 does the exact same movement as a watch hand moving from 1 to 11. This is true even if you cut the bottom half of the watch off. It's still an arc of a circle, without a top.

The midpoint of the fretboard has nothing to do with anything - the fretboard doesn't enter any equation at all. The strings and the frets would do the same exact thing if they were floating in space without a fretboard, or whether you extended the frets into a full circle. It's irrelevant.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:53 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:28 pm
Posts: 82
Hi there, in response to MickJagger:

1) the action I set in the model was not intended to be the lowest possible without buzzing in unbended position, it was an arbitrary action. Let's say like this: if you set the action to the lowest level without buzzing, it should be equal for both radiuses; in this case, whenever you bend a string, the likelihood to fret out is bigger for the 7.25" due to the "climbing" effect of the string on the curved fret.
In this case I agree that lowering the action on the 12" is not necessary/needed otherwise buzz would start.

2) if Buzz is not a problem in unbended position, i.e. you are living with fairly high action or better to say, not a shredder's action ( or simply put, an higher action than in point 1), AND fretting out is happening in the 7.25" neck only, then you are allowed to lower the action on the 12".

3)the action I lowered 0.5mm was measured at the saddle, so the updated simulation was with a saddle lowered of that amount for the 12" neck, with hypothesis explained in 2)

4) the clearance at the 18th fret is lower than the one at 7th fret because the frets at 18-19 are much closer to each other than the 7th-8th frets. Just compare the distance between these two fret couples and you'll get it.

Cheers


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:00 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:
1) the action I set in the model was not intended to be the lowest possible without buzzing in unbent position, it was an arbitrary action.

This is one of the problems with your models.
The initial string height cannot be set to an arbitrary height.
The initial string height must reflect real world string height.

Fender recommends that after tuning, to measure the distance between bottom of the string and the top of the 17th fret, and to adjust bridge saddle and string height according to the chart shown below.
Fender then says to re-tune and experiment with the string height until the desired sound and feel is achieved.
For the purposes of your models, there is no way to experiment further with string height.

Fender specifies 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......................Treble Side
7.25" .....................................4/64" (1.6 mm)
9.5" to 12" ............................4/64" (1.6 mm)
http://www2.fender.com/support/articles ... tup-guide/

The following is the metric conversion measurement for measurement from the UNCOMPRESSED "High E" string bottom, to the top of the fret at the17th fret.
Your models should set the initial action of both guitars to 1.5875 mm at the 17th fret, as reflected in the conversion table below.

fraction.........conversion decimal................mm....
4/64"........................0.0625...........................1.5875

guitarman1984 wrote:
Let's say like this: if you set the action to the lowest level without buzzing, it should be equal for both radiuses; in this case, whenever you bend a string, the likelihood to fret out is bigger for the 7.25" due to the "climbing" effect of the string on the curved fret.

This statement is a preconceived MYTH, which has nothing to do with your model.
It is merely a belief in the MYTH that 7.25" guitars are more likely to fret-out due to the radius of the guitar.
This bias, is not based on any facts including the initial string height, the gauge of strings, or actual experience.
It is merely an unsupported belief, or MYTHICAL perception, in addition to not being true.

guitarman1984 wrote:
In this case I agree that lowering the action on the 12" is not necessary/needed otherwise buzz would start.

2) if Buzz is not a problem in unbent position, i.e. you are living with fairly high action or better to say, not a shredder's action ( or simply put, an higher action than in point 1), AND fretting out is happening in the 7.25" neck only, then you are allowed to lower the action on the 12".

This statement is incorrect because according to Fender's specifications, both guitars should be set to the same initial uncompressed action.
Both guitars in the real world can ONLY be set to a string height where there is essentially NO string buzz when the sting is compressed at any fret without bending.
This has nothing to do with "high action".
This is the "lowest action" possible while preserving playability of the guitar.

Secondly, you incorrectly assume that you can lower the action on the 12" radius guitar, and not experience string buzz, when the string is compressed at any fret, in an unbent position.
You would arbitrarily lower the initial string height specified by Fender without testing for sting buzz, which cannot be done without invalidating your model(s).

guitarman1984 wrote:
3)the action I lowered 0.5mm was measured at the saddle, so the updated simulation was with a saddle lowered of that amount for the 12" neck, with hypothesis explained in 2)

As stated, you cannot arbitrarily lower the action on the 12" radius guitar, without possibly inducing fret buzz in the unbent, compressed string, assuming that the string is set to the "lowest" possible string height or action.
Of course, the models cannot check for the "lowest" possible action.
But your models can set the initial UNCOMPRESSED string height or action at the Fender specification: 1.5875 mm at the 17th fret, measured from the top of the fret, to the bottom of the string.

I would suggest running your model once again with this parameter for the initial string height for both guitars.
The question is whether the sting frets-out when bent, similar to your last model, with both guitars having the exact same saddle height and string height, set to the Fender specified, UNCOMPRESSED string height, at the 17th fret.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2015 12:57 am
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:
At least this geometric principle is consistent with the approach of guitarman1984.

If you had understood what he and I wrote, you would have seen that him and I have no disagreement at all - we understand geometry. It's you who don't, and disagree with everyone here. .

Your "theory," to the extent that you can call that unintelligible, steaming pile of horse manure, an actual "theory," has little to do with guitarman's models.
To the extent that your approach, and guitarman's approach have similar, unrelated outcomes, is due to errors in guitarman's models, which I have pointed out.
I find it amusing that the figments of your imagination actually allows you to falsely believe that you actually put forward a workable descriptive "theory" that is somehow consistent with guitarman's models. :lol: The fact of the matter is that his models are consistent with the right triangle geometric model that I previously illustrated.
arth1 wrote:
guitarman1984 refuted your claim, and showed with pictures (because you don't understand abstractions or formulas) how, all other things being equal, a smaller radius will require a higher action for any size bend, which is what you have denied all along.

That is a an absolutely ridiculous assertion.
All things being equal, a 7.25" radius guitar, strung with .10 strings, DOES NOT "require a higher action for any size bend" than a larger radius guitar.
If a 7.25" radius guitar requires a higher action "for any size bend" than a larger radius guitar; 7.25 radius guitars would require higher initial action without bending.
This is completely contrary to Fender specifications that state that strings on the treble side of the neck have the same action setting for 7.25", 9.5" and 12" radius guitars.

arth1 wrote:
The formula his CAD program uses follows exactly the one was posted before, with the addition of showing the impact for a fraction of the sagitta for the next fret. We have no disagreement. You, on the other hand, disagrees with the entire world. .

I would enjoy your delusions of grandeur, if it wasn't so sad, that you perceive yourself, and a couple of Alchemist cronies, as constituting "the whole world," of guitar thinking on this matter, which allows you to believe that I am somehow singularly isolated in the view that Fender 7.25" radius guitars are not defective, or require higher playing action when setup properly with .10" or higher strings.
It is this type of delusional, mythological thinking, that allows you to dwell in a host of guitar mythologies, and Alchemist misperceptions of reality, including this one.
arth1 wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
I guess he recommended that on the guitar you don't have........ :lol:

I have posted pictures of my 7.25" radius Tele (as well as a couple of other teles) here before.
But just to obliterate any doubt of who again and again is not willing to accept facts when presented with them:

Strange that it took you 5 or 6 pages to relate anything about having a 7.25" guitar???
Perhaps you should get a new guitar tech who knows how to setup your guitar so that it doesn't fret-out.
You might want to start by using .10 strings.

arth1 wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
.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.

Geometrically, there is no midpoint of a fret that plays any part in these calculations. Every fret is an arc of a circle, and a circle has no beginning or end. Any arc is identical to any other arc of the same amount of degrees, no matter how much to a side it tilts. A bend from E to G is geometrically equal to a bend from B to D or G to A, just like a watch hand moving from 3 to 1 does the exact same movement as a watch hand moving from 1 to 11. This is true even if you cut the bottom half of the watch off. It's still an arc of a circle, without a top.

This is a great theory of circles and arcs, which has little to do with the travel of a, string affixed to a stationary point at the bridge, while bending
This is not true due to the fixed end point of the string at the bridge.
If you bend a string far enough, it will fret-out because it has passed the mid-point of the fret and is now dropping in elevation relative to the next fret up toward the bridge and the fixed end of the string, due to the angle of the sting across the fretboard, extending to the bridge saddle.
arth1 wrote:
[The midpoint of the fretboard has nothing to do with anything - the fretboard doesn't enter any equation at all. The strings and the frets would do the same exact thing if they were floating in space without a fretboard, or whether you extended the frets into a full circle. It's irrelevant.

Only you are floating in space, dude.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2015 1:34 am
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:
MickJagger wrote:
Without understanding this part of your model, I cannot comment further.

You've been commenting on all eight pages of the topic without understanding any of the basics, so why stop now?

Thank you exhibition of brilliance, Einstein!!
jmattis wrote:
BTW, a .010 string set needs similar extra clearance ("some tenths of a mm"...) on a 7.25" radius, compared to a .010 set on flatter radii. As above, the basic geometry doesn't change with string gauge...

Apparently you have no understanding of the basics.....
.010 strings DO NOT needs extra clearance on a 7.25" radius, compared to a .010 set on flatter radi.
As usual, Einstein, you provide no reasoning or source for this false, MYTHOLOGICAL assertion.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:45 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:54 pm
Posts: 12
I have an American Vintage Series 72 Thinline Tele, which you would be happy to hear has the 7.25" fingerboard spec. I agree that playing chords on the vintage radius is quite comfortable. However, I actually do have a hard time bending notes above the twelfth fret. It's not impossible, but it is dramatically harder than on a similar guitar with a flatter fingerboard. I also don't dig the vintage frets, which I personally fault for the majority of the bending issues.

I don't mean to argue, but I just wanted to offer my experience on the matter. I come from a background of playing flat fingerboards, so I know the differences. It's not just a myth. Flat fingerboards make bending notes easier. The switch to my Telecaster was difficult in this one instance. I plan on playing the crap out of these frets, and refretting the neck with 6105 frets sometime in the future. Hopefully this will alleviate the bending difficulties somewhat.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:53 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
MickJagger wrote:
arth1 wrote:
But just to obliterate any doubt of who again and again is not willing to accept facts when presented with them:

Strange that it took you 5 or 6 pages to relate anything about having a 7.25" guitar???

You missed me stating it no less than three times. In posts you replied to, even!
I have three telecasters with different radii, and correctly set up, the 7.25" radius one warrants a higher action than the 9.5" one, which in turn requires a higher action than the 10-14" compound radius one. With or without the same string gauge.

MickJagger wrote:
Perhaps you should get a new guitar tech who knows how to setup your guitar so that it doesn't fret-out.

I actually use a guild certified luthier, not just a guitar tech.

MickJagger wrote:
You might want to start by using .10 strings.

It appears that your ability to read matches your ability to understand geometry. You missed this, in a post you even replied to:
arth1 wrote:
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

The string gauge has nothing to do with it, except possibly making some players bend less. It's as much a remedy as advocating playing cowboy chords.

Again, the string radius has absolutely no impact on the geometry. Even if the strings were three times as thick, they only touch the bridge and fret at one point - the underside[*]. The straight line between the underside points of a thin string and the straight line between the underside points of a thick string are identical. They will touch intervening frets exactly the same way - with the underside, at the exact same height.

[*]: "Underside" means the point pointing towards the center of the cylinder, not perpendicular to the neck. But given how thin strings are compared to the fretboard radius, we can disregard the thousandth of the thickness of the string that would be the max discrepancy between the correct view and your view for this particular case. Given that the action lift on a 7.25' everyone else but you needs is in multiples of the string thickness, it is irrelevant.

MickJagger wrote:
Only you are floating in space, dude.

What a convincing refutation.

You're arguing with people who have degrees in mathematics and engineering. Axiomatic Euclidean geometry isn't in doubt at all, and is neither "my theory" nor "alchemy".

The frets and bridge of any guitar with a fixed radius is an arc of a cylinder. That's what a fixed fretboard radius means.
All cylinders obey the same geometrical laws, whether on a guitar or not. Period.
Whether there is a fretboard or anything else inside the cylinder does not affect the geometric laws in the slightest.

A line between any two points on a cylinder that are not on the same parallel with the axis of a cylinder will -- invariably, no matter what, not open for discussion, this is not my theory -- cut through the cylinder.
The smaller the cylinder, the deeper the cut for the same distance. This is not open for discussion either. It's a fact.
Avoiding this cut by raising one of the points means raising it more for a small cylinder than a big cylinder, because (a) the cut is deeper, and (b) the angle is bigger, so the component that increases the height in the same direction as for the other point is smaller. (I don't think you'll understand (b), so just go with (a) - they're both true, and just one of them being true is enough to prove the statement).

On a guitar, this means elevating the bridge more on a small radius guitar than a large radius guitar. I.e. raising the action more.

What you think doesn't matter - this is not opinion, and mathematical truth pertaining to circles is not something you get to debate and decide on (despite the bible stating and the state of Indiana trying to legislate that pi should be equal to 3).

The thickness of a line between two surface points of a cylinder does not matter for how deep it cuts. It only affects how wide it cuts.
For all cylinders, or arcs of cylinders, without exception, including the gauge of strings on a Fender Telecaster.

Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain.
-- Schiller, 1801, The Maid of Orleans


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:45 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:
I have three telecasters with different radii, and correctly set up, the 7.25" radius one warrants a higher action than the 9.5" one, which in turn requires a higher action than the 10-14" compound radius one. With or without the same string gauge.
The string gauge has nothing to do with it, except possibly making some players bend less.
Again, the string radius (gauge) has absolutely no impact on the geometry. ...The straight line between the underside points of a thin string and the straight line between the underside points of a thick string are identical. They will touch intervening frets exactly the same way - with the underside, at the exact same height.

Again, as I have stated many times: I HAVE NEVER ARGUED THAT STRING GUAGE ALTERS THE GEOMETRY OF THE NECK.
I really don't know how many more time I am going to have to say this, to get through to you???!!!
To the extent that your guitars need progressively higher action as stated above, it is NOT due to the radius of the neck for the reasons that I will restate below.

arth1 wrote:
You're arguing with people who have degrees in mathematics and engineering.
Axiomatic Euclidean geometry isn't in doubt at all, and is neither "my theory" nor "alchemy".

The frets and bridge of any guitar with a fixed radius is an arc of a cylinder.
That's what a fixed fretboard radius means.
All cylinders obey the same geometrical laws, whether on a guitar or not. Period.
Whether there is a fretboard or anything else inside the cylinder does not affect the geometric laws in the slightest.
A line between any two points on a cylinder that are not on the same parallel with the axis of a cylinder will -- invariably, .....cut through the cylinder.
The smaller the cylinder, the deeper the cut for the same distance.
This is not open for discussion either. It's a fact.
Avoiding this cut by raising one of the points means raising it more for a small cylinder than a big cylinder.
....On a guitar, this means elevating the bridge more on a small radius guitar than a large radius guitar. I.e. raising the action more.

What you think doesn't matter - this is not opinion, and mathematical truth pertaining to circles is not something you get to debate and decide on.....

Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain.
-- Schiller, 1801, The Maid of Orleans

Mr. Peabody, your psudo-scientific error filled certitude is on full display once again.

Image
You need not apologize, as you are certainly not the first egg-head that that I've had to deal with who is unable to see the forest, due to a compulsive interest in viewing the trees from some theoretical perspective, that fails to comport with reality.
Fundamentally, you fail to conceptually acknowledge the initial string height and the actual geometry of the stings, neck and saddle.

You appear to theorize as if the string is a line that is in direct in contact with the "cylinder" (multiple frets), throughout the length of the string.
The string is not in contact with a "cylinder" (multiple frets) throughout the string length.

You somehow fail to acknowledge the fact that the initial string height has NOTHING to do with bending the string, or with the radius of the neck.
The action can only be set to the lowest string height where the string does not buzz when compressed at any fret -- WITHOUT BENDING.
The string height cannot be set lower, and it need not be set higher, regardless of the radius of the neck.
You also fail to acknowledge that the string rises in a progressively elevated trajectory from the fret where it is compressed to the bridge saddle.

A 7.25" radius guitar with the "B" and "High E" strings set to the lowest possible string height (where the strings do not buzz at any fret), will not fret-out when bent on a two step bend, if strung with .10 strings or heavier the strings

Image
On a 7.25" radius guitar, assuming level frets and relief set to spec.; when a string is bent at the 12th fret (or at any fret), as shown in the illustrations above, but not bent substantially past the mid-point of the fret and fretboard, the strings will not fret-out.
This is true, even though the string to fret clearance is diminished to frets above the bend, compared to merely compressing the string without bending.
The integrity of the right triangle shown above is maintained when using .10 or heavier strings because the "B" string does not substantially pass the mid-point of the fret on a two step bend.

If the string substantially passes the mid-point of the fret, such as may occur with lighter strings, after elevating to the crown, or mid-point of the fret, the string will begin to decend past the mid-point, relative to the bridge saddle.
The angle of the string from the bend point, to the bridge saddle, will pass over one or more frets above the bend, at the mid-point of the fretboard, where the fret height is now higher than the string (negative clearance) due to the decending string at the point of the bend, which is past the mid-point of the fret where the string is bent.
Under this condition, with strings lighter than .10 strings, the string may fret-out, and the action would need to be raised to avoid the string from fretting-out, and to compensate for the use of lighter than .10 strings on a 7.25" radius guitar.

If you are using .10 strings or larger on a 7.25" radius guitar, when a string is bent, as shown in the illustrations above, the B string does not substantially past the mid-point of the fret and fretboard, and will not fret-out.
This is due to the fact that the minimum initial action or string height setting, where the string does not buzz at any fret when compressed without bending (which is relatively the same for any radius guitar), provides enough clearance on a 7.25" radius guitar when strung with .10 or heavier strings, because the bend does not pass the mid point of the fret.

One of the problems encountered by the Fender Lounge Alchemist Society, and everyone that promotes the 7.25" radius Guitar MYTH, is an inability to properly visualize the actual 7.25" radius arc of the Fender neck, compared to other neck radii.
Fender hasn't helped by having drawings on line in which the illustrated neck is completely out of proportion and scale to the illustrated radius, such as in the following Fender diagrams.
Image
http://www2.fender.com/experience/tech- ... rd-radius/

While I don't have a CAD program, here is an accurate scale drawing of Fender 7.25", 9.5" and 12" radius necks at the 12th fret which has the following dimensions were found on line and confirmed with tape measurements of my guitars.

Neck width = 50mm @ 12th Fret
"E" string to "E" sting = 44mm @ 12th Fret
Neck Thickness = 24mm (based on '52 AV Tele)

These measurements are accurately displayed in the following neck cross-section, drawn to scale at the 12th fret, and can be accurately measured on your computer screen with a millimeter tape measure or ruler.
Image
The High and Low "E" strings would be directly above the red vertical lines on both sides of the neck illustration, 44mm apart.
The various radii are color coded as follows:
Blue fret = 7.25" radius
Red Fret = 9.4" radius
Green Fret = 12" radius
Black = Flat Radius

Unlike the Fender illustrations, the following comparative illustrations, while reduced in size, are drawn to the proper comparative scale.
Image
The portion of the drawing at the very top, is representative of the difference in the 7.25", 9.5" and 12" radius necks, as illustrated above in the true scale size drawing of the neck cross-section.

The following diagram represents a 7.25" radius neck at the 12th fret with strings set at the Fender specified string height of approximately 4/64" (1/16") or 1.6mm, above the 12th fret (the Fender measurement is at the 17th fret, so the string height would be slightly less at the 12th fret).
But at least this provides an approximate perspective of 7.25" string action, which does NOT fret-out when the string is bent.
Regardless of the radius of the neck, on any guitar with a 25.5" scale length, such as Fender guitars, the initial setup of the strings cannot be set much lower than 1.6mm above the fret at the 17th fret.

Image
Three things must be understood:
1) The initial action set to the lowest possible string height without buzzing (approximately 1.6mm at the 17th fret), is measured from the bottom of the string to the fret, and this measurement is approximately the same string height for any radius neck, with a 25.5" scale length, measured from the bottom of the string to the proper, corresponding radius fret, as shown below.

Image
2) From the "B" String to the "D" String measures 18mm.
With .10 or heavier strings, the "B" string will only bend to the approximate middle of the fret board (14mm), or at the furthest, to where the "D" string is (18mm), traveling approximately 14mm to 18mm, of the of the 7.25" radius neck which is approximately 50mm wide at the 12th fret.

3) With the initial action set to the lowest possible string height without buzzing (approximately 1.6mm at the 17th fret), the "High E" and "B" strings will not fret-out when the guitar is strung with .10 or heavier strings.
The "High E" and "B" strings will not fret out because the strings will at all times be increasingly elevated at the bend, relative to the bridge saddle, and the stings will always be higher than all other frets up the neck toward the bridge, due to the initial string height set at the lowest possible string height.
This is due to the fact that the initial angle of the string, which runs in an elevated trajectory from the nut to the bridge (which can be thought of as forming a theoretical right triangle as illustrated above), will always maintain the integrity of the triangle and string to fret clearance when the string is bent, if the string does not bent past the mid-point (or past the "D" string location) of the fretboard, as when strung with .10 or heavier strings; when the frets are level; and when the neck relief is within spec.

This is why it is a complete and utter MYTH that all 7.25" radius guitars fret-out or must be setup with high action.
"What you think doesn't matter - this is not opinion, but rather, a mathematical truth" pertaining to right angles and the fundamental geometry of 7.25 through 12" radius necks, "and is not something you get to debate and decide on....."

"When most of a society is stupid, then the prevalence of idiots becomes dominant and incurable."
"The Fundamental Laws of Human Stupidity"
Carlo M. Cipolla, Professor Emeritus of Economic History, University of California, Berkeley


Last edited by MickJagger on Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:35 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 10:20 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
Zach_Drummond wrote:
I have an American Vintage Series 72 Thinline Tele, which you would be happy to hear has the 7.25" fingerboard spec. I agree that playing chords on the vintage radius is quite comfortable. However, I actually do have a hard time bending notes above the twelfth fret. It's not impossible, but it is dramatically harder than on a similar guitar with a flatter fingerboard. I also don't dig the vintage frets, which I personally fault for the majority of the bending issues.

I don't mean to argue, but I just wanted to offer my experience on the matter. I come from a background of playing flat fingerboards, so I know the differences. It's not just a myth. Flat fingerboards make bending notes easier. The switch to my Telecaster was difficult in this one instance. I plan on playing the crap out of these frets, and refretting the neck with 6105 frets sometime in the future. Hopefully this will alleviate the bending difficulties somewhat.

Everyone may have different preferences.
I played a '83 Tele for years with a 12" radius neck and jumbo frets.
I now have several 9.5" radius Teles with medium jumbo frets, and a '52 American Vintage Tele with a 7.25" radius neck.
Personally I like both 7.25" and 9.5" radius Teles, probably better than the 12" radius neck.
I now know that I hate jumbo frets, find medium jumbos to be ok and personally, I love the small vintage frets, but they do wear quickly.
Fender states that their vintage frets are .045" tall and .083" wide.
Dunlop 6105 Accu-Fret® fretwire measure .055" tall and .090" wide, and are made of 18% nickel/silver hard alloy.
They are really not that much larger than Fender vintage frets, and will probably wear better.
You may want to check into stainless steel frets with the same dimensions, as they would wear even better.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 3:47 am
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:24 am
Posts: 109
Interesting discussion, but the math and geometry doesn't explain what you feel :D

I am most comfortable with Strat's and Tele's built to the original specifications. I only want 7.25" radius, deep slightly V necks ( typical '56 shape necks) with vintage frets. Never had an issue with bending in the past 40+ years playing Fenders.
I tried Fenders with flatter radius and bigger frets, never had big fun with them. But they are fine for me on my Gibson, Guild and Martin. Strange !


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:30 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
56Strat wrote:
Interesting discussion, but the math and geometry doesn't explain what you feel :D I am most comfortable with Strat's and Tele's built to the original specifications. I only want 7.25" radius, deep slightly V necks ( typical '56 shape necks) with vintage frets. Never had an issue with bending in the past 40+ years playing Fenders.

Of course you have never had an issues with bending strings on 7.25" radius guitars in the past 40+ years playing Fender guitars.
This is just one of many Guitar MYTHS that have somehow become accepted by a relatively large percentage of guitar players as constituting "conventional wisdom" when it is actually just a misperceived rationalization.

Some people see a foot print of a bear and think that there are undiscovered large great apes roaming the American wilderness and the Himalayan Mountains.
Other folks see unexplained lights in the sky and believe that aliens from other worlds are visiting the Earth.
And these examples don't even begin to approach the dedicated lunacy that is sometimes projected by many people pursuant to the world's great religions; which at one point considered it blasphemous not to believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth, even after the opposite was proven to be factually true.
While each of these examples, and many others, may lend themselves to sounding crazy to most rational people, a sizable portion of otherwise rational people, still actually hold and project opinions, in which with complete certitude, they consider factually unsupported rationalized beliefs to be undoubtedly true.

So it is not surprising that there are numerous falsehoods associated with guitars, particularly electric guitars (such as "tone wood"); sometimes associated with corporate marketing, which gain an allegiance of followers who believe in unsubstantiated theoretical rationalizations, which fail to hold up under rigorous scrutiny.
This is what we have with the 7.25" Radius Guitar MYTH.

56Strat wrote:
I tried Fenders with flatter radius and bigger frets, never had big fun with them. But they are fine for me on my Gibson, Guild and Martin. Strange !

My first guitar was an '83 MIA Telecaster that I bought when Fender was on the ropes and about to end production in the United States.
That Tele had a 12" radius with jumbo frets, which are HUGE.
I played that guitar for many years until it needed fret work, and then I got a new Telecaster.
I'm not a Steve Vai, multiple "modes" type shredder.
I'm a self taught blues, rock player.
I don't have an extremely light shredders touch, and have learned that huge jumbo frets are not for me.

I generally like at least a 9.5" radius, with frets no larger than medium jumbo.
Like you, I love vintage frets, and really cannot understand why so many times you find people dissing vintage frets on social media.
I suspect that a lot of that is from people who have never played vintage frets and are again engaged in unsupported rationalized opinion.
But who know, it doesn't make any sense to me unless there are a lot of Steve Vais out there.
And like you, I don't find the 12" radius on my Takamine 2002 Ltd. acoustic guitar to be objectionable, probably because it does not have jumbo frets, and probably because of it having acoustic strings.
As for your Gibson, the shorter scale length and the relative tautness of the strings probably accounts for the difference in feel.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Feb 29, 2016 3:53 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:33 pm
Posts: 811
Well, that was an amazing read.

At the end of it all, I can only say this:

It's all a matter of feel.
What feels right/good/better to the individual player.
Some players make a huge deal out of the minutia of their guitar's setup, others are comfortable playing anything, and some are in-between.

I prefer the Fender 25.5" scale length on a guitar.
I prefer very low action, even though I play a lot of slide guitar.
I prefer P90 pickups, which I have in one form or another on three of my four electric guitars. Next preference are single coils a la Tele bridge or Strat-style.
I prefer sets of 9's on my guitars (and specifically, I prefer Dunlop Reverend Willy's Mexican Lottery strings)...with the exception of my G&L F100, which feels better with a set of D'Addario XL 10's for some unknown reason.
I prefer a 9.5" radius, which I have on both of my Telecasters...but I still own (and play) my Stratocaster (7.25") and my G&L F100 (12“).

So if someone hands me a Humbucker-loaded guitar with a 16" neck radius and 24.75 (or, worse, 22.5 short-scale), set up with a set of 12-gauge strings, 24 frets and very high action, can I play it?
Heck yes, I can--I'M A FREAKING GUITARIST!

I'd prefer something different (as detailed above), but just as all my heroes made do with whatever they could afford or whatever is available, and eventually learned to play guitar in a unique, distinctive style, I can too.

When Muddy Waters played a Les Paul Goldtop early in his career, do you think he ever said, "Hmm. This bridge is not quite right, and what's up with the weight on this thing...and I think the action is too high. Maybe I'll record/perform tomorrow."

Of course not. He played the best instrument he had available to him, and he ripped it up.
Of course he had his preferences, and toward the end of his life, he said he preferred a Telecaster through a silverface Super Reverb or a silverface Twin Reverb...nothing like the small Tweed combos he used earlier in his career.

Everybody has gotten spoiled with the availability of various scales, different radii, guitars with functional truss rods and intonatable bridges, myriad of pickups (old, new, stock, replacement or boutique), different tone woods, different fretboard material, etc.

My first electric guitar was awesome. It was a well-made, high-end American instrument from a highly regarded company. It's a 1980 G&L F-100...I still have it, I still love it, and it will probably be with me until the day I die. I was fortunate to get a guitar that good as my first instrument, because I never had to suffer through a cruddy Stella acoustic with boat mooring-sized strings and lap steel/cheese grater action.

Having said that, after I had been playing for a few years, I realized I didn't like a lot of the features of that particular guitar as compared to others I had acquired.

I'm not much of a humbucker guy. I prefer a 9.5" radius. I like the smaller, more compact body of the Telecaster. I like a fatter (front-to-back) neck than the (very fast) neck of the F100...

...but none of that makes me dislike or deem the G&L unworthy, unpleasant or unplayable.

I learned what I like and what works "best" for me, but that doesn't preclude all other instruments.

In the words of Frank Zappa, "SHUT UP AND PLAY YER GUITAR!"






PS--By the way, I can bend notes on all my guitars, no matter what the radius.

_________________
Good Vibes To Y'all!
Blues, Rock and Outlaw Country
Texas Roadhouse Music at It's Finest...


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 8:25 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:19 am
Posts: 11
Location: Manchester
Awesome thread, found completely by accident on Google. Well done!

A while ago, I asked on a different forum if heavier gauge strings had to be bent the same/less/more to shift the same pitch, and instead of insight, I got abuse (including a 7.25" radius choking denial).

It was stated here that heavier strings aren't any less likely to choke, but, as they are can be bent less for the same shift, this goes some way to working around the choke problem? * Is this correct, or am I misunderstanding?

I tried an experiment to see if thicker strings (tuned to the same pitch) needed to be bent less for the same shift in pitch, but I couldn't do it accurately enough without changing my strings multiple times. And I concluded that any difference was negligeable. I would love to be proved wrong though because my Custom Shop Strat has a 7.25" neck, and I'm trying to get a low action without choking on Gilmour-style bends around the 10th-17th frets. (My action is currently about 4/64" on the last fret.)

So, assuming thicker strings need to be bent less for the same pitch shift, how much less are we actually talking?

Thanks again.

[* PS: As I don't use the tremolo arm, I have 'blocked' the unit. One side-effect of this is that bends don't loosen the overall string tension, and probably give a tighter bend response.]


Last edited by Yammer on Tue May 28, 2019 4:24 am, edited 3 times in total.

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