It is currently Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:16 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 139 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2015 4:12 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:53 am
Posts: 8
I would just like to point out, as "arth1" has done, that frets number from 1 just past the nut, to 21 (on a normal Tele/Strat), closest to the bridge. They go UP in number, UP in pitch and as you move your hand along the neck in that direction you are moving UP the neck. I think I can safely say that this applies to ALL stringed instruments, fretted or not; if your hand is moving towards the instrument's bridge, it is moving UP the neck.
If anyone would like to discuss this point further, with an alternative view, I would be delighted to take part. :)


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2015 8:58 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
MickJagger wrote:
Repeat: The string follows the radius curvature of the fret that you are on (as you bend the string).


No, it most definitely does not. The endpoint of the string does, but the endppoint only, not the entire string. The string will make a diagonal straight line. It has no knowledge of any curvature. It only knows about its endpoints, not whether what's between them is straight or curved.

The string endpoint dips as it gets bent. Thus the straight string dips too. Halfway between the two anchor points of a diagonal string, the point on the frets the string passes over have not dipped as much as the string has.

The next time you change strings, put on a single string, but string it diagonally instead of straight. See what happens to the string height as it passes the fretboard. If you have a calipers, measure how the height varies. The string does not follow the curvature.
This is exactly what happens when you bend a string.

To a straight string, a curved fretboard creates a hill when the string is diagonal. The string does not follow this curvature, but goes straight. When the hill is big enough, it hits it.

How can this be so hard to accept?

Edit:

There's even a formula for calculating the height of this hill, which is called a sagitta:
r - sqrt( r^2 - d^2 )
were r is the fretboard radius and d is how far you bend the string.

For a 7.25" radius and a 3/4" bend, you get:
7.25 - sqrt( 7.25^2 - 0.75^2 ) = 0.04"
For a 1" bend, you get 0.07"

For a 12" radius, you get 0.02" and 0.04", respectively.

To compensate for this, you need a 0.03" higher action on a 7.25" radius guitar versus a 12" radius guitar if doing 3/4" bends, and 0.04" higher action if doing 1" bends. In reality, somewhat less, because most people tend to bend at higher frets, where the halfway point between the bend and the bridge (maximum sagitta) is after the fretboard ends.
But still enough that it's taken into account.
Any skilled tech setting up a guitar will compensate for the radius, and will ask you questions about your playing style, or even see you play (not necessarily plugged in). And give you a higher action on a 7.25" radius guitar, unless it's only used for rhythm guitar or bends above the 12th fret.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:05 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
19martin48 wrote:
I would just like to point out, as "arth1" has done, that frets number from 1 just past the nut, to 21 (on a normal Tele/Strat), closest to the bridge. They go UP in number, UP in pitch and as you move your hand along the neck in that direction you are moving UP the neck. I think I can safely say that this applies to ALL stringed instruments, fretted or not; if your hand is moving towards the instrument's bridge, it is moving UP the neck.


Indeed. And on older fretboard instruments like violas, the height of the fretboard and strings also goes noticeably UP as you get closer to the bridge, with the string being HIGHER. (Same with most guitars, but it's not as noticeable, except perhaps Gibson SGs, where you can easily see the tilt.)
For someone new to stringed instruments or having a hard time with abstractions, it may seem conter-intuitive that a cello player moves his hands closer to the floor and says he's moving them higher up the fretboard. But it's up from more perspectives than it's down. The point of view is from the cello, not gravity or the orientation of the audience.

It may be easier to visualize a fiddler who holds the instrument with the neck pointing more down than up. Then all the views agree.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:55 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:53 am
Posts: 8
arth1 wrote:
19martin48 wrote:
I would just like to point out, as "arth1" has done, that frets number from 1 just past the nut, to 21 (on a normal Tele/Strat), closest to the bridge. They go UP in number, UP in pitch and as you move your hand along the neck in that direction you are moving UP the neck. I think I can safely say that this applies to ALL stringed instruments, fretted or not; if your hand is moving towards the instrument's bridge, it is moving UP the neck.


Indeed. And on older fretboard instruments like violas, the height of the fretboard and strings also goes noticeably UP as you get closer to the bridge, with the string being HIGHER. (Same with most guitars, but it's not as noticeable, except perhaps Gibson SGs, where you can easily see the tilt.)
For someone new to stringed instruments or having a hard time with abstractions, it may seem conter-intuitive that a cello player moves his hands closer to the floor and says he's moving them higher up the fretboard. But it's up from more perspectives than it's down. The point of view is from the cello, not gravity or the orientation of the audience.

It may be easier to visualize a fiddler who holds the instrument with the neck pointing more down than up. Then all the views agree.


Yup!


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2015 1:28 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
19martin48 wrote:
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!

I missed that one.
Thank you for reminding me :lol:


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2015 4:56 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
arth1 wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
Repeat: The string follows the radius curvature of the fret that you are on (as you bend the string).

No, it most definitely does not. The endpoint of the string does, but the endppoint only, not the entire string. The string will make a diagonal straight line. It has no knowledge of any curvature. It only knows about its endpoints, not whether what's between them is straight or curved.

The string endpoint dips as it gets bent. Thus the straight string dips too. Halfway between the two anchor points of a diagonal string, the point on the frets the string passes over have not dipped as much as the string has.

The next time you change strings, put on a single string, but string it diagonally instead of straight. See what happens to the string height as it passes the fretboard. If you have a calipers, measure how the height varies. The string does not follow the curvature.
This is exactly what happens when you bend a string.

To a straight string, a curved fretboard creates a hill when the string is diagonal. The string does not follow this curvature, but goes straight. When the hill is big enough, it hits it.

How can this be so hard to accept?

Dude..., you are correct that the "endpoint" of the string follows the radius curvature of the fret that you are on.
This has the effect of raising the string height above the frets closer to the bridge, consistent with the curvature and elevation of the fret that you are on.
The relative height of the high "E" and "B" strings when bent, are diminished relative to the frets closer to the bridge, only due to the lower relative high "E" and "B" bridge saddle heights (set at heights following the fret board radius), as either string extends diagonally from the saddle when the string is bent and moved laterally across the fret.

With a proper setup on a 7.25" radius guitar, where the frets are level, and the strings are set at a low string height, where the strings do not fret-out when each string is checked independently at each fret, without buzzing (without bending any string); the high "E" and "B" strings will normally not fret-out to any noticeable degree, when the string is bent at the 5th fret, or at any "higher" fret, toward the bridge, whether amplified or played acoustically.

arth1 wrote:
....a formula for calculating the height of this hill, which is called a sagittal....
[Sagittal formulas omitted]
To compensate...., you need a 0.03" higher action on a 7.25" radius guitar versus a 12" radius guitar if doing 3/4" bends, and 0.04" higher action if doing 1" bends.....

This is not a "bubble chamber experiment...." :lol:
The basic geometry of the guitar neck requires a setup with a certain amount of string height above the frets on a 12" radius guitar so that the strings do not fret-out at any fret when played at any fret without bending.
In fact, a 7.25" radius guitar requires the exact same amount of string height for each string above the frets, as does a 12" radius guitar without bending during a setup.
The only variable when bending strings is that the bridge saddle height on a 12" radius guitar, is set following the 12" radius neck, and the bridge saddle height on a 7.25" radius guitar, is set following the 7.25" radius neck.
Therefore, the "ONLY" variable is that the high "E" and "B" bridge saddles are set relatively lower, following the 7.25" radius, relative to the bending of these strings at any fret, than would otherwise be the case with the high "E" and "B" bridge saddle height on a 12" radius guitar.

arth1 wrote:
....In reality, (the higher action is) somewhat less, because most people tend to bend at higher frets, where the halfway point between the bend and the bridge (maximum sagitta) is after the fretboard ends.

Now you are starting to catch on.
String bending normally begins at the 5th fret, and occurs at frets "up" the neck, toward the bridge.
This has the effect of slightly changing the angle of the string from the fret to the bridge as you move "up" the fret board.

The fact of the matter is that with a proper setup and level frets, a similar string height setup on a 7.25" radius guitar, compared to a 12" radius guitar, will produce approximately the same real world playing results with a slightly different playing feel.
While a 12" radius neck may be preferred by players like Steve Vai due to playing style, or may be favored by Gibson oriented players due to feel, these are primarily subjective reasons favoring larger radius necks.

The 7.25" radius guitar should not fret out when the high "E" or "B" strings are bent, when the strings are set at approximately the same string height as a 12" radius guitar setup.
I know this to be the case, and I know that the "MYTH" of the 7.25" radius neck is "FALSE," because for many years I played an '83 Telecaster with a 12" radius neck, and I now often play a '53 AV Telecaster with a 7.25" radius neck with approximately the same low string height.
With a similar low string height setup on both guitars, and the strings don't fret-out when strings are bent at the 5th fret or "above," toward the bridge on the 7.25" radius, '52 AV Telecaster.

How can this be so hard for you to accept?
Do you really think that Roy Buchanan, Albert Collins, G.E. Smith, Steve Cropper, Robin Ford or Bruce Springsteen would play 7.25" radius Telecasters, if the guitar could not be played without the strings fretting-out when the strings are bent????
In the alternative, do you really think that Roy Buchanan, Albert Collins, G.E. Smith, Steve Cropper, Robin Ford and Bruce Springsteen, have all played with high string action????
C'mon Dude...
I know this runs counter to your "pseudo-scientific theory," but let's get real!!
If your experience with a 7.25" radius neck has been different from mine (assuming that you have actually owned and played a 7.25" radius Telecaster), then your setup was incorrect, your frets were not level, or both.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 8:05 am
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:58 am
Posts: 2187
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.

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.


The 7.25" radius never left... Many, many models based upon original designs in several price points stick to the rounder radius...

So you can have you round radius... and you must not do more than a half-step bend in the upper fret area....Else you'd notice the fretting out.

I like the flatter radius because the action is much lower and allows faster playing.

More importantly, I think Fender should be producing more guitars with thicker necks like the 52 Reissue.

_________________
"Epitaph on a blues musician’s tombstone: “I didn’t wake up this morning”" Davy Knowles


facebook.com/313DBC


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:41 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
MickJagger wrote:
The fact of the matter is that with a proper setup and level frets, a similar string height setup on a 7.25" radius guitar, compared to a 12" radius guitar, will produce approximately the same real world playing results with a slightly different playing feel.

Wow, you just don't know how to stop...
Calm down, take a deep breath, try again. Read all of the above posts, you'll get there:
On two otherwise similar guitars with "a proper setup" and "level frets", a flatter radiused neck can be set up with a lower action without choking on big bends. Edit: that does in no way mean the flatter radius is "better", it's just different.
And, it really is geometry, not just "subjective reasons" or other kind of conspiracy.

(BTW, Roy B was/is known for a very high action...)


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 2:29 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:
The fact of the matter is that with a proper setup and level frets, a similar string height setup on a 7.25" radius guitar, compared to a 12" radius guitar, will produce approximately the same real world playing results with a slightly different playing feel.

Wow, you just don't know how to stop...
Calm down, take a deep breath, try again. Read all of the above posts, you'll get there:
On two otherwise similar guitars with "a proper setup" and "level frets", a flatter radiused neck can be set up with a lower action without choking on big bends. Edit: that does in no way mean the flatter radius is "better", it's just different.
And, it really is geometry, not just "subjective reasons" or other kind of conspiracy.

(BTW, Roy B was/is known for a very high action...)

Wow, you just don't know how to stop...
Calm down, take a deep breath, try again.
Re-read your prior post and my response from page 1, which I reproduce:

MickJagger wrote:
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.

When using .10 or larger strings on a 7.25" radius guitar, you have to be some type of bending "animal" to "choke" out strings that are bent from the 5th fret and up the fretboard, toward the bridge, if the guitar is properly setup and the frets are level.
jmattis wrote:
And, it really is geometry, not just "subjective reasons" or other kind of conspiracy.

Once you get into accusing me of advocating some form of "conspiracy," I know the pejorative lengths that you will go to try to establish your indefensible point of view that 7.25" radius guitars have limited play-ability.
Guitars with 9.5" radius necks , or compound-radius fingerboard (9.5”-14”), both having medium jumbo frets, are favored by Fender for many reason, none of which involve any "conspiracy," or the proffered "fact" that 7.25" necks have limited play-ability.
With a proper setup and a 9.5" neck, you can move to .09 or lighter strings without "choking."
This provides an easier playing guitar for novice players due to the lighter strings and larger frets; is easier to setup; and provides a balanced feel between the traditional 7.25" Fender radius neck and the Gibson 12" radius neck.
All of these are valid reasons for Fender to make a general marketing decision, limiting the number of 7.25" radius guitars to less than a 1/4 of all Fender electric guitars.

The extent to which you can actually setup a 9.5" radius guitar up with lower action than a 7.25" radius neck, is minimal at best, if possible at all, because the guitar still has to be setup with enough string height so that the strings do not fret-out at the top of the neck, absent any string bending.
It is for this reason, and the fact that it is a complete MYTH that 7.25" radius guitars must necessarily "choke" out when strung with .10 or heavier strings, that it is really not the geometry; but rather, it is primarily for "subjective reasons" why Fender favors marketing 9.5" radius guitars.

jmattis wrote:
(BTW, Roy B was/is known for a very high action...)

And I suppose you also think that Albert Collins, G.E. Smith, Steve Cropper, Robin Ford, Bruce Springsteen, Keith Richards and numerous other professional guitar players who use a 7.25" radius Telecaster on a full or part time basis, are all "choking their chicken" when they play; or else, that all of these guys play with "high action."
GET REAL, DUDE!! :lol:
No "chicken choking," no high action, with this Tele.

Image[/quote]


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 3:43 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
No matter how many times you repeat it, or how much smoke you try to blow for cover, you're still wrong.
Ever read the Fender setup guides with their action recommendations for different radiuses..?

BTW, it's "Robben", not "Robin" Ford. His action is "a little bit high", if you trust Robben Ford. As far as I know, the same with Keef.
On those other names you like to drop I don't know. But maybe you tell us their action, if you want to use them as examples.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:17 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
Whatever dude, believe what you want to believe.
Maybe my action is "a little bit high" too..., Not!
The fact of the matter is, my action on my 7.25" radius Tele is set at the lowest point where there is no string buzz at every fret without bending, with the neck having very slight relief.
This is the same way I setup my 12" radius Telecaster when I used to play it (needs a fret job so its retired).
The sting height on both a 7.25" radius Tele and a 12" radius Tele, have to have an uncompressed string height of about 7/64" to 1/8" from the string to the fret at the 12th fret to eliminate buzzing at any fret (as you may know, I do not use a capo and feeler gauges to set the relief, or to determine the saddle height).
And my '52 Tele, when setup in this manner, does not "choke-out" when .10 strings are bent from the 5th fret, and anywhere up the fretboard.

This is the actual difference between a 7.25" radius Tele and a 9.5" Tele, and realize the picture is not to scale widthwise.

Image


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:58 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
MickJagger wrote:
This is the actual difference between a 7.25" radius Tele and a 9.5" Tele.

You really trust the internet, don't you..?

But, according to my CAD program, the pic you borrowed is wrong (shall I say, too?).
The distance between a straight line and a 7.25" radius is 1,7mm (.067"), and between a straight line and 9.5" radius it's 1,3 mm (..051"), those measures with the straight line as tangent via the quadrant point and measured at 50mm (1.969") width, which is about 9th fret on your regular Tele.

So the difference between 7.25" and a 9.5" radius curve is ~0,4mm (.016") on each side of the fretboard.
(I'm using the numbers here in a radical way to make the point, but:) To me and my playing style, there really is a difference between 1.9mm (.075") and 2.3 mm (.091") action...

BTW, the difference between 7.25" and a 12" radius would be ~0.7mm (.027"). Would that difference still suit the "approximately the same real world playing result" you mentioned?


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 9:28 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
Let’s try this again.
You just don’t seem to understand the basic principle that there is no reason for guitars with different radius necks to have different string action or string height for each string above each fret.
Let’s assume that we have three Telecasters with 7.25", 9.5", and 12” radius necks.
Let’s also assume that the frets on these guitars are equally level and that both the relief, and truss rod adjustment are equally adjusted on each guitar, providing very slight relief when the strings are in tune.

In setting up each guitar, the sting saddles are then set at the lowest point possible for each string, following the radius of the neck, where each string plays cleanly at every fret, without any substantial string buzzing at any fret.
In so doing, in theory, each string for each guitar may be set at approximately the same string height measurement, as measured at any given fret, without bending the string, with bridge saddle heights following the fretboard radius.
This is usually about 7/64” to 1/8” between the uncompressed low “E” string and the 12th fret; and usually 3/32” to 7/64” between the uncompressed high “E” string and the 12th fret.

The measurements for each tuned, uncompressed string, at each fret, theoretically have the same distance between the string and each corresponding fret, on each guitar, because all three guitars are set up identically in terms of the truss rod relief, and the levelness of the frets, with the bridge saddles set at the lowest possible point where the strings will not buzz at any fret.
The action for each string, on each of the three guitars, is in theory, identical at each corresponding fret, because the radius of the guitar does not affect setting string height or action of any string of the guitar at any fret, when each of the three guitars are setup in this manner.

The only variable is the radius of the nut and the actual height of the bridge saddles, which follow the 7.25", 9.5", and 12” radiuses of the fretboard and frets on each guitar.
The action or string height of each string remains the same for all three guitars.

This means that when bending the high “E” and “B” strings toward the crown or middle of any fret, on a 7.25” radius neck, at the 5th fret or above, toward the bridge, the strings heights of these strings are slightly lower to frets above the bend, when compared to the relative height of the high “E” and “B” strings to the crown or middle of any fret above the bend on 9.5", and 12” radius guitars.

But the fact of the matter is, when bending at the 5th fret or above, if .10 or larger strings are used on the 7.25” radius guitar (which serve to limit lateral string bending compared to lighter strings); if the setup is correct as described; and, you are not pretending to be curling 50 Lb. dumb bells with your fingers; the setup height of the strings should never be compromised by the slight reduction of relative string height while bending, to cause a string to choke out on a fret above the bend.
This will addressed further below.
jmattis wrote:
You really trust the internet, don't you..? …according to my CAD program, the pic you borrowed is wrong (shall I say, too?).

Since I trust the Internet, I will provide another graphic for your reference:

Image
As you can see from the graphic, there is minimal difference in the actual difference in radius between the blue (7.25”) and red (9.5”) radiuses
jmattis wrote:
The distance between a straight line and a 7.25" radius is 1,7mm (.067"), and between a straight line and 9.5" radius it's 1,3 mm (..051"), those measures with the straight line as tangent via the quadrant point and measured at 50mm (1.969") width, which is about 9th fret on your regular Tele.
So the difference between 7.25" and a 9.5" radius curve is ~0,4mm (.016") on each side of the fretboard.
….To me and my playing style, there really is a difference between 1.9mm (.075") and 2.3 mm (.091") action...

Again, the radius does not dictate a change in action or string height.
The action or string height can be set the same on all three guitars at the lowest point where the strings (unbent) will not buzz at any fret.
You state: "So the difference between 7.25" and a 9.5" radius curve is ~0.4mm (.016") on each side of the fretboard."
(I assume that your use of commas in metric measurements are actually decimal points).
If I understand your statement correctly, your statement is not correct.

First, the difference between the 7.25” radius and a 9.5” radius will increase as the string is bent toward the middle of the fret; it does not increase at both ends.
Second, using your numbers, there is a 0.4mm (.016") difference between 7.25" and a 9.5" radius curve.
A .04 mm difference means that there is approximately 1/64" reduction in comparative string height above the bend, toward the crown of the frets. (See: https://www.gfii.com/images/Greenfield_ ... alents.pdf)
Recall that there is approximately between 3/32” (6/64”) to 7/64” between the uncompressed string height of the high “E” string and the 12th fret.

The fact of the matter is that at any bend from the 5th fret up the fret board, the string height is compromised by approximately .04 (1/64”) when bending to the crown of the fret.
When the bend is made beginning at the 5th fret, the initial setup (unbent) string height at the 5th fret is at least 3/64”.
When the string is bent at the 5th fret or above, the 1/64” that the string height is compromised by the radius of the neck, never impacts the string at frets above 5th fret or higher bend.
This is due to the angle of the string from the 5th fret or above, to the bridge saddle, which is related to the initial setup string height and action at any given fret, based upon the bridge saddle height.

If the guitar is setup properly, and the frets are level, the high “E” and “B” strings will always higher than the .04mm (1/64”) that is compromised at frets above the bend, when the string is compressed, bent, and moved laterally toward the crown of the fret, .
jmattis wrote:
BTW, the difference between 7.25" and a 12" radius would be ~0.7mm (.027"). Would that difference still suit the "approximately the same real world playing result" you mentioned?

Again, there is no relationship whatsoever, between the radius of the fret board and the action or string height of the initial setup of a 7.25" radius guitar if:
1) If there is no variation of string height at the nut, without consideration of the radius curvature;
2) The truss rod relief is the same;
3) The frets are level;
4) .10 Strings or heavier are used; and,
5) The bridge saddles are set at the lowest point where the strings play cleanly without buzzing at any fret.

The same approximate real world playability applies with the same string action with these guitars, because the radius is not a determinate or a factor for setting string height or the action of the guitar.
Anyone who has a playability problem with a 7.25" radius neck, has a problem with one of the five factors listed above.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 12:10 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
MickJagger wrote:
when bending the high “E” and “B” strings (...) on a 7.25” radius neck (...) the strings heights of these strings are slightly lower to frets above the bend, when compared to (...) 9.5", and 12” radius guitars.

This is just about the only thing correct on your latest rant, and that's the reason why 7.25" radiused guitars need a different setup than flatter radiuses.

You recommend action figures (pun intended) of 7/64” to 1/8” (~2,8mm to 3,2mm) {And oh yes, we use commas; "The 10th resolution of CGPM in 2003 declared that "the symbol for the decimal marker shall be either the point on the line or the comma on the line." In practice, the decimal point is used in English-speaking countries and most of Asia, and the comma in most of Latin America and in continental European languages"} for low E, 3/32” to 7/64” (~2,4mm to ~2,8mm) for highE, measured at the 12th fret.
I'd say those are almost sky high. Even SRV got along with lower action (and nobody needs more than him), and I won't even start to make comparisons to factory settings (which, BTW, are measured at the 17th fret; this mention just so you won' get more confused).
So, those numbers suggest you solve buzzing issues by raising the action, which conclusion is supported by comparing this to other "advice" you've given on the forum.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:30 pm
Offline
Amateur
Amateur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 12:58 am
Posts: 100
Location: Surfers Paradise AUST.
7.25 ??
You don't bend strings?
Then why play a guitar?
It's like...I'm lucky they moved toilets inside houses....now I don't freeze my weeener off, or throw up on the floor.
Actually, the last outside toilet I saw, I set fire to it, while I sat in it...cool video. :lol:
I'm seriously considering a Jim Root Tele White...that's a 12" radius. Why don't Fender give an Ebony fretboard option more often?

_________________
Warning: This may only work for me :evil:
___________________

Image


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


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: