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, 6 ... 10  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:13 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
Johnny Soniq wrote:
Why don't Fender give an Ebony fretboard option more often?

My guess:
  1. Ebony costs much more; especially black ebony, which is a highly endangered wood.
  2. Ebony is harder to work with because it's, well, harder.
  3. Fender buyers tend to want a bit of history, and mostly buy guitars that look like they were made in the 1950s and 60s.

Most of the guitars that come with "ebony" fingerboards these days don't really have ebony fingerboards at all, but other dark woods like African Blackwood (a very dark rosewood), or stained woods of less oily and much less sturdy types. There's no real consumer protection, alas.


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2015 1:52 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:
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.

You're a legend in your own mind.
The measurements at the 17th fret that you discuss are are capo compressed measurements.
The uncompressed measurements that I suggest (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) are only estimations, as I set relief and action by eye and performance.

Wikipedia states that Stevie Ray Vaughn's "'Number One' Strat had a neck relief of .012" at the 7th and 9th frets, and leveled out through the remainder of the fingerboard.
The fingerboard radius when new would have been 7.25 inches as were all pre CBS curved fingerboard Fenders, but SRV's guitar ended up after many refrets and sanding of the fingerboard as a 10" radius neck and used Dunlop 6100 fretwire.
String height was measured to be 5/64" on the high E string and 7/64" on the low E string.
Each string had 3 full winds for the best angle at the bone nut."

Some day, I suggest that you actually buy a 7.25" radius Telecaster, and find out for yourself that the "choke" MYTH that you believe in does not exist.
Maybe you'll also actually figure out that vintage frets are the best.
Until then, enjoy the journey and the fantasy world in which you live.


Last edited by MickJagger on Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2015 2:07 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
Johnny Soniq wrote:
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?

Ebony fretboard option is advertised as still available.
http://www.fender.com/guitars/telecaste ... 44780.html


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:16 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
Oh Micky Micky Micky... If you'd stop your manical rant for a while and concentrate on what you read (and write...) you might even learn something. A distant chance, but who knows...

MickJagger wrote:
The measurements at the 17th fret that you discuss are are capo compressed measurements.
No, I was referring to Fender's Setup Guides (Tele & Strat). You should read those someday.
BTW, there's a reason Fender recommends measuring action on the 17th instead of the 12th fret, see if you can figure that one out.

MickJagger wrote:
the "choke" MYTH that you believe in does not exist.
I understand that statement against the background that your string action is really high.
But, raising the action limitlessly isn't the right way to solve buzzing, choking etc. problems.
You acknowledge the fact (a hint: the one that includes bending, action above that fret and those different radiuses), but you draw conclusions wrong. The "choke factor" is very relevant if one wants to play & bend with low action - and it happens almost exclusively on 7.25" radius, seldom on 9.5"s and 10"s, but the phenomenon is just about unknown on flatter radiuses.

And referencing to those factory recommendations again, if a guitar measures radically different than (any of those) specs, first look in the mirror (just in case you've metamorphosed into being SRV), and then find out what's wrong with the setup. Another BTW, there's a reason why Fender recommends different settings for different radiuses, see if you can figure that one out. Just maybe you'll come out of that "all guitars can be set up the same" closet.

MickJagger wrote:
vintage frets are the best.
For what, to whom, why?

Now, you were able to google that wikipage on Number One, which was really attaboy stuff from you. (A third BTW; the original source is Dan Erlewine - you should read his books sometime).
But, again, you fail to draw the right conclusion: your recommendations for action are "higher than SRV", so there is something wrong with your recommendations.
Remember, nobody needs higher action than SRV did. :wink:


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:36 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:
Oh Micky Micky Micky... If you'd stop your manical rant for a while and concentrate on what you read (and write...) you might even learn something. A distant chance, but who knows...

The only one that is ranting like a maniac, is you Mattis.
I'm sorry if you have found that the length of my responses are taxing your brain.

jmattis wrote:
I was referring to Fender's Setup Guides (Tele & Strat). You should read those someday.

I have read the setup guides in the past, but I did not refer to them previously for this thread.
The measurements that I cited are only eyeball estimates and were not exact measurements.
That is because I normally don't use measurements when setting up a guitar.

I find that if you set the relief to where the neck is almost straight, with very slight, concave relief, that you can then set the bridge height and action by checking each string at each fret for string buzz.
This will eventually set the action at the lowest possible action for each string.
You can always tweak the truss rod and the saddle height thereafter, should it be desired.

But the fact of the matter is, the action, or string height, is not dependent on the radius of the neck.
The action can only be set to a similar low height on any Fender guitar, regardless of the neck radius.
jmattis wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
the "choke" MYTH that you believe in does not exist.
I understand that statement against the background that your string action is really high.
But, raising the action limitlessly isn't the right way to solve buzzing, choking etc. problems.

I have never advocated "raising the action limitlessly... to solve buzzing, choking etc. problems"
That is an absurd statement.
jmattis wrote:
The "choke factor" is very relevant if one wants to play & bend with low action - and it happens almost exclusively on 7.25" radius, seldom on 9.5"s and 10"s, but the phenomenon is just about unknown on flatter radiuses.

Did you ever hear of Hendrix, or any other major player who has used a 7.25" radius guitar, having problems with his strings choking out on bends...??
I didn't think so.....
I can tell from every thing that you have written so far that you never owned a 7.25" radius guitar, or you would have directly referred to it by now.
The mythological phenomenon that you believe must occur on all 7.25" radius guitars should only happen on a 7.25" radius guitar if you are using strings that are lighter than .10s; the guitar is not properly set up; or the frets are not level.

jmattis wrote:
....BTW, there's a reason why Fender recommends different settings for different radiuses, see if you can figure that one out. Just maybe you'll come out of that "all guitars can be set up the same" closet.

As you can see, Fender recommends very similar action height for all relevant Fender radius guitars.

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/
These recommended measurements are consistent with my statement:
"The action can only be set to a similar low height on any guitar (7.25" to 12" radius), regardless of the neck radius."

jmattis wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
vintage frets are the best.

For what, to whom, why?

Obviously, you have never owned a guitar with vintage frets.
So I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

Having never owned a 7.25" radius Fender guitar with vintage frets, you should try to refrain from making bold pronouncements about the MYTHICAL theory that Fender guitars, with these historic Fender features, somehow don't work, or have undesirable playing limitations that require high string action to make them playable.
You should stick to discussing matters where you have had prolonged experience and have actually acquired real world knowledge.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:25 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
MickJagger wrote:
Did you ever hear of Hendrix, or any other major player who has used a 7.25" radius guitar, having problems with his strings choking out on bends...??

You still keep dropping names even though you were wrong before, and though you seem to know nothing about those players' setups..?
Quote:
Jimi Hendrix: Musician by Keith Shadwick: “Hendrix described the setup on his Strat around 1967 as ‘Fender light-gauge strings, using a regular E-string for the B and sometimes a tenor A-string for a (high) E to get my kind of sound on the Stratocaster. (I) put the strings on with a slightly higher (action) so they can ring longer.’


And you quote the Fender Setup Guide, but don't notice the trend in action recommendations from curved to flat radiuses...

I'll just stop here, you're beyond help.
Repeating myself from a previous topic, I advice anyone on the forum to use extreme (axetreme?) caution when reading MickJagger's posts.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:59 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:
Did you ever hear of Hendrix, or any other major player who has used a 7.25" radius guitar, having problems with his strings choking out on bends...??

You still keep dropping names even though you were wrong before, and though you seem to know nothing about those players' setups..?
Quote:
Jimi Hendrix: Musician by Keith Shadwick: “Hendrix described the setup on his Strat around 1967 as ‘Fender light-gauge strings, using a regular E-string for the B and sometimes a tenor A-string for a (high) E to get my kind of sound on the Stratocaster. (I) put the strings on with a slightly higher (action) so they can ring longer.’

And you quote the Fender Setup Guide, but don't notice the trend in action recommendations from curved to flat radiuses...

I'll just stop here, you're beyond help.
Repeating myself from a previous topic, I advice anyone on the forum to use extreme (axetreme?) caution when reading MickJagger's posts.

Unlike yourself, when presented with the facts, I have notice the trend in Fender Setup Guide action recommendations.
MickJagger wrote:
As you can see, Fender recommends very similar action height for all relevant Fender radius guitars.

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).

I'm also glad to know that you are an expert on the guitar setup of rock stars.
I never claimed to be one.
But I do know that I never have ever heard any rock star crying about their guitar "choking out."
This MYTH regarding 7.25" radius guitars most likely originated in the short lived fad era of super light strings.
If you want to believe in the fantasy that all of these players used undesirably high action on 7.25" radius guitars, with .10 strings or larger, then you will just have to live in that blind bubble.
As I've said before....
MickJagger wrote:
Having never owned a 7.25" radius Fender guitar with vintage frets, you should try to refrain from making bold pronouncements about the MYTHICAL theory that Fender guitars, with these historic Fender features, somehow don't work, or have undesirable playing limitations that require high string action to make them playable.
You should stick to discussing matters where you have had prolonged experience and have actually acquired real world knowledge.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:38 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
jmattis wrote:
Repeating myself from a previous topic, I advice anyone on the forum to use extreme (axetreme?) caution when reading MickJagger's posts.

+1

But I don't think any newbie will take the tilting at windmills seriously. I just hope they won't drink hot beverages while reading them, cause coffee through the nostrils hurts.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:41 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
MickJagger wrote:
But I do know that I never have ever heard any rock star crying about their guitar "choking out."

Could be that they like most others understand that the smaller the radius, the higher the action they need, and make that informed choice.
Just sayin...


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:35 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
By the time the "rock stars" became "rock stars", they were experienced enough to avoid choking when bending - (unlike the prospects who never made it to "rock star" status). :lol:

Once again: the usual tricks are flattening the radius with saddles and/or shaving the frets. Or, of course, raising the action overall - but I'm not the one promoting ridiculously high action here; I'm still talking "some tenths of a mm" like previously on page2.
The compound radius was in use long before someone invented it for factory made guitars - just look at the specs documented by Dan Erlewine: How the stars set up their guitars
(And that's "stars", not "rock stars") :wink:


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:13 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:
jmattis wrote:
Repeating myself from a previous topic, I advice anyone on the forum to use extreme (axetreme?) caution when reading MickJagger's posts.

+1

Image

The red and blue lines are what we are talking about, children.

Image


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:41 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:21 pm
Posts: 393
Location: Oklahoma
Hi there everyone.

My first post and I hope this works. I've enjoyed the comments and great information that I've seen this past year. I'm learning a lot of good stuff. I played for awhile back in the sixties. Life interrupted and I quit playing. I recently started playing again and trying to makeup for the lost years. Back then, I had a 1966 Strat and Super Reverb that I sold long ago. I now have a 2014 MIA Strat and 65 Twin Reverb Reissue that I enjoy very much.

This subject interested me since I started with a 7.25" radius and now have a 9.75" radius. There's definitely a difference, even though small. Mick, in your picture of the various neck curves, I imagined drawing in 2 saddles for both the flat (black) and 7.25" (blue) radius. String height is neutral at fret height for both. The first saddle (A) is in the high e string position and the 2nd (B) is at mid-point of the fretboard. I imagined that If I were to bend a string from point A to Point B and draw a line representing the string, you will notice that the line from A to B on the flat radius is straight. On the 7.25" radius, the line would have to intersect the blue line at some point. This would be the point of "fret out". In order to clear the line, the string would have to be raised.

Is this what this discussion is about or is it more about the difference being too insignificant to matter? I'm just curious because it's obvious that the radius makes a difference regarding the distance of a bent string to the corresponding fret at point B.

That's all, and I mean no offense to anyone. I am constantly seeking to understand these things as I move along in my progress. For me, it wouldn't matter much because I'm just learning. - Larry


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:57 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
Hi, welcome to the discussion - although it's turned into a pretty heated and nontopic path.

LawFlow wrote:
Is this what this discussion is about
That's exactly what it was supposed to be about :wink:
LawFlow wrote:
In order to clear the line, the string would have to be raised.
Right, or the radius can be flattened by shaving the higher frets; "compounding" the neck.
LawFlow wrote:
difference being too insignificant to matter?
For me, tenths of a mm difference in action is a significant difference - I play with low(ish) action. For some (one?) it seems raising the action from 2mm to over 3mm ain't a difference. Ask around, try different setups, decide for yourself.



MickJagger wrote:
children
Arth1 and me? Well, your ability to be wrong never fails.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:26 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:21 pm
Posts: 393
Location: Oklahoma
jmattis wrote:
Hi, welcome to the discussion - although it's turned into a pretty heated and nontopic path.

LawFlow wrote:
Is this what this discussion is about
That's exactly what it was supposed to be about :wink:
LawFlow wrote:
In order to clear the line, the string would have to be raised.
Right, or the radius can be flattened by shaving the higher frets; "compounding" the neck.
LawFlow wrote:
difference being too insignificant to matter?
For me, tenths of a mm difference in action is a significant difference - I play with low(ish) action. For some (one?) it seems raising the action from 2mm to over 3mm ain't a difference. Ask around, try different setups, decide for yourself.

I'm not sure how to do the "quote" thing, but here's my response to this:
I'm currently taking lessons and on the section about string bending, I noticed I could only do half step bends in the higher area (beyond 12th fret). I raised my action by one half turn to the saddles which then allowed me to make whole step bends. With this adjustment, I'm still slightly below the Fender spec of 1.6 mm for each string. Raising the height by more than 1 mm would be ridiculously high for me. That's all I have. Have a great Saturday!


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:24 pm
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:54 am
Posts: 2573
Location: Laurel, MD
To me, this is all a matter of personal preference. I personally like the modern radius. I think there are still a few Fender guitar with the vintage radius.

My '76 Strat is wonderful to play, but my 2015 Dlx Strat Plus has the easiest neck for me.


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, 6 ... 10  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 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: