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, 7 ... 10  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:00 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
LawFlow wrote:
I played for awhile back in the sixties. Life interrupted and I quit playing. I recently started playing again and trying to make up for the lost years. Back then, I had a 1966 Strat.

Welcome Lawflow.
I notice that you do not provide any history of ever having a personal experience of your ’66 Strat "fretting-out" or "choking" as some describe.
Instead, you discuss your “theory,” as do the other resident alchemists, Arth1 and Mattis.

LawFlow wrote:
Is this what this discussion is about?

Contrary to your "theory," what this discussion is about is that the lowest possible action is not dependent on the radius of the neck, but rather, the string height where you will experience essentially no string buzz at any fret.
At that low action setting, which is generally the same for any radius guitar (discounting any discussion of larger frets); my EXPERIENCE playing a 7.25" radius Fender AV '52 Tele, with vintage frets and .10 or heavier strings, is that the guitar does not "fret-out" or require higher than normal action.

jmattis wrote:
For me, tenths of a mm difference in action is a significant difference - I play with low(ish) action.

100 µm equals 1/10 of a millimeter.
The diameter of a human hair ranges from 17 to 181 µm. ("Width of a Human Hair". The Physics Factbook, Ley, Brian (1999).)
So you claim that the width of one or two hairs, makes a “significant difference” in guitar action.
Unbelievable.....!!!!!!

With all of the videos on Youtube about guitars, I am unable to find any video which shows an example of a 7.25” radius neck guitar “fretting-out” and having less than desirable playability.
That being said, I have found a video that proclaims the same theoretical mythology as do the resident alchemist theoreticians, Arth1 and Mattis.

The ability of you alchemists to be wrong never fails..., to be amusing.
You can turn down the action of your guitar another "-hairs" worth now......(descriptive adjective omitted).

Image


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:53 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:28 pm
Posts: 25
And I was trying so hard to be nice and not comment on the 10ths of a mm statement...


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:36 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
jmattis on page one wrote:
we're talking some tenths of a mm here

On repeat mode: I do feel a difference if the highE or B action at the 17th fret is for instance 1.5 or 1.9 mm (= "some tenths of a mm"). Both in playability and in choking tendency.

Someone who sets the action to "about 2.8 to 3.2 mm, at the 12th fret, uncompressed" (give or take some tenths of a mm), maybe doesn't. (BTW, on a straight neck, the CAD measures some 3,6 mm on the 17th fret.)
But on those super high actions, choking surely isn't an issue - on any radius. :wink:

And on being wrong, again:
MickJagger wrote:
LawFlow wrote:
I played for awhile back in the sixties. Life interrupted and I quit playing. I recently started playing again and trying to make up for the lost years. Back then, I had a 1966 Strat.

Welcome Lawflow.
I notice that you do not provide any history of ever having a personal experience of your ’66 Strat "fretting-out" or "choking" as some describe.Instead, you discuss your “theory,” as do the other resident alchemists, Arth1 and Mattis.

LawFlow on page three wrote:
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.


Plus, it would be nice if you'd make up your mind whether you abuse me for being too young or too old.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 1:32 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
MickJagger wrote:
That being said, I have found a video that proclaims the same theoretical mythology as do the resident alchemist theoreticians, Arth1 and Mattis.

Yes, to you I'm sure the mathematical formula for calculating the sagitta must seem like alchemy.
In your universe, guitars are obviously exempt from following geometrical laws, as according to you, a bent string follows the curvature of the fretboard instead of going straight. That also helps explaining why you think you can use the truss rod to adjust action, since in your universe, strings obviously follow the curvature instead of going straight.

Meanwhile, the rest of us live in a universe where guitars and strings follow the laws of geometry and simple middle school math isn't alchemy. Where we have to adjust for a smaller radius by raising the action, often many times the thickness of the strings, which is significant.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:04 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:21 pm
Posts: 393
Location: Oklahoma
Hello again. Thanks Mick for the welcome.

I thought this thread was dead, so I guess I'll try and clarify my previous comment lest there be any confusion.

Mick, you said: "I notice that you do not provide any history of ever having a personal experience of your ’66 Strat "fretting-out" or "choking" as some describe.
Instead, you discuss your “theory,” as do the other resident alchemists, Arth1 and Mattis."

I didn't bend strings in 1966. It was 50 years ago and we didn't know about "fretting-out" or "choking". I didn't discuss a "theory". It's a fact. There is a difference in the height of the string at the point of the top of a whole step bend for each radii. My only question or comment was whether the difference between 7.25" and 9.5" was significant or not. One answer was that it could be tenths (more than 1/10) of a mm difference. For example, the difference from my present 1.6mm to possibly 2.0mm would be quite unsatisfactory for me, if that is the case.

That's all. Next, I'll research what an alchemist is to see if I'm one of those. :?


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:18 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
LawFlow wrote:
My only question or comment was whether the difference between 7.25" and 9.5" was significant or not. One answer was that it could be tenths (more than 1/10) of a mm difference. For example, the difference from my present 1.6mm to possibly 2.0mm would be quite unsatisfactory for me, if that is the case.


The difference in the sagitta height is what you want to know - that is how much you have to increase the action to get the same clearance.

For a 1" bend, the difference would be
(7.25 - sqrt(7.25^2 - 1^2)) - (9.5 - sqrt(9.5^2 - 1^2))
= a little over 1/64", or about 0.4mm

So if the action on a 9.5" radius is 1.6mm halfway between where you fret and the bridge, you need to raise it to 2.0mm on a 7.25" radius fretboard to get the same clearance when doing 1" bends.

If you play like SRV or Albert King did, with truly massive bends, it gets worse, quicker. For 1.5" bends, the difference would be close to 1mm. Which explains why SRV played with what most (except possibly mickjagger) would call an impossibly high action.

Caveat: This is true for bends between the nut and up to about the 11th fret. For bends higher up (closer to the bridge), the delta is smaller, because the halfway point between the fret and the bridge where the sagitta is highest is beyond the edge of the fretboard. So you can get away with less raised action if you don't bend closer to the nut than the 10th fret or so.

No, it's not alchemy. I can't transmute lead into gold. But I can stop strings from ringing by applying simple math to the problem.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:25 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:21 pm
Posts: 393
Location: Oklahoma
OK thanks. That all makes sense to me. Another reason I prefer Fender's 9.5" radius over their 7.25" radius, the fretboard/neck is slightly narrower with the 7.25" It's not much. There is one thing I do remember about my long lost Fender (near mint), The spacing of the strings caused the end strings to slip off the side without bending. That was annoying and all in all, my present Fender MIA Standard Strat is by far a better instrument than my "vintage" was. Except for the market value, I wouldn't want it back.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:22 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:28 pm
Posts: 25
LawFlow wrote:
OK thanks. That all makes sense to me. Another reason I prefer Fender's 9.5" radius over their 7.25" radius, the fretboard/neck is slightly narrower with the 7.25" It's not much. There is one thing I do remember about my long lost Fender (near mint), The spacing of the strings caused the end strings to slip off the side without bending. That was annoying and all in all, my present Fender MIA Standard Strat is by far a better instrument than my "vintage" was. Except for the market value, I wouldn't want it back.




The fingerboard radius has nothing to do with the width of the neck. The strings “to slip off the side” has nothing to do with the fingerboard radius. That is either a badly cut nut or a neck not properly aligned with the body…


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:39 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:
On repeat mode: I do feel a difference if the highE or B action at the 17th fret is for instance 1.5 or 1.9 mm (= "some tenths of a mm"), Both in playability and in choking tendency.

You don’t have a 7.25 radius guitar!!!!!!!

jmattis wrote:
LawFlow on page three wrote:
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.

LawFlow is currently not playing a 7.25” radius guitar!!!!

LawFlow wrote:
I didn't bend strings in 1966. It was 50 years ago and we didn't know about "fretting-out" or "choking". I didn't discuss a "theory". It's a fact. There is a difference in the height of the string at the point of the top of a whole step bend for each radii…..

So you are having a problem with your strings fretting out on a 9.5” radius guitar.
That assertion qualifies you as an honorary member of the resident alchemist society…..

jmattis wrote:
(BTW, on a straight neck, the CAD measures some 3,6 mm on the 17th fret.)

CAD measurements….. You are out of your mind!!!!!!!!

arth1 wrote:
Yes, to you I'm sure the mathematical formula for calculating the sagitta must seem like alchemy.
....The difference in the sagitta height is what you want to know - that is how much you have to increase the action to get the same clearance.
For a 1" bend, the difference would be
(7.25 - sqrt(7.25^2 - 1^2)) - (9.5 - sqrt(9.5^2 - 1^2))
= a little over 1/64", or about 0.4mm

So if the action on a 9.5" radius is 1.6mm halfway between where you fret and the bridge, you need to raise it to 2.0mm on a 7.25" radius fretboard to get the same clearance when doing 1" bends.

Both of you resident alchemist theoreticians are out of your mind!!!!!!!!
It must be great acid you are dropping when you make these CAD measurements and measurement of the sagitta on your phantom 7.25” radius neck guitars………
Such theories have no reasonable application to the real world setup of a 7.25" radius guitar.

arth1 wrote:
.....the rest of us live in a universe… where we have to adjust for a smaller radius by raising the action, often many times the thickness of the strings, which is significant.

You don’t even have a 7.25 radius guitar, and that assertion is complete rubbish!!!!!!!
As I have previously stated:

MickJagger wrote:
….The lowest possible action is not dependent on the radius of the neck, but rather, is the lowest possible action is where the string height will have essentially no string buzz at any fret.
At that low action setting, which is generally the same for any radius guitar (discounting any discussion of larger frets); my EXPERIENCE playing a 7.25" radius Fender AV '52 Tele, with vintage frets and .10 or heavier strings, is that the guitar does NOT "fret-out" or require higher than normal action.

Again, the ability of you alchemists to be wrong never fails..., to be amusing.
However, your insanity is wearing thin, so I will be trying very hard not to respond to any more of this insane nonsense.
But I do applaud both of your enduring fortitude in exposing your insanities for all to see.
You can turn down the action of your guitar another 3 or 4 CAD measured "-hair" widths now......(or some derivative of the sagitta on your phantom, non-existent, 7.25” radius guitars.
Cheers!!

Image


Last edited by MickJagger on Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:13 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:21 pm
Posts: 393
Location: Oklahoma
damesandhotrods -

You wrote: "The fingerboard radius has nothing to do with the width of the neck. The strings “to slip off the side” has nothing to do with the fingerboard radius. That is either a badly cut nut or a neck not properly aligned with the body…"

Sorry, I was not intending to correlate the neck width to radius. I realize a 3" neck width can have any radius the builder wants. On FENDER necks, the 7.25" radius necks are slightly thinner in width than the 9.5" radius neck and that difference is enough that even I can tell. With that aside, if you were to bend the high e string from the 14th fret to the middle of the fretboard on both a 9.5" and 7.25", the string height would measure lower at the 17th fret for the 7.25" compared to the 9.5" while holding the bend. The difference may be the width of a rat's hair, but it's there. I promise. Also, changing the string height on my 9.5" has nothing to do with this discussion other than to illustrate the correlation of fret-out and string height on any guitar. For you and Mick to say there's no difference is ludicrous. Is the difference enough to worry or care about? If given the choice, I choose the 9.5". That's all.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:19 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
MickJagger wrote:
Such theories have no reasonable application to the real world setup of a 7.25" radius guitar.

The theory is called Euclidean Geometry. Do 7.25" fingerboard radius guitars possess special properties such that relativistic geometries come into play? If not, Euclid is good enough.

MickJagger wrote:
arth1 wrote:
.....the rest of us live in a universe… where we have to adjust for a smaller radius by raising the action, often many times the thickness of the strings, which is significant.

You don’t even have a 7.25 radius guitar, and that assertion is complete rubbish!!!!!!!

On the contrary, I do have a 7.25" radius Telecaster Thinline '72 RI. As well as a 9.5" radius Standard, and a compound 9.5-14" radius Select HH.
The Thinline needs noticeably higher action to accommodate bends, and just how much higher action it needs follows simple geometrical rules and can thus be calculated. And the measurements agree with the calculations, as expected. There's nothing magical or obscure about that.

MickJagger wrote:
However, your insanity is wearing thin

At this point, you might want to question whether it's everybody else that are insane. There could be a different explanation.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:37 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:28 pm
Posts: 25
LawFlow wrote:
damesandhotrods -

For you and Mick to say there's no difference is ludicrous. Is the difference enough to worry or care about? If given the choice, I choose the 9.5". That's all.




So show me where I said “there’s no difference”.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:34 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:21 pm
Posts: 393
Location: Oklahoma
damesandhotrods - ""So show me where I said “there’s no difference”".

OK. Then we agree there's a difference? That's all I'm saying. I wish I did have 7.25" guitar around to see if I would need to adjust the action to what I have on my 9.5". I don't and as I have said, this difference is probably small. All I am saying is if I could only have one guitar, a 9.5" or 7.25", I would choose the 9.5" just because I know there is a difference. I also might ask these questions - why would you or anyone else choose the 7.25" over the 9.5"? Is there something about that radius that makes it more appealing over the 9.5" radius? These are honest questions. No trickery. I have no axe to grind and really don't care.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:11 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
From Fender's own article:

Quote:
Fingerboard radius is an important spec because it imparts a certain feel for the fretting hand; a certain character of comfortable playability. It’s a subjective measurement—there is no right or wrong degree of it, but there are several established conventions that players can choose among to suit their personal preferences. A smaller (more curved) radius is generally perceived as more comfortable for playing chords; a larger (less curved) radius is generally considered better for single-note playing and bending.


Here's what ProGuitarShop says:
Quote:
Many players love a smaller, rounder radius for rhythm playing because it comfortably matches the curve of your hand, especially for bar chords. A 50’s Telecaster is a good example of a guitar that’s ideal for “cowboy chords” because of its very round 7 ¼” radius


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:31 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:21 pm
Posts: 393
Location: Oklahoma
Thanks arth1. Both are good articles and make sense. I'll have to work on my "cowboys chords" with my 9.5" radius and soldier on to victory in spite of this handicap. My other guitar is an acoustic with a 16" radius so 9.5" and 7.25" are both small to 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, 7 ... 10  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 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: