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, 8 ... 10  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:11 pm
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:54 am
Posts: 2573
Location: Laurel, MD
After reading the previous postings on this subject, I'm going to put my two cents worth in the ring. I'm pretty knowledgeable about the various neck radii [sic], and I own several Strats (Dlx. Strat plus with compound radius, Clapton Strat with a 9.5" radius, and a '75 Strat with a 7.25" radius). Here's what I've learned: I bend all the time and none of my notes ever fret out. The only time I've ever had this problem is when the neck of my guitar needed to be adjusted.

I don't claim to understand it all, I just know that I've never had any issues playing a guitar with a 7.25" radius.


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:29 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
There's a simple explanation to that: your guitars are set up properly :wink:

Just to clear things up, in case they were messed up on the vortex of the last few pages:
I'm not saying every 7.25" always chokes on bends, only that curved radii are more prone to choked bends than flat radii.
And another clarification: that's not saying one radius is better than another, just that they are different.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:40 am
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:54 am
Posts: 2573
Location: Laurel, MD
jmattis wrote:
There's a simple explanation to that: your guitars are set up properly :wink:

Just to clear things up, in case they were messed up on the vortex of the last few pages:
I'm not saying every 7.25" always chokes on bends, only that curved radii are more prone to choked bends than flat radii.
And another clarification: that's not saying one radius is better than another, just that they are different.


Well said. As to the setup of my guitar, I have a great luthier out of Baltimore who has worked on my guitars for the past 15 years.

Check out Phil Jacoby at Philtone Guitars.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:22 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
jmattis wrote:
There's a simple explanation to that: your guitars are set up properly

Indeed, a properly set up 7.25" radius guitar won't choke / ring / fret out.
All we (with one exception) are saying is that for someone who bends, a properly set up 7.25" radius guitar requires a higher action than a properly set up guitar with a bigger radius.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:39 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

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

One of mine is a classical guitar with an ever so slightly negative radius, and a flamenco capo that works with that. It's one of my favourite guitars. But for strumming chords, it's certainly not a goto guitar.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:40 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

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



I liked the 7.25” from the beginning, and I have never liked the 9.5”. I remember the first time I tried a 9.5” radius guitar, I couldn’t figure out what was wrong with it. I was informed by the guy in the store of the new radius, and I naturally asked why. I was told that the Fender Rep had been in the store the store a week earlier and had told them that “Fender felt they were losing to many sales” and that is why they changed…


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:17 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:21 pm
Posts: 393
Location: Oklahoma
Maybe I'll go try a 7.25". :?


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:12 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
paris wrote:
After reading the previous postings on this subject, I'm going to put my two cents worth in the ring. I'm pretty knowledgeable about the various neck radii [sic], and I own several Strats (Dlx. Strat plus with compound radius, Clapton Strat with a 9.5" radius, and a '75 Strat with a 7.25" radius). Here's what I've learned: I bend all the time and none of my notes ever fret out. The only time I've ever had this problem is when the neck of my guitar needed to be adjusted.

I don't claim to understand it all, I just know that I've never had any issues playing a guitar with a 7.25" radius.

arth1 wrote:
jmattis wrote:
There's a simple explanation to that: your guitars are set up properly

Indeed, a properly set up 7.25" radius guitar won't choke / ring / fret out.

Correct!!!!
arth1 wrote:
All we ....are saying is that for someone who bends, a properly set up 7.25" radius guitar requires a higher action than a properly set up guitar with a bigger radius.

Incorrect!!!!!
That is a mythological theory, which you and your buddies buy into, absent any verifying experience or actual knowledge.

Again, as you can see, Fender recommends the exact same string height on the high "E" string side of the neck on all guitars with 7.25" to 12" radius necks, measured at the 17th fret.
Neck Radius........................ Bass Side.....................Treble Side
7.25" .................................5/64" (2 mm)..................4/64" (1.6 mm)
9.5" to 12" ........................4/64" (1.6 mm) ..............4/64" (1.6 mm)
http://www2.fender.com/support/articles ... tup-guide/

Fender is not making this recommendation in error.
Fender is not advising that you setup a 7.25" radius guitar so that it will fret-out when the strings are bent.
But Fender does put .10 strings on their 7.25" radius guitars and .09 strings on larger radius guitars.

Now, in the interest of fairness, I note that Fender does recommend slightly more "Relief" in a 7.25" radius neck, using the recommended capo and feeler gauge measurement procedure.
Neck Radius.....................................Relief
7.25"................................................ .012" (0.3 mm)
9.5" to 12" ...................................... .010" (0.25 mm)
http://www2.fender.com/support/articles ... tup-guide/

Again, this difference in "Relief," which is .05 mm, is less than the normal width of a European human hair which has a diameter between 0.06 and 0.08 mm.
http://www.schwarzkopf.international/sk ... onary.html
It is highly questionable as to whether this slight difference in recommended measurement, could actually be measured using a capo and feeler gauge at the 8th fret, according to the recommended measurement procedure.

The bottom line is that this recommended .05 mm difference in "Relief" (which is negligible at best) has NO AFFECT on the action or string height.
This is because the Fender recommends the exact same string height on the high "E" string side of the neck, on all guitars with 7.25" to 12" radius necks, which is set at the bridge saddle.

Again…., 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...., a 7.25” radius guitar will NOT "fret-out" when bending the strings, or require a higher action than any other radius guitar, if:
1) The nut is properly cut;
2) The truss rod reliefs on both guitars are generally the same (variation not more than the width of a human hair);
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, essentially without buzzing at any fret, which according to Fender should be 4/64" (1.6 mm) at the high "E" String , measured at the 17th fret.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:12 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:00 am
Posts: 2
MickJagger wrote:
But Fender does put .10 strings on their 7.25" radius guitars and .09 strings on larger radius guitars.


This is the key. Thicker strings are under greater tension than thinner ones (when tuned to a given pitch) and require less additional tension to raise their pitch by any given amount. In other words, the thicker the string gauge, the less you have to bend the string to raise the note, and if the string has to travel less distance, the relative angle of the string to the fretboard changes less.

I reckon the fretting-out problem only became apparent when lighter gauge strings started to be in common use. The solution is obvious; if you prefer light strings buy a flatter radius. I much prefer 7.25" (and would happily use 6" if I could get one) and use 10 or 11 gauge strings. 10.5 would probably be my ideal gauge but they're hard to find locally.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:43 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:28 pm
Posts: 25
For the sake of argument, let’s go back to those heady days before SRV when you couldn’t give away 0.010” strings and there was no interweb. Why was choking out never mentioned in the 70s Guitar Player magazine? And why wasn’t it mentioned back in the 70s when everyone was using 0.008” and 0.009” strings? If choking out is a problem with the 7.25”, and light strings compound the problem, why didn’t anyone notice?


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:30 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
For damesandhotrods, it might be time you revisit the How the stars setup their guitars page I linked before. It's "always" been sort of SOP to flatten the radius on the saddle or by shaving high frets. (Edit: that's "high" on the neck, not "high" as in "taller than other frets".)
Besides that, a) choking out is not a common problem even on a 7.25" neck, and b) action in the dinosaur ages was not as low as since the millionnotespersecond style.
Also remember that choking out may also occur on a 9.5"/10" radius, but almost never on 12" and up. That's the geometry playing its part.
BTW, what was GP's recommended action in the seventies?

For gloucesteroldspot; your solution doesn't solve problems for those who want to play .009's or thinner. And besides, bending just a full step on a .010 set takes the highE string over the B-strings "normal" line, so where do you think it is if I bend two full steps..?


Last edited by jmattis on Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:31 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
damesandhotrods wrote:
If choking out is a problem with the 7.25”, and light strings compound the problem, why didn’t anyone notice?

They did notice. Why do you think Fender started changing from 7.25" to 9.5" in 1973?

Here's what Dan Erlewine said about it, and he's been around a long time and knows his business:

Quote:
On a 7-1/4" radius fretboard, take a good look at a whole-step bend on the first string. The string is moving at an uphill angle toward the middle of the fingerboard radius, so it has to buzz! If you need proof, remove the strings and set a straightedge on the fingerboard at the angle of the bent string: it will rock on the spot that causes the buzz. Since the strings rise at an angle up and away from the fingerboard toward the bridge, the fingerboard's radius needn't be flat to be buzz-free, but 7-1/4" is pushing it. This is why Fender started using a 9" and 12" radius in recent years (only the vintage models still have a 7-1/4" radius). So, if you want to play the blues on a vintage Strat, your action mustn't be too low.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 3:18 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:
damesandhotrods wrote:
If choking out is a problem with the 7.25”, and light strings compound the problem, why didn’t anyone notice?

They did notice. Why do you think Fender started changing from 7.25" to 9.5" in 1973?]

The myth that all 7.25" radius guitars fret-out most likely began in the late 70's when super light strings became very popular.
I believe that only the 1973 Deluxe Telecaster had a 9.5" radius, while other models retained the 7 1/2" a radius at that time.
By 1983, when Fender was on the verge of collapse, Standard USA Telecasters had 12" radius necks.

The change over the years to 9.5" radius necks as the primary Fender neck radius, was both a specification compromise and a marketing decision that was primarily made to compete with Gibson.

arth1 wrote:
Here's what Dan Erlewine said about it, and he's been around a long time and knows his business:

Quote:
On a 7-1/4" radius fretboard, take a good look at a whole-step bend on the first string. The string is moving at an uphill angle toward the middle of the fingerboard radius, so it has to buzz! If you need proof, remove the strings and set a straightedge on the fingerboard at the angle of the bent string: it will rock on the spot that causes the buzz. Since the strings rise at an angle up and away from the fingerboard toward the bridge, the fingerboard's radius needn't be flat to be buzz-free, but 7-1/4" is pushing it. This is why Fender started using a 9" and 12" radius in recent years (only the vintage models still have a 7-1/4" radius). So, if you want to play the blues on a vintage Strat, your action mustn't be too low.

Dan Erlewine is an authority on guitars, but even authorities can be wrong.
According to your quote, Mr. Erlewine states:
"....so it has to buzz! If you need proof, remove the strings and set a straightedge on the fingerboard at the angle of the bent string: it will rock on the spot that causes the buzz."

As regarding this "proof," Mr. Erlewine instructs you to first remove the strings.
This takes all of the string tension off of the neck, and negatively affects the neck relief.
Next, Mr. Erlewine instructs you to place a straightedge on the fretboard at the angle of the bent string and claims that it will rock where the strings will fret-out.

Not only is Mr. Erlewine's "science" experiment on an un-tensioned neck, with possible negative relief, but there is no indication that the straightedge used is even extended to the bridge saddle.
It therefore must be assumed that the straightedge does not extend to the bridge saddle, or certainly, Mr. Erlewine would have stated so..., don't you think?
This non-scientific "experiment," of proposed "proof" lacks any real world applicability, and most likely contains an inherent bias that one might expect from a notable luthier who makes a living leveling fretboards.

Note that Mr. Erelwine states on page 175 of his book:
Quote:
"The quickest fix for vintage Fenders that buzz when you bend is to re-level the existing frets until the straightedge sits flat where the top three strings lie (E, B, and G).

Note that Mr. Erelwine does not recommend that the quickest fix is raising the action.

Contrary to the prevailing opinion of the "Society of Fender Lounge Alchemists," who do not own or play a 7.25" radius guitar, but still profess to know the "truth" on this subject; perhaps the "Society" would be interested in what the majority of persons, who have had actual experience playing 7.25" radius guitars, had to say on a similar external forum thread on this same subject.

http://www.strat-talk.com/forum/stratoc ... frets.html


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 8:24 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
MickJagger wrote:
Note that Mr. Erelwine states on page 175 of his book:
Quote:
"The quickest fix for vintage Fenders that buzz when you bend is to re-level the existing frets until the straightedge sits flat where the top three strings lie (E, B, and G).

Note that Mr. Erelwine does not recommend that the quickest fix is raising the action.


No, he speaks as a repair guy, and what he recommends is a more permanent fix, by increasing the radius. That's what filing the frets flatter does.

Increasing the action is trading one problem for another, but it's the option you have without modifying the guitar, if fretting out is a problem.

MickJagger wrote:
Contrary to the prevailing opinion of the "Society of Fender Lounge Alchemists," who do not own or play a 7.25" radius guitar, but still profess to know the "truth" on this subject;


You don't read what people here answer you. Again, I do have and play a 7.25" radius tele (a '72 Thinline).
It requires a significantly higher action than my other teles not to fret out. It's good for cowboy chords, but not for shredding or blues bends.

So, let's turn this around. Perhaps if you also played a couple of high radius Telecasters, you would know the differences first-hand, like some of us do. What you're showing here, apart from a zealous belief that in your mind trumps valid science, seems to be the very definition of choice support bias.

That pretty much all of us here accept that strings don't curve, and if the frets do, you need higher action when strings go diagonally in order to not hit a fret isn't "alchemy". It's junior high school grade geometry, and known since Euclid. We call that "fact", not "alchemy".


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 9:32 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:36 pm
Posts: 412
Location: Southern California
I also would like to see the 7.25" make a come back as well.


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, 8 ... 10  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 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: