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 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2015 11:23 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:
....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".

It's pretty much that you guitar alchemists are all wrong, believing in a wide variety of guitar myths, such as the myth that "tone wood" comprising a solid body electric guitar, affects amplified sound; to list but one; as well as this myth: That a 7.25" radius guitar requires high action or it will fret-out upon string bending.
This is merely another one of the many guitar myths that is ascribed to by the Fender Lounge Society of Guitar Alchemists; of which you, Arth1, are undoubtedly, the King.

A 7.25" radius guitar with level frets, a properly cut nut, and proper relief, with action set at the bridge, as low as you can go without buzzing at any fret without bending; should not fret-out when the string is bent, if the guitar is strung with .10 or heavier strings, as the string bend does not pass the top of the fret crown.
High "E" or "B" string bends do NOT normally pass the top of the fret crown with .10 or heavier strings.
Here is a picture of a full step bend of the "B" string at the 7th fret with .10 strings on my '52 American Vintage Telecaster, which does not pass the top of the fret crown.
The same holds true at other locations on the neck.

Image
It is just complete nonsense that all 7.25" guitars have playing limitations or require high action.
It is just complete nonsense that Fender sells $2000.00 list American Vintage series guitars that have playing limitations or require high action.

In fact, on guitars with jumbo frets, or with any frets taller than vintage frets, the strings (and the "effective action") must be set higher from the actual fretboard, than is the case with a guitar having vintage frets and a 7.25" radius.
Get Real!!


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 12:53 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:36 pm
Posts: 412
Location: Southern California
I can set up 7.25" with lower action without a hitch, unless if it is a junk bogus neck. There are always one or two of those out there. If the frets are installed, dressed, etc properly it makes it way easier as well. I need to learn how to work on frets. I should be able to because at one time I was afraid to adjust neck relief.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 12:53 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:36 pm
Posts: 412
Location: Southern California
I can set up 7.25" with lower action without a hitch, unless if it is a junk bogus neck. There are always one or two of those out there. If the frets are installed, dressed, etc properly it makes it way easier as well. I need to learn how to work on frets. I should be able to because at one time I was afraid to adjust neck relief.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:43 am
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:54 am
Posts: 2573
Location: Laurel, MD
I may have stated this before, but I've never had any issues with a 7.25" radius. It's been my experience that a well set up guitar, by someone who knows what they are doing, will work just fine.

Having said that, I will say this: I suspect that fret board radius is really just a matter of personal taist. Just as the shape of the back of the neck is all very personal. It really depends on what the player finds comfortable.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 6:41 pm
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:
I may have stated this before, but I've never had any issues with a 7.25" radius. It's been my experience that a well set up guitar, by someone who knows what they are doing, will work just fine.

+1


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:42 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
paris wrote:
I may have stated this before, but I've never had any issues with a 7.25" radius. It's been my experience that a well set up guitar, by someone who knows what they are doing, will work just fine.

I agree - but that's a bit off from the point on the last few pages (which is, does one believe in geometry, or in other words, does a 7.25" neck need a different setup than e.g. 12" radius.
It's those some tenths of a mm again).
You might of course ask your tech if he/she/it sets all guitars (regardless of the radius, or the player's preferences and style) to same specs...
And I emphasize: nobody's saying a 7.25" radius can't be set up to play fine, or that it's somehow "worse" than flat radiuses.

MickJagger wrote:
In fact, on guitars with jumbo frets, or with any frets taller than vintage frets, the strings (and the "effective action") must be set higher from the actual fretboard, than is the case with a guitar having vintage frets and a 7.25" radius.

This logic is beyond awesome.
So, on a neck with 3mm scalloping and 1,4mm frets, you'd calculate that the effective action (what the heck is that..?) would be on the 6mm area?
BTW1, that's about half of the ~3mm action you recommended a few pages ago, before readjusting to Fender specs.
BTW2, did you ever notice that if you measure the distance the other way - from the top of the string, around the world and to the top of the fret - you could justify even better that the 7.25" needs less action than flatter fretboards..? :mrgreen:


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:31 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
MickJagger wrote:
Here is a picture of a full step bend of the "B" string at the 7th fret with .10 strings on my '52 American Vintage Telecaster, which does not pass the top of the fret crown.


Meanwhile, in the world where we ascribe to geometry instead of faith, there is no "top" of the fret crown. The fret is an arc of a circle, and every point is as much a top as any other. The midway point between where you bend from and bend to is the sagitta, no matter what your starting point and end point is. You always pass the sagitta when you bend. The string, which is straight, passes that sagitta on the halfway point between the bridge and the point on the fret you bend the string to. If there is a fret there, and the action isn't high enough to clear it, you get buzz. It's that simple.
How tall the sagitta it has to clear is depends on two things and two things only: The fretboard radius, and how much you bend. The mathematical formula for this has been shown here earlier. It is quite valid - there's nothing magical about guitars that invalidates it.

Again, a properly set up 7.25" guitar, like mine, and presumably yours, will not buzz when bending. But to achieve that, it will have to be set up with a higher action than a similar guitar with a larger fretboard radius, or the radius increased by actions like fret filing. That is not in question. Dan Erlewine says so, Seymour Duncan says so - any resource you can think of won't even question that, because it's basic geometry. You're the only one who don't think so.
For some, the higher action is not a problem, and for some it is. If it isn't for you, good for you, and leave it alone at that.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 3:11 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:
MickJagger wrote:
Here is a picture of a full step bend of the "B" string at the 7th fret with .10 strings on my '52 American Vintage Telecaster, which does not pass the top of the fret crown.

Meanwhile, in the world where we ascribe to geometry instead of faith, there is no "top" of the fret crown. The fret is an arc of a circle, and every point is as much a top as any other.

If you do not understand what the "top" of the fret crown is, I can see why it is somewhat pointless to try to reason with you on this subject.

arth1 wrote:
The midway point between where you bend from and bend to is the sagitta, no matter what your starting point and end point is. You always pass the sagitta when you bend. The string, which is straight, passes that sagitta on the halfway point between the bridge and the point on the fret you bend the string to. If there is a fret there, and the action isn't high enough to clear it, you get buzz. It's that simple.

How tall the sagitta it has to clear is depends on two things and two things only: The fretboard radius, and how much you bend. The mathematical formula for this has been shown here earlier. It is quite valid - there's nothing magical about guitars that invalidates it.

These statements regarding your geometric understanding of "sagitta" are NOT correct, either in theory or analysis.
While I loathe pursuing your theoretical argument, I will do so for grins.

Your analysis that you will "always pass the 'sagitta' when you bend strings" on a 7.25 radius neck" in NOT correct.
Your statement that "the midway point between where you bend from, and bend to, is the 'sagitta,' no matter what your starting point and end point is" is NOT correct.

The "sagitta" is the deflection of the highest point of the arc from the mid-point of the span ("top of the fret crown") which is labeled s in the diagram below.
The circular arc is in red and is of a radius, r.
The span connecting the ends of the arc is divided in half, and that is labeled l in the diagram below.
Given the radius of the arc, and the length of the span connecting the ends of that arc, the length of the "sagitta" can be calculated.

(Note: image removed per copyright holder's request)

The formula for "sagitta" can be determined from:
r = the radius of the arc = 7.25"
l = ½ the length of the span connecting the two ends of the arc = 2.045" at the 12th fret (this is the width of a 52 American Vintage Tele at the 12th fret, not the measurement of the fret, which may be slightly longer).
Measurements found here:
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/index. ... r.1451470/
s = the "sagitta" (sag) or displacement, = approximately 0.294", using the above measurements and a "sagitta" calculator on the following web page.
http://liutaiomottola.com/formulae/sag.htm

For our purposes, the actual measurement of "sagitta" is of little value, but the diagram above is of value, as it shows that "sagitta" is merely the measurement in terms of what amounts to the "duration" of the top of the fret crown.

As can be seen from this diagram, your analysis that you will always pass the "sagitta" when you bend strings on a 7.25" radius neck is NOT correct.
I have shown that with .10 strings, bends normally do not go beyond the "top of the fret crown," or beyond the "duration" of the sagitta.
Your statement that "the midway point between where you bend from, and bend to, is the "sagitta," is also obviously, NOT correct.

So the question presented is, if the "sagittal duration" at the top of the fret crown is relatively the same between the fret on which the bend is made, and the next higher fret toward the bridge, why wouldn't the string bend fret out?
The reason is that the initial string height, or action setting, necessary for the string not to buzz at any fret (by Fender specs, 4/64" (1.6 mm) at the high "E" string top of at the 17th fret for 7.25 through 12" radius necks), provides a string angle from the fret to the bridge saddle which provides enough clearance at the sagitta point on the bending fret, to clear frets up toward the bridge saddle, assuming that the frets are level.

In simpler terms, as I have stated before:
MickJagger wrote:
A 7.25" radius guitar with level frets, a properly cut nut, and proper relief, with action set at the bridge, as low as you can go without buzzing at any fret without bending; should not fret-out when the string is bent, if the guitar is strung with .10 or heavier strings, as the string bend does not pass the top of the fret crown.

arth1 wrote:
Again, a properly set up 7.25" guitar, like mine, and presumably yours, will not buzz when bending.

AMAZING!!
After 6 pages of this thread, FOR THE FIRST TIME, you state that you own a 7.25" radius guitar!!
SIMPLY AMAZING....!!!
arth1 wrote:
But to achieve that, it will have to be set up with a higher action than a similar guitar with a larger fretboard radius, or the radius increased by actions like fret filing. That is not in question. Dan Erlewine says so, Seymour Duncan says so - any resource you can think of won't even question that, because it's basic geometry.

Dan Erlewine says to "level the frets," and then goes on to discuss altering the radius by filing the frets. Once again, this is coming from a person who makes a living working on guitars. While it is conceivable that some 7.25" radius neck could actually need the middle of the fret flattened, to resolve fretting-out, this would certainly be the exception and not the rule, as applied to modern 7.25" radius Fender guitars.

Seymour Duncan states:
Quote:
For example, original Stratocasters have a 7.25″ radius (184.15mm), which is very curvy. It makes chording easier (especially barre chords), but if your string height is low there’s a risk of notes ‘choking out’ on higher frets if you bend them too far.

https://www.seymourduncan.com/blog/the- ... -is-radius

"There’s a risk of notes ‘choking out’ on higher frets if you bend them too far."
Well, that's a "truism," if I ever heard one, isn't it?
As you know, my position is that with .10 or heavier strings, you cannot bend strings too far, which would pass the "sagitta duration," going onto the downward -slope of the fret, beyond the fret mid point and past the sagitta end point.
This is why you cannot use .09 or lighter strings on a 7.25" radius guitar.

Again, It is just complete nonsense that all 7.25" guitars have playing limitations or require higher action.
If set up correctly, with action set as low as can be set without buzzing at any fret, modern Fender 7.25 radius guitars will NOT fret out if strung with .10 or heavier strings.

Arth1, we really need move onto discussing one of your newly stated alchemist theories:
That guitars with three (3) pickups reduce sustain.
I assume that you have employed your immense powers of alchemist analysis and have determined that due to the powerful, powerful magnets of a middle pickup, that the powerful magnetic field is able to stop the tensioned string mass from vibrating in a manner that can be discerned by the human ear. LOL!! :lol:
But I guess that's for another day...., and another thread......


Last edited by MickJagger on Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 3:52 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:
....the point on the last few pages (which is, does one believe in geometry, or in other words, does a 7.25" neck need a different setup than e.g. 12" radius.
It's those some tenths of a mm again).

It is because I believe in geometry, that I conclude that a 7.25" neck does not need a fundamentally different setup than a 12" radius neck, assuming that you want low action.
A 7.25" radius neck needs .10 or heavier strings. :mrgreen:
MickJagger wrote:
A 7.25" radius guitar with level frets, a properly cut nut, and proper relief, with action set at the bridge, as low as you can go without buzzing at any fret without bending; should not fret-out when the string is bent, if the guitar is strung with .10 or heavier strings, as the string bend does not pass the top of the fret crown.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:10 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
MickJagger wrote:
arth1 wrote:
The midway point between where you bend from and bend to is the sagitta, no matter what your starting point and end point is. You always pass the sagitta when you bend. The string, which is straight, passes that sagitta on the halfway point between the bridge and the point on the fret you bend the string to. If there is a fret there, and the action isn't high enough to clear it, you get buzz. It's that simple.

How tall the sagitta it has to clear is depends on two things and two things only: The fretboard radius, and how much you bend. The mathematical formula for this has been shown here earlier. It is quite valid - there's nothing magical about guitars that invalidates it.

These statements regarding your geometric understanding of "sagitta" are NOT correct, either in theory or analysis.
While I loathe pursuing your theoretical argument, I will do so for grins.

Your analysis that you will "always pass the 'sagitta' when you bend strings" on a 7.25 radius neck" in NOT correct.
Your statement that "the midway point between where you bend from, and bend to, is the 'sagitta,' no matter what your starting point and end point is" is NOT correct.

The "sagitta" is the deflection of the highest point of the arc from the mid-point of the span ("top of the fret crown") which is labeled s in the diagram below.


While the drawing is correct, your understanding of it is not. The sagitta is at the midway point from one end of the arc to another. So far, so good. But the arc is not the outer system, it's the inner system. When you bend, the outer system outside the part you bend is completely irrelevant. The relevant arc is the curve from the point you bend from to the point you bend to. What else is on the fretboard is irrelevant - the sagitta is the halfway point only of the arc you bend. Not the fretboard.

In other words, your drawing depicts the correct sagitta if you were to bend a string from one edge of the fretboard to the other. But the sagitta is elsewhere when you bend a different section. It's only the arc you bend over that's relevant.

My guess is that you don't see that the sagitta points from the origo (center of the fretboard circle) through any halfway point of any arc. That does correspond to the drawing. Tilt the drawing a bit to the right, and it still holds true. What's up from your point of view is irrelevant. For an arc of a circle, "up" is from the center through the midway point of the arc, no matter how big the arc is or what direction it faces.

And the drawing holds true to you bending the B string two string widths over at the 8th fret. That makes the arc go from the B string to the D string. Any part of the fretboard outside that arc is completely irrelevant for this bend, and can be discarded from the drawing.
The sagitta for the arc you bend over will be over the G string. Not the top of the fretboard. The bent B string will pass over the sagitta at about the 21st fret, halfway between the 8th fret and the bridge. (Which obviously is also where the string vibrates at the largest amplitude, unless you play pinch harmonics.)
Given that small two-strings-over bend, the formula for the height (again, seen from the center of the circle) the string has to traverse is then s = 7.25 - sqrt(7.25^2 - w^2), where w is the string spacing at the 8th fret. It depends on the guitar, but likely around 11/32". Plugging it in, gives a sagitta height for that arc of 1/128". That doesn't sound like much, but it is about the same as the thickness of a .008 string.
Now if you were to bend 3 strings over (not uncommon), the sagitta will be midway between the D and G string, around 17/32" from each side of the arc. And its height will be slightly more than the G string in your .010 set. Compared to a flat fretboard, you then have to raise the action at the bridge with twice that (twice, because it's at zero where the string is depressed, and you want to increase the clearance at the halfway point towards the bridge), or around 0.039". I.e. the action for the B string has to be raised additionally a little more than the thickness of the A string to compensate for the fretboard radius versus a flat fretboard or one with a compound radius that's near flat at the highest fret.
That's enough added action that some find it uncomfortable. Others feel fine with that.
Much lower action than that, and you'll get the fret buzz even closer to the fretted string.

The thickness of the strings has no relevance to this, except if it makes you bend less, which makes the sagitta smaller. The only things that matter are:
- The radius of the guitar.
- How far you bend.
- Whether the neck is near straight (dubious in your case, given that you earlier advocated using the truss rod to adjust action(!)).
- Whether there is a fret halfway between the point on the fret you bend to and the anchor point on the bridge. (Otherwise, the length you use to calculate the sagitta height is the distance from the point you bend transposed down to the highest fret and the point where the string passes that fret.)

The mathematics behind it is undisputable. A correct setup for bending on a smaller radius fingerboard does require a higher action, and exactly how much can be calculated. No one in the world except you disputes that.
And when correctly setup, it does not buzz. But that correct setup does involve a higher action. It does on my guitars, and on the guitars of everyone else. Including yours.

I want to extend my thanks this year to Aristarchus, Eratosthenes and Euclid. Who brought us understanding of circles, arcs, and how what was applicable to one arc is as applicable to any other arc, regardless of the rest of the circle or the setting it is in. Without engineers accepting their insight, and testing it and finding it to hold true, everywhere, I would have no playable guitar.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:01 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:28 pm
Posts: 82
Frankly speaking I'm a little bit lost in the debate.
However I also think a flatter radius can make a "chockin-out free setup" a little easier to be done, especially if the frets are not properly levelled and crowned. The flatter fretboard allows to have a little bit more uneven fret heights or some more pronounced worn out frets before showing bending issues.

It's simple phisics, when you are bending on a radiused neck, what you are doing while you increase the bending is simply lower the height of the string in the fret contact position, with regards of the other end of the string at the bridge being fixed in height instead. Therefore the string is getting lower and lower close to the blended fret and it thas to travel across the next frets which are getting higher and higher, with risk for chocking out. This effect is more pronounced as you decrease the radius.
Not clear? Just imagine for fun about having a neck with a 2 inches radius, performing a two full tones bending and you'll get it. While bending in this Baseball bat, the string would soon touch all the frets in the neck Therefore chocking out.

Having said that, with levelled and crowned fret I never experienced issues neither with 7.25 and 12 inches radius.
At the end we are talking about few cents of a millimetre difference...

Well.... my 2 cents here....
I'm going to play guitar now


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:29 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
Arth 1, your post above wins a Einstein Futility in Critical Thinking Award, which is awarded to the greatest alchemists of our time for remarkable achievement in pretending to think critically, mathematically and scientifically....!!!!
This type of pseudo-scientific, alchemist response, is exactly why I stated earlier that "I loathe pursuing your theoretical , pseudo-scientific argument with you.
arth1 wrote:
The midway point between where you bend from and bend to is the sagitta, no matter what your starting point and end point is. You always pass the sagitta when you bend. The string, which is straight, passes that sagitta on the halfway point between the bridge and the point on the fret you bend the string to. If there is a fret there, and the action isn't high enough to clear it, you get buzz. It's that simple.

arth1 wrote:
While the drawing is correct, your understanding of it is not. The sagitta is at the midway point from one end of the arc to another. So far, so good. But the arc is not the outer system, it's the inner system. When you bend, the outer system outside the part you bend is completely irrelevant. The relevant arc is the curve from the point you bend from to the point you bend to. What else is on the fretboard is irrelevant - the sagitta is the halfway point only of the arc you bend. Not the fretboard.

In other words, your drawing depicts the correct sagitta if you were to bend a string from one edge of the fretboard to the other. But the sagitta is elsewhere when you bend a different section. It's only the arc you bend over that's relevant.
My guess is that you don't see that the sagitta points from the origo (center of the fretboard circle) through any halfway point of any arc.

That guess in incorrect.
arth1 wrote:
And the drawing holds true to you bending the B string two string widths over at the 8th fret. That makes the arc go from the B string to the D string. Any part of the fretboard outside that arc is completely irrelevant for this bend, and can be discarded from the drawing.
The sagitta for the arc you bend over will be over the G string. Not the top of the fretboard. The bent B string will pass over the sagitta at about the 21st fret, halfway between the 8th fret and the bridge.

WOW!!
I'm not sure what you've got in the water where you live, but it must be great stuff.
According to your theory, as I understand it, the string would fret out, no matter how far you bend the string , since the "sagitta" is always at the mid-point of any bend, regardless of the size of the bend...???
arth1 wrote:
...... Compared to a flat fretboard, you then have to raise the action at the bridge with twice that (twice, because it's at zero where the string is depressed, and you want to increase the clearance at the halfway point towards the bridge), or around 0.039". I.e. the action for the B string has to be raised additionally a little more than the thickness of the A string to compensate for the fretboard radius versus a flat fretboard or one with a compound radius that's near flat at the highest fret.
That's enough added action that some find it uncomfortable. Others feel fine with that. Much lower action than that, and you'll get the fret buzz even closer to the fretted string.

You appear to be arguing that if the B string is bent at the 8th fret, that it would fret-out at the 21st fret unless the action is raised at the bridge (twice as high as some unstated height) to compensate for the fretboard radius, versus a flat fretboard or one with a compound radius neck??

That not only doesn't make any sense to me, but your whole discussion qualifies as pure unadulterated, non-scientific, gibberish.
And I doubt that it makes much sense to anyone else, even though it is highly unlikely that there may be anyone else, who may actually choose to try to wade through your convoluted, pseudo-scientific, and confused, alchemist nonsense.

Image

Let's leave this ridiculous "sagitta" discussion behind, which based upon your above post, I conclude has no applicability to this issue.
Let's instead examine a completely different geometric approach to the issue.

Let's assume for the purposes of discussion that the 7.25" radius neck we are discussing is perfectly straight , without any relief, and that the frets are level.

As you may know, for the strings not to buzz when compressed at the first and second frets (without bending), as well as all other frets, the bridge saddles must be set so that the string proceeds from the nut (actually from the first fret) to the bridge saddle at a slight, but ever increasing upward string height trajectory, relative to the frets and fretboard, until the string reaches the bridge saddle contact point.
In effect the string creates a very long and very thin theoretical right triangle, with the string comprising the "hypotenuse" of the right triangle we'll call "c".

The theoretical long leg of the right triangle we'll call "b" (the long "cathetus"), which extends from the bottom of the nut (actuality the first fret), and runs parallel to the frets and fretboard, touching every fret, and intersects with the bridge saddle.
At the point where the long leg of the right triangle ("cathetus" "c") intersects with the saddle, the short leg of the right triangle we'll call "a" (the short "cathetus" "a") runs 90 degrees up to the contact point of the string (Hypotenuse "c") and the bridge saddle.

Image

This geometric guitar design of the fretboard, strings, and bridge saddles is universally true, regardless of whether the neck radius is 7.25", 9.5", or 12" radius.
In other words, the action must be set at the bridge saddle for each string, to a height where the strings will not buzz when individually depressed at any fret, on the fretboard, without bending.

The minimum string height, relative to the fretboard for any given string, is relatively the same for necks of any radius, of the same scale length.
Gibsons can generally have lower action than Fenders, primarily due to the difference in scale length.
This does not have anything to do with the radius of the neck.
The radius is inconsequential and does not come into play regarding setting the string height or action, to minimum functional height.

Now, if a string is going to fret-out when bent, it is going to fret out on the closest, next fret, on the fretboard, toward the bridge, unless the frets are not level, or there is a problem with the truss rod adjustment, or both.
But here we are assuming both that the neck is level with no relief, and the frets are level.

A string is not going to fret-out on a fret, half way up the neck toward the bridge (at the 21st fret when bending at the 8th fret) as you seem to argue, assuming that the fretboard is level.
This is due to the inherent angle of the string, from the fret to the bridge saddle, which is defined by the initial bridge saddle setup, and as stated, can be thought of as a long thin right triangle.

When a string is depressed at any fret moving up the fretboard, both the string ("hypotenuse," "c") and the theoretical long leg of the right triangle ("cathetus," "b") which runs parallel to the fret board, touching each fret, are shortened.
In addition, the angle of the string from the fret to the bridge saddle (Angle "A"), gradually increases slightly, as the string (hypotenuse "c") and the theoretical long leg of the triangle (cathetus "b") are shortened, as you move up the fretboard toward the bridge.

As you may have figured out, when the string is bent, the theoretical short leg of the right triangle (cathetus "a") at the bridge saddle, will be theoretically shortened, or slightly raised, as the starting point ("A") for both the string ("hypotenuse" "c") and the theoretical long leg of the right triangle ("cathetus," "b") are bent, the string is raised by the fret, as the bending string traverses the fret.
This has the effect of reducing the already slightly enlarged theoretical angle "A", beginning at the string / fret contact point as the string bends.

However, for the string to fret-out on the next fret toward the bridge, the string must pass the mid-point, or the crown of the fret, and enter the downward -slope of the fret.
Should this occur on a 7.25" radius neck, the angle of the bent string across the fretboard and frets, will necessarily contact the next fret toward the bridge, and fret-out, because the bent string which is on the downward -slope of the fret, will have fallen below the height of the next fret up toward the bridge.
The string will fret-out on the next fret toward the bridge if the string passes the mid-point of the fret and begins to descend the -slope on the far side of the fret mid-point.

This generally will not occur on a 9.5" or 12" radius neck because the string / fret contact point will generally not fall below the height of the next fret toward the bridge if a bent string passes beyond the mid-point of a fret, as the theoretical right triangle will be preserved and not interrupted by the next fret toward the bridge.

Now, I am going to say this to you one more time.
MickJagger wrote:
A 7.25" radius guitar with level frets, a properly cut nut, and proper relief, with action set at the bridge, as low as you can go without buzzing at any fret without bending; should not fret-out when the string is bent, if the guitar is strung with .10 or heavier strings, as the string bend does not pass the top of the fret crown.

This is because bending the "B" or high "E" string, with .10 or heavier strings, should not bend beyond the mid-point of the fret, or the fret crown and enter the downward -slope of the fret.
When the string is bent, the string (Hypotenuse "c" / angle "A") should always remain slightly above the next closest fret, as well as all other frets up the neck, and toward the bridge, as the "B" and high "E" strings should not pass the mid-point of the fret when the guitar is strung with .10 or heavier strings.
As noted previously, this is a full step bend at the 7th fret on a 7.25" radius American Vintage Telecaster with .10 strings.

Image

With .10 or heavier strings, the "B" and "E" strings, which are the primary candidates for "choking," these strings should not pass the mid-point of the fret, on a properly setup 7.25" radius guitar and should not fret-out when the action is set to the minimum functional string height or action for each string so that the strings do not buzz at any fret without bending.

arth1 wrote:
The mathematics behind it is undisputable.
A correct setup for bending on a smaller radius fingerboard does require a higher action, and exactly how much can be calculated.
No one in the world except you disputes that.
And when correctly setup, it does not buzz. But that correct setup does involve a higher action.
It does on my guitars, and on the guitars of everyone else. Including yours.


You are correct, the geometry and mathematics behind this is indisputable.
But unfortunately your "sagitta" nonsense is completely disputable....., as it makes no F-ing sense, whatsoever.

A correct setup for bending on a smaller radius fingerboard does NOT require higher action.
You and many other guitar MYTH proponents; which as I have noted, this is but only one of the GUITAR MYTHS that you believe in; have unfortunately chosen to accept the MYTH that 7.25" guitars "choke" or fret-out if the action is not set high, or higher than what would be the normal minimum, or lowest action for larger radius neck guitars.
This MYTH, undoubtedly originated by people putting .09 or lighter strings on 7.25 radius guitars, as the popularity of light strings grew in the 1970s; by old Fender necks with precision problems; and/or due to guitars that are poorly setup.

Contrary to your false assertion, there are many people who agree with me on this issue.
There are also many people like yourself that accept this MYTH, many of whom are often bigots that denounce vintage frets, that they have never played.

As you know, I have previously provided an external forum thread for you to read where the vast majority of 7.25 OWNERS held the opinion that there is no "choking" problem with 7.25" radius guitars, so I am certainly not alone in this conviction, and the Fender Lounge members who started this thread appear to have vaporized.

Finally I ask that you please refrain from misrepresenting statements supposedly made by me, which are false. The claim in your post that I have advocated adjusting string action by truss rod adjustment is taken completely out of context and is false as stated in your last posting.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:58 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
guitarman1984 wrote:
Frankly speaking I'm a little bit lost in the debate.

It's not surprising, if you read Arth1"s above post that you are "a little bit lost in the debate".


Last edited by MickJagger on Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:25 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
guitarman1984 wrote:
It's simple physics, when you are bending on a radiused neck, what you are doing while you increase the bending is simply lower the height of the string in the fret contact position, with regards of the other end of the string at the bridge being fixed in height instead. Therefore the string is getting lower and lower close to the blended fret and it thas to travel across the next frets which are getting higher and higher, with risk for chocking out. This effect is more pronounced as you decrease the radius.

When you are bending a string, you are actually raising the string at the point of the bend. If you follow my discussion above, while the theoretical right triangle will become more narrow while bending a string, there is no theoretical reason (backed up by actual personal experience) why a 7.25 " radius guitar should fret out if the High "E" and "B" strings do not pass the mid-point of the fret on which the string is bent.
And this should not occur if you are using .10 or heavier strings.
guitarman1984 wrote:
Not clear? Just imagine for fun about having a neck with a 2 inches radius, performing a two full tones bending and you'll get it. While bending in this Baseball bat, the string would soon touch all the frets in the neck Therefore chocking out.

Fortunately, that hypothetical example has no applicability to 7.25" radius neck guitars.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:53 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
Numerous players use lighter than .010" sets...
Plus, the key item still remains; on two identical guitars (and, let's all the time assume they both have perfect necks, frets, relief etc.), but this time both with a .010" set, you still get away with (some tenths of a mm...) lower action on the one that has flatter radius.

MickJagger wrote:
When you are bending a string, you are actually raising the string at the point of the bend

You just don't get it...
You're only raising it from one end - the saddle stays in the same position. Geometry: the rounder the radius, the smaller the gap becomes between string bottom and the frets above the bend point...


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 139 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours

Fender Play Winter Sale 2020

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 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: