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 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 4:26 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:28 pm
Posts: 82
jmattis wrote:
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...



+1


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:05 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 pm
Posts: 4602
Location: ˚ɷ˚
MickJagger wrote:
When you are bending a string, you are actually raising the string at the point of the bend.

No, you're not. It's the exact same distance from the center of the fretboard circle. That's the height, and it doesn't change at any point.
On a 7.25" fixed radius neck, there's always 7.25" from any point on any fret to the center line of the cylinder, whether you bend or not.

What happens when you bend is that you lower the midpoint of the string, because the string goes in a straight line, while the fretboard does not. The farther you move one endpoint of a string, the farther you lower the midpoint. It goes from a zero height reduction at zero bend to lowering it equal to the fretboard radius at a 180 degree bend. Any point in-between those two extremes will have a little more height reduction than the point next to it with less bend. It doesn't matter that you can only bend a few degrees of a circle - it's a gradual change that always occurs - the bigger the bend, the lower the height of the string midpoint. Always, for any bend less than 180 degrees.

The difference between that low point and the point on the radius above it is the sagitta. You seem to think the sagitta is a fixed peak. It is neither fixed nor a peak. It's simply that height, which the string will have to clear.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:34 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

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

"as I understand it"... You do not understand it, that's the problem. The sagitta is always at the midpoint of any bend, but that does not imply that you always fret out. It does imply that you always fret out if you have a zero action.

How big action you need not to fret out depends on two things:
(a) the amplitude of the string over any fret it passes over, and
(b) the height of any sagitta you need to clear for any fret it passes over.
Sum them, and you have your answer.
Since (a) is always non-zero (except, obviously, on the last fret) and (b) is always more than zero for a convex fretboard for any amount of bend, you need higher action on a convex fretboard than a flat one. Always. The more convex the fretboard, the higher action. Always.

This is not rocket science. Really. Nor alchemy.
MickJagger wrote:
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,

You're tilting at windmills. No one has claimed there is a problem. You just need the guitar set up properly, which includes a higher action. No problem.

MickJagger wrote:
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.

Here is the context, where people can look for themselves. It includes such gems as:
MickJagger wrote:
If you get a buzz at the top frets again, there is no need to take the guitar to a guitar tech.
Simply turn the truss rod in the head-stock with an Allen key, 1/4 turn or less, counter-clockwise.
This adds a small amount of relief to the neck.
Repeat if necessary.

and
MickJagger wrote:
A slight buzz at the top of the neck when the bridge is in proper adjustment, is adjusted with the truss rod.


... along with the normal amount of ad hominem associated with you.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:37 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:21 pm
Posts: 393
Location: Oklahoma
This thread is still going? I would like to join the fun. I'm trying to really understand what this debate is about. At first I thought some people didn't understand that bending a string on a flat or flatter surface is different than bending a string on a rounder surface as far as sting height goes. Does everyone agree that the string height at the top of a "big bend" high up the fretboard will be lower on a more rounded neck surface than a less rounded or flat neck surface?

OK. Then the discussion must be that it simply makes no practical difference if the fret radius is 7.25" or 9.50" which may be true in my case since I'm not very good. Today, I'm experimenting with lowering the action on my guitar from generally 4/64" to 3/64" string height at the 17th fret. I have a 9.5" radius neck. So far, I think I might like this setup as I'm still fairly buzz free using a light touch. However, I can't quite get a full bend from the low e in the higher registers without choking. I don't really care since the highest bend I can cleanly do is good enough for me. I could raise it a smidgen and get that full bend. I can't help but think that if my radius was 7.25", I would probably need to raise it another smidgen to keep from choking which would call for a slightly higher action, by a smidgen. Am I wrong? Also, I've noticed that a 1/64" change in string height is quite significant, even for me. With that, I must conclude that there is a difference and that it is significant or not depending on the player. It can't be totally dismissed or there wouldn't be a preference.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 1:02 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:
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...

You guys just don't seem to get it...
"What we've got here is failure to communicate.... Some men you just can't reach...."

That is exactly what I have stated, assuming that "above the bend point" means where the bend begins..
Re-read my last post, or at least the quoted section below, and maybe, just maybe, you will get it the second time around.

In case you didn't understand this geometric theory the first time, the string is "c".
"b" is a theoretical line, or leg of the theoretical right triangle created by the fret board, which touches each fret directly under the string and intersects with the bridge saddle.
"a" is the short leg of the right triangle at the bridge saddle connecting "b" and "c".
Angle "A" begins at the first fret.
Angle "A" gradually becomes a slightly larger angle as you move up the fret board toward the bridge.

Image
MickJagger wrote:
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.


jmattis wrote:
Numerous players use lighter than .010" sets...

Not on 7.25" radius neck guitars.
That is undoubtedly how this GUITAR MYTH began, that 7.25" guitars fret-out, by players putting .09 or lighter strings on a 7.25" radius guitar.
jmattis wrote:
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:
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 a minimum functional height.

Now, I am going to say this 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.

On any radius guitar, the action can ONLY be set to the lowest functional height where the string will not fret-out or buzz on any fret toward the bridge (usually the next fret up the neck), without bending the string.
The action cannot be set lower without compromising playability.
It is usually the first two frets that will establish through testing, the minimum string height for any string.
This is due to the nature of guitar design, and the theoretical "right triangle design" that I have described.

The radius of the neck has absolutely no impact or interplay on the functional minimum string height, or action at each fret without bending.
On a 7.25" radius guitar as described, .10 or heavier strings will not fret-out when the action is set to the minimum functional string height, because the string when bent, will not pass the mid-point of the fret on which the string is bent.
The string will not fret-out on the next fret up the fretboard toward the bridge.
This is because on a 7.25"radius guitar, with the action set to the minimum functional string height, the integrity "theoretical right triangle" is preserved during a maximum two step string bend, as the string does not extend beyond the mid-point of the fret.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 2:09 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
arth1 wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
When you are bending a string, you are actually raising the string at the point of the bend.

No, you're not. It's the exact same distance from the center of the fretboard circle. That's the height, and it doesn't change at any point.
On a 7.25" fixed radius neck, there's always 7.25" from any point on any fret to the center line of the cylinder, whether you bend or not.

As I have stated, I am no longer entertaining discussion your ridiculous "sagitta" theory, as you have failed to convince me that it has ANY applicability to the issue under discussion.
The bent string rises relative to the bridge saddle which is stationary, as does the long leg of the theoretical right triangle that I have described, as is shown in the following illustrations.

Image

Image
arth1 wrote:
What happens when you bend is that you lower the midpoint of the string, because the string goes in a straight line, while the fretboard does not. The farther you move one endpoint of a string, the farther you lower the midpoint. It goes from a zero height reduction at zero bend to lowering it equal to the fretboard radius at a 180 degree bend. Any point in-between those two extremes will have a little more height reduction than the point next to it with less bend. It doesn't matter that you can only bend a few degrees of a circle - it's a gradual change that always occurs - the bigger the bend, the lower the height of the string midpoint. Always, for any bend less than 180 degrees.

The difference between that low point and the point on the radius above it is the sagitta. You seem to think the sagitta is a fixed peak. It is neither fixed nor a peak. It's simply that height, which the string will have to clear.

Your statement of that "The bigger the bend, the lower the height of the string midpoint" is false.
The string rises relative to the bridge.
Again, as I have stated, I no longer intend to discuss your ridiculous "sagitta" theory, which from your statements, has no applicability to the issue under discussion.
The bent string rises relative to the bridge saddle which is stationary, as does the long leg of the theoretical right triangle that I have described as is shown in the illustrations above.


Last edited by MickJagger on Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:23 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
arth1 wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
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...???

"as I understand it"... You do not understand it, that's the problem. The sagitta is always at the midpoint of any bend, but that does not imply that you always fret out. It does imply that you always fret out if you have a zero action.

How big action you need not to fret out depends on two things:
(a) the amplitude of the string over any fret it passes over, and
(b) the height of any sagitta you need to clear for any fret it passes over.
Sum them, and you have your answer.
Since (a) is always non-zero (except, obviously, on the last fret) and (b) is always more than zero for a convex fretboard for any amount of bend, you need higher action on a convex fretboard than a flat one. Always. The more convex the fretboard, the higher action. Always.

This is not rocket science. Really. Nor alchemy.

No this is not rocket science, but you are sure trying hard to provide an allusion that it is rocket science, when what you are practicing as far as I can tell is pure alchemy.
These statements that ["you need higher action on a convex fretboard than a flat one. Always. The more convex the fretboard, the higher action."]are complete nonsense.

arth1 wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
[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.

Here is the context, where people can look for themselves. It includes such gems as:

MickJagger wrote:
If you get a buzz at the top frets again, there is no need to take the guitar to a guitar tech.
Simply turn the truss rod in the head-stock with an Allen key, 1/4 turn or less, counter-clockwise.
This adds a small amount of relief to the neck.
Repeat if necessary.

I stated, you took my statement completely out of context.
My advice was made within a framework that the guitar previously had the action set correctly and that humidity and temperature changes over time had affected the action of the guitar.
The correct adjustment is a truss rod adjustment because the bridge cannot change its adjustment on its own over time.
The rest of your examples all contain the same omission, which may be due to my statements, if they were not adequately precise, but none-the-less, were correct advice.
I will spend no further time on this issue, as you're not going to hijack this thread by making unrelated attacks on me, to hide your silly, false claim that 7.25 guitars must be setup with high action.

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.

The action of any radius guitar, can ONLY be set to the lowest functional height where the string will not fret-out or buzz on any fret toward the bridge (usually the next fret up the neck), without bending the string.
The action of any radius guitar cannot be set lower without compromising playability.
It is usually the first two frets that will establish through testing, the minimum string height for any string.
This is due to the nature of guitar design, and the theoretical "right triangle design" that I have described.

The radius of the neck has absolutely no impact or interplay on the functional minimum string height, or action at each fret without bending.
On a 7.25" radius guitar as described, .10 or heavier strings will not fret-out when the action is set to the minimum functional string height, because the string when bent, will not pass the mid-point of the fret on which the string is bent.
The string will not fret-out on the next fret up the fretboard toward the bridge.
This is because on a 7.25"radius guitar, with the action set to the minimum functional string height, the integrity "theoretical right triangle" is preserved during a maximum two step string bend, as the string bend does not extend beyond the mid-point of the fret.


Last edited by MickJagger on Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:05 pm
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'm trying to really understand what this debate is about. At first I thought some people didn't understand that bending a string on a flat or flatter surface is different than bending a string on a rounder surface as far as sting height goes. Does everyone agree that the string height at the top of a "big bend" high up the fretboard will be lower on a more rounded neck surface than a less rounded or flat neck surface?

Two issues are presented by the statement: "the string height at the top of a "big bend" high up the fretboard will be lower on a more rounded neck..."
1) That the string height at the top of a "big bend" will be lower; and.
2) That this occurs high up the fretboard.

I agree that the string height at the next fret up the fretboard from the fret of the bend (the critical fret if the frets are level), as well as above all other frets toward the bridge will be slightly closer on a 7.25" radius guitar compared to a 9.5" radius guitar.
This phenomenon is not limited to just high up on the fretboard.

LawFlow wrote:
OK. Then the discussion must be that it simply makes no practical difference if the fret radius is 7.25" or 9.50"

I believe that the radius makes no difference and is of no consideration in setting the action or initial string height when setting up the guitar.

LawFlow wrote:
Today, I'm experimenting with lowering the action on my guitar from generally 4/64" to 3/64" string height at the 17th fret. I have a 9.5" radius neck. So far, I think I might like this setup as I'm still fairly buzz free using a light touch. However, I can't quite get a full bend from the low e in the higher registers without choking.

I personally do not measure string height, but rather set the action to the lowest height possible without significant buzzing at any fret without bending.
My prior posts never addressed bending the "Low 'E'" string, which normally is not a factor for concern in my mind.
This thread, as it has evolved, primary concerns whether the action must be set "high" on a 7.25 radius guitar to prevent the High "E" and "B" strings from fretting-out or choking while bending.
My position, both in theory and from experience, is that when using .10 or larger strings, 7.25 radius guitars will not fret-out when set to the lowest functional string height, or action, at each fret without bending.
If you are experiencing only a fret buzz while bending high up the fretboard, on a 9.5" radius guitar, I would check to see if the frets are level in that area of your neck.
There are many web sites available that will tell you how to check if the frets are level.


Last edited by MickJagger on Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:08 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
@ MickJagger: You've been raging (for all seven pages) against the "some tenths of a mm" principle I suggested, and you insist there is absolutely no difference in setting up a 7.25" from flatter radiuses.

Yet, you yourself set limitations to the 7.25", way beyond those "some tenths of a mm" - must have .010" strings or heavier, must bend only so far (pic included, hah...), and you keep repeating it has to have level frets, properly setup neck etc (I hold those last ones the basis of any proper setup...)

And to go over just a couple of the most blatant strikeouts:
"It is usually the first two frets that will establish through testing, the minimum string height for any string."
Nope. That has mostly to do with nut (slot) height, on rare occasions neck angle/fretboard shape.
"jmattis: Numerous players use lighter than .010" sets...
MickJagger: Not on 7.25" radius neck guitars."
At some point or of their career, Jimi Hendrix, Danny Gatton, Jeff Beck, Nile Rodgers, Jimmy Page, Billy Gibbons, EVH (I could go on and on and on.).
And I see you edited that "modern" from the last one - I was going to ask what's the difference between a modern and a vintage 7.25" radius :lol:


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:13 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, I can't even decipher what it is you are attempting to say.
Why don't you spend a little time and try to write something sensible.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:42 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:53 am
Posts: 4240
Is this simple enough:
You're totally wrong, on this topic and on general setup procedures, let alone your knowledge of guitar players.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:51 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:21 pm
Posts: 393
Location: Oklahoma
MickJagger wrote:
LawFlow wrote:
...I'm trying to really understand what this debate is about. At first I thought some people didn't understand that bending a string on a flat or flatter surface is different than bending a string on a rounder surface as far as sting height goes. Does everyone agree that the string height at the top of a "big bend" high up the fretboard will be lower on a more rounded neck surface than a less rounded or flat neck surface?

Two issues are presented by the statement: "the string height at the top of a "big bend" high up the fretboard will be lower on a more rounded neck..."
1) That the string height at the top of a "big bend" will be lower; and.
2) That this occurs high up the fretboard.

I agree that the string height at the next fret up the fretboard from the fret of the bend (the critical fret if the frets are level), as well as above all other frets toward the bridge will be slightly closer on a 7.25" radius guitar compared to a 9.5" radius guitar.
This phenomenon is not limited to just high up on the fretboard.

LawFlow wrote:
OK. Then the discussion must be that it simply makes no practical difference if the fret radius is 7.25" or 9.50"

I believe that the radius makes no difference and is of no consideration in setting the action or initial string height when setting up the guitar.

LawFlow wrote:
Today, I'm experimenting with lowering the action on my guitar from generally 4/64" to 3/64" string height at the 17th fret. I have a 9.5" radius neck. So far, I think I might like this setup as I'm still fairly buzz free using a light touch. However, I can't quite get a full bend from the low e in the higher registers without choking.

I personally do not measure string height, but rather set the action to the lowest height possible without significant buzzing at any fret without bending.
My prior posts never addressed bending the "Low 'E'" string, which normally is not a factor for concern in my mind.
This thread, as it has evolved, primary concerns whether the action must be set "high" on a 7.25 radius guitar to prevent the High "E" and "B" strings from fretting-out or choking while bending.
My position, both in theory and from experience, is that when using .10 or larger strings, 7.25 radius guitars will not fret-out when set to the lowest functional string height, or action, at each fret without bending.
If you are experiencing only a fret buzz while bending high up the fretboard, on a 9.5" radius guitar, I would check to see if the frets are level in that area of your neck.
There are many web sites available that will tell you how to check if the frets are level.

I understand that the string height phenomenon is not limited to the high frets. Just trying to keep the discussion focused. I also "believe that the radius makes no difference and is of no consideration in setting the action or initial string height when setting up the guitar" as far as it applies to me. If I was doing full bends (e.009" & b.011" strings) beyond the 12th fret, "no difference" would not be true. I know you qualified it to .010" string sets, which I don't use. Also, I use string height measurements as a starting point and a way to communicate with others. Ultimately, I adjust to my picking style for optimum playability with no buzz. My experiment to lower my string action is more of an attempt to help me soften my brutish string attack. :?


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:48 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
MickJagger wrote:
jmattis, I can't even decipher what it is you are attempting to say.
Why don't you spend a little time and try to write something sensible.

jmattis wrote:
Is this simple enough: You're totally wrong, on this topic and on general setup procedures, let alone your knowledge of guitar players.

Your brilliance is once again on display!!
I said that you should write something that was sensible, not something "simple".
jmattis wrote:
@ MickJagger: You've been raging (for all seven pages) against the "some tenths of a mm" principle I suggested, and you insist there is absolutely no difference in setting up a 7.25" from flatter radiuses.

The only raging is in your raging imagination.
You have provided no reason, no theory, and no experience to explain your "principle," and mythological belief, that it is necessary to have additional "tenths of a mm" in setup action on a 7.25" radius guitar, which you do not own.
jmattis wrote:
Yet, you yourself set limitations to the 7.25", way beyond those "some tenths of a mm" - must have .010" strings or heavier, must bend only so far (pic included, hah...), and you keep repeating it has to have level frets, properly setup neck etc (I hold those last ones the basis of any proper setup...)

The above gibberish is what I was referring to when I said:
MickJagger wrote:
jmattis, I can't even decipher what it is you are attempting to say.
Why don't you spend a little time and try to write something sensible.


jmattis wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
jmattis wrote:
And to go over just a couple of the most blatant strikeouts:

"It is usually the first two frets that will establish through testing, the minimum string height for any string."

Nope. That has mostly to do with nut (slot) height, on rare occasions neck angle/fretboard shape.

When setting the action of a guitar at the bridge, you must check each string for buzzing at each fret.
As previously stated, "It is usually the first two frets that will establish through testing, the minimum string height for any string" unless the the frets are not level at some point on the neck." This has nothing to do with the nut, unless the string is not compressed.
jmattis wrote:
MickJagger wrote:
jmattis wrote:
"jmattis: Numerous players use lighter than .010" sets...

MickJagger: Not on 7.25" radius neck guitars."

At some point or of their career, Jimi Hendrix, Danny Gatton, Jeff Beck, Nile Rodgers, Jimmy Page, Billy Gibbons, EVH (I could go on and on and on.).

jmattis, I did not realize that you were a guitar tech to the stars....
To the extent that any of these players used lighter than .10 strings on a 7.25" radius neck, they would have to significantly raise the action so that the guitar would not fret-out during string bending, because the bend would pass the mid point of the frets.


Last edited by MickJagger on Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:09 pm
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 understand that the string height phenomenon is not limited to the high frets.... I also "believe that the radius makes no difference and is of no consideration in setting the action or initial string height when setting up the guitar...."

+1
LawFlow wrote:
I know you qualified it to .010" string sets, which I don't use.

I only qualified the use of .10 strings to 7.25 radius guitars, because there is no need to raise the action any higher than on any other radius guitar, if you use .10 or larger strings, assuming that the frets are level and the neck has the recommended relief, because whole step string bends do not pass the mid-point of the fret during string bending.

I believe you stated that you stated that you use a 9.5" radius guitar, to which this string size qualification is not applicable.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Bring back 7.25"
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:28 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:28 pm
Posts: 82
Hello, one last chance then I'll give up.
Anyone can trust what they want.

I made two 3d model with a 7.25" versus a 12" neck, by simulating a 1.5-2 tones bending on a fret, around 7th fret.
The only difference between the two models is the neck radius, all the rest of the measurements and geometry being the same.
I simulated a bent string, what you see below is the bent string; it'a a top view, on the left it touches the saddle, which is a fixed point, on the right it touches the fret where we are simulating the bending, which is the one to the right. It's a simple sketch, ok?

Image

Here you can see the two necks from a side view:
Image

Here a zoom of the saddle point, on the left:
Image

Here I show that the bottom part of the string is in contact with the fret where we are bending, 7.25" neck (sorry for the mistake in the picture, it's a 7.25" neck, not 9.25"):
Image

Here is the measured MINIMUM distance between the next fret and the bottom of the string, in mm:
Image

Side view:
Image

Zoom:
Image

Let's do the same for the 12" neck.
String in contact:
Image

Minimum distance:
Image

Side view:
Image

Zoom:
Image


So, what I conclude is that if you compare 7.25 to 12" neck radius, all the rest being the same, bending a string at around the 7th fret to 1.5-2 full tones bending, the string distance in the closest upper fret is:
0.111mm for the 7.25" radius neck
0.138mm for the 12" radius neck
which determines a difference of 0.027mm.


So, is there a difference? YES
Is it big? Not so much
Does the guitar player care? Probably not

With 3D model it's easy to simulate, so I raised the action on both necks at the saddles by 1mm compared to the situation above, the new measurements are:
0.171mm for the 7.25" radius neck
0.198mm for the 12" radius neck
which determines a difference of 0.027mm, which is exactly the same as before!!!


Another simulation, I changed the actions at the saddles on the two necks in order to have the same clearance between string and next fret, at the end this clearance is the one responsible for the fretting out , right?!?! here's what I got:
0.171mm for the 7.25" radius neck with a determined action at the saddle
0.171mm for the 12" radius neck with an action which is 0.45mm LOWER than the 9.25" radius neck


So, is there a difference? YES
The flatter the radius the lower the action can be? YES
Is this big effect? I would say not so much
Is this effect dependent on the action? NO, it's intrinsic to the neck radius.
Does the guitar player care? Probably not at all
This difference is [b]even smaller if you compare the 7.25" to the 9.5"
, which are the two most common for Fender.[/b]

This is where I believe the truth is.
Just my 2 cents...


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