| Official Luthiers Forum! http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10123&t=31593 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | jeff.scott [ Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
Just wondering what all you experienced luthiers prefer. Which is easier? I'm still on my first build and curious about this. |
|
| Author: | peters instruments [ Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
I have done one guitar with a compound radius and i couldnt really notice much difference from a standard single radius, but thats just me. |
|
| Author: | Mike Baker [ Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
A compound radius is touted as enabling lower action, and facilitating easier string bends in the upper registers. Technically, that makes sense to me. And I'm sure there are other benefits I'm not aware of as well. However, having said that, I don't have any problems getting a good action nor any problems with bending or lead playing with a standard constant radius fretboard. So at least for me, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I'm fine with a standard radius board, and have no plans to build anything else. |
|
| Author: | alan stassforth [ Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
My vote is for both. You pick up a guitar, play it, lower the action, or whatever, and play it as is! So, "I" don't think it really matters that much. Some players are way pickier than I am. |
|
| Author: | Mike Baker [ Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
|
|
|
| Author: | JasonMoe [ Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
What do you mean easier? Building, playing, etc. |
|
| Author: | helldunkel [ Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
jeff.scott wrote: Just wondering what all you experienced luthiers prefer. Which is easier? I'm still on my first build and curious about this. Since nobody really explains anything, this is going to turn into a pointless debate until somebody tries to explain.... Here are your options (from stewmac): Quote: A radiused board is uniformly curved its full length, as if it were the top of a cylinder. With a cylindrical fretboard surface, all the strings must be parallel to each other in order to keep a consistent height above the fret tops.  Quote: See what happens when a string is turned at an angle to the cylinder:  Quote: Typically, guitar strings are not parallel: they're closer together at the nut, and they spread wider apart at the bridge. For this reason, a fretboard should not be a cylinder. The strings would rise too far off the fretboard at some points. For comfortable playing, the fretboard needs to taper along with the strings, starting wide at the bridge and converging toward the nut. When you combine this idea of converging strings with a radiused fretboard surface, you get a cone shape:  Quote: Straight lines (strings) following a cone's surface will not be parallel. They'll be tapered (converging to the point of the cone), the way we want our guitar strings to be. If they follow any other line, they'll create playing problems or string buzz too:
We refer to these conical fretboards as “compound radius” fretboards. Now that we see that the fretboard needs to be conical for lowest action, we can also see that the spread of the strings and the changing radius of the surface are interconnected. Once you determine the radius at the nut and the spread of the strings, the radius at the bridge is determined by those values. These photos show exaggerated radii, of course, to show the principle. A guitar string that's just a few thousandths of an inch too high or low will make a big difference in playing action and fret buzz.  |
|
| Author: | theguitarwhisperer [ Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
I build mine with cylindrical radii, and dress a coumpound radius into the fret plane. It works for every Fender and Gibson on the planet so there's no real reason not to do it on guitars, unless they have a Floyd rose bridge, since the Floyd nut is a 10 radius and the bridge is a 20 (both pre-radiused) neccessitating the compound radius geometry for the fretboard. For basses I do the compound radius, since the more dramatic fretboard taper and longer length accentuates the edge rolloff as the string angles off parallel to the center. |
|
| Author: | Sheldon Dingwall [ Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
hufschmid wrote: jeff.scott wrote: Just wondering what all you experienced luthiers prefer. Which is easier? I'm still on my first build and curious about this. Since nobody really explains anything, this is going to turn into a pointless debate until somebody tries to explain.... Here are your options (from stewmac): Quote: A radiused board is uniformly curved its full length, as if it were the top of a cylinder. With a cylindrical fretboard surface, all the strings must be parallel to each other in order to keep a consistent height above the fret tops. Quote: See what happens when a string is turned at an angle to the cylinder: Quote: Typically, guitar strings are not parallel: they're closer together at the nut, and they spread wider apart at the bridge. For this reason, a fretboard should not be a cylinder. The strings would rise too far off the fretboard at some points. For comfortable playing, the fretboard needs to taper along with the strings, starting wide at the bridge and converging toward the nut. When you combine this idea of converging strings with a radiused fretboard surface, you get a cone shape: Quote: Straight lines (strings) following a cone's surface will not be parallel. They'll be tapered (converging to the point of the cone), the way we want our guitar strings to be. If they follow any other line, they'll create playing problems or string buzz too: We refer to these conical fretboards as “compound radius” fretboards. Now that we see that the fretboard needs to be conical for lowest action, we can also see that the spread of the strings and the changing radius of the surface are interconnected. Once you determine the radius at the nut and the spread of the strings, the radius at the bridge is determined by those values. These photos show exaggerated radii, of course, to show the principle. A guitar string that's just a few thousandths of an inch too high or low will make a big difference in playing action and fret buzz. Word |
|
| Author: | Stuart Gort [ Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
I'm not saying to do this....but if you build simple radius fretboards and market your guitars as having compound radius fretboards, you get to "wow" your customers and will probably never get caught lying about it unless someone actually measures them. Unless you make a true comparative analysis, you’ll have a hard time discerning a compound board from a simple board...given the probability that an inexact setup is causing problems verses the difference between a compound and a simple fretboard. A true comparison would require two similar instruments made by the same exceedingly good craftsman. Then, after setting the action height on both instruments as low as possible there would be slightly lower action on the outside strings with the compound radius. If the action height was more or less equal on both guitars there would be slightly less buzzing with the compound radius. As I listen to conversations about this subject I always chuckle at how easily the other, more influential variables affecting playability are cast aside. Because the strings are not parallel from the nut to the bridge, and because the surface of a simple radius fretboard is linear along this same track, the relationship of the strings and the fretboard changes over this length. A compound fretboard maintains an equidistant relationship of each string to the fretboard over this length. The real question is, if all other variables are controlled, what is the actual, measurable difference between the two scenarios?. Doing the math on this starting with a 10” radius at the nut and a 24.7” scale, you end up with a 13.5” radius at fret 22. The difference between the string height of high and low E is about .02” between a scenario using this compound radius and a simple radius of 10” along the same fretboard…assuming we adjust the bridge so there is no buzz in the middle of the neck. Now….02” is not a huge difference. A very discerning player comparing two extremely well made instruments will pick them out but I doubt the average player will notice….especially on two entirely different instruments. I was reading a luthiers’ website the other day in which he mentioned that he went from an 11” radius to a 17” radius along his compound radius fretboards. Doing the math on this you’ll find that by not using the correct radii, this poor fellow created the same problem as he would have had with a simple radius….but in the opposite direction. The man did a whole bunch of work to end up with almost the same problem. In this case, the action on his middle strings is going to be higher than the outside strings. He would have been better off just making simple radius fretboards. Ah well…for the extra work he does get to advertise that he makes compound radius fretboards. If you want to make compound radius fretboards, there is a theoretical point in doing so. But if you don’t understand the math, or can’t follow through and hold the design throughout production, the only point in doing it is to say you did it. 
|
|
| Author: | Sheldon Dingwall [ Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
We build primarily bass guitars where on 5 and 6-strings the the taper of the strings is much more so than on guitars. A cylindrical radius on such a fingerboard will result in the edge of the fingerboard being much thinner at the wider end than the nut end giving the illusion that the fingerboard itself is thicker at the nut. This leaves you with a couple of options. A flatter radius 16"+ won't be much of a problem because the difference at the edge isn't that noticeable. If you want a tighter (cylindrical) radius you'll need to taper the thickness of the fingerboard - thinner at the nut, thicker at the last fret. A simpler (to me) solution is to decide on what radius you want at the nut (for us it's 7.5"). Draw an arc with that radius from the edge of the fingerboard through the centerline to the other edge of the fingerboard. Measure the thickness of the edge of the fingerboard where the arc intersects it. Now draw another arc using this fingerboard edge thickness, the centerline thickness and the width at the last fret. Because the width varies the two arcs will have different radii. In our case the nut is 7.5" and the 24th fret is 16". This sounds like a radical difference but we maintain a consistent edge/center thickness. In reality we use the thickness of the FB along the pathways of the outside strings. This is theoretically more accurate for the frets but harder to explain. Previous to building basses I didn't think the compound radius idea was valid. Overly complex, marketing BS, etc. I've since changed my mind. The fact of the matter is that if you level your frets along the pathways of the strings you're going to be adding a compound radius to the fret tops by default. So to me the choice is do you want to put the compound radius into the fingerboard or the fret tops. Adding it to the fretboard makes radiusing a more complicated process but keeps fret leveling/re-crowning to a minimum. Personally I hate re-crowning frets so I choose to put the compound radius in the FB. |
|
| Author: | Chameleon [ Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
Or you could make it even easier to make (and easier to play for some) and do a non-radiused fretboard. I tend to think the flat board is easier on the hand anyway, maybe not for all playing styles, but most I would think. Just a thought. |
|
| Author: | nickton [ Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
 How does one figure out the correct second radius on say a 16" radius board anyways? It would I imagine be measured at the last fret (22 or so), so you could dial it into a radiusing jig... That always scares me away so I just keep it simple. 
|
|
| Author: | Al Salo [ Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
Hi guy's I'm old school, I build Mosrite guitars with a 10" rarius on the finger board the full length. I don't use a nut persay, it's called a zero fret, with a string guide to keep the strings in place going to the tuners. as far as the back of the neck is designed, I use the cemicircular designe, simply because its easyer to carve by hand and to keep straight and shape. |
|
| Author: | Stuart Gort [ Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
Filippo Morelli wrote: Stuart, Couple things on your post. Is it 0.020" or 0.002"? You say .02" in your post which seems like a lot, not a little. But that said, to the gist of your comments, the only practical way one gets a radius which matches the strings is to route with a cauls that provide the correct arc at either end of a routing sled. Obviously I'm not speaking to CNC (which requires no such apparatus). It would be infeasible to accurately create the end result with anything but a sled arrangement. Filippo On a Strat the height adjustment screws are #4-40's. One full turn of the allen screw moves the saddle up or down by .025". So yeah, .02" seems like a lot in that context. But in the context of a comparison between a complex or simple radius this .02" difference only exists on the high and low E....and mitigates toward the middle. In practice, with a simple radius one is probably going to try to run the high and low E lower than the perfect, no-buzz height. So...with a simple radius you're always chasing the buzz away if you try to get really low action. This buzz occurs at the fret 8-14 area as a result...if the neck is set up perfectly flat...with no relief. My comment should have read more like this....If two guitars are made well...by the same guy and each guitar is set up optimally the average guy isn't going to pick out the complex fetboard whereas the discerning player will. In a nutshell...a complex radius will allow lower action on the end strings without the buzz you'd otherwise get on those strings in the middle areas of the fretboard. |
|
| Author: | Sheldon Dingwall [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
nickton wrote: duh How does one figure out the correct second radius on say a 16" radius board anyways? It would I imagine be measured at the last fret (22 or so), so you could dial it into a radiusing jig... That always scares me away so I just keep it simple. Just draw the nut and last fret arcs as per my previous post. Keep the FB edge and center thicknesses the same. The arc will change according to the width of the FB. If you want to start with 16" at the nut, fine, draw the arc for the last fret. It will be flatter. If you want to start with a 16" last fret, draw the arc for the nut, it will be rounder. If you want to match a Floyd Rose nut, start with a 10" nut (can someone confirm this?) and draw the last fret arc. |
|
| Author: | Ian Cunningham [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Cylindrical vs. Compound Radius. Cast you vote now! |
What I do is make the fingerboard, complete with slots and the taper, run a hand plane along the top until the arching is what I feel is good for the particular instrument, then level it to clean it up. The compound radius also seems to feel more natural. If you are an avid player and you slide your hand across the board as if you were playing on it, you'll find your wrist moves slightly. The lighter radius towards the end of the fretboard encourages and compliments that motion. Just makes sense. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|