Official Luthiers Forum!

Just wondering what all you experienced luthiers prefer. Which is easier? I'm still on my first build and curious about this.

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.

_________________
~shad peters

http://www.flickr.com/photos/petersinstruments/
http://petersinstruments.blogspot.com/
http://petersinstruments.com/

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.

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

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.

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

What do you mean easier?

Building, playing, etc.

_________________
Jason Moe
LaCrosse WI 54601

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):

_________________
http://hufschmidguitars.com

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.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Word

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.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

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.

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.

_________________
http://www.tinyhouseandland.com

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.

_________________
"Preoccupation with an effect gives it power and enhances the error"
from "Your Owner's Manual" by Burt Hotchkiss.

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.

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.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

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.

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.