I know ive read about this recently, but I cant find the thread it was in for the life of me. Has anyone had experience with the compound radius neck and a bridge that has a 12" radius? Such as the TOM or 510 or any kind of stop tail bridge really. I feel like it probally isnt that big of a deal, but maybe. Thanks!
Bridge radius?
- Thread starter rapfohl09
- Start date
I'm on this.... for a project. Give me a few days and I'll have all the "relative elevation" numbers to file each of the inner 4 saddles to, for an 18, 19, 20 and 22 inch radius.
I've seen 18 and 20 quoted as the "correct" radius for the Warmoth cone radii necks. Not sure which is correct, am open to enlightenment.
Actually, I just figured out how to calculate the correct radius for the bridge, just as I was thinking of it. The noodle still works. Its a straight linear relationship.
Take the nut radius, and the last fret radius. Subtract the nut radius from the last fret radius. Now measure the distance from nut to last fret. Then measure the distance from nut to bridge (25.5"). Its a straight proportion to see the amount of increased radius you'll have. Then just add the nut radius back into the final result and voila, there's your total radius at the bridge. If I had a guitar handy, I'd figure it out right now... but a guitar is 15 miles away.....
I've seen 18 and 20 quoted as the "correct" radius for the Warmoth cone radii necks. Not sure which is correct, am open to enlightenment.
Actually, I just figured out how to calculate the correct radius for the bridge, just as I was thinking of it. The noodle still works. Its a straight linear relationship.
Take the nut radius, and the last fret radius. Subtract the nut radius from the last fret radius. Now measure the distance from nut to last fret. Then measure the distance from nut to bridge (25.5"). Its a straight proportion to see the amount of increased radius you'll have. Then just add the nut radius back into the final result and voila, there's your total radius at the bridge. If I had a guitar handy, I'd figure it out right now... but a guitar is 15 miles away.....
Otay, from fret 1 to fret 21, its 16.5" inches. From fret 1 to the bridge its 24inches.
Lets do the math:
Radius at fret 1 = 10"
Radius at fret 21=16"
Take the 16 inches and subtract the 10 inches from it. Now, looking sort of sideways at things, we have a triangle. If the angle at the nut is our known angle (it doesn't matter except for terminology at this point), then the "opposite" side is six inches, and the "adjacent" side is 16.5 inches. Now its proportional. We take 6/16.5 and get .363636 Now take that and multiply by 24 inches, and we get 8.7272 Now add the 10 inches back in, and we have 18.72 inches as a bridge radius, using the calculation from FRET ONE (not the nut, my bad) to the bridge. That's close enough to a nice even 18.75" in my book.
There may be some minor miscalculation, on account of that 21st fret not being "really" 16" radius but slightly smaller, since most Warmoth compound necks are 22 inch variety. So lets do those numbers....
From fret 1 to fret 22 is 16.9375 (16.5 plus .4375 from fret 21 to fret 22). Same radii apply. Same scale applies from fret 1 to bridge.
Lets do that math.... and we get 18.5" bridge radius. At that point, we may be splitting hairs when it comes to saddle elevation.
I'll know if we're splitting hairs sometime tomorrow. That's enough math for tonight.
So the definitive answer is 18.5 inches. (unless Wyliee comes back and says they readjust the arm on the radius machine for 21 fret necks.....)
Lets do the math:
Radius at fret 1 = 10"
Radius at fret 21=16"
Take the 16 inches and subtract the 10 inches from it. Now, looking sort of sideways at things, we have a triangle. If the angle at the nut is our known angle (it doesn't matter except for terminology at this point), then the "opposite" side is six inches, and the "adjacent" side is 16.5 inches. Now its proportional. We take 6/16.5 and get .363636 Now take that and multiply by 24 inches, and we get 8.7272 Now add the 10 inches back in, and we have 18.72 inches as a bridge radius, using the calculation from FRET ONE (not the nut, my bad) to the bridge. That's close enough to a nice even 18.75" in my book.
There may be some minor miscalculation, on account of that 21st fret not being "really" 16" radius but slightly smaller, since most Warmoth compound necks are 22 inch variety. So lets do those numbers....
From fret 1 to fret 22 is 16.9375 (16.5 plus .4375 from fret 21 to fret 22). Same radii apply. Same scale applies from fret 1 to bridge.
Lets do that math.... and we get 18.5" bridge radius. At that point, we may be splitting hairs when it comes to saddle elevation.
I'll know if we're splitting hairs sometime tomorrow. That's enough math for tonight.
So the definitive answer is 18.5 inches. (unless Wyliee comes back and says they readjust the arm on the radius machine for 21 fret necks.....)
Sorry, I understand all the math and stuff, but you lost me :icon_scratch:
I was under the impression the the radius of the fretboard should match the saddle radius of the bridge. Maybe I wasn't clear in my first post but I was just wondering how the 10"-16" compound radius worked with 12" saddle radius bridges and if there was any serious problems with it. I assumed not, since if there was W probally wouldnt do it. If you did answer that question, I'm just lost :laughing7:
I was under the impression the the radius of the fretboard should match the saddle radius of the bridge. Maybe I wasn't clear in my first post but I was just wondering how the 10"-16" compound radius worked with 12" saddle radius bridges and if there was any serious problems with it. I assumed not, since if there was W probally wouldnt do it. If you did answer that question, I'm just lost :laughing7:
Whoops...yeah I got caught up in CB's post. :laughing7:
rapfohl09, most find that a 12" radius bridge works fine with the compound radius neck. You can always file your string slots on the bridge saddles a bit deeper to flatten the bridge radius if you would like to, but thousands of guitar players are comfortably using a 12" radius bridge with the compound radius neck.
rapfohl09, most find that a 12" radius bridge works fine with the compound radius neck. You can always file your string slots on the bridge saddles a bit deeper to flatten the bridge radius if you would like to, but thousands of guitar players are comfortably using a 12" radius bridge with the compound radius neck.
The "problem" when you use a 12 inch radius bridge, is that the middle four strings are higher, by a little bit, than they would be if using an 18.5" radius bridge. Its not much of a problem. A lot of folks dont notice or dont mind the slight extra elevation. Some do. If you're one of those, either choose a more adjustable bridge or file the saddles on the TOM.
The nut should be fit to the nut slot. I dont know if those are flat or arched in the compound radius neck. Just make the nut fit the slot. Then its easy to just fit each string individually, like Frank Ford shows.... at
www.frets.com
The nut should be fit to the nut slot. I dont know if those are flat or arched in the compound radius neck. Just make the nut fit the slot. Then its easy to just fit each string individually, like Frank Ford shows.... at
www.frets.com
Using an 18.5" bridge radius would mean the the arch of the strings would match closest to the radius of the compound radius neck. A compound radius is conical and the flatter bridge radius simply continues the conical path of the strings past the 22nd fret. We cut our nut slots at a 10" radius on compound necks which is optimal for that radius as well.Paul-less said:
As CB said, the difference between a bridge radius of 12" and 18.5" with a compound radius is slight and not of consequence to some players, but then again it never hurts to be as dead on as possible with your specs. The good news is that if you end up using a 12" bridge radius at first, usually it is easy to make fine adjustments to the saddles to flatten the radius a bit and see if that feels better to you.
Ok, with a clear head and some quick trig.....
The calculation for an 18.5" radius bridge,
E to A up .030"
A to D up .023"
D to G up .000"
G to B down .023"
B to E down .030"
Total rise from E to D is .053"
The calculation for a 12" radius bridge,
E to A up .063"
A to D up .035"
D to G up .000"
G to B down .035"
B to E down .063"
Total rise from E to D is .098"
If someone calculates differently... speak right up, this is guy with an almost grey beard doing this stuff <--- ME!
With all that being done - it looks like the "difference" between a 12" radius and 18.5" radius bridge is about .045 inches. Thats about 3/64 of an inch at the bridge. That translates into 1.5/64" at fret 12. To me, in the way I set my string elevation, with rule and eye loupe, a 1.5/64" is gonna be noticed (again, if I did the math correctly). I'd want the "variation" to be about .5/64 or less (about .008"-ish). I can set the elevation very easily to half-a-sixty-forth with the loup and rule. Your mileage may vary, and FWIW, I'm playing on a 12 inch radius bridge with compound radius neck, as I tinker with this stuff.
The calculation for an 18.5" radius bridge,
E to A up .030"
A to D up .023"
D to G up .000"
G to B down .023"
B to E down .030"
Total rise from E to D is .053"
The calculation for a 12" radius bridge,
E to A up .063"
A to D up .035"
D to G up .000"
G to B down .035"
B to E down .063"
Total rise from E to D is .098"
If someone calculates differently... speak right up, this is guy with an almost grey beard doing this stuff <--- ME!
With all that being done - it looks like the "difference" between a 12" radius and 18.5" radius bridge is about .045 inches. Thats about 3/64 of an inch at the bridge. That translates into 1.5/64" at fret 12. To me, in the way I set my string elevation, with rule and eye loupe, a 1.5/64" is gonna be noticed (again, if I did the math correctly). I'd want the "variation" to be about .5/64 or less (about .008"-ish). I can set the elevation very easily to half-a-sixty-forth with the loup and rule. Your mileage may vary, and FWIW, I'm playing on a 12 inch radius bridge with compound radius neck, as I tinker with this stuff.
S
swarfrat
Guest
The low E on a set of D'Addario XL120's is 0.042". I could see where that could trip someone up. Probably not me, since my action is set up on the high side of normal, but it could if you're trying to set up a super duper low action where you can fret by looking at the strings real hard.
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,318
Paul-less said:
A standard gauge G string on a bass.
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
Just running it in my head, it looks/sounds/feels right. Warmoth agrees with your results. So, there's two solid votes. Reality may disagree, but it does that sometimes. Pure calculations return perfection that doesn't exist due to variability in values we take as given even though few things are constant or absolute. Makes you doubt yourself, which is sorta good. Makes you double check your work.
Only newbies take things on faith or do things by rote, and that's why you hear things like "I cut the damned thing three times and it's still too short!" <grin>
Only newbies take things on faith or do things by rote, and that's why you hear things like "I cut the damned thing three times and it's still too short!" <grin>
Strat Avenger
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,650
Isn't the Floyd Rose a 10" radius? With my compound radius neck, the string height feels normal closer toward the nut, but from about the 10th fret up, the center strings (especially D and G) "feel" higher. I cannot even see the difference with my machinist ruler, but I somehow feel it under my fingers, which feels a bit foreign to me since all my other guitars are a straight radius.
Similar threads
- Locked
