Leaderboard

Compound Radius Vs. Straight neck

Street Avenger said:
I keep seeing people state that the Floyd is a 10" radius. It's not. It is a 12" radius, and the locking nut is a 10" radius.
Original Floyd Rose comes with a shim under the four middle saddles that bumps it up to a 10" radius. Remove that shim and it's a 12" radius.

I also have a really hard time buying the "math" described here for radius.
Anything past the last fret is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I adjust my action @ the 12th fret, so if the radius (compound) at the 12th is 12" or 14", that's what my bridge radius needs to be to make the string height even for all 6 strings over the 12th fret. Not 18" or 19".  If I wanted to set my action at the 22nd fret, then my bridge would need to be set (or shimmed as the case may be) to 16".  If the fretboard continued to the bridge, and you wanted to set your action at the last fret, you would need to set it at 18" or 19", but that is never the case.
Sorry but that's completely wrong. If you have a nut radius of 10", and then you set your bridge radius to 12", then the string radius at the 12th fret -- halfway along the string -- will be 11", not 12". Think about it - the radius will definitely be 10" at the nut. So your claim, that setting the bridge radius to 12" would result in a radius of 12" at the 12th fret, makes no sense. When does the radius "switch" from 10" to 12"? Or if it's gradually changing from 10 to 12 and then staying there, how does that work? The strings are all straight lines, and going from one radius to another and staying there would require them to have a corner in them. Plus how would they know that they're meant to hit 12" by the 12th fret?

I understand that you don't get it, but I can assure you that it is right. Just give it a good ol' think-about.

Here's the workings-out:

http://www.jumbleguitar.com/2012/04/17/bridge-logic-revisited/
 
Jumble Jumble said:
Street Avenger said:
I keep seeing people state that the Floyd is a 10" radius. It's not. It is a 12" radius, and the locking nut is a 10" radius.
Original Floyd Rose comes with a shim under the four middle saddles that bumps it up to a 10" radius. Remove that shim and it's a 12" radius.

I also have a really hard time buying the "math" described here for radius.
Anything past the last fret is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I adjust my action @ the 12th fret, so if the radius (compound) at the 12th is 12" or 14", that's what my bridge radius needs to be to make the string height even for all 6 strings over the 12th fret. Not 18" or 19".  If I wanted to set my action at the 22nd fret, then my bridge would need to be set (or shimmed as the case may be) to 16".  If the fretboard continued to the bridge, and you wanted to set your action at the last fret, you would need to set it at 18" or 19", but that is never the case.
Sorry but that's completely wrong. If you have a nut radius of 10", and then you set your bridge radius to 12", then the string radius at the 12th fret -- halfway along the string -- will be 11", not 12". Think about it - the radius will definitely be 10" at the nut. So your claim, that setting the bridge radius to 12" would result in a radius of 12" at the 12th fret, makes no sense. When does the radius "switch" from 10" to 12"? Or if it's gradually changing from 10 to 12 and then staying there, how does that work? The strings are all straight lines, and going from one radius to another and staying there would require them to have a corner in them. Plus how would they know that they're meant to hit 12" by the 12th fret?

I understand that you don't get it, but I can assure you that it is right. Just give it a good ol' think-about.

Here's the workings-out:

http://www.jumbleguitar.com/2012/04/17/bridge-logic-revisited/

+1
Geometry'd
 
http://www.jumbleguitar.com/2012/04/17/bridge-logic-revisited/

+2

The earth is round, and it rotates around the sun. You don't have to like it. :hello2:

My guitar is better than yours.....  :cool01:
 
The fact that the fretboard on my classical has NO radius, and is as comfortable and playable as any other guitar...

Makes you wonder how much these things really matter.
 
Altar said:
The fact that the fretboard on my classical has NO radius, and is as comfortable and playable as any other guitar...

Makes you wonder how much these things really matter.

different playing position. it's easier to barre chords on a flatter board with the headstock high and your elbow out. classical players put the guitar over their knee on the fret hand side, not the strumming hand, the headstock is high and the wrist is strait. try a barre chord on a classical with your wrist bent, you may get your index finger strait and it may work but for me it takes effort and my index finger is the only one that will go strait but with the wrist strait my hand does much better with the flat geometry.
 
I'm well aware of the shim that comes with the Floyd to make it a 10" radius, but that doesn't make the bridge itself a 10" radius. It's a 12" radius bridge with no shims installed.

I guess the reason I don't comprehend the "math", is because it seems to me that by that logic, if  the string radius graduated, then a straight-radius neck would have inconsistent string height as you move up the fretboard, since the curvature doesn't change from the 1st fret to the last. The set-up procedure is no different for a straight than a compound. Only the specs are different.

With a straight radius, if I set my bridge saddle height to 12" (okay, 11" if the nut is 10" and the bridge is 12"), the string height is still consistent from the 1st to the last fret. Yes, the action gets higher as you move up, but the curvature remains consistent. If I bolt on a compound radius neck, the strings don't magically know that they're supposed to "fan out" as you get closer to the bridge. The only thing that changed was the fretboard radius. Sure, I adjust the bridge saddles to have consistent string height at the 12th fret, but that doesn't change what's happening at the 22nd. If it did, then the string height at the 22nd fret on a 12" radius neck would be flatter than 12 inches and would not be a good thing.

Adjusting bridge saddle height for a compound radius neck is always gonna be a compromise, with the ideal setting at the 12th fret in most cases.

Just because I flattened out my bridge saddle height for the compound radius neck, that doesn't seem to change the fact that the 12th fret is around a 12" (13"?) radius just as it would be on a straight 12" radius neck. the fretboard just got flatter from there on.

There's a big difference between going from 10" at the 1st fret to 12" at the last, and 10" at the first fret to 16" at the last.

Going from 10" to 12" (11" at the 12th, as someone stated) is not gonna be very noticeable.
 
It's difficult to argue with success. If you can set your guitar up so it's comfortable and playable for you, you're in good shape.
 
Street Avenger said:
The set-up procedure is no different for a straight than a compound. Only the specs are different.

It absolutely is not. With a compound radius, you want no relief in the neck because you do not NEED relief in the neck because the compound part of the equation takes the place of relief. I refer to my previous post where I explain this.

Street Avenger said:
If I bolt on a compound radius neck, the strings don't magically know that they're supposed to "fan out" as you get closer to the bridge. The only thing that changed was the fretboard radius. Sure, I adjust the bridge saddles to have consistent string height at the 12th fret, but that doesn't change what's happening at the 22nd. If it did, then the string height at the 22nd fret on a 12" radius neck would be flatter than 12 inches and would not be a good thing.

You're simply being willfully ignorant of the facts and trotting out throwaway lines about "magic" to cover how completely wrong you are. NOW is when I start getting annoyed.

Did you even damn bother reading my last post, where I explained quite well using diagrams lovingly ripped from some other website, about how this works? What is so difficult to understand? The radius on the fretboard does not MAGICALLY stop increasing because the fretboard stops.


Street Avenger said:
Adjusting bridge saddle height for a compound radius neck is always gonna be a compromise, with the ideal setting at the 12th fret in most cases.

Wrong. It's not a compromise at all. I said it was earlier, I was incorrect; just as you are now. The bridge radius on a guitar with a compound board has to be set larger than the radius at the end of the fretboard in order to give you even string height along its entire length.

Street Avenger said:
Just because I flattened out my bridge saddle height for the compound radius neck, that doesn't seem to change the fact that the 12th fret is around a 12" (13"?) radius just as it would be on a straight 12" radius neck. the fretboard just got flatter from there on.

Yes, you're right, it keeps getting flatter. Which is why when you set the radius to match the 12th fret you are making the strings unnecessarily high further up the neck.


Street Avenger said:
There's a big difference between going from 10" at the 1st fret to 12" at the last, and 10" at the first fret to 16" at the last.

Going from 10" to 12" (11" at the 12th, as someone stated) is not gonna be very noticeable.

Once you learn how to set the guitar up correctly it's noticeable.

Look, I'll make this really damned easy. I'll throw something together later on... a bit more graphical.
 
It absolutely is not. With a compound radius, you want no relief in the neck because you do not NEED relief in the neck because the compound part of the equation takes the place of relief. I refer to my previous post where I explain this.

releif is also to allow the string some wiggle room since they create an arc when they vibrate. but yes you can have less of it with a compound radius which for many can mean none at all.
 
Right.

I often set up necks with no relief, usually by mistake. You need some relief to give the string room to vibrate. Otherwise, while they may not "buzz" (assuming good fretwork), they tend to sound dead acoustically. Amplified, you can get away with it to a large degree, unless you're a very clean player who needs the clarity and sustain only an undamped string can provide. If you use a lot of compression/distortion/gain, you can get away with murder.
 
...not gonna be very noticeable.

"Noticeable" is the key here. There are plenty of guitars that make people really happy that aren't set up well. But once you've played several guitars with absolutely perfect setups, you note that something feels... wrong, about the vast majority of guitars out there. And then if you have to opportunity to work with somebody that knows what they're doing, you can see and feel the difference.

One of the main reasons Ibanez, Schecter & ESP, Tokai and others came on so strong in the 1980's was because they were sending out guitars with pretty darn good fretwork - and even into the beginning of this century, Fender was sending out the Yngwie Malmsteen signature model with a scalloped fretboard and giant "6000" bass frets - completely unfinished. Not just the sharp corners, they have ridges on top and they're roughly square in cross section. And every single $300 - $800 Schecter & Ibby in the store kicked it's ass...

I have to believe that the Japanese were running some kind of early version of the Plek machines - not computer-based, but some kind(s) of machine that leveled, crowned and de-fanged them. Around 2000, 2001 I took a Ibanez GAX-something guitar in trade for some lessons, The frets were perfect. I mean, just consistent little hotdog ends all the way up and back, perfectly leveled. I've seem other ones, same factory & time period that weren't so good, but they were at least adequate. And everybody knows that the Fender "Custom" Shop just pulls some pretty wood off the regular production line, subs in some pickups made with different kinds of plastic & wire - and then does real bangin' job of the frets, maybe $150 worth at their wages - then sells it for at least $1500 more. A purdy-decent "ROI" or "Return on Investment", yuppers.

But if it doesn't matter to you, that's fine too. Your hands get tired quicker, you don't enjoy playing it as much so you quite sooner and you don't even know why - but it's better for the neighbors! I just cringe when I see someone saying "My Warmoth neck was perfect! The frets didn't need a thing!" Cause Warmoth doesn't finish their frets, they tell you so quite explicitly. But they're caught between a rock & a hard place there, they do not want to tell kids they'll have to spend another $100 to get the neck right (or buy Dan Erlewine's "Guitar Player Repair Guide", visit Frank Ford's site and take the careful steps to figure it out yourself. But only if your brain works that way.

I learned to do frets out of necessity, I was "broke but handy with tools", so to speak. And it's kind of fun, if you can think small (and SEE small, my single best guitar tool is my Optivisor). Of course the perfectionism needed to do detail stuff is now seen as some kind of defect. Now that Mommy is stuffing Junior full of Prozac and Thorazine analogs because he's being all sorts of curious and noisy and childish, it's sketchy to see where the next generation of people who are good at much of anything tedious will come from.
 
StubHead said:
...not gonna be very noticeable.

"Noticeable" is the key here. There are plenty of guitars that make people really happy that aren't set up well. But once you've played several guitars with absolutely perfect setups, you note that something feels... wrong

Very true.  I bought an Epi 335 off eBay.  When it arrive, there was some obvious damage from shipping.  Nothing severe, but apparently the box was slightly crushed.  It broke a pickup ring, pushed one of the volume knobs down and slightly warped the bridge.  In any event, I took the guitar to a professional to be setup.  Now when I play that guitar, it becomes really obvious that my other guitars could use some setup work.  Of course, it's been years since I got that guitar and I still haven't bothered to set the others up properly because they do play well, but the difference is very "noticable".
 
Dan0 said:
releif is also to allow the string some wiggle room since they create an arc when they vibrate. but yes you can have less of it with a compound radius which for many can mean none at all.

The "wiggle room" is your string height. Relief is a workaround, not a necessity. If your guitars is choking out, raise the string height.


Cagey said:
You need some relief to give the string room to vibrate. Otherwise, while they may not "buzz" (assuming good fretwork), they tend to sound dead acoustically. Amplified, you can get away with it to a large degree, unless you're a very clean player who needs the clarity and sustain only an undamped string can provide. If you use a lot of compression/distortion/gain, you can get away with murder.

In lieu of adjusting relief you raise string height. Whether it's at the bridge or at the nut, that's how you do it on a compound radius. Unless you set your guitar up in a really strange way the natural increase in string height from nut to bridge will provide all the clearance you need. You don't set your string height to be the same at the first fret and twelfth fret, do you? No, you don't, unless you're setting up for slide or are Scott Ian.

In my experience, people who say you can "get away with murder" with lots of gain never play with enough gain to know how ridiculous that statement is.
 
You're probably right. Most days, I can't even spell "gane", let alone know what an appropriate amount of it is.
 
Cagey said:
let alone know what an appropriate amount of it is.

That's why they put mechanical limits on the potentiometer.
:party07:

I actually do play with the gain dimed  much of the time,  but it's an '84 Carvin, so that's about 5 on anything a respectable thrasher would get caught playing.
 
swarfrat said:
I actually do play with the gain dimed  much of the time,  but it's an '84 Carvin, so that's about 5 on anything a respectable thrasher would get caught playing.

There are a lot of misconceptions about us metal guys and gain. I should write a book...
 
I didn't say you played it that way. Just that most amps nowadays have crazy amounts of gain compared to 84 X60 (and its been that way since mid/late 80's)

 
Back
Top