How to set up bridge with compound radius finger board?

[swarfrat]

You can search the ends of the earth for the elusive 18" replacement saddles, have the originals re-radiused by a pro, or buy a few sets and get after to become that pro.  You didn't ask, but for me it's worth doing none of that and just getting a straight 12" radius neck for use with those bridges.

Or d) crank your action up high enough that isn't a big deal.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

The differences aren't as big as one would think IMO, I'd wager most would have to read this thread to have it even occur to them.  Afterall, where it is most noticeable is on the middle strings on the end of the neck.  Most humans don't spend much time there.  And, for the actual fretted notes, you still get the benefits of the compound radius.  Rounder cowboy chording, flatter shredding.

 

[Cagey]

In my experience, calculating and measuring string/saddle heights is an exercise in futility unless you're trying to win an argument. In reality, nobody's neck/nut/bridge is perfect and neither are the strings, so once you get done measuring your little heart out, you still have to play the neck a bit and find the anomalies, then adjust for them.

The last guitar I put together was my black Tele. I just now measured the radius at the bridge and it's very close to 16", perhaps a blond hair larger, trying to match up to a Warmoth compound radius neck that I did the fretwork on. I could probably get it closer, but at this stage of my life my playing ability can't take advantage of such fine precision. Still, as it sits, it's wicked nice. I've had several players goof around with the the thing and they all say it's one of the best-playing guitars they've ever picked up. A couple weren't even Fender fans, although it could be argued that this thing is so far from a Fender Tele that it's not even worth discussing. The only similarity is the shape of the body, and even that's not 100% because it's a carved top hollow body.

Anyway, I didn't measure anything setting that bridge up. It fell into that adjustment automatically as I went along, since I follow a course of successive approximation until it doesn't work, then fix whatever's stopping me from going further if possible, and continue on. In the end, I have sort of a thrasher setup, then back off from there so humans can live with it.

 

[Hobosaur]

And the results are....

Assuming the outside E string saddles heights are zero,
The 2nd and 5th string saddles need to be 19 thousandths of an inch higher than the outer saddles
The 3rd and 4th string saddles need to be 29 thousandths of an inch higher than the outer saddles

Assuming the inner D and G string saddles are zero,
The 2nd and 5th string saddles need to be 10 thousandths of an inch lower than the inner saddles
The outside E string saddles need to be 29 thousandths of an inch lower than the inner saddles

Like Cagey just said, the difference would be minute.  The only advantage from re-radiusing to an 18" from a 12" would be that the inner strings could theoretically be 1/64ths of an inch closer.

 

[stubhead]

This site that I linked to explains exactly what to do:
http://www.guitarrepairbench.com/electric-guitar-repairs/set_string_radius.html

And in setting up a guitar, 29 thousandths of an inch is a big deal. That's the diameter of a fat D string (or a really skinny A) and if you want your guitar to play it's best all across and up and down the neck, it counts. But there are many people here who are content with a pretty guitar, and they don't play often enough or well enough to need a thoroughly-tricked guitar. I am kind of a fanatic for setups in the scope of things here, but if you took any one of these "art guitars" and handed them to a pro player, he'd hand it back and ask to see it after the fret ends were dressed and the setup complete.

Of course you can just raise the action up and bang on it, but if you ever wonder why it seems so hard to learn things, at least part of it is fighting your guitar. None of the setup procedure is rocket science, but it can be tedious. To me the time spend on that is worth it, for the enjoyment of play a nice guitar. The reason I put together all my warped stable is because I couldn't get these guitars any other way, scalloped necks and short-scale fretless tenor bass and that - I don't have a single thing from Warmoth that hasn't been modified way past warranty. 

And there are people here who's goal is to accumulate a pretty stable, and there are people who just enjoy building neat stuff. And that's all fine, but when a poster asks about what to do to make their guitar play well, I'll answer as best I can. "Just grin and bear it" is not the answer for most of these questions.

 

[Cagey]

And in setting up a guitar, 29 thousandths of an inch is a big deal. That's the diameter of a fat D string (or a really skinny A) and if you want your guitar to play it's best all across and up and down the neck, it counts.

Considering that's roughly 1/32", and people will get crazy over 1/16" in neck width (1 11/16" vs. 1 5/8"), yeah. You're talking the difference between a neck that feels right and one that doesn't, only worse because you're talking about string height which is even more critical.

It's really amazing how sensitive one's hands are to dimensions. Allow .030 variation in string height, and you'll find yourself tripping over them.

 

[Hobosaur]

That's a good point about it being the width of a D string, thanks for putting it in perspective.  However, it isn't always needed or even desired to play the "How low can you go?" game.  Lots of pros like high action too.  Yngwie Malmsteen, Nuno Bettencourt, and Steve Vai all have high action on their guitars, and they're some of the fastest and most precise (well, maybe Nuno isn't that precise...) players out there.  The action on a guitar isn't a barrier that needs to be overcome to play your best, it's a preference that differs from person to person for various reasons.

 

[swarfrat]

That's a good point about it being the width of a D string, thanks for putting it in perspective.  However, it isn't always needed or even desired to play the "How low can you go?" game.  Lots of pros like high action too.  Yngwie Malmsteen, Nuno Bettencourt, and Steve Vai all have high action on their guitars...

Phil Collen surprised me when I heard him describing his setup. I don't recall him saying anything about his action height, but he was playing really thick necks and 13's. Not exactly what I expected.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

I'm hardly the "it's far from perfect but setup good enough" apologist.  But in many ways I'm exactly that.  I prefer a good to great nut setup.  It's just styles, that's where I spend most of my time, so let the D and G strings be .029" high at the 22nd fret.  To me open to the first fret should have the same clearance as any other fretted point on the neck.  Having industrial strength C clamps for fingers just to barre an F, fah-ged-uh-bawd-it.  Getting both E strings where they need to be and some uniformity for the ones in the middle is good enough.  A uniform radius near the bridge with a T-O-M type bridge even on a mismated bridge/neck radius is fine for most - even the pros.  Most of what I own are individually adjustable saddles, and they always end up looking like a fixed bridge anyway.  I don't think they individual height saddles offer any advantage if the heights end up looking like a heart monitor.  String height is just as much for strumming and sweeping with the picking hand as it is the fretting hand. 

 

[Strat Avenger]

'Sorry guys, but it makes no sense to have an 18" bridge radius when the flattest part of the fretboard is 16".  The flattest part of a 12" straight radius 'board works perfectly with a 12" radius bridge. Those six strings are not going to know that they are hovering over a compound radius neck, and will therefore not gradually change radius as they get closer to the bridge.

The neck gradually gets flatter, and the bridge radius will need to be optimum for the part of the neck that the final action height is set. Industry Standard is the 12th fret, although Fender (at least used to) measures theirs at the 17th fret, which is a difference of approximately 1/64 of an inch. If you set your strings 5/64 of an inch over the top of the 17th fret on a straight radius neck, it will be 1/16" @ the 12th. I did not set this Standard; the industry did. I am well aware that some players prefer higher action.

in any case, the player need to do what works best for them. My method absolutely works. That does not mean it is the only way to do it.

 

[Mor Paul]

The problem is that, if the radius is set at the nut, it will match the fretboard radius at the first frets. so, say 12".
If you have the bridge radius set at the 16" you prefer, it really won't match the neck at all, because of the conical shape of the strings.
The neck is a cone. You just continue the cone all the way to the bridge in order to find the correct radius, the one that will match the entire neck, instead of an awkwardly placed point somewhere in the middle of the neck, which is what would happen if the bridge radius matches the final frets' radius. I know that didn't make a bunch of sense

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

My way works well to, though not the correct way.  If bridges were at the end of a neck on a compound radius, then they would be the same radius.  On the compound radius, it starts rounder and gradually flattens.  The string path doesn't stop that trend just because the fretboard ends. 

 

[Cagey]

You're just not seeing it. I predict that one of these days you're going to have an "Aha!" moment, probably while dealing with something totally unrelated.

 

[Strat Avenger]

Okay, I concede. I'm just glad the set-up turned out good on my Soloist (once I discovered that I needed saddle shims). I admit it was trial & error, and I got lucky. I obviously didn't use any mathematical equations.

 

[stubhead]

Well, the issue to me isn't that "your guitar is no good", or that that setup procedure can't work - I like high enough action I could probably happily play your guitar with no questions or problems. It's just when a new person comes in, I like for them to see the right way to do things - even if WE don't do them.... :doh: There are long, involved processes for making nuts, dressing frets and everything else that after you get used to it, you can blow off the "process" till you're into the last 10%-critical zone. But it's not a good idea to start somebody off like that. Who knows, in five years they might be YOUR guitar tech. :evil4:

Warmoth is in kind of a fix - they don't want it to seem too hard to do, but there is a lot of tiny detail stuff that make a big difference at the very end of the build, re: playability.  And if somebody wants a guitar to play the best it can, they have quite a bit to learn. The good news is you don't have to (and probably can't) learn it all at once.

 

[Mor Paul]

Actually, my first warmoth, I did all of the setup. I just set the bridge to where it felt right, I didn't use math. I like how it plays. But, if I can, I'm going to be doing setups with more precision.

 

[pabloman]

There's nothing more precise than setting up your own guitar exactly the way you like it.  :headbang1:

 

[Strat Avenger]

Not to thread-jack, but I don't want anymore Floyd Rose-equipped guitars (I have 3). My next to builds (Strat & Tele) will be hardtails with individually adjustable saddles.

 

[Patrick from Davis]

Back to the original posters second question, to get the bridge on a TOM to be 18" you need a radius guide and a set of files or sand paper.  And a lot of patience.  The TOM intonation saddles are generally made of brass so the are easy to work with.  You put the radius guide on the strings and look for gaps, loosen the strings, take a little off of the intonation tab, get some tension back on the guitar, and look for gaps again.  Tedious, yes, but it is only done once.  I use the nut files, and it works well.

As for why players like them, they have a sound and the play a certain way.  I like it.  If you don't, you don't have to prove to me why your concept is better, or why you can't understand why people use them.  Just let it go.
Patrick

 

[Last Triumph]

Back to the original posters second question, to get the bridge on a TOM to be 18" you need a radius guide and a set of files or sand paper.  And a lot of patience.  The TOM intonation saddles are generally made of brass so the are easy to work with.  You put the radius guide on the strings and look for gaps, loosen the strings, take a little off of the intonation tab, get some tension back on the guitar, and look for gaps again.  Tedious, yes, but it is only done once.  I use the nut files, and it works well.

As for why players like them, they have a sound and the play a certain way.  I like it.  If you don't, you don't have to prove to me why your concept is better, or why you can't understand why people use them.  Just let it go.
Patrick

Thanks.

I have only really played a TOM for the last 20 years and I find them great. I love to palm mute and have somewhere to rest my hand whilst playing and the TOM suits this perfectly. I discovered HOW much I like them having recently tried to get into playing a Jackson with a FR with poor results, hence I feel I want to go back to a TOM.

Couple of questions if I may?

From memory, the saddles on the TOM are pointed, and the string rests on a notch in what is effectively a blade edge. To create the correct radius, I guess I'll be working the middle saddles to flatten the radius..... BUT... if the saddles are pointed, and I shorten their height a bit, won't that remove the sharper 'edge' and leave somewhat of a flat top surface for the string to rest on? I'm worried that it might affect the tone?

My other question is this - given my desire for palm muting and a comfortable palm rest, is the Gotoh 510 a suitable candidate as an alternative?

Thanks.