Unusual question on radius

[Zaman]

We all know Warmoth offers a compound radius (10-16). However, has anyone ever thought about the feasability of a compound radius, instead of from end to end, top to bottom?

Imagine a flatter radius on strings high E, B and G, and then a more rounded radius from D, A, and low E. It would be complex and, perhaps, a lot of work, but a radius of 10-16 (or straight 11.5" to be easier) on high E,B anad G and then a straight 9.5 all the way down on D, A and low E would be interesting.

I have a number of reasons for postulating this, but before I get into that I would like to hear some pro's chime in about how this would, if at all, cause problems.

Thanks

 

[MUYFUE]

Interesting Idea...Off hand I can't think of any problems it will cause except for where the radius is changing, like the two inner strings may feel funky....harder to make an accurate neck...OH...the nuct would have to be cut special...AND the bridge has to have a lot of height adjustment range.

 

[rockskate4x]

i concur... it's a very interesting idea but it is probably more trouble than it's worth. Enough people freak out about normal compound radius necks as it is. (Not that I do)

 

[Zaman]

Okay, now for the "Why?"

I am a very technical player and, aside from speed, I am extremely particular about accuracy and minimizing noise from "string bumping" which for some fretboard acrobatics becomes very difficult to avoid.

Most of my necks are Compound Radius Warmoths and while they do play and feel great, I find that I am sluggish on ascending licks, whereas, on my Fender Strat necks which are a straight 9.5" I can downright fly ascending. Its really hard to explain, but, believe me, when you want to play a very fast ascending lick, and you are very particular about enunciating every single note clearly, that curvature going up really helps. What a lot of fast players do is they mute the upper strings and it becomes a real "chugga chugga" effect which sounds cool, but its more of a "wow" effect rather than actually contributing any meaningful notes.

Rusty Cooley was one of my teachers and if you're familiar with his playing he actually plays a lot of ascending licks WITHOUT muting the E, A and D. I know, I know, his playing isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I am using him as a reference point for what I am trying to explain.

So with the radius being flatter on E, B and G you get faster playing on the strings you're more akin to playing fast on, and you get easy bends from the strings you're bending anyway. You don't need real easy bending on E, A and D and you're not always shredding on those strings that often either, as I reckon. It would also make chording on the fatter strings easier due to the curvature.

So, I might be the only one in the world whose playing this will be of any benefit to, but, logistically, I can see production being facilitated with CAD and a CNC.

Thanks for all your feedback

 

[-CB-]

Im knockin my head on the wall trying to think of why it cant be done - from the pure mathematical staindpoint, and I canna come up with a way to make it not work.... then again its Friday.

Having said that, its counter productive, since a tight radius limits string bending in the upper registers.  By introducing a tigher radius up at that end, you're stickin' yer neck out, waitin' for some machete to come along.

 

[Zaman]

Im knockin my head on the wall trying to think of why it cant be done - from the pure mathematical staindpoint, and I canna come up with a way to make it not work.... then again its Friday.

Having said that, its counter productive, since a tight radius limits string bending in the upper registers.  By introducing a tigher radius up at that end, you're stickin' yer neck out, waitin' for some machete to come along.

I agree, but that would be the case if the change in radius was sudden. However, with some tweaking and some mathematical ingenuity, it could be made subtle enough as to not feel like you're sticking your head out the window in a hurricane

 

[-CB-]

Im knockin my head on the wall trying to think of why it cant be done - from the pure mathematical staindpoint, and I canna come up with a way to make it not work.... then again its Friday.

Having said that, its counter productive, since a tight radius limits string bending in the upper registers.  By introducing a tigher radius up at that end, you're stickin' yer neck out, waitin' for some machete to come along.

I agree, but that would be the case if the change in radius was sudden. However, with some tweaking and some mathematical ingenuity, it could be made subtle enough as to not feel like you're sticking your head out the window in a hurricane

No, it doesn't matter how "fast" the change is.  First of all, the neck must be shaped as a section of a cone to have a compound radius.  The change is uniform throughout the length of the neck.  Thats it, thats the way it is, and thats the way its made and has to be made.  Number two - you cant get around the mathematics of a tight radius causing a "bump" for the strings to get over when you bend.

Thats the way it is. 

 

[bwbass]

Sure it could be done, and I'm sure it would play just fine, too.  Fretting it would be a huge pain from a manufacturing standpoint, however.  You'd either need a weird set of custom-machined fret cauls for an arbor press or to hammer them in by hand.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

I think it might make string heights un-uniform.  As is, the, ahem, normal compund radius mimics what the fretboard is doing.  The string path is conical due to the nut width and bridge widths being different when viewing all 6 together (each path is obvoiously straight).  At the nut it is rounder and flatter at the bridge.  The bridge should actually be flatter than 16", because the neck stops, but the conical pattern doesn't.  If there were a compound radius from bass to treble side.  The strings, to maintain a uniform distance from the fretboard, would be mismatched.  If the normal profile of the 6 strings together were  convex, it may now look like a square wave. 

 

[stubhead]

Well, I think it's a neat idea. I like to play a lot of chords that involve partial barres with the ring finger or the little finger up high (ouch), and Warmoth's compound radius is... ahem, less than ideal for this. The last two necks I've bought have had a 12" straight radius, and I figured that was about the best compromise. I've never actually had a problem with string buzzing out on bends because the neck isn't flat enough. Though, I've never even wanted an old Fender with a 7.5" radius - how primitive!  Classical guitarists do these same chords on a dead-flat fingerboard, but of course they only have the first 12 frets and wide, wide string spacing. And classical guitarists are notorious for developing hand problems... how primitive! :laughing7:

The compound neck evolved as a response to the real-world fret leveling that was already being done on curvier necks - after you'd re-fret a straight neck with jumbos, you'd grind the center part of the high frets flatter. As subtle as this difference is, it does seem as though it could be accommodated in the leveling process. I don't know if you do your own fretwork, but there's a lot of latitude with 6100's to reshape the plane of each string. From my point of view, the 1st string doesn't even have a radius, just a distance from the edge... What I'd visualize this as is just a 10" radius on the bottom three strings, leveling out as it got higher. I'm playing mostly seven-strings these days, and the problems get worse, not better.
Insofar as playing a guitar can ever be a "problem." :hello2:

 

[Zaman]

I understand the concern expressed by CB and the others. It would require some getting used to and a different technique. My technique...which is how I came up with the idea I do feel that anyone, if they adjusted their technique (which isn't as hard as it may seem) would find the benefit more than noticeable. Stubhead, seems to understand my idea, and if he's a 7-stringer, then technique-wise he might be coming from the same genre as me (very technical, and for risk of sounding cliche..."progressive metal", "shredding", etc.)

There would be some lack in string height uniformity, but I think this is an issue that can overcome as well with saddle adjustments (on the right type of bridge/tremolo), etc. I just thought of this yesterday so a lot of the logistics are still not worked out in my head yet. Maybe in the end it'll end up being something totally nonsensical, but just maybe it'll be something really cool?

I tried attaching an image, but it wouldn't let me  :tard:. When you see it in a graphic, you'll realize its not as blasphemous as it may sound.

 

[-CB-]

The fretting is the same as a regular compound neck, just backward.  I dont see the issue there.

If Warmoth's machine is built anywhere near like the one at Ovation (Hamer really), and it might be... since its adjustable, you can probably have them do it in reverse.  I think they use a swinging fixture to radius the fretboards, and if thats the case... it might be doable.

Ask 'em!~

And be prepared to pay - no matter how it turns out.

And dont bitch to me when you can bend at all up past fret 12 or 15.

 

[Zaman]

If Warmoth's machine is built anywhere near like the one at Ovation (Hamer really), and it might be... since its adjustable, you can probably have them do it in reverse.  I think they use a swinging fixture to radius the fretboards, and if thats the case... it might be doable.

Ask 'em!~

And be prepared to pay - no matter how it turns out.

I'm sure they'll say no, but it can't hurt to ask I actually am prepared to find a way to do it myself in such case...and, yes, I do realize this little experimentation may be a costly one

And dont bitch to me when you can bend at all up past fret 12 or 15.

No worries. I'll be doing that in the mirror lollll.

Thanks for all your feedback

 

[bwbass]

The fretting is the same as a regular compound neck, just backward.  I dont see the issue there.

If Warmoth's machine is built anywhere near like the one at Ovation (Hamer really), and it might be... since its adjustable, you can probably have them do it in reverse.  I think they use a swinging fixture to radius the fretboards, and if thats the case... it might be doable.

Ask 'em!~

And be prepared to pay - no matter how it turns out.

And dont bitch to me when you can bend at all up past fret 12 or 15.

What I understood was that he wants a compound radius across the fretboard rather than along it, so that each fret has a sort of a mild spiral curve rather than a single radius.  this would be impossible to do with Warmoth's current radiusing machine.  To do it mechanically you'd have to have the arm that holds the neck change length as it pivots with some kind of crazy rack-and-pinion arrangement.  If it were done CNC, which is more realistic, the spiral curvature would not be that big a deal.  You could even make the fretboard an expanding conical spiral surface, so that the low E saw a 7.25"-12" radius and the high E saw a 10"-16" radius.  Seems to me Gregg and I talked about this a while ago.  Like I said, the fretting is the real problem

 

[stubhead]

Each fret would have to be individually bent, the old-fashioned way. If you just wanted to do it the fast, easy way, I'd probably either track down some 6000-sized fretwire & send it to Warmoth or order a neck from USACG with that size, with a straight radius of 10" or 11" (9.5"?) Then I'd level the frets to accommodate a drop or curve in the lower part of the bottom of the fretboard, the low notes on the low strings. AND I'd level the upper frets with the compound effect, flatter in the center than at the sides. You'd be able to get close to a .045" difference. No single string has a radius, it's only in relation to each other.

You'd have to super-careful about the initial conception, because it would look so wrong as you were doing it... Satanically, teeth-grittingly WRONG. It would help to start with a scalloped neck, but Warmoth won't scallop their straight radius necks themselves and USA Custom doesn't do it at all. I'm really considering getting a full-custom neck made for either a Warmoth or Schecter seven-string, because I want stuff that's off the charts - scalloped, near-boaty size, SS frets etc. I'm going to have to think about this really, really carefully.

NOT:

 

[Zaman]

Okay, here's an image of what I'm talking about regarding the fretboard radius:

It almost looks like the curvature would just have to be lopsided with points A and B not lining up? That could at least be a starting point.

It seems that accommodating a compound radius both along the length of the fretboard as well as across the fretboard is too complicated. It is also not really necessary as far as I am concerned. I'm good with a straight radius from nut to fret 22(+). The only "compound" radius I'm really talking about is across the fretboard from Low E to High E.

Are we all on the same page as far as what I'm looking for?

 

[-CB-]

What I understood was that he wants a compound radius across the fretboard rather than along it,

Jeeez, ok... I was on the wrong page.  I thought he wanted 16" at fret 1 and 7-1/4 inches at fret 21.

Oh thats a weird weird setup.  You might be able to do it yourself with some approximation.  There's a trick by which you can flatten out a Fender vintage curve neck with some fret leveling.  You could do this in reverse to a point at least, if you ordered some really tall frets and then used one of those full length leveling bars from StuMac - and kept it on only one side of the neck.

I dunno... I cringe just trying to think of the fret slots being cut into the fretboard.  Lotta hand work there. 

The trapeze arrangement of radiusing fretboards could be used, but it would need a compound swing to accomplish. I doubt seriously Ken would want to invest in that sort of fixture.

 

[DangerousR6]

The only thing you're forgetting is that the neck isn't wide to begin with, so the change in the radii from top to bottom isn't going to be significant enough to even trouble with..

I mean you're talking a distance length wise of over 18", which will make a dramatic difference going from 10-16  vs. width wise at the maximum 2 3/16". CB was correct about this being conical and you are taking a slice of that cone over a given distance.

 

[Zaman]

The only thing you're forgetting is that the neck isn't wide to begin with, so the change in the radii from top to bottom isn't going to be significant enough to even trouble with..

So you're basically saying that no one would notice the difference between a 9.5" radius and a 12" radius? If they would, then, yes, it will be significant enough. If they wouldn't, then why make different radii?

CB was correct about this being conical and you are taking a slice of that cone over a given distance.

Yes, sir, which is why I attached the image of such.

Again, yes, this could be a totally vain pursuit, but I'm just looking into whether or not its a fair compromise between the comfort I feel on strings E-D on a 9.5" radius and the soloing ease on a wide fretboard I get from guitars that have ~12" radii on strings G-E.

 

[DangerousR6]

The only thing you're forgetting is that the neck isn't wide to begin with, so the change in the radii from top to bottom isn't going to be significant enough to even trouble with..

So you're basically saying that no one would notice the difference between a 9.5" radius and a 12" radius? If they would, then, yes, it will be significant enough. If they wouldn't, then why make different radii?

CB was correct about this being conical and you are taking a slice of that cone over a given distance.

Yes, sir, which is why I attached the image of such.

Again, yes, this could be a totally vain pursuit, but I'm just looking into whether or not its a fair compromise between the comfort I feel on strings E-D on a 9.5" radius and the soloing ease on a wide fretboard I get from guitars that have ~12" radii on strings G-E.

It would be impossible to tell any difference between the two radii, because as I said the distance is just not vast enough. If you start with a 9.5 radius and fan it out to a 12 in just the space of 2.1875", the change would be so subtle that only a CMM(coordinace measuring machine) would be able to detect the changes. And there's certainly no way a human is going to feel the difference..