24-3/4'' scale neck for a Tele?

I'm building a new guitar based on a MIM 50s body I got and ordering a neck from Musikraft.

It would be great to use a 24.75'' scale instead of the standard 25.5'' scale, because my fingers are on the short side (the idea is to use a 1-3/4'' nut w. too because my finger tips are on the fat side also)
I play OK on my 25.5'' Tele but playing my 24'' scale CV DuoSonic is such a great pleasure!

But I'm affraid to loose the particular Tele attack and sound because of the less tension on the strings.

For a 25.5 scale Tele I would use .095-.44 strings. Maybe using .10-.46 would help to get back some tension?
But there are some other aspects to consider, I'm shure...

Experiences? Suggestions? Advice?

Thank you in advance


P.S.: Planned neck specs:

1 piece maple / single trussrod
7.25'' radius
Claptin V back profile (.84 - .90)
vintage 6230 frets
1-3/4'' nut width
24.75'' or 25.5'' scale

Using heavier strings on shortscales is pretty common. The heavier strings wind up mitigating the reduced length and give a similar feel.

Thank you

But, apart of the feel, what about the sound?

Sound is similar too. I have a Comp. Mustang and a short scale Mustang and using heavier strings retains the feel and sound I get on my Comp. model.

that's good news!

what strings do you use in either guitar?

I find the sound a bit less twangy and the bass strings more flabby. Bear in mind that if the neck pocket to bridge distance is the same as a classic 50's tele body that you may have to bring the saddles a fair bit closer to the neck to intonate correctly. A side effect of this is that you may need longer saddle screws and that the bridge pup with now be "seeing " a brighter part of the string with a brighter tone, whereas i would personally prefer a tele pup further from the saddles even on a standard guitar.

>you may have to bring the saddles a fair bit closer to the neck to intonate correctly.
That's starting to get scary.

>the sound a bit less twangy and the bass strings more flabby
I don't want flabby low strings...

- Do you own a 24.75'' scale Tele? (I mean, is your advice based on direct experience?)
- Wich strings do you use on a normal Tele and wich strings do you use with the 24.75'' Tele?

I find the sound a bit less twangy and the bass strings more flabby. Bear in mind that if the neck pocket to bridge distance is the same as a classic 50's tele body that you may have to bring the saddles a fair bit closer to the neck to intonate correctly. A side effect of this is that you may need longer saddle screws and that the bridge pup with now be "seeing " a brighter part of the string with a brighter tone, whereas i would personally prefer a tele pup further from the saddles even on a standard guitar.

P.S.: Nice blond Tele and Champ in your gallery. Is that a MIM 50s Tele?

fernando, i can't speak for personally having a short scale tele, but i have wanted to try one as i have started to develop some arthritis in my hands, and i really bend notes alot and use a hard vibrato. i can tell you though that i have been playin strats and teles for years with 10's, and i got an SG last year to fool around with (24 3/4) and i've gone to 11's on it, and can tell little difference in feel at all. it actually had 10's on it at first and it felt WAY too light so i switched it quickly.

fernando, i can't speak for personally having a short scale tele, but i have wanted to try one as i have started to develop some arthritis in my hands, and i really bend notes alot and use a hard vibrato. i can tell you though that i have been playin strats and teles for years with 10's, and i got an SG last year to fool around with (24 3/4) and i've gone to 11's on it, and can tell little difference in feel at all. it actually had 10's on it at first and it felt WAY too light so i switched it quickly.

That's what I do as well, 10s on the 25 1/2 and 11s on the 24 3/4, seems to keep them feeling about the same...

thank you both.

Dave, same feeling and same sound? (or almost maybe)

If the neck is made as a conversion neck (i.e, the length of the neck compensates for the length from the pocket to the bridge) you won't have to adjust the bridge saddles any differently than normal.

The bridge pup should sound roughly the same, because it will be roughly the same position away from the saddles (in roughly the same area of the strings).

The Squier Thinline's are 24 3/4 scale.

I'll check if Musikraft 24.75'' scale necks are conversion necks.
Thank you, I forgot that when considering the saddle screw length comment.

I find the sound a bit less twangy and the bass strings more flabby. Bear in mind that if the neck pocket to bridge distance is the same as a classic 50's tele body that you may have to bring the saddles a fair bit closer to the neck to intonate correctly. A side effect of this is that you may need longer saddle screws and that the bridge pup with now be "seeing " a brighter part of the string with a brighter tone, whereas i would personally prefer a tele pup further from the saddles even on a standard guitar.

This depends, if I understand it correctly, on the how much of the reduced scale comes from shortening the neck. If the 24.75" scale neck is .75" shorter than the 25.5, then the saddles should stay in almost exactly the same place. I believe this is the principle behind the conversation necks- almost all the scale reduction is achieved by reducing the length of the neck, thereby having minimal impact on the saddle position. I believe that scale could be reduced even further by reducing the number of frets. I noticed this on a Squier Mini which has only 19 frets (IIRC), and it would apparently handle a 24" scale neck perfectly with 21 frets. Even if the bridge, saddles, and pickups don't move, the relative position of the pickup to the scale of the string changes; I don't think you could change the scale without expecting the character of the guitar to change some, but I personally don't think the scale change is going to have much impact from the relative position of the pickup to the strings if the strings are a little heavier to compensate. I'd think you could expect just as much or more change from the decreased mass in the neck. This is all speculation, though. I would call Warmoth or USACG and have a conversation with them about their conversion necks and see what their actual experience is.

One thing that occurred to me in converting my daughter's 24" scale 3/4 Tele SX is that compensated saddles for 25.5 may not work right on a smaller scale. It seems like the required amount of compensation would be less for the smaller scale. I recall some people talking here about putting compensated saddles on their Duo-Sonics, but I found the intonation on my daughter's Duo to be very close- I tweaked it a little with maybe a little bend or just the free play in the saddle screw and got it as close as I think I am going to get it with my very limited luthier skill level.

I had a similar problem, I bought a les paul junior.

They vary in price, but I reckon a second hand modern standard only costs a couple of hundred bucks and is the best shorter scale necked guitar ever. That is not much more then a good neck.

Seriously I tried a whole heap of high end guitars with shorter then the regular fender 25.5 and Les Paul/SG Juniors were the best. Don't let the simple design fool you. One fat neck and one P90 is all you really need. They complement Telecasters well to. My main is a CS Nocasters Snappy, bright and twangy at the bridge and mellow and soft in the neck. The Les Paul Junior does the aggressive midrangy thing in the middle.

thank you both.

Dave, same feeling and same sound? (or almost maybe)

Fernando:

I have a tele copy with a 24.75 neck, it doesn't seem to be quite as bright as my 25.5 teles, but that could be down to the difference in pickups. I think with the 11s it sounds very close, at least to my ear...

Thank you all. All this info is being useful.
Please keep advice coming

930vet wrote:
>I recall some people talking here about putting compensated saddles on their Duo-Sonics

I'm using compensated saddles on my (24'') Squire CV DuoSonic (Glendale's 1/4'' steel saddles) They work very well and give more body to the sound of the low E.
But I think the CV Duo has a conversion neck, althought I never confirmed this (and would love to know)


some related threads:
Converting a 25.5" scale Tele to 24.75" scale (http://www.tdpri.com/forum/tele-tech/117923-converting-25-5-scale-tele-24-75-scale.html)
Gibson scale-length Telecaster (http://www.tdpri.com/forum/telecaster-discussion-forum/179934-gibson-scale-length-telecaster.html)
24 3/4" Scale Conversion Neck (http://www.tdpri.com/forum/tele-tech/84971-24-3-4-scale-conversion-neck.html)
.

I don't want flabby low strings...

- Do you own a 24.75'' scale Tele? (I mean, is your advice based on direct experience?)
- Which strings do you use on a normal Tele and wich strings do you use with the 24.75'' Tele?


P.S.: Nice blond Tele and Champ in your gallery. Is that a MIM 50s Tele?

My experience is with this tele of mine here (http://www.tdpri.com/forum/telecaster-discussion-forum/168642-bstrd-upgrade-wrhb-bigsby-content.html) with a shorter scale and all gibson scale electrics I have tried. I use tens on all my teles and the shorter scale will give less twangy lows, but thats also a part of the sound of gibsons. I usually compensate by raising the bass strings but of course its not like the fender stiffness. And yeah its a 50's classic that i will soon be body swapping haha, cant leave stuff alone clearly.

...keep it a Tele? In respect to the previous good ideas and knowledge, why not just capo up for most playing, then you can drop back to the 25.5 for the unique thing that the Tele 25.5 has. My fav Tele tuning is dropped 1/2 for a swampy sound, then Capo@1st=24" scale=very comfy. Especially good to have that 25.5 if all goes well and you end up, through grace and provenence, with a true Gem that has the magic. Also some day you may want to sell it and, well, few want an unTele Tele, right?

I too have shorter fatter fingers and long palms so struggled at first with the 25.5 length, but have all my guitars @1.75 nut. Over time I have found I have limbered up to it and now I love it for its special character. There is something going on there with the higher string tension and rock Maple F/B that the ebony board'd LP ain't got.

I find a larger factor in discomfort playing the Tele is its ergonomics put the nut a bit farther away from the body requiring more arm extension and thus wrist strain, especially noticeable compared to the Strat with its extended horn moving the nut closer to the players body. I designed my Stratish build and located the horn end at the 13th fret-as I recall that was where the Strat location was and I def. used it as a guide for the ergo layout. That = a 36mm/1&3/8" diff which really is a noticeable amount in feel and comfort. So arm reach is another consideration, and frankly I think it is a larger factor.

So I follow your thinking but would encourage the full circle approach and end back in Televille:smile: Keep the Duo a Duo as well, and the LP a LP.
But a Gibson length Tele can never be a Tele. No offense.:twisted:

Dr.Ow!, I apprecaite your comments. Many trues. That's why I'm in doubt! :p

My existing Tele has the tummy cut. It makes it more comfortable but no help for arm extension and wrist strain...! At least to me.

I keep my Duo stock, even with .09-.42 because I love it. It's so great and special.
But consider that the Duo has a 24'' scale AND top load also! So there's much less tension than in a 24-3/4'' scale Tele , having thru-body strings.

Something I did in my Duo for a while was tune it one whole tone up to gain tension. It suited her sound-wise but it was less relaxing to play it, so back to normal tuning and keeping 9-42 strings.

On a 24-3/4 Tele, would be very different to use a bit heavier strings than to tune it half or one tone up?

I finally decided to keep this blond Tele a Tele and ordered the neck with a 25-1/2 scale.
It is my first V prof. 7-1/4 radius (plus 1-3/4 nut!) so I'll have less things to evaluate and I can always use a capo.

I may order a 24-3/4 scale Tele neck for my other Tele (Fronia), of a more experimental nature.

Thank you very much to all for your help and advice!

After watching a Jim Campilongo video (http://www.tdpri.com/forum/telecaster-discussion-forum/186199-jim-campilongo-song.html#post2141088) I think a Tele with less string tension can still sound like a Tele... :)

He is using a top-load bridge and .09 strings. That's low tension.

Correct me if I'm wrong: in terms of string tension, I'd say that a top-loader 25'' scale Tele will have around the same string tension than a string-thru-body 24-3/4'' scale Tele (both using same string gauge).

I sopose so because using a 24-3/4'' scale means about 0.75'' less string length
and using a top-load bridge means about 0.85'' less (1.75'' minus saddle-to-back-of-bridge-plate and minus ferrule hole)
So almost the same.
Am I right in my assumption?

The 24-3/4'' scale Tele will have a sharper bend of the string at the saddle too.

I have the Squier Thinline Tele with the 24.75 neck, and a Fender Tele with the standard 25.5 neck. The shorter neck twangs quite nicely. The tension is a little lower for the same string gauge. I have nickel 10's on both but the shorter scale feels like 9 or 9.5.

Being on the small side myself, I appreciate the shorter neck (and the 7.25 in radius) of the Squier, while still sounding like a Tele (I upgraded the pickups though). When learning songs I find that the Fender full scale neck causes hand strain, so I use the shorter Squier. Once I'm comfortable with the song it doesn't matter which guitar I use, but still the shorter neck is easier to play.

The shorter neck looks a little funny on a Tele, to me anyway, but I really like it.