Fretboard Geometry

Discussion in 'Tele-Technical' started by Nick JD, Apr 22, 2011.

  1. piece of ash

    piece of ash Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,287
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Location:
    Sugar Land, TX
    I'm not fishing for an argument. Perhaps one of your posts was deleted. I see 2 questions and 3 statements.

    I had no specific knowledge of how a compound fretboard might work with arthritic fingers. Assuming that those arthritic fingers were yours, and respecting your right to preference, I simply advised where you might easily try one of these necks out.

    If I'm reading between the lines correctly at this point, it is clear that you have tried these fretboards and your 2 questions were simply a rhetorical way of expressing your dislike for them. I was just taking you seriously.

    Follow what Nick is saying here... it is perfectly clear that any fretboard that has been beam leveled has inescapably acquired a compound radius in the process.
     
  2. Miopic Chitlin

    Miopic Chitlin TDPRI Member

    Posts:
    59
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Location:
    South Florida
    This is why I don't do necks. The lottery is for people who don't know math, and I play the lottery...a lot.:rolleyes:
     
  3. Bolide

    Bolide Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    4,920
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Location:
    Rocky Hill, CT
    I also drank way too much coffee today, but this is a great thread.
    I'm onboard with almost everything, and will do some cogitationinizoning before asking the question that is not quite fully formed within my shiny ovoid cranium.
     
  4. genesiospinola

    genesiospinola Tele-Meister

    Posts:
    118
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Location:
    Brazil
    Hi Nick! How are you my friend?! Great thread! But, one question...The strings radius at the nut is not 9,5" to put in the formula. Do you know what i mean. The slots heights at the nut are differents and do not do a 9,5" radius. High "e" to low "E" we have to increase like 0,002" by string. The amplitudes of vibration of the strings are different, had to its thicknesses. BUT, i know that thinking the fretborad as a cone is the correct way! Let's think about this. For me the ideal would be to put the 6 strings heights at the nut in another program to find the correct "radius", or i think that is not yet a radius anymore, i'll be a curve "goin up".
    Any comments!?
    Cheers Nick!
     
  5. Keyser Soze

    Keyser Soze Tele-Holic

    Posts:
    948
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Location:
    Johnson City, TN
    That is exactly what Ken Parker was getting at in his comments. The fact that the string spread out laterally due to the changing width between nut and bridge means that the frets/fretboard must either be perfectly flat (infinite radius), or must must describe a cone in order to maintain any sort of even relationship between each string and the fret as we move up the fretboard.
     
  6. piece of ash

    piece of ash Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,287
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Location:
    Sugar Land, TX
    Yes Keyser. It occured to me somewhere along the line that if you wind up with the geometry Nick is talking about because you "beamed the frets" relative to the string paths and fretboard edges, you have effectively cut a compound radius on the frets that is proportional to the string spread.

    So compound geometry is cool... but like many things they went to far? I mean a 10-16 radius... a ratio 1/1.6... that's more than the ratio of string spread. I'll have to play with this in AutoCad... I don't know if I want my silly fixture to be 18 feet long!

    And I don't want to know what those blue levels cost at that length...
     
  7. Keyser Soze

    Keyser Soze Tele-Holic

    Posts:
    948
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Location:
    Johnson City, TN
    Actually, I think 10"-16" is not 'too' far. But it is about as far as you can go without the feature descending into irrelevancy.

    Like Nick noted, once the starting (nut) radius gets up around 12" or higher the relative changes in ideal shape can rapidly be overwhelmed by the changes necessary due to other issues (amplitude of heavy strings, the inherent flex of an organic hunk of fiber, etc.) Or, again due to the really small actual differences, the feature can be created solely through fret level/dress technique.

    To my mind the compound radius is most useful for people (such as me) who like the smaller Fender radius low on the neck (for barre's and thumb over technique) because it is about the only way to get a decently low action up high.
     
  8. murrmac123

    murrmac123 Tele-Meister

    Posts:
    197
    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    This is indeed a great thread, well done, Nick.

    I am going to throw in a piece of trivia which is of absolutely no practical use, but which might provide ammunition for some arcane discussions over a few beers ...or maybe not ...

    In a constant radius fret board, the fret slots follow a true arc of a circle, but in a conical fretboard, they cannot follow a true arc of a circle, instead, they follow the arc of an ellipse.

    There, I did say it was of no practical use ...
     
  9. David Collins

    David Collins Tele-Afflicted

    Posts:
    1,122
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    The formulas there are all great and interesting, but in practice can be greatly simplified.

    If you want the board to represent a truly conical section (mostly for ease of machining while keeping a straight line beneath each string), then there is one simple rule to follow.

    The radius should remain directly proportional to the string spacing.

    That's it. Radius A / Spacing A = Radius B / Spacing B. If your string spacing is 1.5" at the nut with a 10" radius, and spreads to 1.8" at the 12th, then you have 10/1.5 = x/1.8. Solve for x, and you have your 12th fret radius at 12". Simplified formula - (Ra/Sa)*Sb=Rb

    Of course you don't need your board to be a section of a true cone. That makes it convenient to shape a board on a pendulum arm, but it's not the only way to get a straight line beneath each string. You can start at 10 and end at 20, or start at 12 and end at 12 if you want, and if you level in line under each string you will still get a straight line beneath each string. If you do this of course you will not have a truly conical section, and there will in theory be no more than 2 points along the board that are shaped to a perfectly true radius, but all this is actually entirely inconsequential in the end setup. You might have to call the shape or any particular profiles a elliptical, parabolic, hyperbolic, or some other proper name for a geometrical form, but beyond that it doesn't really matter. If leveled properly, each string will still see a series of points in a straight line beneath it.

    I think I may have to disagree with Ken's interview on one small point. It sounded as though he was placing the blame for fretting out on bends entirely on the lack of having a true conical section. Not sure if I read it exactly how he meant it, but if so this would not be entirely correct. When bending, it is quite simply the severity of the radius and the height of the action that determine how far you can go before fretting out. That's kind of a separate issue from the bulk of what's being discussed here though.
     
  10. piece of ash

    piece of ash Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,287
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Location:
    Sugar Land, TX
    The key things in my mind are as follows:

    1) The realization that a fretboard leveled with a beam will arrive at some shape very near a conic section.

    2) Knowing that this will happen would permit the fretboard to be cut to that shape prior to fretting.

    I'll be fretting in stainless:

    3) I have no belief in the sonic qualities of frets.

    4) The best way to refret a neck is not to... use material that will last longer in the first place.

    5) The more accurate the fretboard the less metal that needs to be removed. Nick's demonstrated that the amount of material in question is on the order of a sparrow's fart. But it's still stainless.

    The real kicker is this:

    6) If a neck made with a cyliderical radius will infact become a compound or psuedo compound radius, when beam leveled, with radius proportional to string spread... then that same logic must extend to fretboards made with compounding that exceeds the the relation of radius proportional to string spread.

    Strat spread at nut: 1.4 inches

    Strat spread at fret 22: 1.898

    Ratio = 1.898 / 1.4 = 1.356


    This in mind, it would seem that compound radius fretboards on the order of 10 to 16 have gone too far... in a complimentary sense that "normal fretboards did not go far enough.

    This also means that my nifty fixture must have "focal point" 51.5 inches behind the nut... and the sanding beam needs to be 72+ inches long... dammit!
     
  11. piece of ash

    piece of ash Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,287
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Location:
    Sugar Land, TX
    murrmac123,

    Perhaps we should be cutting fret slots perpendicular to the conic axis... and ditch all those all elliptical sections altogether?

    Where are we going to get curve nut blanks???

    And... I won't buying 3 levels and going through yet another 12 step program... thank you.

    :D
     
  12. Colt W. Knight

    Colt W. Knight Doctor of Teleocity Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    18,871
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Who is Ken Parker?
     
  13. piece of ash

    piece of ash Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,287
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Location:
    Sugar Land, TX
    I think he is Spider Man... right?
     
  14. Colt W. Knight

    Colt W. Knight Doctor of Teleocity Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    18,871
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Nope thats's Hank Parker, or wait, is he the fishing guy?
     
  15. piece of ash

    piece of ash Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,287
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Location:
    Sugar Land, TX
  16. Colt W. Knight

    Colt W. Knight Doctor of Teleocity Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    18,871
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
  17. piece of ash

    piece of ash Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,287
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Location:
    Sugar Land, TX
    Pretty interesting approach on those archtops... hope his engineering is as good as his design...

    No bridge adjustment... pretty cool if it works and lasts...
     
  18. David Collins

    David Collins Tele-Afflicted

    Posts:
    1,122
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    Yup, that's Ken - or at least the company he started. Not sure if he's still actively working with that line, or if he sold it off or still owns it. I believe he's focused on work with archtops now, which though I've not played any have heard marvelous things about. Ken does have a truly brilliant mind, which kind of makes me wonder if the quote from that interview may have come off not sounding exactly how he meant it.

    As to the rest, I wouldn't worry about board lengths (all gets factored out) or abstract focal points. Your leveling bar only needs be as long as your board. If you start with whatever radius you want at the nut, and whatever radius you want at the end, you can easily level any errors out of a board by hand before fretting. Whether the board is a straight single radius, or a compound radius that changes too drastically for a theoretical cone section, the results will be the same. If you adjust your neck before fretting to be dead straight on it's center line, you will end up with a very slight backbow in the middle of its length along the edges. Mark the board with pencil, and start sanding with a bar (fanned to keep in line with string path as you move across) being careful not to alter the radii at the ends. The markings should disappear from the center line in a swipe or two, and you'll end up taking a hair from around the middle frets as you approach the edges. When the pencil lines are gone, you have a pretty much perfectly straight board beneath each string.
     
  19. piece of ash

    piece of ash Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,287
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Location:
    Sugar Land, TX
    Actually... did you see my jig in post #8? I had floundered around for a few hours with a StewMac sanding bean (PoS0) and got no where. Once I made the fixture with the focal point... I was done in 20 minutes... and it was flawless. Keep in mind, this was for a fretless bass... so you have to "get it right" on the wood itself... no frets to make up for this or that.

    I had done fretless conversions before and found that getting good "mwah" over the whole board was tough. This guitar (mine) oozes "mwah". So the anal approach paid off.

    I suspect it'll be easier to dial it in a guitar... if for no other reason than they're shorter.
     
  20. Colt W. Knight

    Colt W. Knight Doctor of Teleocity Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    18,871
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Mwah? Are you talking about kisses?
     
IMPORTANT: Treat everyone here with respect, no matter how difficult!
No sex, drug, political, religion or hate discussion permitted here.


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.