Good explanation, BUT there is one important factor left out, and is why you want an exaggerated conical shape (one where the radius at the 22nd fret is actually more flattened than the 1.33/1 ratio specified). The reason is when you bend a note, you are changing the attitude of the string towards the nut by dragging it across the fret, which reduces its angle significantly to the nut. This results in the string tending to "fret out" since it is the same effect as reducing the radius at the point of the stretch. To compensate for this - and this was the reason for compound radii from the beginning - the ratio needs to be increased to the point where a stretched string also maintains a level of "conicality" similar to the ideal. Warmoth is the inventor of the compound radius, and determined a 10" to 16" compound radius was the best compromise. That's a 1.6/1 ratio. This works well because the strings are necessarily progressively higher from the frets as you go up the neck. That additional clearance compensates ideally for the decreased angle to the nut during note bending.
Lovely explanation, and absolutely correct (except for the claim that Warmoth invented the compound radius, which is actually a centuries-old technique). Playing style will affect the usefulness of the compensation you describe, so it's not for everyone.
I have just been introduced to FGN (Fujigen, Japan) Guitars and their 'CFS' (Circle Fretting System)system. This introduces a slight (very) radius on the fret in relation to the nut because, as you pointed out, the strings are not perfectly parallel to each other. I assume CFS along with the conical radius would produce the ultimate neck considering all mathematical and physical challenges.@@auburnamplifiers1786
I've been researching compound radius necks and going in circles wondering whats what, and this has sold me on the idea. Thank you so much for the killer explanation and for separating fact from fiction.
Thank you so much for the info, i acutally got 10-14 and a 9.5-14 compund radius, now i understand the different feeling in playing, it is the flatness (I have some very flat guitars) but the even action across the fretboard.
IN 1989, Kramer came up with the Gorky Parg signature guitar shaped like a Balalaika. It's also called KGB: Kramer Guitars Balalaika. That all had to do with the break up of the Soviet Union, with rock bands invading Russia to tour and meeting with local bands like Gorky Park. Anyway, I seem to recall that this KGB guitar has a flat fingerboard: flat nut, flat bridge. No radius. That is super cool; I'd really like to try that in my hands right now.
I didn't find the water tower vs burner analogy that helpful, but the description was good without it. Thanks for the video. It gives good insight on the issue.
As a guitar builder I will say your explanation of conical radius is the best I have ever seen. It also puts to shame all the guitar builders who say there is no advantage to them over a standard constant radius. And anybody wondering if their fret board has the proper or optimum radius ratio here is what you do. With strings off adjust your truss rod so the fret board is straight. Place a precisian straight edge on the fret board directly in line with the string path from nut to saddle. There should be no space under the straight edge and it should not rock. Do this for each string path. Also if you put your straight edge directly on the center line of the fret board, it should be straight. But when you check going parallel to the center line working your way to the edges it will not be straight. With that being said will you notice the difference on an electric guitar? Probably not. But on an acoustic you should. A conical radius is the correct way to build a guitar, but only if the ratio is correct and you get the results I described. Things like this separate the wood workers from the luthiers.
For those who want to go cheap, you can always get a compound radius fret leveling on your single radius fret board. It isn't ideal, but it does work nicely.
The content of this video sounds exactly like you read my rant on compound radiuses in the Luthier's Corner of the Les Paul Forum several years ago. You draw exactly the conclusions that I made in that rant. So...I agree with you. Or maybe you agree with me. Either way, the results are the same. The ratio of radiuses at the end of the fretboard should follow the ratio of the fretboard widths at the ends.
Glad to hear we're on the same page, although I hadn't been aware of any prior discussion when I shot this. Curiously, this spontaneous sidebar into guitar geometry has been my most watched video to date, despite my being primarily involved in making semi-custom amps. I have great respect for independent luthiers.
Good Explanation. but what's missing ist, that some Bridges hace a certain radius itself: Floyd Rose - 16", TOM Bridges - 12". For a 12"-16" conical radius, you would need a 18" radius on your bridge.
Compound is fine, it is a convenient term of reference, if people are familiar with the term then it is a short cut to understanding. Compound just means a mixture making a new whole, it works well enough to describe the radii of a cone. I agree and make guitars with compound fret-boards, the next best step is to also use multi-scales, for improved intonation. Thanks for posting this video you defiantly deserve more subscribers.
I found your explanation very useful when doing setups on the newer guitar necks with this design. I did find a video with a PLEK machine cutting a conical radius on a guitar neck which i did not know it had tat capability.
I get that a lot. I once worked alongside a Mick Jagger lookalike who had met Duff McKagan, and he told me that Duff looks like Bowie in person. So there you go.
Now!!...that was well explained in just 6:51mins I felt....well done! ...and appreciated!!. Just getting a neck replacement and was torn between 9.5” radius or 10.16” compound radius/Roasted Maple Neck...for my Telecaster. Now I know what up and made my decision!...Thank!!..👍🏾🎶🎸
That was extremely useful to see the math and examples. I have a Strat with a 7.25" radius fretboard, and a 9.5" radius block. Now all I need to do is figure out is how to use that block to transition smoothly from 7.25" at the nut to a 9.5" conical radius at the 21st fret. Thanks
@@Riverdeepnwide Thanks for the link. That was very useful. A couple months ago I decided to just re-radius all the frets to 9.5" to see what would happen. It worked surprisingly well. Though, I do get some fretting out above the 12th fret, exactly in the area that Mike started working on in the video to get a compound radius. 😎
My PRS has a straight 10" radius AND a fixed-saddle bridge. To this day, it still amazes me that it has the best action and intonation out of all my guitars.
What a great video...my only question is why some *very popular* builders refuse to offer this, even as a feature / up-charge. For massed produced guitars and even for some custom shops / custom runs -- necks are all done via CNC / PLEK anyway, so why wouldn't they at least offer this to people who want it?
Off the top of my head I know these builders offer it right now: 1.) Jackson 2.) Fender (elite series) 3.) Charvel 4.) Suhr 5.) Strandberg 6.) Gibson (all of the HP models?) 7.) ESP (custom shop only) 8.) Warmoth (From what I've seen they basically invented the CR) 9.) Schecter I know Ibanez etc. prefer to do a flatter 15" type radius for the whole neck and then PLEK it so that going down the neck the frets get just a little bit flatter, and they also do fall-away frets for the last 4/2 usually. FWIW I've heard Kiesel used to do CR necks but as of right now it's not an option on their website -- seriously thinking about getting one, I will probably end up calling and asking -- if I find out for sure I'll come back and reply!
great reply, I'd love to have them on all my instruments but that would be a ways down the road. The middle-of-the-road Jackson models seem to be to cheapest option, but I think Schecter has them on a few select models (12"-16")
Thanks very much for providing this comprehensive list. I should add that USA Custom Guitars offers 5 different compound radius options on their custom necks.
Hmm, just did some measurements and math, it seems my string spacing (standard Floyd with an R3 nut) is just about 1.4 times wider at the 22nd than it is at the nut (35mm at nut, 49 at 22nd fret). This means that the ideal compound radius would actually be closer to 12"-17" (about 16.8") than it is to 12"-16" . I know it shouldn't make that much of a difference but it still bugs me.
Nice video! Would be good to know more about why the strings have to be not parallel, making them parallel would be a more obvious solution, probably there are some reasons behind that decision
Thanks very much, Dmytro. Good point. Some instruments do indeed have parallel or near-parallel strings (classical guitars, Rickenbacker basses...). The driving reason behind making strings non-parallel is likely ergonomic: chording is more comfortable with a closer spacing than finger-picking is, so instruments supporting those playing styles will reflect that.
OMG that pic, at 1:19...here I am thinking I'm all slick for doing this with my aveo, a power inverter and an aux input stereo..in 2017 and here's this guy back in the 50's...
Great explanation! Would perhaps have been useful to point out that to maintain the parallel string height you also need to have an adjustable bridge. Most hard tails have a 12 inch radius anyway.
Love the video. I’ve seen compound radius fretboard with a pretty wide range like 10 to 16. I doubt that the supplier has accommodated for the hardware and fretboard widths to match a consistent scale. My guess is the general audience can’t perceive changes that small. I wonder would a player receive more benefit out of it even if its not perfect? Hope that makes sense.
The earliest utilization of compound radius for electric guitars was developed by Michael Steven Scheel (a guitar player from San Diego) and the luthier Brian Nelson (of Seattle, owner of Guitar By Nelson) back in the 1980's after Mike had moved to Seattle. The discussion of this technique with someone at Boogie Bodies (later to become Warmoth) led to them developing it commercially. I heard about it from Mike and Brian in perhaps 1984. To my knowledge that's how it started. - Bill Bainbridge (2019)
Bill that's cool info! In the late '60s I remember luthiers producing a conical effect during fret dress' by taking off a little more from the centre of the frets as they went up the fretboard. As the video mentions it works out to a .014" difference, that's like four or five sheets of paper thickness. I wonder how long the technique has been around before it was commercialized and jigs set up to produce it?
That's a great question, as I don't know whether East Indian luthiers may have tried it with Sitars as soon as they began using wire for frets? Know any sitarists who might know?
That's a good point about the 1960's luthiers, and they were probably trying in a less formal way to help with the same problems of "fretting out" on bending, etc. Interesting question about the history of multi-radiused fretwork, as the history of solid (metal) frets isn't really that long. I suppose it's possible the East Indian Sitar Luthiers may have had early experiences with it, but I really don't know. Commonly available radiused fingerboard guitars might not go more than 150 years back.
I just bought the warmoth modern with a 10" to 16" radius mostly because i didnt want to pay $30 for an other straight radius. I figured it wouldn't make much difference in feel. Watching this video makes me feel better about my purchase. Thanx
I have replaced my neck to a compound radius fretboard and i don't have string buzz anywhere on the fretboard at all. I like my new neck much better and it just feels great to play. Ofcourse by theory what you say might all be true but i was able to adjust my bridge to that radius so i don't feel any disadvantage.
Thanks very much, Chuck! Please check out the Stomplifier videos I just posted. Our new tube pedal amp is in pre-launch now on Kickstarter: www.kickstarter.com/projects/robertjamesrobson/stomplifier-complete-tube-amp-magic-in-a-pedal
Nicely done, Auburn Amplifiers. If you dabble in luthiery or you are searching for a new neck for your guitar, this really helps. Now, if I read this right, then this 1 to 1.3 ratio accounts only for the natural cone caused by string spacing, tighter at the nut and broader at the base. One can--and maybe should--compensate a little more (than 1.3X) at the base of the neck to allow for string movement & avoid fret buzz. Thoughts?
Good stuff! I don't think I've seen another video making a connection between the growing radius and constant action, with straight neck. This is sound math principle in action (pun intended). The thing about compound radius fretboard is that it's less forgiving wrt tolerances. I've had a Warmoth neck with 10-16" radius and the neck was just not as well built as an Anderson or Suhr would have been; I could never achieve a constant action on that neck, not even close.
I enjoyed the video .I couldn't help but think what effect scale length has in the equation? Can anyone clear this up for me? His he figuring on a 25 and1/2 inch scale length.
Nut width : heel width doesn’t work because of the string space. Think about 1.6” nut width and 2” nut width with the same string space. Their nut-heel ratio would be different. But they should have same compound. So this is my calculations with string space. Nut string space 1.360", bridge string space 2.12598", scale length 25.5" -> 22nd fret string space 1.911025" -> nut-heel(22nd fret) ratio 1.40511654 -> idealized compound 7.25-10.18, 9-12.65, 9.5-13.35 etc.
I see your point, but as strings are generally parallel to the fretboard edges, the ratio of nut width to heel width is essentially the same as the ratio of overall string spacing at those two places. The point of diminished returns is reached quite early, and the degree of precision gets overridden by the inherent coarseness of other factors. At the end of the day, the idea is to make a buildable guitar that plays well and avoids any unnecessary misalignments.
@@auburnamplifiers1786 Actually radius decision gave me a headache . I'm not gonna think too much or be too picky. I'll go for 7.25-9.5 radius. Thanks for your video. It helps a lot for me to get an idea about compound radius.
Not possible in my case. First, I cannot find a 24" scale Jag neck on Fenders parts website shop.fender.com/en-US/parts/necks/ . Second, I wanted a neck that was wider and thinner than a standard Jag neck, with bigger than typical Fender frets made of stainless steel. As far as I could tell, only Warmouth, in all of the US, could fill this order. Others could come close, but could not meet all of my needs.
What I did was take a 12" radius block. Marked the nut spacing. Set it up for a dial indicator and checked all 6 string positions from zero. THEN marked all 6 bridge positions and did the same. Since the width and spacing differ between the two in the scale length there is a BIG difference when the string is the same height at the nut as it is at the bridge. When this is applied to the frets with a straight 12" neck radius that is. As the radius goes wider at the bridge the 12" neck stays straight where the outer strings widen out and fall into a different arc. Very confusing.
Thanks. That was great info. My next guitar and bass I build I'll go that route. Wouldn't the bass really see an improvement, since everything is bigger and longer.
It depends on the bass. A Jazz-type bass has a much greater increase in string spacing between the nut and the bridge than a Ricky 4001, for example. If the strings are essentially parallel, then a conical radius is not worth the effort.
This discussion is somewhat misleading. While it is true that a 'conical' (compound) radius will give a more consistent string height up the neck than a 'cylindrical' (uniform) radius, it fails to mention that the fret board feel changes dramatically as the radius flattens out. It is always a trade-off. Unless you do a lot of string bending on the higher frets, you might be better off with the same (consistent) radius all the way up the neck. In most cases, I prefer a uniform radius, as the increase in string height is negligible.
I liked the explanation and all but... is 2 and 1/4" a standard at the 22nd fret? I've tried to look up for measurements and what I found (with Fender specs) was about 2 and 3/16". Also, If i understood this correctly, a wider nut would mean a smaller difference in the total compound. So the "ideal" compound will vary a lot for each guitar. If we put a 24th fret, for instance, the delta would be bigger.
You're correct. This video uses some average figures because a greater degree of precision isn't likely to yield better results, due to the various other factors that creep in, like neck and/or fret imperfections.
If that doesn't make sense to you or hurts your brain. He said just stick with a 7.25 radius with a 1 5/8 nut and a vintage 2 1/4 bridge. Oh and roll your finger board as well. You are not going to need the extra real estate on the fretboard.
The difference from low to high on a 12" radius fretboard is so small it doesn't matter, plus by the time the imperfections of adding fret wire and then leveling them its going to create variables. On a 12" radius If you bent the high E all the way to the low E it wouldn't matter because the nut is 12" at 43mm and the bridge is 12" at 53 mm, so once you press down and fret up higher, you eliminate the nut radius and are using that frets radius compared to the bridge. Pretty much all the greatest rock and metal has already been recorded with straight radius necks from Gibson and Fender. Also, not Satriani, Vai or Yngwie use compound radius.
Good video. Thanks David Bowie.
There's a guy on RUclips called Fauxie Bowie who looks just like me. :)
The man who sold the compound radius
you beat me to it
HAHA, first thing I thought
Wow I thought the same thing
wow, go figure that the best description of the conical/compound radius fretboard came from an amp company...well done!!
Thanks very much, Bobby. We'll be putting up some amp stuff very soon too. We've just been busy with custom amp projects etc.
Right , buy their amps
This was fantastic! The best explanation of Compound Radius fret boards that I've seen. Thanks, Auburn Amps!
Thanks very much, Cael. More vids are in the works.
Fascinating. If the amp guy knows this much about guitar construction, he must be a beast with amps.
Thanks, Jeff. Pat Metheny bought one of my amps in a moment of weakness, so there you go.
You not only look like Bowie, but sound like a Macintosh.
Cool video.
Christian Noir You nailed it ! I was thinking the same, uncanny.
I confess I don't get the Macintosh reference.
@@auburnamplifiers1786 The MacIntosh is a highly regarded audiophile amp with a long history
Now I know how a dog feels when he watches TV
I'm keeping that one..lol
Okay, got my tele restrung with Christmas lights , now do I need to reset the intonation?... Thanks for the great vid ! !
Good explanation, BUT there is one important factor left out, and is why you want an exaggerated conical shape (one where the radius at the 22nd fret is actually more flattened than the 1.33/1 ratio specified). The reason is when you bend a note, you are changing the attitude of the string towards the nut by dragging it across the fret, which reduces its angle significantly to the nut. This results in the string tending to "fret out" since it is the same effect as reducing the radius at the point of the stretch. To compensate for this - and this was the reason for compound radii from the beginning - the ratio needs to be increased to the point where a stretched string also maintains a level of "conicality" similar to the ideal. Warmoth is the inventor of the compound radius, and determined a 10" to 16" compound radius was the best compromise. That's a 1.6/1 ratio. This works well because the strings are necessarily progressively higher from the frets as you go up the neck. That additional clearance compensates ideally for the decreased angle to the nut during note bending.
Lovely explanation, and absolutely correct (except for the claim that Warmoth invented the compound radius, which is actually a centuries-old technique). Playing style will affect the usefulness of the compensation you describe, so it's not for everyone.
I have just been introduced to FGN (Fujigen, Japan) Guitars and their 'CFS' (Circle Fretting System)system. This introduces a slight (very) radius on the fret in relation to the nut because, as you pointed out, the strings are not perfectly parallel to each other. I assume CFS along with the conical radius would produce the ultimate neck considering all mathematical and physical challenges.@@auburnamplifiers1786
@@auburnamplifiers1786 on this note, a video on "fretting out" would be great .. tks
Excellent information and delivery. Well done!
I've been researching compound radius necks and going in circles wondering whats what, and this has sold me on the idea. Thank you so much for the killer explanation and for separating fact from fiction.
Very glad it was helpful, Kenn.
Thank you so much for the info, i acutally got 10-14 and a 9.5-14 compund radius, now i understand the different feeling in playing, it is the flatness (I have some very flat guitars) but the even action across the fretboard.
IN 1989, Kramer came up with the Gorky Parg signature guitar shaped like a Balalaika. It's also called KGB: Kramer Guitars Balalaika. That all had to do with the break up of the Soviet Union, with rock bands invading Russia to tour and meeting with local bands like Gorky Park.
Anyway, I seem to recall that this KGB guitar has a flat fingerboard: flat nut, flat bridge. No radius. That is super cool; I'd really like to try that in my hands right now.
'scribed on that vid ALONE ! Most thorough "xplainshun" ! CPOUND is not just for bending or feel ...THANKS FOR THE BREAKDOWN👍👍👍
I didn't find the water tower vs burner analogy that helpful, but the description was good without it. Thanks for the video. It gives good insight on the issue.
I suppose my analogy was a bit regional :)
I knew the top-level benefits, but this was REALLY well explained. Thank you!
As a guitar builder I will say your explanation of conical radius is the best I have ever seen. It also puts to shame all the guitar builders who say there is no advantage to them over a standard constant radius. And anybody wondering if their fret board has the proper or optimum radius ratio here is what you do. With strings off adjust your truss rod so the fret board is straight. Place a precisian straight edge on the fret board directly in line with the string path from nut to saddle. There should be no space under the straight edge and it should not rock. Do this for each string path. Also if you put your straight edge directly on the center line of the fret board, it should be straight. But when you check going parallel to the center line working your way to the edges it will not be straight. With that being said will you notice the difference on an electric guitar? Probably not. But on an acoustic you should. A conical radius is the correct way to build a guitar, but only if the ratio is correct and you get the results I described. Things like this separate the wood workers from the luthiers.
CHAN LEE $5,000 for acoustic $2,000 for electric and goes up with embellishments.
EXCELLENT video! Can't believe it took me 3 years to come across this.
Thank you!
For those who want to go cheap, you can always get a compound radius fret leveling on your single radius fret board. It isn't ideal, but it does work nicely.
The content of this video sounds exactly like you read my rant on compound radiuses in the Luthier's Corner of the Les Paul Forum several years ago. You draw exactly the conclusions that I made in that rant. So...I agree with you. Or maybe you agree with me. Either way, the results are the same. The ratio of radiuses at the end of the fretboard should follow the ratio of the fretboard widths at the ends.
Glad to hear we're on the same page, although I hadn't been aware of any prior discussion when I shot this. Curiously, this spontaneous sidebar into guitar geometry has been my most watched video to date, despite my being primarily involved in making semi-custom amps. I have great respect for independent luthiers.
Good Explanation. but what's missing ist, that some Bridges hace a certain radius itself: Floyd Rose - 16", TOM Bridges - 12". For a 12"-16" conical radius, you would need a 18" radius on your bridge.
PERFECT breakdown of "compound" radius. Thank you, and subscribed. I am not only a Guitar Tech, but also repair and mod tube amps, so...cool beans!
Thanks very much Bob, and welcome aboard! I hope to have some more videos up soon.
Good job. I even checked your crown height calculations and they're correct (22.2 and 35.6 mils).
Thanks for the explanation. That make s more sense than the reasons normally proffered.
Thanks Rob. I got all that without the water tank analogy. Very good explanation.
Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! You make that scary math stuff very clear.
Wow that was really easy to follow! Your great at simplifying complex problems. Thanks!
That is the best explanation and logic on the subject. Thank you, now it makes sense.
Interesting math exercise. It certainly sheds some light on my fretboard radii. I do believe my next nect will be "conical" or "compound."
i now have a better understanding of compound radius necks. thank you! now lets dance! put on your red shoes and dance the blues.
I enjoyed it, even if no one else did.
Compound is fine, it is a convenient term of reference, if people are familiar with the term then it is a short cut to understanding. Compound just means a mixture making a new whole, it works well enough to describe the radii of a cone. I agree and make guitars with compound fret-boards, the next best step is to also use multi-scales, for improved intonation. Thanks for posting this video you defiantly deserve more subscribers.
I found your explanation very useful when doing setups on the newer guitar necks with this design. I did find a video with a PLEK machine cutting a conical radius on a guitar neck which i did not know it had tat capability.
In fact, this a scientific approach which I respect the most... all you'll ever need is here.. Great video!
Its just like a scientist explaining guitar theory! I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Thank you, Yugal. Your description made me smile.
I first thought it was David Bowe, then for a second (after I noticed it wasn't David) I thought it was Duff from G&R.
I get that a lot. I once worked alongside a Mick Jagger lookalike who had met Duff McKagan, and he told me that Duff looks like Bowie in person. So there you go.
Bravo ! I'm with you 100% . Great vid !
I like my 66 tele neck the way it came in 1966 ?what ever that is it works for me. merry x-mass mr. Roarance.
Very helpful!! Thanks Bowie!!
Now!!...that was well explained in just 6:51mins I felt....well done!
...and appreciated!!.
Just getting a neck replacement and was torn between 9.5” radius or 10.16” compound radius/Roasted Maple Neck...for my Telecaster.
Now I know what up and made my decision!...Thank!!..👍🏾🎶🎸
That was extremely useful to see the math and examples. I have a Strat with a 7.25" radius fretboard, and a 9.5" radius block. Now all I need to do is figure out is how to use that block to transition smoothly from 7.25" at the nut to a 9.5" conical radius at the 21st fret. Thanks
Picksalot check out Mike’s technique:
ruclips.net/video/9peWdSb7Ghs/видео.html
@@Riverdeepnwide Thanks for the link. That was very useful. A couple months ago I decided to just re-radius all the frets to 9.5" to see what would happen. It worked surprisingly well. Though, I do get some fretting out above the 12th fret, exactly in the area that Mike started working on in the video to get a compound radius. 😎
My PRS has a straight 10" radius AND a fixed-saddle bridge. To this day, it still amazes me that it has the best action and intonation out of all my guitars.
Thanks for finding the perfect happy medium between crazy physics discussion and dumbing it down to kindergarten level. That’s a gift.
Thank you very, very much for the uplifting compliment.
What a great video...my only question is why some *very popular* builders refuse to offer this, even as a feature / up-charge.
For massed produced guitars and even for some custom shops / custom runs -- necks are all done via CNC / PLEK anyway, so why wouldn't they at least offer this to people who want it?
I'd love if Carvin would offer this, but sadly never have. Jackson is the only brand I've ever seen that really touts these
Off the top of my head I know these builders offer it right now:
1.) Jackson
2.) Fender (elite series)
3.) Charvel
4.) Suhr
5.) Strandberg
6.) Gibson (all of the HP models?)
7.) ESP (custom shop only)
8.) Warmoth (From what I've seen they basically invented the CR)
9.) Schecter
I know Ibanez etc. prefer to do a flatter 15" type radius for the whole neck and then PLEK it so that going down the neck the frets get just a little bit flatter, and they also do fall-away frets for the last 4/2 usually.
FWIW I've heard Kiesel used to do CR necks but as of right now it's not an option on their website -- seriously thinking about getting one, I will probably end up calling and asking -- if I find out for sure I'll come back and reply!
great reply, I'd love to have them on all my instruments but that would be a ways down the road. The middle-of-the-road Jackson models seem to be to cheapest option, but I think Schecter has them on a few select models (12"-16")
Thanks very much for providing this comprehensive list. I should add that USA Custom Guitars offers 5 different compound radius options on their custom necks.
Thanks very much. Good question. There are probably a few forces involved, one being the significant traditionalist inertia in the marketplace.
Thank you. Exceptional and well thought out explanation.
Incredibly concise and informative. Plus 1m style points, too. Thanks!
Hmm, just did some measurements and math, it seems my string spacing (standard Floyd with an R3 nut) is just about 1.4 times wider at the 22nd than it is at the nut (35mm at nut, 49 at 22nd fret). This means that the ideal compound radius would actually be closer to 12"-17" (about 16.8") than it is to 12"-16" .
I know it shouldn't make that much of a difference but it still bugs me.
Very well explained, loved the video. This guy looks identical to David Bowie, he could easily be Bowie Tribute singer in Vegas.
Nice video! Would be good to know more about why the strings have to be not parallel, making them parallel would be a more obvious solution, probably there are some reasons behind that decision
Thanks very much, Dmytro. Good point. Some instruments do indeed have parallel or near-parallel strings (classical guitars, Rickenbacker basses...). The driving reason behind making strings non-parallel is likely ergonomic: chording is more comfortable with a closer spacing than finger-picking is, so instruments supporting those playing styles will reflect that.
I was told there would be no math..
The internet needs more people like you.
Auburn Amplifiers I was told there would be coffee and donuts😁
😂
OMG that pic, at 1:19...here I am thinking I'm all slick for doing this with my aveo, a power inverter and an aux input stereo..in 2017 and here's this guy back in the 50's...
Great way to explain why compound radius is necessary. Compoud or conical radius is the right way of making fingerboads. Period.
Great explanation! Would perhaps have been useful to point out that to maintain the parallel string height you also need to have an adjustable bridge. Most hard tails have a 12 inch radius anyway.
This actually helped me with a neck I'm making for a custom Stratocaster I'm building for myself.
Glad it helped!
This was a very helpful and interesting video. thanks for sharing.
Good video. If guitar necks were not tapered, these discussions would be purely academic. It's the taper which forces the conical radius.
Love the video. I’ve seen compound radius fretboard with a pretty wide range like 10 to 16. I doubt that the supplier has accommodated for the hardware and fretboard widths to match a consistent scale. My guess is the general audience can’t perceive changes that small. I wonder would a player receive more benefit out of it even if its not perfect? Hope that makes sense.
The earliest utilization of compound radius for electric guitars was developed by Michael Steven Scheel (a guitar player from San Diego) and the luthier Brian Nelson (of Seattle, owner of Guitar By Nelson) back in the 1980's after Mike had moved to Seattle. The discussion of this technique with someone at Boogie Bodies (later to become Warmoth) led to them developing it commercially. I heard about it from Mike and Brian in perhaps 1984. To my knowledge that's how it started. - Bill Bainbridge (2019)
Bill that's cool info!
In the late '60s I remember luthiers producing a conical effect during fret dress' by taking off a little more from the centre of the frets as they went up the fretboard.
As the video mentions it works out to a .014" difference, that's like four or five sheets of paper thickness.
I wonder how long the technique has been around before it was commercialized and jigs set up to produce it?
That's a great question, as I don't know whether East Indian luthiers may have tried it with Sitars as soon as they began using wire for frets? Know any sitarists who might know?
That's a good point about the 1960's luthiers, and they were probably trying in a less formal way to help with the same problems of "fretting out" on bending, etc. Interesting question about the history of multi-radiused fretwork, as the history of solid (metal) frets isn't really that long. I suppose it's possible the East Indian Sitar Luthiers may have had early experiences with it, but I really don't know. Commonly available radiused fingerboard guitars might not go more than 150 years back.
Great explanation. Thanks.
Good video. Good break down. I’ll have to watch it a few times though.
Now i see why my 7.25 radius strat only plays well with a high action. Brilliant video.
i don't get this, you still have to press the string down to the fret right so how has action got anything to do with it?
perfect explanation 110%
Thanks very much!
I just bought the warmoth modern with a 10" to 16" radius mostly because i didnt want to pay $30 for an other straight radius. I figured it wouldn't make much difference in feel. Watching this video makes me feel better about my purchase. Thanx
Brother, I feel like I just got a crash course in quantum mechanics. That was soooooo fast!
Wonderful video!
Good to know!
Great information!!!!!
I have replaced my neck to a compound radius fretboard and i don't have string buzz anywhere on the fretboard at all. I like my new neck much better and it just feels great to play. Ofcourse by theory what you say might all be true but i was able to adjust my bridge to that radius so i don't feel any disadvantage.
Interesting. I just learned something. Thanks, Rob!
My pleasure! I hope to add some videos soon to this channel, as well as to Queen Bitch Amplification and to Fauxie Bowie, my other weird-ass projects.
Subscribed. Thanks, that was a very good explanation!
Thanks very much, Chuck! Please check out the Stomplifier videos I just posted. Our new tube pedal amp is in pre-launch now on Kickstarter: www.kickstarter.com/projects/robertjamesrobson/stomplifier-complete-tube-amp-magic-in-a-pedal
Great explanation!
What a great video. Thanks
This was fantastic thank you so much!
Nicely done, Auburn Amplifiers. If you dabble in luthiery or you are searching for a new neck for your guitar, this really helps.
Now, if I read this right, then this 1 to 1.3 ratio accounts only for the natural cone caused by string spacing, tighter at the nut and broader at the base. One can--and maybe should--compensate a little more (than 1.3X) at the base of the neck to allow for string movement & avoid fret buzz. Thoughts?
Good stuff! I don't think I've seen another video making a connection between the growing radius and constant action, with straight neck. This is sound math principle in action (pun intended).
The thing about compound radius fretboard is that it's less forgiving wrt tolerances. I've had a Warmoth neck with 10-16" radius and the neck was just not as well built as an Anderson or Suhr would have been; I could never achieve a constant action on that neck, not even close.
Thanks! It would be interesting to explore that observation further.
Super, no lengthy pretext thanks will help me
I enjoyed the video .I couldn't help but think what effect scale length has in the equation? Can anyone clear this up for me? His he figuring on a 25 and1/2 inch scale length.
thanks a lot for this very well made and informative video
4 angry thumbs did not like math class.
This video is so great. Many, many thanks.
Your comment is very much appreciated, Joel.
Awesome video, thank you !
Thanks very much for your comment! I hope to putting up some more videos soon.
Very helpful and informative
Thanks very much, Anton.
Excellent information.
great video!
Nut width : heel width doesn’t work because of the string space. Think about 1.6” nut width and 2” nut width with the same string space. Their nut-heel ratio would be different. But they should have same compound. So this is my calculations with string space. Nut string space 1.360", bridge string space 2.12598", scale length 25.5" -> 22nd fret string space 1.911025" -> nut-heel(22nd fret) ratio 1.40511654 -> idealized compound 7.25-10.18, 9-12.65, 9.5-13.35 etc.
I see your point, but as strings are generally parallel to the fretboard edges, the ratio of nut width to heel width is essentially the same as the ratio of overall string spacing at those two places. The point of diminished returns is reached quite early, and the degree of precision gets overridden by the inherent coarseness of other factors. At the end of the day, the idea is to make a buildable guitar that plays well and avoids any unnecessary misalignments.
@@auburnamplifiers1786 Actually radius decision gave me a headache . I'm not gonna think too much or be too picky. I'll go for 7.25-9.5 radius. Thanks for your video. It helps a lot for me to get an idea about compound radius.
Really informative!. I got a neck from Warmoth, paid extra to get a constant 10" radius, may have to reexamine that next time.
you might as well have bought one from Fender...
Not possible in my case. First, I cannot find a 24" scale Jag neck on Fenders parts website shop.fender.com/en-US/parts/necks/ . Second, I wanted a neck that was wider and thinner than a standard Jag neck, with bigger than typical Fender frets made of stainless steel. As far as I could tell, only Warmouth, in all of the US, could fill this order. Others could come close, but could not meet all of my needs.
Oh man I’m screwed. I never put up Xmas lights!
very well put great info
Thanks very much for your comment.
Amazing análysis!
Great example.
What I did was take a 12" radius block. Marked the nut spacing. Set it up for a dial indicator and checked all 6 string positions from zero.
THEN marked all 6 bridge positions and did the same. Since the width and spacing differ between the two in the scale length there is a BIG difference when the string is the same height at the nut as it is at the bridge.
When this is applied to the frets with a straight 12" neck radius that is. As the radius goes wider at the bridge the 12" neck stays straight where the outer strings widen out and fall into a different arc.
Very confusing.
my fano has a 7.25 o 9.5 radius and is very nice. i would think a 9.5 to 12 would also be great... :}
Thanks. That was great info. My next guitar and bass I build I'll go that route. Wouldn't the bass really see an improvement, since everything is bigger and longer.
It depends on the bass. A Jazz-type bass has a much greater increase in string spacing between the nut and the bridge than a Ricky 4001, for example. If the strings are essentially parallel, then a conical radius is not worth the effort.
Like Towelie in South Park says, "I have no idea what's going on". ;)
This discussion is somewhat misleading. While it is true that a 'conical' (compound) radius will give a more consistent string height up the neck than a 'cylindrical' (uniform) radius, it fails to mention that the fret board feel changes dramatically as the radius flattens out. It is always a trade-off. Unless you do a lot of string bending on the higher frets, you might be better off with the same (consistent) radius all the way up the neck. In most cases, I prefer a uniform radius, as the increase in string height is negligible.
I liked the explanation and all but... is 2 and 1/4" a standard at the 22nd fret?
I've tried to look up for measurements and what I found (with Fender specs) was about 2 and 3/16".
Also, If i understood this correctly, a wider nut would mean a smaller difference in the total compound.
So the "ideal" compound will vary a lot for each guitar. If we put a 24th fret, for instance, the delta would be bigger.
You're correct. This video uses some average figures because a greater degree of precision isn't likely to yield better results, due to the various other factors that creep in, like neck and/or fret imperfections.
God Damn dude.. Hands down the best explanation of neck radius & contributing factors that I've seen.. Thx
If that doesn't make sense to you or hurts your brain. He said just stick with a 7.25 radius with a 1 5/8 nut and a vintage 2 1/4 bridge. Oh and roll your finger board as well. You are not going to need the extra real estate on the fretboard.
The difference from low to high on a 12" radius fretboard is so small it doesn't matter, plus by the time the imperfections of adding fret wire and then leveling them its going to create variables. On a 12" radius If you bent the high E all the way to the low E it wouldn't matter because the nut is 12" at 43mm and the bridge is 12" at 53 mm, so once you press down and fret up higher, you eliminate the nut radius and are using that frets radius compared to the bridge.
Pretty much all the greatest rock and metal has already been recorded with straight radius necks from Gibson and Fender. Also, not Satriani, Vai or Yngwie use compound radius.
Really enjoyed the video. A day is wasted if you don’t learn something new.
Great tutorial!!........thanks!
so this means that the frets will remain level but they will also be oddly shaped as they have to take up for the difference in radius?
Hmmm probably explains why my BC rich mockingbird plays so good