For sure. I wouldn't hesitate to use modern technology if I knew how to. This guy had a very interesting project using a DIY router setup: ruclips.net/user/shortsXTmFlZFpkFs?si=-UbATXDewN1P-ptR Hand tools do take forever, and it's very meticulous work. Would love to speed it up, and I'd love to know if someone has a CNC setup for doing so.
I actually didn't refinish it -- my friend and mentor Steve did. After I was done with the refret, he just sprayed it with nitrocellulose lacquer. I've sprayed a few nitro finishes in my time, both bodies and necks -- it's great, but just takes forever. If this weren't a vintage Telecaster I would have suggested a shellac finish. It's all I personally use anymore. Aerosol finishes in general are extremely toxic and I've preferred to use freshly mixed shellac -- dissolved in grain alcohol -- whenever possible. And it is my favorite finish on necks, for sure. The problem with spraying a finish after a refret is the finish tends to pool up around the frets, and you lose a bit of fret height. Finishing the neck *before* installing the frets totally averts this. I will say, nitro is great, and looks great...but a royal pain to wait for. Shellac and a simple paper towel, or even better, a lint-free cloth. That's my favorite way to go. I've been meaning to make a video going over my Telecaster build/assembly. I did a whole bunch of work to that. I did an ebony grain fill with Timbermate wood filler, and then did a shellac finish. The shellac finish took forever. I think I used olive oil at some points as a lubricant. But it came out very glossy. Just brilliant. I think shellac is just an excellent finish all around, and it's non-toxic, so you can use it indoors all day long with no issues, don't need to wear gloves, a mask, or anything. It also dries very quickly. I do think the fresh shellac is best. I've heard of one other guitar tech who complained to me personally that when he's used shellac, it got gummy after a while. Like it never fully set up. He was using store bought stuff though, like the Zinsser Shellac from Home Depot. You get your own flakes and mix up small jars, and you'll be good to go. I've actually been meaning to get some better quality bottles, like chemical grade, as the alcohol does tend to evaporate when in those little glass dropper bottles. The droppers are convenient but they're not airtight and any solvents or liquids you store in them will evaporate eventually, and totally screw up your carefully calculated ratios. I have some Paraloid B72 that I dissolved in acetone that's suffering a similar fate. That might be a future video -- store your mixed finishes in chemical / lab grade bottles. Amazon has a good selection. I have quite an obsession with glass bottles in general and those fit the bill! 100ml should be a good size for most applications. I'm not sure how long the shelf life on shellac is but it may be around 6 months or so.
Thank you, deep information here! I have very short fingers and dream about a 7.25" compound radius replacement for my Strat with the smallest possible nut width - maybe around 39 or 40mm so would be able to properly grab the guitar neck doing the thumb muting and being able to reach for the notes on the high strings. I feel like every mm would make a lot of difference. I've got a soft V shape neck from Warmoth and it was a HUGE improvement but I feel I still need to get something rounder / thinner / with a smaller nut width to do it confortably. Any ideas about where or how could I buy a neck with such custom specs? Thanks
Have you tried miniature guitars like the Squier Mini Strat or one of the SX 3/4 size guitars? Those can be great. 40mm and 39mm are extremely narrow, like Hagstrom bass territory. For guitars, the narrowest I've heard of is around 41mm on the miniature guitars. I almost was going to say converting a short scale bass to a guitar could be an interesting project, though the scale length is so much longer on those, and the greater distance between the frets wouldn't do you any favors -- even if it did work, which it might not with such a narrow spacing, and it would likely be a *major* project. I put 4 guitar strings on this bass here: ruclips.net/video/6hLpN60SLPQ/видео.htmlsi=SD5YG-RjE4lWOxAi Very narrow neck, easy to play, but the very long scale length makes it hard to play at the same time -- laterally easy, longitudinally difficult! I'd say it's still worth reaching out to Warmoth, USA Custom Guitars, and anyone else you can find, and ask what the narrowest possible nut width they could do would be. Usually they'll taper to a standard width near the end to fit in standard neck pockets. But let me know. I'd say a miniature guitar would be a tremendous help for you. I struggled with playing the intro tapping lick to Hot For Teacher on my main Strat but I could do it so easily on that SX mini. Much easier to play. I'll keep brainstorming though!
@ yeah, actually I've just borrowed a friend's daughter pink mini Strat to check if that would do it and even if I like it I still feel that the neck is bulkier then I expected and It is actually easier to mute with my thumb on the Warmoth Soft v regular size than on thee mini Strat since it has a bigger shoulder. I still need to check on of those Ibanez thin necks but I am not a fan of the Super Strat style. I feel that a 7.25 radius like on a Fender Vintage replacement neck would work but I have never had a 7.25 neck in my hands and those are not easy to find nor cheap. So if I decide to buy one just to try I figured it would be better if it had a compound radius from the start.
@pedroconforti I'll see if I can find a Squier neck I was working on. I was experimenting with a 4.75" radius. I made my own radius block to do it. I always finish by compounding them. I originally intended it to be fretless, as string bending wouldn't work very well on a neck like that. But if I can get that together and it works -- I'll let you know. It would probably end up as something like a 4.75" - 7.25" compound. I've been curious to see how it would work, or if it would work. I think it still has the fret slots unfilled so I could refret it. If it ends up working that would be pretty cool. I'll see if I can find it and finish it, it's only about halfway done last time I took it out
Yes, that would work. So on the example around 2:42, you'd just plug in, for example, 25.5" on a Strat, as the bridge is about 25.5" from the nut. In that example, 7.25" ( 51" + 25.5" ) / 51", you'd get 10.87" for the bridge. You could round that up to 11", so your bridge will be set at 11". The bridge should be a mere extension of the formula, as it's just another section of a cone. I haven't personally tested this, but mathematically it makes perfect sense that you could use this formula to determine the proper radius at the bridge. Excellent point! So when doing a build this would be particularly helpful if selecting a bridge with a fixed radius, like locking tremolos with non-adjustable, non-shimmable saddles.
how would you normally go about setting the bridge radius on, say, a strat with a compound radius? is there a more common method than mathematically extending the cone out to the bridge?
@@EduardoVelezIII I *always* set the action/radius by each individual string, whenever possible. On one Strat I'm working on right now, for example, I have the action at around .052" Low E, .046" A, .039" D, then .030" for the G, B and E, all at the 12th fret. Generally speaking I get the G, B and E strings to the same height, then get the D a bit higher, the A a bit higher than the D, and the Low E the highest of all. 1st fret action is around .018 for EAD, and around .012 for GBE. .000" relief measured at the 7th fret. I do this the same exact way every time: set the action for each individual string whenever possible. I don't worry about what radius a board is or isn't, and I never have to know -- all that matters is the action for each individual string. 4/64" bass - 3/64" treble is generally considered the "lowest reasonable action," though I usually shoot lower than that. Just keep in mind: GBE the same, D a little higher, then A a little higher than D, Low E the highest. This is how I do all my setups and I find it works beautifully. And it will vary guitar to guitar. It is true that a flatter radius will generally allow for more string bending without issues, so you can get a lower radius. Sometimes you need a little more height on the Low E to avoid buzzing, etc. My standard is around .000" to .002" relief at the 7th fret, with around .018" EAD / .011" GBE at the 1st fret, and .046" Low E / .030" High E for "crazy low action." I think this is just about as reasonably low as any guitar can be expected to go with excellent fretwork. I have seen flatter radius boards get to .025" at the 12th fret on the treble strings but this is really pushing it to the limit. I've been planning on doing a video about this for quite a while. Out of everything I do, setups are probably the one thing I have the most experience with, and I'm *very* adamant about setting string heights individually *whenever possible.* I also am a huge advocate for the digital action gauge, which Davide Bissoli of Rectify Master invented, though other companies like LMI have made their own version. Keep in mind if you use a digital gauge, you *must* measure in the playing position, and be very careful not to accidentally depress the string with the probe of the gauge when you go to test it -- before you mean to press it down, of course. If the guitar isn't in the playing position, the probe will almost certainly depress the string before taking your reading, which will give you massively inaccurate results. The one exception here is action at the 1st fret, as the strings are usually so tight/stiff there that they can resist the light weight of the probe pressing down on them. Even with the guitar face up on the work bench. So I usually will measure action at the 1st fret with the guitar lying down and will adjust the nut slots accordingly. Also make sure the neck is as close to dead straight as possible when filing the nut slots. More relief = higher action at the 1st fret. You want the nut slots cut to their lowest depth with the neck straight. If you cut them to their lowest depth while the neck has some relief in it, you'll be stuck at that relief, and if you try to straighten the neck beyond that, the strings might buzz open at the first fret. Anyway. I could keep going. I know your original question had nothing to do with any of this, but I couldn't help myself. I just love talking guitar! So yes: don't worry about the radius, and just focus on individual string heights. You may see varying opinions on optimal action. You might want to get the G a bit higher than the B and the high E for example. Or have the Low E closer in action to the rest of the strings. But as a guideline, your Low E string should be somewhere around .020" higher than your High E string. So the Low E at .050" if your High E is at .030". Again, generally speaking. I'm a stickler for precision setups and do extensive understring leveling to get things where I want. And use a digital gauge. For just a machinist ruler, try 3/64" treble - 4/64" bass. You can set it up the way I do or have a very gradual increase in action as you progress from High E to Low E. But that kind of variation in action is a general guideline. Go with single strings and you'll never have to worry about radius again. You can measure it for your own information, but you'll be able to set up any guitar without having a clue what the radius is and be OK every single time, as long as you follow those tips.
If we use 10" radius block at the end of the fretoard we'll don't get the correct radius formula at the bridge, maybe better go with 9.5 to the end and after let the sand beam do the job, sanding EXACLY thru the strings line. I see it's very easy go over radius formula at the last frets if you don't sanding in the right pattern.
Excellent question! Really got me thinking. That means I'm going to type a LOT....so buckle up! I'm excited to share my thoughts, even though I don't have a complete answer to your question. Here are my thoughts: First, the topic of string bending: The necessity for lower saddles on the outer strings is *precisely* why string bending is such a big issue with single radius boards. The High E string saddle, for example, is fixed in place, like all the saddles, once you set your action. Say you set the action open at the 12th fret. The High E string is going over the outer radius of the fret, which is *much lower* than the middle of the fret, at the peak of the fret radius. When you bend that High E string, the saddle is staying in the same place, but the string is riding along the fret top. As it approaches the middle of the fret, your action *effectively gets lower as you bend.* Why? Because the fret height is increasing, while the saddle height is staying the same. The distance between the bottom of the string and the top of the frets has *decreased,* which means lower action. So a compound radius *absolutely* helps with avoiding choking out on string bends, as the reduction in action as you bend the strings is not as great. That's one way of putting it, at least. It's tricky to explain but I think that's one of the simpler ways to put it. Now, for un-bent strings: As for the action in terms of an un-bent string, i.e., on a single plane -- it makes sense to me that the frets should be leveled *along the string path* to get the fret tops as even as possible under the string. I'd have to take digital measurements of the action *at each fret* on a conical board vs. a single radius board -- and very important to have the same exact relief as well -- to say for sure. This is one reason I love digital measurements with guitars. It takes all the guesswork out. From nut to saddle, the action increases. The lowest point is at the nut/1st fret, where the string tension is highest, so the action can afford to be lower -- and as we go up the fretboard, the action increases slowly but surely. Say, .010" at the 1st fret, to .027" at the 12th fret (if you like insanely low action like I do). The question would be, would the action on frets 2-11 be different on a conical profile board vs. a single radius board, with a straight neck? Would we see a smooth, steady increase on a conical board, but more erratic measurements on a single radius board? I have no idea. I'd be curious how neck relief affects both as well. You'd need two guitars with *confirmed* accurate radii -- single radius in one case, conical in the other -- and then set them to say, .000" relief, and measure the action at every fret on every string, and then repeat at say, .005" relief. I'd be very curious. If there *is* any discrepancy in action, it won't be seen at the 1st and 12th frets, as those can be set very accurately and very easily. We'd have to look at the consistency of the action at the *other* frets between them to get a better idea. And even the frets beyond 12, up to 21 / 22 / 24. I think of this as a poor man's PLEK scan. With a digital action gauge and a little time and patience you can map stuff like this out, though human error has to be watched out for. This is also one reason I think understring leveling is superior, and to an extent, the thinner the leveler, the better, as you can more accurately trace individual string paths with a narrower leveling beam. Too wide and you can't follow the string paths accurately. It would make sense that to follow the string paths most accurately, the beam should only level under 2 string at once *at most.* But now I'm getting off topic. Keep in mind these are all tiny measurements, but think of the difference in feel between an .008" high E string and a .010". In Guitar World, thousandths of an inch (or millimeters) are king. So even small differences can make a huge difference. For me, it's simple: level along the string paths. I *never* maintain a single radius on any guitar, and *always* level under string tension, and *always* follow the string paths, which *automatically* creates a conical profile on the fret tops or fret board. And it works great. I'm consistently able to get an action of around .030" on the GBE strings at the 12th fret, and around .046" Low E, .040" A, .035" D. That's my typical personal preference -- -- though many people seem to prefer the action closer to .040"-.045" open at the 12th fret on the GBE strings, and around .060" on the Low E, and somewhere inbetween on the A and D, like around .050". And for the 1st fret it's always the same, around .018" EAD, and .010" GBE. Getting the lowest action possible at the 1st fret without any buzzing -- even when playing hard -- guarantees great intonation and an easy feel. I wish I could've given you a better answer, but I need to do more research. To *me personally,* the idea of using a radius block to level single radius frets is insane. I just level under string tension using a Rectify Master Light understring beam, and go along the string paths -- works brilliantly every time. Another trick is to do a "pseudo compound radius" where you flatten the middle of the frets even more. This creates a flatter conical profile on the fret tops regardless of how the fretboard is profiled. Of course, you need the fret height to accommodate this leveling. Getting the board profiled closest to how you want it is *always* best, but if you have enough fret height to play around with, you can get away with doing an aggressive conical profile just on the fret tops. The most extreme I ever did was on a Strat with frets around .060" high. By the time I got it down to the point where I was able to do whole step bends on the High E string without it choking out, the middle of the frets were around .045". Got everything leveled out, felt great -- -- the middle of the frets lost a lot of material, but on that guitar, that's what it took to solve the problem. Fortunately it had plenty of height to accommodate it. For all that work though, sometimes you'd think it would be easier to just pull the frets, radius the board the *right* way, and refret it, which will leave you with very minimal fret leveling, vs. hogging off a ton of material and needing a *LONG* time to recrown and polish the frets.
@@guitar_md I appreciate the long detailed reply. I agree that using a single radius is insane, conical just makes more sense to me. This video and others have me tearing down a Les Paul right now to convert it to a compound radius. To further add to the complexity and confusion on bending strings on a single radius: a string bend will increase the tension on said string, which will reduce how much lateral movement the string has in its vibration. So theoretically, the more it's bent, the less action is required to prevent it from muting out (I think). I also think this concept could be considered on compound radii too. I'm sure there is a mathematical perfect radius that is derived from the math in this video + unknown math relating to string gauge, scale length and tune.
@@elijahbarr9581 Yep -- it all comes down to the numbers. There *has* to be a definitive *lowest action possible* for a given conical profile, scale length, string gauge and tuning. "Lowest possible action" is a term I came up with a while ago and I think it will eventually become an important benchmark for evaluating the quality of fretwork. As long as we're doing hand work, there will be *fret profiling* involved, which goes beyond mere fret leveling. I do all of this under string tension and I believe it to be the most accurate method we have available short of a PLEK machine, and even then, it may be superior for the fine finish work -- the fine tuning to dial things in, even if a PLEK can get it *most* of the way there. Anyway, the "lowest possible action" has to be a numerical value. And I consider that to be the open 12th fret action. It seems set in stone that the "lowest possible action" in regards to the 1st fret is around .015" for the wound strings and around .009" - .010" for the plain strings, and the neck relief, obviously .000". The action open at the 12th is where the rubber really meets the road. The string tension is so high at the first fret that you can get that same low action regardless of the radius or anything else. But the action higher up, assuming you want to bend strings, will be limited by degree of curvature of the fingerboard. The flatter it is, the lower you'll be able to get the action without running into choking out on bends. For the lowest *preferred* action, I'd say for me, around .025" on the GBE strings and around .035" on the EAD strings is the lowest I'd ever need it, with .000" to .002" of relief as measured at the 7th fret, and measured open at the 1st fret, about .015" on the EAD, and .009" - .010" on the GBE. That is *stupidly low* action, but also the lowest I'd want it to be. And it's OK on whole step bends, as I aggressively did a "pseudo conical profile" by profiling the fret tops -- but beyond whole step bends, it does choke out, even to the point of completely dying out, in some places. I'm coming to accept that for stupidly low action (the way I like it), a flatter conical profile is necessary. But I would be curious that with an action that low, what would be required to be able to have beyond whole step bends with no choking out? 16" - 20" might be a good place to start but I may have to go even flatter than that if I wanted unlimited bending with no issues. I approach guitar work primarily from the perspective of an avid guitarist. To me, this is one of my greatest advantages. I'm my best customer. I am the most demanding person I've ever met in my life when it comes to guitar setups, fretwork, the feel and functionality of the guitar -- -- I would hate to have me as a customer! I nitpick everything endlessly and am extremely obsessive and will dial in my setups in to as close to plus or minus .001" everywhere, as I possibly can. I'm also constantly working on lightening up my technique. One of my goals is to continue using the lightest strings I can, with the lowest action I can, and play as expressively as possible with the least amount of tension possible. For me, guitar is like meditation, and in order for that meditation to not be interrupted, the guitar has to perform as perfectly as possible. I used to be huge into Japan and samurai when I was growing up, and was captivated by the idea of forging a katana. I suppose that interest translated into guitar work. I see my guitar as a tool in the same way now, and my obsession with guitar tech work and customizations was all inspired by that dream of crafting something perfect -- as close to immaculate as possible, a tool that can function so perfectly that it can just be like an extension of a person's body. Dramatic, I know. But I'm very serious about this. My ultimate guitar would probably involve carbon fiber for stability and durability, especially of the neck, some kind of polyphonic infinite sustainer system that is also easy and intuitive to use, and setup and fretwork that allows for total freedom of expression. My current "baby" is my 2005 Mexican Strat, which I've modified to the nth degree. But anyway, I'm getting very far ahead of myself. It's all about the numbers. That's the main point here. Everything can be measured and documented and reproduced. IMO a seasoned guitar tech should be able to visualize how a guitar will feel in his hands based on the numbers of the setup: 1st and 12th fret action and relief at the 7th fret.
Looks like I can go lower on my treble string setups. your 0.76mm action at the 12th beats my 0.933mm. But I just set all the strings to the same action - so basically, I set them all to what the 6th string needs. And I never use falloff. Also, I'm running Ernie Ball Extra Slinkeys - 8's thru 36w's. So I don't need as much flopping room as you do with that 46 gauge string.
Lately I've been running .008, .011, .0135, .022, .030, .042. I'm never sure what to expect from the Low E. "Buzz" seems to be an undefined variable, that can't be objectively measured -- just heard, and most people have a threshold for what counts as buzz, and how much of it they can live with. What's your relief? Generally the E and the A are the only ones I get a bit higher -- the 0.76mmm seems to work fine for DGBE. I've tried every which way. Old fashioned leveling with the strings off, neck straight, flat steel beam. And the other methods I talk about here. 0.933mm on the Low E is definitely very low. If you're getting that, I'm curious how you'd define it -- any light buzzing or clear as a bell? And what method do you use? Generally I only use fallaway if necessary -- but I may have to redefine what "necessary" means. 0.933mm on the Low E. That and 0.76mm on the GBE, and the D and A just a touch above that, would be ideal. The last frontier for me is the Low E and A -- and again, part of the problem is not having a standard for "buzz." I have played a couple guitars that were clear as a bell on the Low E around that measurement. Maybe once or twice. Exceptionally rare on a stock guitar. Now if I could master that, I'd really be in business. 4 out of 6 strings ain't bad but I need to get that E and A. One thing I've wondered is how flat my tools really are. It is possible some of my beams aren't perfectly flat and I'm not sure how to check them. That could certainly be a major thing here. Sometimes I've found higher tension strings to vibrate in a smaller arc as well -- if you're getting less buzz with a lighter gauge string then I'll rethink and re-test this. I do tune down to Eb with the strings I use and often go to drop D from there, so even that .042 gets pretty slinky.
@@guitar_md I run zero relief on Fender scale lengths. For Gibsons, I'll start with zero and add a bit of relief if needed. "Clear as a bell" is the only REAL definition of "no buzz". I start by setting the fret plane level - not the neck. So, I skip the notched straightedge and go directly to the flat straightedge on the tops of the frets. After all, it's the tops of the frets that we want level. If the fingerboard waves a bit, it doesn't really matter as long as the fret crowns are level. For the nut, I usually fit a locknut. I use a fret pulling guard in the nut slot and across the first and second frets. I then shim the nut until the fret pulling guard just clears the number 1 fret when resting on the 2nd fret and in the nut slot. So, my action at the 1st fret is on the order of 0.005" - almost at the fret plane. Technically, you can go all the way down to the fret plane, but1/1000th lower and your screwed. So, I shoot for just above the fret plane. Then I set the action at the 24th to about 1.4mm and I'm done. I could probably go a little lower across the board if I wanted to be OCD about things. They make what are known as "machinist's surfaces" (or a similar name). The are dead flat surfaces suitable for checking the accuracy of tools, but they are expensive. A machinist's square or straightedge is a possible alternative: www.amazon.com/Granite-Surface-Plate-18-Grade/dp/B006JYKIVC/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=machinist+surface&qid=1700163886&sr=8-5 www.amazon.com/Granite-Surface-Plate-12-Grade/dp/B006JYKIE4/ref=sr_1_16?keywords=machinist+surface&qid=1700163886&sr=8-16&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.17d9e15d-4e43-4581-b373-0e5c1a776d5d www.amazon.com/0-0002-10-Straightness-Parallelism-Machinists/dp/B0CGDLKP7P/ref=sr_1_10?keywords=machinist%2Bsurface&qid=1700163886&sr=8-10&th=1 www.amazon.com/Anodized-Tolerance-Straightness-Machinery-38/dp/B07H3DQQHS/ref=sr_1_20?keywords=machinist+surface&qid=1700163886&sr=8-20 Use Stringjoy.com's tension calculator to find out exactly what's what with your string tensions: tension.stringjoy.com/ It will tell you the effect of changes in scale length, tuning, and string gauge on the tension required to bring a string to pitch. And more tension = less floppy. Generally speaking, shorter scale lengths, fatter strings, and lower tunings will all make the strings floppier. That's why multiscale is superior for fat strings and drop tunings. The longer scale lengths help counteract the floppiness from the fat strings and drop tunings. I'm certain you could reproduce my results and probably even take then a bit farther by switching to 8 thru 36w's and standard tuning. If you're worried about losing fatness on the bottom end with 36's, just give it a notch on volume and a nudge on the lower bands of your EQ pedal. If you're out of headroom - time for a bigger amp. If you have to play something in D instead of E, a pitch shifting pedal is a possible alternative to drop tuning. But if you're really into fat strings and drop tuning, I'd recommend you make yourself a multiscale 6 or 7 string. FYI, Ken Parker makes his under string fret leveling tools from pickguard material and sandpaper - no handle. They are quick to make, easy to use, disposable, and inexpensive. So after watching this and a few other vids on compound radius fretboards, I've decided to try something totally insane - a 12" or 16" to infinite (flat) "compound radius" fretboard. Being flat at the heel, it won't be a true cone. If it doesn't work, I can always get another piece of Richlite and do a 12 to 16, or a 16 to 20 or some such thing. Its just occurred to me that those formulas might be artificially restrictive. Nothing says the cone has to be uniform in both width and height. But the formulas restrict the height to what will fit in the width. Nothing says the cone must be circular on the bottom. An oval bottom (wider than it is tall) would allow more radical changes in radius. So you could do a 9.5 to 16 instead of a 9.5 to 12, for example.
@@normbarrows We have very similar tastes. Zero relief here as well. I also level according to the level of the fret tops, and don't use a notched straightedge anymore. I know exactly what you mean. With you on the stringjoy tension calculator as well -- actually have been working on a video about it, regarding string tension and preference. A lot of players just go with stock sets when *sometimes* it can make a tremendous difference to swap out even one string. One of my old friends (one of my mentor's best friends as well), who was a machinist (only relevant because we were talking about that) -- he loved a regular .009-.042 set but with a .015 on the G. For me, I was using a .014 for a while, and eventually came to .0135. Using the Stringjoy calculator, it puts my GBE strings right around 10 pounds of tension. I'm OK with the .011 B string but a .0105 would actually be closer to equal tension, around 9.8 pounds. There are some people who prefer progressive tension -- each string successively getting a little higher in tension -- some who prefer balanced, etc. String gauge is a very personal preference yet most people don't know what they like simply because they haven't experimented -- and that's OK! But experimenting with string gauges is a real joy. String compliance is another factor, or how easily the string bends. Break angle at the nut/saddle will affect this, also whether using a locking nut or not. I tend to like very shallow break angles on my electrics, or at least, as shallow as possible. So with a decked trem on a Strat, I like replacing the saddle screws with shorter iterations (I also prefer 316 stainless steel because it's pretty much 100% rust proof, important when dealing with corrosive sweat), I get the action where I want it while having the saddles as low as possible. Sometimes that requires shimming the neck at the top, to raise the action a bit. I never used full pocket shims except a handful of times, and the guy who taught me never used them. However, I do get the concept, and I'd love to make my own. i've had my eye on a Byrnes Model Machines thickness sander for years now, and would love to use it for making pickup bobbin assembly rigs, thicknessing bone nut and saddle blanks, and making tapered full pocket shims, just to start. Thicknessing is a real pain and the Byrnes is accurate to .003". His machines really are top notch and they have incredible functionality to offer people who like tinkering with small objects in very fine detail. Also agreed about multiscale instruments. I have a multiscale 7 string and it's a godsend for that reason. The additional scale length adds to the string tension and not only do the fanned frets intonate better, but that added tension goes a long way in preventing buzz. I used to use a .038 on the bottom. One more note about volume: in my years of winding pickups, I've come to the opinion that magnet stagger is more relevant for string gauge than it is for radius. The string gauge seems to have a much more pronounced effect on volume balance to my ear than the radius does. Now on my Tele I use a wound G, so it would make sense to have a raised G pole -- plain steel G strings, not so much. In general for standard modern strings I like a stagger of .680, .693, .710-.719 for EAD / GBE. Short medium tall, short medium tall. They balance great. You can tweak it of course for oddball string gauges like a wound G or an extra heavy Low E string, or B string for that matter. I've gotten a bit less ballsy lately with action at the 1st fret. Usually I'll leave it quite a bit higher than you've mentioned, but now that you bring that up, i might lower my Strat just a bit more. I'm a freak for low action and the 1st fret action is tremendously important, as you obviously know. Getting it within a whisper of the 1st fret with zero relief really does feel the best. You're probably the only other tech I've ever talked to who does this. Most people's specifications for a setup are *far* higher than what we're talking about here. To me, guitars set up much higher than the way I do them are basically unplayable. That might sound ridiculous, but once you experience truly low action, the ease of playing it offers -- it's really hard to go back. Of course, I have some customers that despise low action and due to their style, they need it high to "get under the string" for bending and vibrato. To me, I always felt this was a product of having frets that were too low. I usually prefer .110" x .057" frets. Sometimes I'll deliberately take them down to around .050". I'd say .050" feels great to me, and I don't like it any lower than that.
@@normbarrows @normbarrows RE: Pickguard material for understring leveling. Years ago I made understring levelers out of 1" carbon fiber i-beam from Dragonplate Carbon Fiber in NY. Expensive, yes -- but it's incredibly thin, around .030", and has the benefit of being re-coatable. You can coat it with epoxy and re-level it if it ever happens to go out of spec. It's so thin that the amount you need to jack the strings up for a full-length leveling is minimal. I do own and use the Rectify Master tools in support of Davide Bissoli who really has been the biggest pioneer with the understring leveling game. Sadowsky from Warwick was actually Davide's first major sponsor and has been a huge advocate for understring leveling, in particular, Davide's tools from Rectify Master. Anyway, I have to give credit where credit is due. I will say I still think carbon fiber is the best material for understring leveling. RE: radius. This is where the distinction comes in. Conical profiling, strictly speaking, *is* restrictive -- but that's why we call it conical. Deviations from a strict geometric cone are no longer a cone. However, they can and do work. I've wondered about this myself, after learning the formula and wondering how places like Warmoth could do a 9.5" - 12" radius, but then do a 9.5" - 14" or 9.5" - 16" if they wanted to. I'm not sure how I'd recreate this, outside of leveling a 'secondary cone' into the fret tops. Like in that picture I show early in this compound radius video. I'd be really curious how they do it at the factory. It seems you're better at naturally visualizing this stuff than I am. What I've done for years is level the *middle* of the frets from say, 9 or 10 to the end, to flatten the radius at the top a bit. This deviates from a cone. But really allows for much bigger string bends with little issues, and rock bottom action. The conical formula I see as the definition of a strict cone -- but not the be-all end-all for guitar fingerboards. I do think they're the best *starting* point. They can also be the finishing point. Also: as a player, I *vastly* prefer the conical profile/compound radius. The hand naturally forms more of a curve when the neck is narrower. As it widens, it feels more natural to have a bit of a flatter radius. This is my opinion of course but has been 100% true for me as a player. The difference in feel is night and day to me. Ever since I discovered the compound radius, I never looked back. I do wonder about that older video you commented on. I got just fine results. But didn't really understand what I was doing like I do now. That's the trouble with some of these videos -- you learn a lot more as you go, as every video is a deep dive. I don't want to be throwing anyone off so at some point those videos might get completely re-done, or just put on Private. i do keep my playlists all updated with only my most recent content. That's the saving grace here.
@@guitar_md Yeah, in the other video I saw that under string leveling tool you made - pretty sweet. Too bad someone else has a patent - could be a nice side gig for you. I tried the Ken Parker style tools but wasn't really impressed. But that probably had more to do with trying to spot level when I should have just gone for a full level. These days, I take a less is more approach to fretwork. Checking the truss rod and rolling fret ends and fretboard edges with sandpaper (if needed) are now the only steps I do on all necks. But I'm mostly modding Ibanez replacement necks. can't remember the last time I had to do a full level crown and polish on a build - last year? maybe 6 builds ago? These days it's just the occasional fret sprout, now that the cold weather is here.
yea no all wrong .. each FRET is a little bit different radius, cuz its a constant compound radius not a "stepped" like you are doing here .. not going to work very well .. the math s way too much .. if you want a 10/16 radius? put a thin 1/2 wide 10" radius at one end of the fingerboard, and a 16 at the other .. then rock it over a table router with a fine wood cutting bit.. like a rocking chair, this will insure the radius is gradual .. this is a real bad way to do it, you dont have to listen to me, waste some time and material and see for yourself
The method I describe in this video results in exactly that: a conical radius, or as you called it, a constant compound radius. When checked along the string paths with a straightedge, it should be perfectly level along each string path. What you'll see is that every fret is a gradually flatter radius as you go from beginning to end. When leveling along the string paths, assuming the desired starting radius has been established, this conical profile will be established automatically. I can't visualize the router table method and I wish there was a video demonstrating it. I'd certainly use that method if I could get the same results, but much faster. It sounds like a great method but I can't visualize it and I'm also curious what the margin for error is. The one discrepancy is when you go beyond a conical profile. Say, if someone tried to do a 7.25" - 20" compound radius. The method I describe in this video is conical profiling. Compound radiuses that go beyond the profile of a cone are another geometric shape. Imagine a traffic cone that's 7.25" - 10". How would one make it a 7.25" - 16" while still maintaining the profile of a cone? The geometry changes once you go beyond the bounds of a cone, which is the profile that's created when leveling along the string paths. I like using the radius blocks to rough in the profile, though they're not necessary. The method I lay out here may not be the best but it does work, and you can see the demo at 7:26 that proves it. Action that low and being able to do 2 whole step bends without choking out would not be possible otherwise. My main gripe is how long it takes. Sanding takes forever. I'd certainly be using a router table to do this if I could understand how. But I did need to correct you that this method is not stepped, and I'm not using the radius blocks to do a stepped, clunky series of radiuses -- they're only to rough in the profile, and the leveling along the string paths once the beginning and ending radiuses have been established until everything is level along the string paths is what finishes the job.
Insane quality video
Thank you so much!
Sounds like a good job for a CNC system. Interesting video. Thanks for sharing.
For sure. I wouldn't hesitate to use modern technology if I knew how to.
This guy had a very interesting project using a DIY router setup:
ruclips.net/user/shortsXTmFlZFpkFs?si=-UbATXDewN1P-ptR
Hand tools do take forever, and it's very meticulous work. Would love to speed it up, and I'd love to know if someone has a CNC setup for doing so.
Very interesting video thank you!
Sure thing! Thanks so much!
Great info !
Great video! How did you refinish the fretboard on the Tele after re-radiusing? The shellac method you've outlined before?
I actually didn't refinish it -- my friend and mentor Steve did. After I was done with the refret, he just sprayed it with nitrocellulose lacquer.
I've sprayed a few nitro finishes in my time, both bodies and necks -- it's great, but just takes forever. If this weren't a vintage Telecaster I would have suggested a shellac finish.
It's all I personally use anymore. Aerosol finishes in general are extremely toxic and I've preferred to use freshly mixed shellac -- dissolved in grain alcohol -- whenever possible.
And it is my favorite finish on necks, for sure. The problem with spraying a finish after a refret is the finish tends to pool up around the frets, and you lose a bit of fret height. Finishing the neck *before* installing the frets totally averts this.
I will say, nitro is great, and looks great...but a royal pain to wait for.
Shellac and a simple paper towel, or even better, a lint-free cloth. That's my favorite way to go.
I've been meaning to make a video going over my Telecaster build/assembly. I did a whole bunch of work to that. I did an ebony grain fill with Timbermate wood filler, and then did a shellac finish. The shellac finish took forever. I think I used olive oil at some points as a lubricant.
But it came out very glossy. Just brilliant. I think shellac is just an excellent finish all around, and it's non-toxic, so you can use it indoors all day long with no issues, don't need to wear gloves, a mask, or anything. It also dries very quickly.
I do think the fresh shellac is best. I've heard of one other guitar tech who complained to me personally that when he's used shellac, it got gummy after a while. Like it never fully set up. He was using store bought stuff though, like the Zinsser Shellac from Home Depot.
You get your own flakes and mix up small jars, and you'll be good to go. I've actually been meaning to get some better quality bottles, like chemical grade, as the alcohol does tend to evaporate when in those little glass dropper bottles. The droppers are convenient but they're not airtight and any solvents or liquids you store in them will evaporate eventually, and totally screw up your carefully calculated ratios.
I have some Paraloid B72 that I dissolved in acetone that's suffering a similar fate. That might be a future video -- store your mixed finishes in chemical / lab grade bottles. Amazon has a good selection. I have quite an obsession with glass bottles in general and those fit the bill! 100ml should be a good size for most applications. I'm not sure how long the shelf life on shellac is but it may be around 6 months or so.
Thank you, deep information here! I have very short fingers and dream about a 7.25" compound radius replacement for my Strat with the smallest possible nut width - maybe around 39 or 40mm so would be able to properly grab the guitar neck doing the thumb muting and being able to reach for the notes on the high strings. I feel like every mm would make a lot of difference. I've got a soft V shape neck from Warmoth and it was a HUGE improvement but I feel I still need to get something rounder / thinner / with a smaller nut width to do it confortably. Any ideas about where or how could I buy a neck with such custom specs? Thanks
Have you tried miniature guitars like the Squier Mini Strat or one of the SX 3/4 size guitars? Those can be great.
40mm and 39mm are extremely narrow, like Hagstrom bass territory. For guitars, the narrowest I've heard of is around 41mm on the miniature guitars.
I almost was going to say converting a short scale bass to a guitar could be an interesting project, though the scale length is so much longer on those, and the greater distance between the frets wouldn't do you any favors -- even if it did work, which it might not with such a narrow spacing, and it would likely be a *major* project.
I put 4 guitar strings on this bass here:
ruclips.net/video/6hLpN60SLPQ/видео.htmlsi=SD5YG-RjE4lWOxAi
Very narrow neck, easy to play, but the very long scale length makes it hard to play at the same time -- laterally easy, longitudinally difficult!
I'd say it's still worth reaching out to Warmoth, USA Custom Guitars, and anyone else you can find, and ask what the narrowest possible nut width they could do would be. Usually they'll taper to a standard width near the end to fit in standard neck pockets.
But let me know. I'd say a miniature guitar would be a tremendous help for you. I struggled with playing the intro tapping lick to Hot For Teacher on my main Strat but I could do it so easily on that SX mini. Much easier to play. I'll keep brainstorming though!
@ yeah, actually I've just borrowed a friend's daughter pink mini Strat to check if that would do it and even if I like it I still feel that the neck is bulkier then I expected and It is actually easier to mute with my thumb on the Warmoth Soft v regular size than on thee mini Strat since it has a bigger shoulder. I still need to check on of those Ibanez thin necks but I am not a fan of the Super Strat style. I feel that a 7.25 radius like on a Fender Vintage replacement neck would work but I have never had a 7.25 neck in my hands and those are not easy to find nor cheap. So if I decide to buy one just to try I figured it would be better if it had a compound radius from the start.
@pedroconforti I'll see if I can find a Squier neck I was working on. I was experimenting with a 4.75" radius. I made my own radius block to do it. I always finish by compounding them.
I originally intended it to be fretless, as string bending wouldn't work very well on a neck like that. But if I can get that together and it works -- I'll let you know. It would probably end up as something like a 4.75" - 7.25" compound.
I've been curious to see how it would work, or if it would work. I think it still has the fret slots unfilled so I could refret it. If it ends up working that would be pretty cool. I'll see if I can find it and finish it, it's only about halfway done last time I took it out
Question: can I use the Rd formula to derive the radius at the bridge?
Yes, that would work. So on the example around 2:42, you'd just plug in, for example, 25.5" on a Strat, as the bridge is about 25.5" from the nut.
In that example, 7.25" ( 51" + 25.5" ) / 51", you'd get 10.87" for the bridge. You could round that up to 11", so your bridge will be set at 11".
The bridge should be a mere extension of the formula, as it's just another section of a cone.
I haven't personally tested this, but mathematically it makes perfect sense that you could use this formula to determine the proper radius at the bridge.
Excellent point! So when doing a build this would be particularly helpful if selecting a bridge with a fixed radius, like locking tremolos with non-adjustable, non-shimmable saddles.
how would you normally go about setting the bridge radius on, say, a strat with a compound radius? is there a more common method than mathematically extending the cone out to the bridge?
@@EduardoVelezIII I *always* set the action/radius by each individual string, whenever possible.
On one Strat I'm working on right now, for example, I have the action at around .052" Low E, .046" A, .039" D, then .030" for the G, B and E, all at the 12th fret.
Generally speaking I get the G, B and E strings to the same height, then get the D a bit higher, the A a bit higher than the D, and the Low E the highest of all.
1st fret action is around .018 for EAD, and around .012 for GBE.
.000" relief measured at the 7th fret.
I do this the same exact way every time: set the action for each individual string whenever possible.
I don't worry about what radius a board is or isn't, and I never have to know -- all that matters is the action for each individual string.
4/64" bass - 3/64" treble is generally considered the "lowest reasonable action," though I usually shoot lower than that. Just keep in mind: GBE the same, D a little higher, then A a little higher than D, Low E the highest. This is how I do all my setups and I find it works beautifully.
And it will vary guitar to guitar. It is true that a flatter radius will generally allow for more string bending without issues, so you can get a lower radius.
Sometimes you need a little more height on the Low E to avoid buzzing, etc.
My standard is around .000" to .002" relief at the 7th fret, with around .018" EAD / .011" GBE at the 1st fret, and .046" Low E / .030" High E for "crazy low action." I think this is just about as reasonably low as any guitar can be expected to go with excellent fretwork. I have seen flatter radius boards get to .025" at the 12th fret on the treble strings but this is really pushing it to the limit.
I've been planning on doing a video about this for quite a while. Out of everything I do, setups are probably the one thing I have the most experience with, and I'm *very* adamant about setting string heights individually *whenever possible.*
I also am a huge advocate for the digital action gauge, which Davide Bissoli of Rectify Master invented, though other companies like LMI have made their own version.
Keep in mind if you use a digital gauge, you *must* measure in the playing position, and be very careful not to accidentally depress the string with the probe of the gauge when you go to test it -- before you mean to press it down, of course.
If the guitar isn't in the playing position, the probe will almost certainly depress the string before taking your reading, which will give you massively inaccurate results.
The one exception here is action at the 1st fret, as the strings are usually so tight/stiff there that they can resist the light weight of the probe pressing down on them. Even with the guitar face up on the work bench. So I usually will measure action at the 1st fret with the guitar lying down and will adjust the nut slots accordingly.
Also make sure the neck is as close to dead straight as possible when filing the nut slots. More relief = higher action at the 1st fret. You want the nut slots cut to their lowest depth with the neck straight. If you cut them to their lowest depth while the neck has some relief in it, you'll be stuck at that relief, and if you try to straighten the neck beyond that, the strings might buzz open at the first fret.
Anyway. I could keep going. I know your original question had nothing to do with any of this, but I couldn't help myself. I just love talking guitar!
So yes: don't worry about the radius, and just focus on individual string heights.
You may see varying opinions on optimal action. You might want to get the G a bit higher than the B and the high E for example. Or have the Low E closer in action to the rest of the strings.
But as a guideline, your Low E string should be somewhere around .020" higher than your High E string. So the Low E at .050" if your High E is at .030".
Again, generally speaking. I'm a stickler for precision setups and do extensive understring leveling to get things where I want. And use a digital gauge.
For just a machinist ruler, try 3/64" treble - 4/64" bass. You can set it up the way I do or have a very gradual increase in action as you progress from High E to Low E. But that kind of variation in action is a general guideline.
Go with single strings and you'll never have to worry about radius again. You can measure it for your own information, but you'll be able to set up any guitar without having a clue what the radius is and be OK every single time, as long as you follow those tips.
my brain hurts.
If we use 10" radius block at the end of the fretoard we'll don't get the correct radius formula at the bridge, maybe better go with 9.5 to the end and after let the sand beam do the job, sanding EXACLY thru the strings line. I see it's very easy go over radius formula at the last frets if you don't sanding in the right pattern.
great video !!!!
Thanks for sharing!
You're welcome. Thanks for the support!
Wouldn't a single radius work properly if the bridge slots were cut for deeper string depth the more outboard the strings are?
Excellent question! Really got me thinking. That means I'm going to type a LOT....so buckle up! I'm excited to share my thoughts, even though I don't have a complete answer to your question.
Here are my thoughts:
First, the topic of string bending:
The necessity for lower saddles on the outer strings is *precisely* why string bending is such a big issue with single radius boards.
The High E string saddle, for example, is fixed in place, like all the saddles, once you set your action.
Say you set the action open at the 12th fret. The High E string is going over the outer radius of the fret, which is *much lower* than the middle of the fret, at the peak of the fret radius.
When you bend that High E string, the saddle is staying in the same place, but the string is riding along the fret top. As it approaches the middle of the fret, your action *effectively gets lower as you bend.*
Why? Because the fret height is increasing, while the saddle height is staying the same. The distance between the bottom of the string and the top of the frets has *decreased,* which means lower action.
So a compound radius *absolutely* helps with avoiding choking out on string bends, as the reduction in action as you bend the strings is not as great. That's one way of putting it, at least. It's tricky to explain but I think that's one of the simpler ways to put it.
Now, for un-bent strings:
As for the action in terms of an un-bent string, i.e., on a single plane -- it makes sense to me that the frets should be leveled *along the string path* to get the fret tops as even as possible under the string.
I'd have to take digital measurements of the action *at each fret* on a conical board vs. a single radius board -- and very important to have the same exact relief as well -- to say for sure.
This is one reason I love digital measurements with guitars. It takes all the guesswork out.
From nut to saddle, the action increases. The lowest point is at the nut/1st fret, where the string tension is highest, so the action can afford to be lower -- and as we go up the fretboard, the action increases slowly but surely.
Say, .010" at the 1st fret, to .027" at the 12th fret (if you like insanely low action like I do).
The question would be, would the action on frets 2-11 be different on a conical profile board vs. a single radius board, with a straight neck?
Would we see a smooth, steady increase on a conical board, but more erratic measurements on a single radius board? I have no idea.
I'd be curious how neck relief affects both as well.
You'd need two guitars with *confirmed* accurate radii -- single radius in one case, conical in the other -- and then set them to say, .000" relief, and measure the action at every fret on every string, and then repeat at say, .005" relief.
I'd be very curious.
If there *is* any discrepancy in action, it won't be seen at the 1st and 12th frets, as those can be set very accurately and very easily.
We'd have to look at the consistency of the action at the *other* frets between them to get a better idea. And even the frets beyond 12, up to 21 / 22 / 24.
I think of this as a poor man's PLEK scan. With a digital action gauge and a little time and patience you can map stuff like this out, though human error has to be watched out for.
This is also one reason I think understring leveling is superior, and to an extent, the thinner the leveler, the better, as you can more accurately trace individual string paths with a narrower leveling beam.
Too wide and you can't follow the string paths accurately. It would make sense that to follow the string paths most accurately, the beam should only level under 2 string at once *at most.*
But now I'm getting off topic. Keep in mind these are all tiny measurements, but think of the difference in feel between an .008" high E string and a .010". In Guitar World, thousandths of an inch (or millimeters) are king.
So even small differences can make a huge difference.
For me, it's simple: level along the string paths. I *never* maintain a single radius on any guitar, and *always* level under string tension, and *always* follow the string paths, which *automatically* creates a conical profile on the fret tops or fret board.
And it works great. I'm consistently able to get an action of around .030" on the GBE strings at the 12th fret, and around .046" Low E, .040" A, .035" D. That's my typical personal preference --
-- though many people seem to prefer the action closer to .040"-.045" open at the 12th fret on the GBE strings, and around .060" on the Low E, and somewhere inbetween on the A and D, like around .050".
And for the 1st fret it's always the same, around .018" EAD, and .010" GBE. Getting the lowest action possible at the 1st fret without any buzzing -- even when playing hard -- guarantees great intonation and an easy feel.
I wish I could've given you a better answer, but I need to do more research. To *me personally,* the idea of using a radius block to level single radius frets is insane. I just level under string tension using a Rectify Master Light understring beam, and go along the string paths -- works brilliantly every time.
Another trick is to do a "pseudo compound radius" where you flatten the middle of the frets even more. This creates a flatter conical profile on the fret tops regardless of how the fretboard is profiled.
Of course, you need the fret height to accommodate this leveling. Getting the board profiled closest to how you want it is *always* best, but if you have enough fret height to play around with, you can get away with doing an aggressive conical profile just on the fret tops.
The most extreme I ever did was on a Strat with frets around .060" high. By the time I got it down to the point where I was able to do whole step bends on the High E string without it choking out, the middle of the frets were around .045". Got everything leveled out, felt great --
-- the middle of the frets lost a lot of material, but on that guitar, that's what it took to solve the problem. Fortunately it had plenty of height to accommodate it. For all that work though, sometimes you'd think it would be easier to just pull the frets, radius the board the *right* way, and refret it, which will leave you with very minimal fret leveling, vs. hogging off a ton of material and needing a *LONG* time to recrown and polish the frets.
@@guitar_md I appreciate the long detailed reply. I agree that using a single radius is insane, conical just makes more sense to me. This video and others have me tearing down a Les Paul right now to convert it to a compound radius.
To further add to the complexity and confusion on bending strings on a single radius: a string bend will increase the tension on said string, which will reduce how much lateral movement the string has in its vibration. So theoretically, the more it's bent, the less action is required to prevent it from muting out (I think). I also think this concept could be considered on compound radii too. I'm sure there is a mathematical perfect radius that is derived from the math in this video + unknown math relating to string gauge, scale length and tune.
@@elijahbarr9581 Yep -- it all comes down to the numbers. There *has* to be a definitive *lowest action possible* for a given conical profile, scale length, string gauge and tuning.
"Lowest possible action" is a term I came up with a while ago and I think it will eventually become an important benchmark for evaluating the quality of fretwork.
As long as we're doing hand work, there will be *fret profiling* involved, which goes beyond mere fret leveling. I do all of this under string tension and I believe it to be the most accurate method we have available short of a PLEK machine, and even then, it may be superior for the fine finish work -- the fine tuning to dial things in, even if a PLEK can get it *most* of the way there.
Anyway, the "lowest possible action" has to be a numerical value. And I consider that to be the open 12th fret action. It seems set in stone that the "lowest possible action" in regards to the 1st fret is around .015" for the wound strings and around .009" - .010" for the plain strings, and the neck relief, obviously .000".
The action open at the 12th is where the rubber really meets the road. The string tension is so high at the first fret that you can get that same low action regardless of the radius or anything else.
But the action higher up, assuming you want to bend strings, will be limited by degree of curvature of the fingerboard. The flatter it is, the lower you'll be able to get the action without running into choking out on bends.
For the lowest *preferred* action, I'd say for me, around .025" on the GBE strings and around .035" on the EAD strings is the lowest I'd ever need it, with .000" to .002" of relief as measured at the 7th fret, and measured open at the 1st fret, about .015" on the EAD, and .009" - .010" on the GBE.
That is *stupidly low* action, but also the lowest I'd want it to be. And it's OK on whole step bends, as I aggressively did a "pseudo conical profile" by profiling the fret tops -- but beyond whole step bends, it does choke out, even to the point of completely dying out, in some places.
I'm coming to accept that for stupidly low action (the way I like it), a flatter conical profile is necessary.
But I would be curious that with an action that low, what would be required to be able to have beyond whole step bends with no choking out? 16" - 20" might be a good place to start but I may have to go even flatter than that if I wanted unlimited bending with no issues.
I approach guitar work primarily from the perspective of an avid guitarist. To me, this is one of my greatest advantages. I'm my best customer. I am the most demanding person I've ever met in my life when it comes to guitar setups, fretwork, the feel and functionality of the guitar --
-- I would hate to have me as a customer! I nitpick everything endlessly and am extremely obsessive and will dial in my setups in to as close to plus or minus .001" everywhere, as I possibly can.
I'm also constantly working on lightening up my technique. One of my goals is to continue using the lightest strings I can, with the lowest action I can, and play as expressively as possible with the least amount of tension possible.
For me, guitar is like meditation, and in order for that meditation to not be interrupted, the guitar has to perform as perfectly as possible. I used to be huge into Japan and samurai when I was growing up, and was captivated by the idea of forging a katana.
I suppose that interest translated into guitar work. I see my guitar as a tool in the same way now, and my obsession with guitar tech work and customizations was all inspired by that dream of crafting something perfect -- as close to immaculate as possible, a tool that can function so perfectly that it can just be like an extension of a person's body.
Dramatic, I know. But I'm very serious about this. My ultimate guitar would probably involve carbon fiber for stability and durability, especially of the neck, some kind of polyphonic infinite sustainer system that is also easy and intuitive to use, and setup and fretwork that allows for total freedom of expression.
My current "baby" is my 2005 Mexican Strat, which I've modified to the nth degree. But anyway, I'm getting very far ahead of myself.
It's all about the numbers. That's the main point here. Everything can be measured and documented and reproduced. IMO a seasoned guitar tech should be able to visualize how a guitar will feel in his hands based on the numbers of the setup: 1st and 12th fret action and relief at the 7th fret.
So nice…
Thank you so much! So glad you appreciated it!
Looks like I can go lower on my treble string setups. your 0.76mm action at the 12th beats my 0.933mm. But I just set all the strings to the same action - so basically, I set them all to what the 6th string needs. And I never use falloff. Also, I'm running Ernie Ball Extra Slinkeys - 8's thru 36w's. So I don't need as much flopping room as you do with that 46 gauge string.
Lately I've been running .008, .011, .0135, .022, .030, .042.
I'm never sure what to expect from the Low E. "Buzz" seems to be an undefined variable, that can't be objectively measured -- just heard, and most people have a threshold for what counts as buzz, and how much of it they can live with.
What's your relief? Generally the E and the A are the only ones I get a bit higher -- the 0.76mmm seems to work fine for DGBE.
I've tried every which way. Old fashioned leveling with the strings off, neck straight, flat steel beam. And the other methods I talk about here.
0.933mm on the Low E is definitely very low. If you're getting that, I'm curious how you'd define it -- any light buzzing or clear as a bell? And what method do you use?
Generally I only use fallaway if necessary -- but I may have to redefine what "necessary" means.
0.933mm on the Low E. That and 0.76mm on the GBE, and the D and A just a touch above that, would be ideal. The last frontier for me is the Low E and A -- and again, part of the problem is not having a standard for "buzz."
I have played a couple guitars that were clear as a bell on the Low E around that measurement. Maybe once or twice. Exceptionally rare on a stock guitar. Now if I could master that, I'd really be in business. 4 out of 6 strings ain't bad but I need to get that E and A.
One thing I've wondered is how flat my tools really are. It is possible some of my beams aren't perfectly flat and I'm not sure how to check them. That could certainly be a major thing here.
Sometimes I've found higher tension strings to vibrate in a smaller arc as well -- if you're getting less buzz with a lighter gauge string then I'll rethink and re-test this. I do tune down to Eb with the strings I use and often go to drop D from there, so even that .042 gets pretty slinky.
@@guitar_md I run zero relief on Fender scale lengths. For Gibsons, I'll start with zero and add a bit of relief if needed. "Clear as a bell" is the only REAL definition of "no buzz". I start by setting the fret plane level - not the neck. So, I skip the notched straightedge and go directly to the flat straightedge on the tops of the frets. After all, it's the tops of the frets that we want level. If the fingerboard waves a bit, it doesn't really matter as long as the fret crowns are level. For the nut, I usually fit a locknut. I use a fret pulling guard in the nut slot and across the first and second frets. I then shim the nut until the fret pulling guard just clears the number 1 fret when resting on the 2nd fret and in the nut slot. So, my action at the 1st fret is on the order of 0.005" - almost at the fret plane. Technically, you can go all the way down to the fret plane, but1/1000th lower and your screwed. So, I shoot for just above the fret plane. Then I set the action at the 24th to about 1.4mm and I'm done. I could probably go a little lower across the board if I wanted to be OCD about things.
They make what are known as "machinist's surfaces" (or a similar name). The are dead flat surfaces suitable for checking the accuracy of tools, but they are expensive. A machinist's square or straightedge is a possible alternative:
www.amazon.com/Granite-Surface-Plate-18-Grade/dp/B006JYKIVC/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=machinist+surface&qid=1700163886&sr=8-5
www.amazon.com/Granite-Surface-Plate-12-Grade/dp/B006JYKIE4/ref=sr_1_16?keywords=machinist+surface&qid=1700163886&sr=8-16&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.17d9e15d-4e43-4581-b373-0e5c1a776d5d
www.amazon.com/0-0002-10-Straightness-Parallelism-Machinists/dp/B0CGDLKP7P/ref=sr_1_10?keywords=machinist%2Bsurface&qid=1700163886&sr=8-10&th=1
www.amazon.com/Anodized-Tolerance-Straightness-Machinery-38/dp/B07H3DQQHS/ref=sr_1_20?keywords=machinist+surface&qid=1700163886&sr=8-20
Use Stringjoy.com's tension calculator to find out exactly what's what with your string tensions: tension.stringjoy.com/
It will tell you the effect of changes in scale length, tuning, and string gauge on the tension required to bring a string to pitch. And more tension = less floppy. Generally speaking, shorter scale lengths, fatter strings, and lower tunings will all make the strings floppier. That's why multiscale is superior for fat strings and drop tunings. The longer scale lengths help counteract the floppiness from the fat strings and drop tunings.
I'm certain you could reproduce my results and probably even take then a bit farther by switching to 8 thru 36w's and standard tuning. If you're worried about losing fatness on the bottom end with 36's, just give it a notch on volume and a nudge on the lower bands of your EQ pedal. If you're out of headroom - time for a bigger amp. If you have to play something in D instead of E, a pitch shifting pedal is a possible alternative to drop tuning. But if you're really into fat strings and drop tuning, I'd recommend you make yourself a multiscale 6 or 7 string.
FYI, Ken Parker makes his under string fret leveling tools from pickguard material and sandpaper - no handle. They are quick to make, easy to use, disposable, and inexpensive.
So after watching this and a few other vids on compound radius fretboards, I've decided to try something totally insane - a 12" or 16" to infinite (flat) "compound radius" fretboard. Being flat at the heel, it won't be a true cone. If it doesn't work, I can always get another piece of Richlite and do a 12 to 16, or a 16 to 20 or some such thing.
Its just occurred to me that those formulas might be artificially restrictive. Nothing says the cone has to be uniform in both width and height. But the formulas restrict the height to what will fit in the width. Nothing says the cone must be circular on the bottom. An oval bottom (wider than it is tall) would allow more radical changes in radius. So you could do a 9.5 to 16 instead of a 9.5 to 12, for example.
@@normbarrows We have very similar tastes. Zero relief here as well. I also level according to the level of the fret tops, and don't use a notched straightedge anymore. I know exactly what you mean.
With you on the stringjoy tension calculator as well -- actually have been working on a video about it, regarding string tension and preference. A lot of players just go with stock sets when *sometimes* it can make a tremendous difference to swap out even one string.
One of my old friends (one of my mentor's best friends as well), who was a machinist (only relevant because we were talking about that) -- he loved a regular .009-.042 set but with a .015 on the G.
For me, I was using a .014 for a while, and eventually came to .0135. Using the Stringjoy calculator, it puts my GBE strings right around 10 pounds of tension. I'm OK with the .011 B string but a .0105 would actually be closer to equal tension, around 9.8 pounds.
There are some people who prefer progressive tension -- each string successively getting a little higher in tension -- some who prefer balanced, etc. String gauge is a very personal preference yet most people don't know what they like simply because they haven't experimented -- and that's OK! But experimenting with string gauges is a real joy.
String compliance is another factor, or how easily the string bends. Break angle at the nut/saddle will affect this, also whether using a locking nut or not. I tend to like very shallow break angles on my electrics, or at least, as shallow as possible. So with a decked trem on a Strat, I like replacing the saddle screws with shorter iterations (I also prefer 316 stainless steel because it's pretty much 100% rust proof, important when dealing with corrosive sweat), I get the action where I want it while having the saddles as low as possible.
Sometimes that requires shimming the neck at the top, to raise the action a bit. I never used full pocket shims except a handful of times, and the guy who taught me never used them.
However, I do get the concept, and I'd love to make my own. i've had my eye on a Byrnes Model Machines thickness sander for years now, and would love to use it for making pickup bobbin assembly rigs, thicknessing bone nut and saddle blanks, and making tapered full pocket shims, just to start.
Thicknessing is a real pain and the Byrnes is accurate to .003". His machines really are top notch and they have incredible functionality to offer people who like tinkering with small objects in very fine detail.
Also agreed about multiscale instruments. I have a multiscale 7 string and it's a godsend for that reason. The additional scale length adds to the string tension and not only do the fanned frets intonate better, but that added tension goes a long way in preventing buzz.
I used to use a .038 on the bottom. One more note about volume: in my years of winding pickups, I've come to the opinion that magnet stagger is more relevant for string gauge than it is for radius. The string gauge seems to have a much more pronounced effect on volume balance to my ear than the radius does.
Now on my Tele I use a wound G, so it would make sense to have a raised G pole -- plain steel G strings, not so much. In general for standard modern strings I like a stagger of .680, .693, .710-.719 for EAD / GBE. Short medium tall, short medium tall. They balance great. You can tweak it of course for oddball string gauges like a wound G or an extra heavy Low E string, or B string for that matter.
I've gotten a bit less ballsy lately with action at the 1st fret. Usually I'll leave it quite a bit higher than you've mentioned, but now that you bring that up, i might lower my Strat just a bit more. I'm a freak for low action and the 1st fret action is tremendously important, as you obviously know.
Getting it within a whisper of the 1st fret with zero relief really does feel the best. You're probably the only other tech I've ever talked to who does this. Most people's specifications for a setup are *far* higher than what we're talking about here. To me, guitars set up much higher than the way I do them are basically unplayable.
That might sound ridiculous, but once you experience truly low action, the ease of playing it offers -- it's really hard to go back. Of course, I have some customers that despise low action and due to their style, they need it high to "get under the string" for bending and vibrato.
To me, I always felt this was a product of having frets that were too low. I usually prefer .110" x .057" frets. Sometimes I'll deliberately take them down to around .050". I'd say .050" feels great to me, and I don't like it any lower than that.
@@normbarrows @normbarrows RE: Pickguard material for understring leveling. Years ago I made understring levelers out of 1" carbon fiber i-beam from Dragonplate Carbon Fiber in NY.
Expensive, yes -- but it's incredibly thin, around .030", and has the benefit of being re-coatable. You can coat it with epoxy and re-level it if it ever happens to go out of spec. It's so thin that the amount you need to jack the strings up for a full-length leveling is minimal. I do own and use the Rectify Master tools in support of Davide Bissoli who really has been the biggest pioneer with the understring leveling game.
Sadowsky from Warwick was actually Davide's first major sponsor and has been a huge advocate for understring leveling, in particular, Davide's tools from Rectify Master. Anyway, I have to give credit where credit is due. I will say I still think carbon fiber is the best material for understring leveling.
RE: radius. This is where the distinction comes in. Conical profiling, strictly speaking, *is* restrictive -- but that's why we call it conical.
Deviations from a strict geometric cone are no longer a cone. However, they can and do work. I've wondered about this myself, after learning the formula and wondering how places like Warmoth could do a 9.5" - 12" radius, but then do a 9.5" - 14" or 9.5" - 16" if they wanted to.
I'm not sure how I'd recreate this, outside of leveling a 'secondary cone' into the fret tops. Like in that picture I show early in this compound radius video. I'd be really curious how they do it at the factory. It seems you're better at naturally visualizing this stuff than I am.
What I've done for years is level the *middle* of the frets from say, 9 or 10 to the end, to flatten the radius at the top a bit. This deviates from a cone. But really allows for much bigger string bends with little issues, and rock bottom action.
The conical formula I see as the definition of a strict cone -- but not the be-all end-all for guitar fingerboards. I do think they're the best *starting* point. They can also be the finishing point.
Also: as a player, I *vastly* prefer the conical profile/compound radius. The hand naturally forms more of a curve when the neck is narrower. As it widens, it feels more natural to have a bit of a flatter radius. This is my opinion of course but has been 100% true for me as a player. The difference in feel is night and day to me. Ever since I discovered the compound radius, I never looked back.
I do wonder about that older video you commented on. I got just fine results. But didn't really understand what I was doing like I do now. That's the trouble with some of these videos -- you learn a lot more as you go, as every video is a deep dive. I don't want to be throwing anyone off so at some point those videos might get completely re-done, or just put on Private.
i do keep my playlists all updated with only my most recent content. That's the saving grace here.
@@guitar_md Yeah, in the other video I saw that under string leveling tool you made - pretty sweet. Too bad someone else has a patent - could be a nice side gig for you. I tried the Ken Parker style tools but wasn't really impressed. But that probably had more to do with trying to spot level when I should have just gone for a full level. These days, I take a less is more approach to fretwork. Checking the truss rod and rolling fret ends and fretboard edges with sandpaper (if needed) are now the only steps I do on all necks. But I'm mostly modding Ibanez replacement necks. can't remember the last time I had to do a full level crown and polish on a build - last year? maybe 6 builds ago? These days it's just the occasional fret sprout, now that the cold weather is here.
Sounds like a job for a PLEK machine. ;)
Can a plek machine do that?
"youre gonna learn how to solve for it" woah woah woah i am here for guitars, not math class.
ignorance is a bliss
yea no all wrong .. each FRET is a little bit different radius, cuz its a constant compound radius not a "stepped" like you are doing here .. not going to work very well .. the math s way too much ..
if you want a 10/16 radius? put a thin 1/2 wide 10" radius at one end of the fingerboard, and a 16 at the other .. then rock it over a table router with a fine wood cutting bit.. like a rocking chair, this will insure the radius is gradual ..
this is a real bad way to do it, you dont have to listen to me, waste some time and material and see for yourself
The method I describe in this video results in exactly that: a conical radius, or as you called it, a constant compound radius.
When checked along the string paths with a straightedge, it should be perfectly level along each string path. What you'll see is that every fret is a gradually flatter radius as you go from beginning to end.
When leveling along the string paths, assuming the desired starting radius has been established, this conical profile will be established automatically.
I can't visualize the router table method and I wish there was a video demonstrating it. I'd certainly use that method if I could get the same results, but much faster. It sounds like a great method but I can't visualize it and I'm also curious what the margin for error is.
The one discrepancy is when you go beyond a conical profile. Say, if someone tried to do a 7.25" - 20" compound radius.
The method I describe in this video is conical profiling. Compound radiuses that go beyond the profile of a cone are another geometric shape.
Imagine a traffic cone that's 7.25" - 10". How would one make it a 7.25" - 16" while still maintaining the profile of a cone? The geometry changes once you go beyond the bounds of a cone, which is the profile that's created when leveling along the string paths.
I like using the radius blocks to rough in the profile, though they're not necessary. The method I lay out here may not be the best but it does work, and you can see the demo at 7:26 that proves it. Action that low and being able to do 2 whole step bends without choking out would not be possible otherwise.
My main gripe is how long it takes. Sanding takes forever. I'd certainly be using a router table to do this if I could understand how. But I did need to correct you that this method is not stepped, and I'm not using the radius blocks to do a stepped, clunky series of radiuses -- they're only to rough in the profile, and the leveling along the string paths once the beginning and ending radiuses have been established until everything is level along the string paths is what finishes the job.