If you set your two outside strings (top of fret to bottom of string) do the other four accordingly directly below each corresponding string using the same fret used for the two outside strings, action will be equal and radius the same. If it’s compound use 12th fret or later but use the same fret once you do. Once your done it will mirror the radius of the fret at the underneath location of the strings. Just another way is all in case you don’t have a radius gauge.
You should not use this gauge on top of the strings. It is the bottom of the strings that are supposed to be the same radius as the fretboard, not the top of the strings. If you do not believe me, then do this. Draw a line on a piece of paper using the full length of your gauge as the guide. You now have a radius drawn on the paper. On top of the radius line, at the left side, I want you to draw a 1/4" circle that just touches the line. On top of the radius line, at the right side of the radius line, I want you to draw a 1/2" circle that just touches the radius line. Now put your radius gauge on top of the two circles and draw the same radius line from circle top to circle top. Although this is not to scale to the string sizes, it will show you that the bottom of the strings will match the fretboard, while the top radius is not matching the fretboard. There is a reason the gauges are sold by Stewmac and labeled as Understring Radius Gauges.
For one, Stewmac is in the business of selling products. Second, while a matching radius on the underside of the strings is technically correct, the physics of string vibration are better suited to the reverse - more room to move for the middle strings (a few thousandths) plus matching the radius on the top "feels" like the radius of the fretboard. Does that make sense?
@@guitar-niche The physics of string vibration dictate that you are putting the bottom of the middle strings closer to the fretboard, compared to the high and low E strings, lessening their clearance for vibration, thereby increasing the chance of having string buzz on the frets. Does that make sense? Technically correct is correct for a reason. If you choose not to do/teach your guitar work in a technically correct fashion, then why are you bothering to use a technically correct tool? By your logic, you should just eyeball it and not use the tool at all. That doesn't make sense to me. If you are not going to use the tool, in the proper way, to achieve the proper setup, for which the tool is designed, then throw the tool away. I imagine you are not going to be able to comprehend why I am right, or else you would not be using the tool, in the wrong way, in the first place. I base this on the fact that even though you admit that I am technically correct, you make an excuse as to why you should do it incorrectly. And you will continue to do it incorrectly, even though you know it is the wrong way. That is not the attitude of a competent guitar tech. Let the viewer beware. I have to add to my own post that I have re-evaluated what you said about more middle string clearance. I disputed that and I was wrong and you were right. You will gain a few thousandths of an inch by using the gauge on top of the strings. I still think having all the strings with the same bottom radius as the fretboard is going to provide a more consistent string distance from the fretboard. Having the middle strings further away from the fretboard means you are stretching those strings more before they reach a fretted position. This can cause sharper notes and intonation issues as you are playing. I will use the tool properly so that the setup is properly performed.
If you set your two outside strings (top of fret to bottom of string) do the other four accordingly directly below each corresponding string using the same fret used for the two outside strings, action will be equal and radius the same. If it’s compound use 12th fret or later but use the same fret once you do. Once your done it will mirror the radius of the fret at the underneath location of the strings. Just another way is all in case you don’t have a radius gauge.
Lightbulb moment when you pulled that out on sat it on top. Thank you Sir
you're welcome!
Great video. Easy to understand and uncomplicated.
Thank you so much - really clear and no waffle! )
You're welcome!
Perfect video straight to the point! Thank you!
You're welcome!
Thanks for the video! Great info
You're most welcome!
This was a big help, thanks
You're welcome!
You should not use this gauge on top of the strings. It is the bottom of the strings that are supposed to be the same radius as the fretboard, not the top of the strings. If you do not believe me, then do this. Draw a line on a piece of paper using the full length of your gauge as the guide. You now have a radius drawn on the paper. On top of the radius line, at the left side, I want you to draw a 1/4" circle that just touches the line. On top of the radius line, at the right side of the radius line, I want you to draw a 1/2" circle that just touches the radius line. Now put your radius gauge on top of the two circles and draw the same radius line from circle top to circle top. Although this is not to scale to the string sizes, it will show you that the bottom of the strings will match the fretboard, while the top radius is not matching the fretboard. There is a reason the gauges are sold by Stewmac and labeled as Understring Radius Gauges.
For one, Stewmac is in the business of selling products.
Second, while a matching radius on the underside of the strings is technically correct, the physics of string vibration are better suited to the reverse - more room to move for the middle strings (a few thousandths) plus matching the radius on the top "feels" like the radius of the fretboard.
Does that make sense?
@@guitar-niche The physics of string vibration dictate that you are putting the bottom of the middle strings closer to the fretboard, compared to the high and low E strings, lessening their clearance for vibration, thereby increasing the chance of having string buzz on the frets. Does that make sense? Technically correct is correct for a reason. If you choose not to do/teach your guitar work in a technically correct fashion, then why are you bothering to use a technically correct tool? By your logic, you should just eyeball it and not use the tool at all. That doesn't make sense to me. If you are not going to use the tool, in the proper way, to achieve the proper setup, for which the tool is designed, then throw the tool away. I imagine you are not going to be able to comprehend why I am right, or else you would not be using the tool, in the wrong way, in the first place. I base this on the fact that even though you admit that I am technically correct, you make an excuse as to why you should do it incorrectly. And you will continue to do it incorrectly, even though you know it is the wrong way. That is not the attitude of a competent guitar tech. Let the viewer beware.
I have to add to my own post that I have re-evaluated what you said about more middle string clearance. I disputed that and I was wrong and you were right. You will gain a few thousandths of an inch by using the gauge on top of the strings. I still think having all the strings with the same bottom radius as the fretboard is going to provide a more consistent string distance from the fretboard. Having the middle strings further away from the fretboard means you are stretching those strings more before they reach a fretted position. This can cause sharper notes and intonation issues as you are playing. I will use the tool properly so that the setup is properly performed.
@@willswanderings6912 Go get 'em cowboy! That's a good rant!
@@guitar-niche Thanks for proving my point.
I can’t tell you the amount of times I’ve played smoke on the water on the bottom of my strings