Official Luthiers Forum!

What do you use and why, please?

_________________
DES - Shepherd, MI

I use a single 16" radius. Why, because I build mostly dreds and OM sized guitars and don't see the need for a compound radius on either type.

_________________
Dave Rector
Rector Guitars

I use a single 12" because I have smaller hands.One person who played a guitar I built said it was comparible to an electric guitar neck he had.It may have also been due to the shape and thickness of the neck, which will have a lot to do with playing comfort.Some folks will try to build a neck similar to one they are used to playing that feels comfy.
                                   James W B

_________________
James W Bolan
Nashville Tennessee

As I understand it, compound radius is mostly used on electrics to facilitate extreme bending without 'fretting out'.
However, I recently read that some classical guitar builders are putting a slight radius on fingerboards, and some are even using 'reverse compound radius' to make barreing (sp?) chords easier up the fingerboard.

So it's wide open for experiments, if you want the added challenge!
John

I use compound 12" and 16" because my pal Al Peebels provided the plans to build the jig and i love the feeling when playing up the neck!

Thanks guys! I've been thinking alot about it and just wanted to get some perspective from those with experience.

_________________
DES - Shepherd, MI

I use 16' - 20' 'cause I have Craig's jig which makes it a snap, and really like the way it feels... Plus like John says, if you get a player that really likes to bend, the compound helps prevent fretting out.

-Mark

_________________
Pullman, WA

The more I know, the more I know I don't know.

trippguitars.com
OR
Find me on Facebook

You probably won't notice a lot of difference and guitars have been made for a long time with a single radius but to me it just makes good sense to more closely follow the radius of the nut and saddle when shaping the fingerboard so I use a compound.

_________________
Tickle your guitar daily, and it'll tickle you back.

Thanks, Mark!

John, what radii do you use? TIA

Also, to be sure I'm clear, where are the two measurements taken?Darin Spayd39112.9152546296

_________________
DES - Shepherd, MI

[QUOTE=Mark Tripp]I use 16' - 20' 'cause I have Craig's jig which makes it a snap, and really like the way it feels... Plus like John says, if you get a player that really likes to bend, the compound helps prevent fretting out.

-Mark[/QUOTE]

Hi,

you are refering to a jig from Craig (?) for compund radius routing - any more infos? I?m a newbie here ...

Tanks in advance,

Martin

Hi Martin:

Yes, I have the jig from Craig Holden. You can see it here. Unfortunately Craig is on sabbatical from jig building, but I believe you can still get plans from him...

-Mark

_________________
Pullman, WA

The more I know, the more I know I don't know.

trippguitars.com
OR
Find me on Facebook

make the fb to follow the radius of the nut and saddle? hmmm.... again perhaps because i came to building from a repair background i learned to make a nut and saddle to suit the fingerboard. to me, in building it is the fb which has to suit the player, his/her preferences and style, so i still do it the same way, fb first and then the nut and saddle to suit the fb.crazymanmichael39113.5283564815

Actually, the nut and saddle NEVER follow what's dictated by the fingerboard radii (even compound radius fingerboard) unless you set the guitar to have every string at the same height above the fingerboard at the the 12th fret and the nut.

Most every guitar I've ever seen has the treble strings closer to the fingerboard (i.e. the action is lower on the treble strings), which means that the effective radius of the saddle will be less than dictated by the geometry of the fingerboard. Probably true as well for the nut.

Another compound radius note...I've read that the saddle should be radiused as if it were a continuation of the "cone" formed by the compound. Thus, the saddle would be radiused flatter than the end of the fingerboard (math! my head hurts already). Whatcha all think?

[QUOTE=CarltonM] Another compound radius note...I've read that the saddle should be radiused as if it were a continuation of the "cone" formed by the compound. Thus, the saddle would be radiused flatter than the end of the fingerboard (math! my head hurts already). Whatcha all think?[/QUOTE]

Well, that was my point in the post above yours ... theoretically what you say is true about the "continuation of the cone". But, nearly everyone I know imparts reduced action as you go from bass toward treble strings. To do that, you must make the saddle progressively lower as you go toward the treble strings, resulting in a saddle that's a tighter radius than the theoretical "conical solution" would give.

Pete, you're probably right in real world situations, but you could still have a 16"R fingerboard and a 16"R saddle, even though one side is higher. The radius would just be tilted in relation to the bottom of the saddle.

[QUOTE=CarltonM] Another compound radius note...I've read that the saddle should be radiused as if it were a continuation of the "cone" formed by the compound.[/QUOTE]

But if it were tilted (even without a tighter radius) then it still would no longer be a continuation of the cone.

For a long time, being an engineer, the idea of continuing the cone was really appealing to my left brain, but I've come to realize it really doesn't pertain. Now I feel that the curvature of the saddle top is purely a function of setting action you desire for each string, and not the "clean" and comforting theoretical solution.Pete Licis39114.5228703704

My latest is a twenty inch radius . I think it has a better feel for wider necks. i.e. over 1.75 " at the nut.





Craig Lawrence

_________________
CRAIG LAWRENCE of AUSTRALIA
_____________________________________________

[QUOTE=Pete Licis] Now I feel that the curvature of the saddle top is purely a function of setting action you desire for each string, and not the "clean" and comforting theoretical solution.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm...here's what I'm wonderin'. If you go ahead and do your setup that way on a compound board, how close to the continuing cone would the saddle end up (correcting for the tilt, of course!)? Might find out that it's pretty close. If you do one, could you put your brain back in left-mode and check it? I'd sure be interested in the result.

[QUOTE=CarltonM] [QUOTE=Pete Licis] Now I feel that the curvature of the saddle top is purely a function of setting action you desire for each string, and not the "clean" and comforting theoretical solution.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm...here's what I'm wonderin'. If you go ahead and do your setup that way on a compound board, how close to the continuing cone would the saddle end up (correcting for the tilt, of course!)? Might find out that it's pretty close. If you do one, could you put your brain back in left-mode and check it? I'd sure be interested in the result. [/QUOTE]

Let's see if I can remember to measure that tonight ....

In the mean time, here's a little story from about a year ago. Blanchard and I were talking the cone thing, and he asked me "if the radius at the nut is 12" and the radius at the 12th fret is 18", what do you think the radius at the saddle will be"?

I found it strange he asked that since it's so straightforward, and I figured it was a trick question. But after a few seconds of thinking I couldn't figure out where he was going with it, so I blurted out the left-brain answer of 24". He replied ... "Nope, it'll be closer to 12 than 24!" and proceeded to explain what I did a few posts up.

If I do remember to check, I'll aslo check my Blanchard Bristlecone and see how that one turned out.

Okay, that's weird. Thanks for doing the check--I'm interested in the result.