Fretboard radius

carlos

Best is flat for me, but to be honest, there's little difference between infinite radius (flat) and anything 16" or higher. Compound radius is a good compromise for some people as in earlier replies, but bear in mind that the radius at the bridge will then be a compromise. You can't have compound radius at the bridge.

Wolfetone

@carlos I don't understand what you mean that you can't have compound radius at the bridge? 

WezV

Wolfetone said:

@carlos I don't understand what you mean that you can't have compound radius at the bridge? 

I assume he means it’s hard to find off the shelf bridges with a flat enough radius.

You can have a bridge that matches the compound radius

Strat bridges - set up as normal
LP bridges - set up as normal, may need to notch the saddles
fixed wraparounds- hard to make work
Floyds- saddles need shimming

2003amxl

Elwood said:

@2003amxl Some of the new 2018 Ibanez models, AX, have exactly that spec. Not sure on price, unlikely to be cheap but should not be Suhr pricing levels.

Yeah they do look great, prestige model is £1700 though, which is second hand suhr money. The premium version is £1100 ish but does come with jumbo stainless steel frets. They still have only a 12" radius though, if it wasn't for that i'd be looking for one second hand.

Maynehead

carlos said:

Best is flat for me, but to be honest, there's little difference between infinite radius (flat) and anything 16" or higher. Compound radius is a good compromise for some people as in earlier replies, but bear in mind that the radius at the bridge will then be a compromise. You can't have compound radius at the bridge.

You don't need a compound radius a the bridge. The bridge just needs to be the same radius as the last fret, and if the nut is set to the same radius as the first fret, the strings will follow the compound radius of the board perfectly.

WezV

Maynehead said:

carlos said:

Best is flat for me, but to be honest, there's little difference between infinite radius (flat) and anything 16" or higher. Compound radius is a good compromise for some people as in earlier replies, but bear in mind that the radius at the bridge will then be a compromise. You can't have compound radius at the bridge.

You don't need a compound radius a the bridge. The bridge just needs to be the same radius as the last fret, and if the nut is set to the same radius as the first fret, the strings will follow the compound radius of the board perfectly.

That's not correct.  

The radius is conical so continues to get flatter after the last fret.   The bridge radius should always be flatter than the last fret. 

The nut will also be ever so slightly more curved than the 1st fret, but given these are quite close together the difference is negligible.

There is actually a difference in compound radius boards are measured which affects the choice here.   if 10-12" refers to first and last fret then 14"  radius would be a good choice for the bridge.      I think some refer to the nut and bridge instead but its worth checking

The good news is, most bridges can be tweaked slightly to work as the difference is minimal

2003amxl

So looking at the shawn lane vigier model which has a totally flat fretboard and a ridiculous 0.7mm action, could they also have achieved this with a compound radius?

carlos

Yes what @WezV said. Compound radius always needs a compromise at the bridge usually averaging out the neck radius towards the last frets. 

carlos

2003amxl said:

So looking at the shawn lane vigier model which has a totally flat fretboard and a ridiculous 0.7mm action, could they also have achieved this with a compound radius?

Strings vibrate up and down which sets a limit for action. So a player who has a stuff l soft touch could do with lower action. This has nothing to do with radius as the string stays in its channel. 
However, strings also vibrate side to side which might create buzz in a very round radius. Unlikely but possible. There's the issue of choking bends as others have mentioned. 
I have a carbon neck Steinberger with 16" radius where I can get sub 1mm action on high E but I'd need very light strings. For the SL vigier Sig, it's also worth noting it's a Gibson scale superstrat. Shorter string, smaller vibration arc... Maybe. 

Bridgehouse

I must admit I read some posts (not usually on here mind) of people saying they consistently get an action of circa 0.5mm action and anything more than that must mean it's a crap neck/fret job and think "O Rly?!?"

Maynehead

WezV said:

Maynehead said:

carlos said:

Best is flat for me, but to be honest, there's little difference between infinite radius (flat) and anything 16" or higher. Compound radius is a good compromise for some people as in earlier replies, but bear in mind that the radius at the bridge will then be a compromise. You can't have compound radius at the bridge.

You don't need a compound radius a the bridge. The bridge just needs to be the same radius as the last fret, and if the nut is set to the same radius as the first fret, the strings will follow the compound radius of the board perfectly.

That's not correct.  

The radius is conical so continues to get flatter after the last fret.   The bridge radius should always be flatter than the last fret.

Ofcourse, you are correct.

The point I was trying to make though, was that the bridge radius of a compound fretboard does not necessarily have to be a compromise. It is perfectly possible to fit a bridge that makes the strings match exactly the radius of the fretboard all the way down the neck.

Whether such a bridge is commercially available as standard is another question, but there are ways to mod commercial bridges to create the specific radius required.

thegummy

Bridgehouse said:

I must admit I read some posts (not usually on here mind) of people saying they consistently get an action of circa 0.5mm action and anything more than that must mean it's a crap neck/fret job and think "O Rly?!?"

When I see it I wonder why they want it so much. I guess either they might have problems with their hands or play a different style to me.

I like a relatively high action and don't find it a problem personally.

Bridgehouse

thegummy said:

Bridgehouse said:

I must admit I read some posts (not usually on here mind) of people saying they consistently get an action of circa 0.5mm action and anything more than that must mean it's a crap neck/fret job and think "O Rly?!?"

When I see it I wonder why they want it so much. I guess either they might have problems with their hands or play a different style to me.

I like a relatively high action and don't find it a problem personally.

TBH I find low action feels like a bit of a pissing competition...

Maynehead

Bridgehouse said:

I must admit I read some posts (not usually on here mind) of people saying they consistently get an action of circa 0.5mm action and anything more than that must mean it's a crap neck/fret job and think "O Rly?!?"

Even on a perfect neck with perfectly level frets, that is still not a viable string action unless you're using a feather as a pick...

And even if you did you'd lose most of your dynamic range as the strings won't have enough room to vibrate.

Roland

Maynehead said:

Bridgehouse said:

I must admit I read some posts (not usually on here mind) of people saying they consistently get an action of circa 0.5mm action and anything more than that must mean it's a crap neck/fret job and think "O Rly?!?"

Even on a perfect neck with perfectly level frets, that is still not a viable string action unless you're using a feather as a pick...

And even if you did you'd lose most of your dynamic range as the strings won't have enough room to vibrate.

Whilst guitars with a 12” radius are capable of going below 1mm at the 12th fret I prefer to set them at 1.5mm. Below that I find it difficult to bend freely, and notice the impact on sustain. Players with other styles will have a different view.

carlos

Below 1.5 high E at 12th fret is for me a specialized action height. If you want to play lots of legato like Holdsworth then you need it. Shawn Lane had psoriasis and other conditions which forced him to use light gauge and use a soft touch. If you just want to shred and pick all the notes then too low an action might work against you. 

2003amxl

carlos said:

Below 1.5 high E at 12th fret is for me a specialized action height. If you want to play lots of legato like Holdsworth then you need it. Shawn Lane had psoriasis and other conditions which forced him to use light gauge and use a soft touch. If you just want to shred and pick all the notes then too low an action might work against you. 

That's the thing that got me about shawn lane, he was known for having a low action but seemed to still have a nice tone when doing all his picking stuff. Also when he used a clean tone there was zero buzzing and great sustain, and he did it on his ibanez and vigier guitars.

carlos

@2003amxl ;
He was a one-off genius. Did you see the gig he did with a Les Paul? That was a guitar they gave him because he didn't have a guitar for that live recording*.
That certainly didn't have super low action. Forget about it, just get it comfortable enough and then practice.
* - probably hocked it for painkiller money

2003amxl

Yeah he was a wild one no doubt about that. I have a mangled thumb on my fretting hand so anything that makes it easier to play i'll take!

thegummy

2003amxl said:

Yeah he was a wild one no doubt about that. I have a mangled thumb on my fretting hand so anything that makes it easier to play i'll take!

Wasn't sure if that's a reference to low action or the painkillers