|
|
Post by 4real on Jan 14, 2013 4:50:29 GMT -5
I'll leave you to your nuts then...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2013 4:53:56 GMT -5
I'll leave you to your nuts then... amen to that! |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Jan 14, 2013 13:56:24 GMT -5
I've stayed out of this thread, for the most part, as this is ground we've covered here before...that, and it started getting a bit too personal... That aside, about the best article, regardless of the shameless plugs for their tools, is the walkthrough at StewMac on making a nut: www.stewmac.com/shopby/product/0673?tab=ArticlesI do recommend the String Spacing Tool, but I've always been a big fan of anything that keeps me from pulling out a calculator, pencil and paper... Long and short of it is that most guitars built for the past few decades have all been CNC milled and spec'd for maximum material utilization and standardization. If I was to guess why the recent trend has been for narrower necks, I'd say cost is probably a factor. And someone mentioned flatter and wider necks being the preferred setup for shredders earlier. I'd have to agree with this as a rule. What I don't recall reading about much here is how did the guitar play? Without stirring the pot, string gauge, pick attack, style and preferred genre will all have a bearing on your ultimate setup...not to mention the physiology of your hands and fingers. Long and short of it is there is no ultimate setup for a guitar. Whatever setup feels the most comfortable and allows you to be the most effective in your given genre is what you want. Analyze the setup on your favorite "go-to" guitar. This is the list of specs you take to your tech. If he is armed with this information he can tell you if, or how close, he can get to that with the instrument presented to him. Don't under estimate the factor of muscle memory. A quick trip from a guitar to a bass will illustrate that point. So, let all agree to politely disagree and just play the damn guitar. Happy Trails Cynical One |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2013 15:02:23 GMT -5
I've stayed out of this thread, for the most part, as this is ground we've covered here before...that, and it started getting a bit too personal... That aside, about the best article, regardless of the shameless plugs for their tools, is the walkthrough at StewMac on making a nut: www.stewmac.com/shopby/product/0673?tab=ArticlesI do recommend the String Spacing Tool, but I've always been a big fan of anything that keeps me from pulling out a calculator, pencil and paper... Long and short of it is that most guitars built for the past few decades have all been CNC milled and spec'd for maximum material utilization and standardization. If I was to guess why the recent trend has been for narrower necks, I'd say cost is probably a factor. And someone mentioned flatter and wider necks being the preferred setup for shredders earlier. I'd have to agree with this as a rule. What I don't recall reading about much here is how did the guitar play? Without stirring the pot, string gauge, pick attack, style and preferred genre will all have a bearing on your ultimate setup...not to mention the physiology of your hands and fingers. Long and short of it is there is no ultimate setup for a guitar. Whatever setup feels the most comfortable and allows you to be the most effective in your given genre is what you want. Analyze the setup on your favorite "go-to" guitar. This is the list of specs you take to your tech. If he is armed with this information he can tell you if, or how close, he can get to that with the instrument presented to him. Don't under estimate the factor of muscle memory. A quick trip from a guitar to a bass will illustrate that point. So, let all agree to politely disagree and just play the damn guitar. Happy Trails Cynical One interesting article. i had read that as well. in fact it was in the beginning shortly after i noticed the problem due to muscle memory as you stated. Now for a person with thick fingers who plays chords, maybe this setup (36mm e-e for a 42.3mm nut) was the way to go. But if someones does a lot of bends-vibrato, then the room becomes small. If we follow the stewmac article, if we assume e.g. 2mm of beveled fret part for each side and 1/16 inches = 1.58 mm then spacing must be : nut_width - (margin_high_E + margin_low_E) = nut_width - (margin_high_E_to_beveled_start + length_of_beveled_part + margin_low_E_to_beveled_start + length_of_beveled_part) = nut_width - 2*1.58mm - 2*2mm = 42.3mm - 2*1.58mm - 2*2mm = 35.14. Yet even this seems a bit too wide in my case, and this is magnified by the fact that the bridge is 56+mm wide, leaving small room at the ends of the fretboard. Thank you all for your contributions..... maybe there is no ideal neck. Something is better for this, the other is better for smth else. I like Ibanez arz800 neck spacing, but it is so thick my hands hurt. The strat OTOH feels so good but sloppy at times. For my case with legatos, pull offs, severe vibratos (malmsteen type) even 35 e-e spacing for a 42.3mm nut is too wide. But for chords, progressions, with thicker strings yeah, maybe wider is better. Problem with my home town tech is that he never bothered to ask, or at least copy that freaking plastic nut it used to be on this guitar for nearly 30 years! But anyway, no big deal, its just a nut. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2013 15:17:54 GMT -5
Just measured the ibanez ARZ800 (LP type). It has 43mm nut (exactly), and 35mm E-E spacing. Also this guitar has an ultra narrow bridge of 51mm (or about). This gives a very generous 4mm on each side of the fretboard, (including the beveled part of the frets).
Maybe we could say that for legato, vibrato, pull offs, a figure such as
nut_width - outer_E_E_spacing = 8mm is a good approximation.
So for a 42mm nut, E-E has to be 34mm, for 43mm it becomes 35mm and so on.
For other types of playing, not requiring extreme vibrato, then we might loosen up the formula to nut_width - outer_E_E_spacing = 7mm, i think.
In anyway, about the tech nut figures,
42.3mm - 36mm = 6.3 mm and if we subtract the beveled part (2mm for one side) we reach a pathetic 6.3/2 - 2mm = 1.15mm. It is impossible to do pull offs with just 1.15 mm available at each side of the fretboard.
Now regarding wide - flat fretboards for shredding. At least for arpeggios, the 9.5' radius IMHO wins. Its like playing fast chords, its the same logic with the chord actually.
For legato, string skipping, etc... i don't know..
For bends, the flatter fretboards win hands down.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jan 14, 2013 15:19:32 GMT -5
I tend to muddle through with a few different neck sizes. The one I have to be most carefull of is my old Shergold, which has a beautiful slender hand made neck, with a zero-fret at the nut. At this point, the string spacing is 35mm and the neck is just 40mm, and there is a great tendency to fall off the edge with a bend pulled towards the edge of the fret board, particular since the thick frets have quite a deep bevel at the edge.
My Gibson LP has 36.5mm string spacing c/c on a 42.5mm neck width - its a much heavier neck but narrower frets.
The new Strat, with 35/43 and deepish jumbo frets and a bit more curve than the LP, fits like a glove, and I'm getting fewer flubs and buzzes than on any other guitar that I have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2013 15:30:26 GMT -5
The new Strat, with 35/43 and deepish jumbo frets and a bit more curve than the LP, fits like a glove, and I'm getting fewer flubs and buzzes than on any other guitar that I have. Those guitars are so ergonomic. You can play for hours and the hands feel still good. The scalloped one i have, its like touching the air! No friction anywhere! LP type neck at least in my hands get a little bit tiring after some hour. |
|
