|
Post by GuyaGuy on Sept 8, 2005 15:09:09 GMT -5
in order to change the radius of a fretboard, would it be neccessary to remove and then replace the frets?
i'm not planning to do it it myself--just wondering if the cost of having it done would be more than getting a new neck.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Sept 8, 2005 16:09:48 GMT -5
i isn't necessary, but it's definitely desirable.
problem is, there's no practical way to change the radius of the fretboard with the frets in the way.
if you have enough meat on the frets to make the change in radius, you can just shape the frets. problem is, your fretboard itself retains the original radius. kinda strange, if you decrease the radius, the outside of the frets look like a fretless wonder and the middle is normal. not so good.
your next choice it to remove the frets, decrease the radius, re-cut the fret-slots, re-fret, then taper and true them. not so bad.
even better (but more expensive), remove the fretboard and replace it. (if i ever replaced a fretboard, i'd insist on one with a 0th fret.)
if it's a set neck, fretboard replacement is similar in cost to neck replacement.
if it's a bolt, neck replacement is a bit cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Sept 10, 2005 13:40:38 GMT -5
thanks for the reply, unklmickey!
the fretsbeing in the way is exactly what i was thinking of. plus you'd have to file down the fretsanyhow tomatch the radius.
it's for an eastwood-made guyatone "remake." i love everything about the neck (including the 0 fret!) except that the fretboard's almost completely flat. i may look into getting a neck made or having a fretboard made. (i need those sharktooth fretmarkers!)
dan erlewine frequently talks about changing a guitar to a compound radius. i don't know if he was referring to reshaping the board or the frets, but the former seems like a lot of work and the latter sounds like you'd just endup w/ weird frets, as you point out.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Sept 12, 2005 11:00:02 GMT -5
i can't speak authoritatively about compound radius, but i suspect he may be speaking about having a radius thats nearly flat from d to g, goes to a slightly smaller radius from a to d and g to b, and even smaller radius from e to a and b to e.
since you have a passive nut, removing it and re-installing it won't be critical. if you are already considering re-necking or re-boarding, you might consider some mild experimentation.
if your neck is not already true, work with your truss rod tension to get it as close to dead flat with no string tension. make sure you wait at least a week after the last adjustment to insure stability.
when you're ready to start, you can use a fine flat file to begin taking some meat off of the frets toward the outside edges. if you're a bit squeamish about this just go straight to the next step. using a large sharpening stone (the kind you find at a hardware store for sharpening knives) you can gradually work the frets down, concentrating on the outside edges. the longer the stone is, the more it averages height on the length of neck. thats a good thing. stay off of the area between the d and g until the final polish run. also, keep working from nut to open end of the fretboard so that you keep things flat lengthwise while you decrease the radius widthwise. this is the best way to keep from getting out of control. once you have the profile you want on the frets as a group, you'll need to dress them. you will have a painfully square edge on the front and back of the frets. there are a number of differing ways to deal with this, probably the simplest is to use a small stone to put a chamfer on the front and back edges. don't get too aggressive here, just enough to keep from damaging your strings or digits on those sharp edges.
the most important thing to keep in mind here is that you can always take a little more off, but YOU CAN'T PUT ANYTHING BACK ON.
when you're working with a fretboard thats flat, even a slight radius makes a world of difference. if you are judicious about how much you try to change the radius, you might reach a compromise that is both comfortable and playable. too radical and you'll wish you just left things alone.
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Sept 12, 2005 14:29:32 GMT -5
www.warmoth.com/guitar/necks/necks.cfm?fuseaction=radiusi just mentioned erlewine cuz i was thinking a compound radius may not be a bad idea... anyhoo... i happened to stop in at a local luthierand asked him about altering the radius. he said what you did--you'd have to do a refret. good news is altering the radius is easy so it wouldn't cost much more than the $150-200 for a refret. i might end up doing having it done cuz it might be difficult to find a replacement neck that fits my model. i've done minor fretwork but re-radiusing a whole fretboard and the frets and refretting is a bit much. DIY should be fun--not a pain in the butt!
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Sept 12, 2005 14:50:51 GMT -5
i'm really glad you posted that link. i was obviously WRONG in my speculation in what a compound radius was all about!
if you're gonna have a luthier eventually re-fret your board after he alters the radius, those frets that are on there now are just gonna hit the circular file anyway. nothin' to lose in tryin' your hand in reshaping the frets before you take it in.
|
|
|
Post by RandomHero on Sept 13, 2005 15:56:39 GMT -5
Wow, heavy stuff. I was under the impression that most all modern fretboard were drawn up on failproof CNC machines, and personally I couldn't imagine radiusing a fretboard at all! Don't you have to be terribly precise with that sort of work? I mean, you're laying the foundation for your frets... it can't be very forgiving when it comes to margin for error?
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Sept 13, 2005 16:56:13 GMT -5
not as precise as you might think!
changing the radius of a fretboard is certainly not a task for us amateurs, but it doesn't require accuracy down to microns either. even in the event that you end up with a little bit of waviness in the fretboard, it's the fret itself that defines the string length. so its the positional accuracy of re-cutting the fret grooves that is most important.
you would never leave a fret virgin after hammering it in. a nicely setup board will have the frets honed down to about 1/2 of the virgin height. the height of each fret is averaged with its neighbors by the leveling action of the honing process. when dressing the front and back edges, slight positional errors can be compensated for by more or less stoning on the edge facing the bridge.
obviously if you have severe waves in the board itself, in some locations you have an inherent bend because of the increase in string deflection down to the board.
i would never attempt fretboard modification or replacement. (or installing a set neck) i personally stop at fret truing and nut filing for the limit of what i'll attempt on any guitar. looks like i'll be getting the chance to practice again this winter. bought a new junior the last week. needed a victim for some experimentation and the price was right. its somewhere between sorta cool and piece of $#!+. but thats another story for another time.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Sept 13, 2005 17:15:56 GMT -5
BTW
the more i think about it, the more the compound radius they discuss in that warmoth link makes sense.
first, as the strings leave the nut, they diverge as they approach the bridge. (wider spacing)
second, many bridges have a fixed radius that is either very large radius or just plain flat.
obvious exception: fender type - - you can change the radius at will.
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Sept 14, 2005 4:52:06 GMT -5
Wow, heavy stuff. I was under the impression that most all modern fretboard were drawn up on failproof CNC machines, and personally I couldn't imagine radiusing a fretboard at all! Don't you have to be terribly precise with that sort of work? I mean, you're laying the foundation for your frets... it can't be very forgiving when it comes to margin for error? it does need to be fairly precise to avoid deadspots and just to feel right. the luthier i talked to has a circular sander for each radius. it's more or less like sanding down a table leg or whatever. of course, having the right equipment makes it easier. trying to shave it down by eye would be a LOT of work!
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Sept 14, 2005 4:56:06 GMT -5
BTW the more i think about it, the more the compound radius they discuss in that warmoth link makes sense. first, as the strings leave the nut, they diverge as they approach the bridge. (wider spacing) second, many bridges have a fixed radius that is either very large radius or just plain flat. obvious exception: fender type - - you can change the radius at will. i've never played a compund fb but it sounds like a good idea. i'll have to ask the luthier if he can do that for me!
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Sept 14, 2005 18:18:01 GMT -5
just curious, what is your E to E spacing at the nut? at the bridge? what is the radius of your bridge, or alternately, what is the difference in height from the E to the D or G at the bridge? or do your saddles have adjustable height?
one last thing, what's the scale length?
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Sept 15, 2005 21:18:36 GMT -5
i'll get back to you on that; i have all of that written down but it's packed away cuz i'm moing this weekend.
i've not measured the radius though. i'm assuming it's close to 16.
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Sept 16, 2005 10:49:31 GMT -5
Good luck on that move, sure hope the electric environment is better that what Phillippe (phvdv) moved into!
whenever it's convenient, i'd like to try to guesstimate what the optimum compound radius configuration is. then we'll compare that to what your luthier recommends. maybe i'll be pretty close. maybe i'll miss by a mile. would kinda like to know which. so when the dust settles, get back to me with the numbers.
thanks, U.M.
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Sept 16, 2005 17:42:54 GMT -5
will do. wanna hear somthing nice? i'm sharing the place--sort of a live/work loft--with a friend who's only there once or twice a month to use the music studio he built there. that's right--i have free acceess to the studio!! whoopee! plus he's planning to give me a short tutorial on the equipment. it's a good thing cuz i have NO idea about recording. i can't even use a 4-track TASCAM properly...
|
|
|
Post by UnklMickey on Sept 19, 2005 8:32:57 GMT -5
nice? sounds like an understatement if i ever heard one!
|
|