schaller products review for customised guitar

[guitarist345]

hi. am customising an electric guitar. the body is ibanez style flat top. with 25" scale length and 42.8 nut width, les paul shape headstock (3l/3r), brass nut, 18% nickel/silver medium jumbo frets, seymour duncan sh-14 custom 5tm bridge pickup and sh-2 jazz neck pickup all on mahogany body, neck and ebony fretboard with a compund radius of 12" to 16".... and blah blah...............

now for this i would like to use scaller products like (schaller m6 locking tuners, schaller strap locks and schaller 3D6 hardtail flatmount bridge(fixed))

so what do u think about these schaller product for the above guitar specifications? especially the schaller 3D6 bridge (string height, string space n intonation adjustment) do anyone know if it goes with compound radius fretboard of 12" to 16"?


and am not comfortable with toms or tremolo bridges. will be happy for ur reviews...

[newey]

g345-

Hello and Welcome to G-Nutz2!

Sorry, but I had to delete your duplication of this post from the "guitars" section. It's more appropriate here, and we don't post things twice.

I don't have any personal experience with Schaller gear, so I can't give you any specific recommendations. But I'm sure someone will be along . . .

[Deleted]

Sept 22, 2013 5:32:29 GMT -5 guitarist345 said:

so what do u think about these schaller product for the above guitar specifications? especially the schaller 3D6 bridge (string height, string space n intonation adjustment) do anyone know if it goes with compound radius fretboard of 12" to 16"?

By reading
schaller-electronic.com/hp316107/Schaller-Bridge-3D-6.htm (3D adjustment and such) it seems that you can adjust the saddles height to make for a 16" radius, which is the radius of the last higher frets. No particular problems with that one, but i guess that a more "ordinary" bridge might be better due to simplicity. I mean adjusting string spacing sounds so generic, can't think of many uses besides using the same bridge on many different spaced guitars.

Schaller is being the brand of choice for many years, for many respectable members here (Cynical One, Samgaj ) , personally i'd look in the Gotoh camp as well. Had good experiences with sending order directly to the factory and also have some (admittedly - minimal but helpful) email correspondence with the factory : g-jax.com/510/bridge-tailpieces/guitar-bridges/gtc101.html

[sumgai]

git'5,


Unfortunately, greekdude has forgotten something: The radius doesn't stop changing just because the strings ran out of neck... by the time they reach the bridge, the radius is nearly 21" - this is what it takes to make the strings sit correctly over the 21st or 22nd fret. If you can't make certain that the intended bridge can reach this radius, then gd is correct - go back to something more simple. Many bridges don't accomdate this large a radius very well, but then again, not everything has to be "perfect", only good enough to accomplish the mission. Which is, can you play the thing without frustration?

IOW, can you set it up so as to play to your satisfaction, or even to your enjoyment? If not, then another bridge might be needed. Ask the neck manufacturer for their recommendations.

HTH





sumgai

[Deleted]

Sept 22, 2013 11:19:02 GMT -5 sumgai said:

The radius doesn't stop changing just because the strings ran out of neck... by the time they reach the bridge, the radius is nearly 21" - this is what it takes to make the strings sit correctly over the 21st or 22nd fret.

Hmmm, why just not hide this detail from the bridge? And just pretend that before the 21/22nd (lower frets) the radius is a constant 16". Why should 24th fret care about what would happen if frets went all the way up to the bridge? All that 24th fret cares about is having an even action across all strings right? This is accomplished by a 16" radius in the bridge.
I have never played seriously with/examined a compound radius guitar, but from what i can imagine, even if making the action height rationally low in the last higher frets (21-24th) the difference in action height at the lower frets (1-7th) between e.g. low/high E (higher action) vs e.g. D/G (lower action) will be there. By making the bridge radius even flatter, i think we risk (if my theory is correct) increase the said difference even higher.

[JohnH]

Im with sumgai on this one, on the basis of geometry.,(which you guys invented. thanks! love your work...)

The strings know nothing of radii, except that they are set out on a curve at the nut, and another at the bridge. In between, each is straight and together they form a cone with a radius that increases linearly from nut to bridge. So if the nut radius matches 9.5", and the radois above the last fret corresponds to 16", then the radius at the bridge will be 20-something".

[Deleted]

Sept 22, 2013 15:22:14 GMT -5 JohnH said:

Im with sumgai on this one, on the basis of geometry.,(which you guys invented. thanks! love your work...)

The strings know nothing of radii, except that they are set out on a curve at the nut, and another at the bridge. In between, each is straight and together they form a cone with a radius that increases linearly from nut to bridge. So if the nut radius matches 9.5", and the radois above the last fret corresponds to 16", then the radius at the bridge will be 20-something".

just imagine we have a cone from nut to last fret, and a cylinder from last fret to bridge. The last fret doesn't care about the previous ones. For the last fret, the previous ones do not exist. There is absolutely no need to impose an imaginary cone from last fret to bridge, just for the sake of geometrical simplicity.
I will rephrase it differently : The compound radius serves two purposes (I think) :
a) making chords at first frets feel comfortable by respecting the hand's curve. (radius 7.5->9.5")
b) making bends buzz-less at the higher frets (radius 14"+) (thus lifting the limitation of a continuous small radius across the fretboard).
So where the higher frets are concerned, the larger radius serves the purpose of defeating buzz during bends. Beyond, and including, the last fret, (21-24+) there is absolutely no reason to continue flattening the radius, till we reach the bridge, since no frets are there to cause any buzz!

So it safe to assume, that for every fret, we can completely forget what is happening radius-wise with the previous ones. For any fret, the previous do not exist. We can prove it via induction

[sumgai]

gd,


You want to marry the large end of a cone to a cylinder, and you expect the strings to "break over" the joint in order to reach the bridge?


John expressed it nearly fully, but I'll elucidate: The strings don't know about radii, because they're straight, as in under tension from one end to the other. IOW, they can't "break over" any imaginary line (the last fret). In order to do that, they'd have to be slack - under no tension. And you can guess what kind of sustain that would give you, right?

And when you get down to it, strings know nothing of so-called 'radii' because that's something we, as in you and I, envision when we view several strings in a set. Each string knows nothing of the others, including where they might be sitting in relation to one another... that's something that we put upon them, and it's only for reference purposes, so that we can compare the radial relations between one guitar and another. I say guitar because it really is a matter of both the neck and the bridge. I'm sure that mentally going through your setup procedures, you'll come the point where you adjust the individual string heights by raising/lowering the bridge and/or the saddles, right? Well, aren't you changing the radius of the sring set at that moment?

Admittedly, sometimes you raise one out of smooth arc we'd normally call a nice, neat radius, but all that really is doing is building a compound radius. And since you and I, and most other players, don't really care what the radius is at the bridge, we tend to "let it slide", as in slide right out of our conscious thoughts. But it is there, and in the case of a compound-radius neck, we have to pay attention, or else we'll have problems during setup, let alone while attempting to play the thing.

But in the final analysis, all that git'5 needs to do is set up his guitar as usual, and the bridge will then be at the correct radius. The only problem that may come into play would be if the saddle-height adjustment screws could not raise high enough for the high-e and low-e strings to stop buzzing. On most Fender-type bridges, this shouldn't be a problem, although there have been Fenders made in the past that had short set-screws in those two saddles, and likely would not support the guitar having a compound radius neck swapped in. That's easily fixed with a trip to the local hardware store though, so it's not a big deal. As for ToM-style bridges, a file takes care of lowering the middle string saddle points, until the action is set correctly.

HTH




sumgai

[Deleted]

I guess you guys are maybe right. I'll come back if i find anything of interest.

So you guys say that e.g. in a 10->16 compound radius guitar, in order to have even action height across all strings at the 24th fret (or any?? fret??), then the radius of the bridge should be around 21"?

And on top of that, by this way, we are able to achieve uniform even (=constant) action height across all strings/frets across all notes on the fretboard?
Is that correct? is it feasible with compound radius fretboards, or is a price we must pay somewhere ??

This is a purely geometrical problem it seems!

if all the above are doable (from a geometrical perspective), then i guess a compound radius might be a very nice thing to have.

[JohnH]

Well yes, you can set a consistent action on each string (or maybe a tad more on the bass side), though action needs to be at a maximum around the middle/upper frets, and reducing to very little at the first fret. Otherwise, despite intonation, the low frets go sharp. Also, the string moves more at mid length, so more action is needed there to avoid buzzing.

[Deleted]

Hmmm, there is a gotcha here, and i think i just found it!

I define two types of string action height :
a) action height on some fret of the string open
b) action height on some fret of the string fretted on some previous fret

Now, watch closely, if we are to make a fast legato run in 17-19-21 frets, then we are interested in the string action height of 19th/21st fret with the string fretted on 17th fret (I don't mention which string, on purpose). Let's suppose that radius along 17-21 frets is around the range of 14-15" (if 24th fret is 16"). Now, in this case, by having the bridge's radius to be 21", we may be perfect as far as uniformity in the type a) string action is concerned, but we harm string action of type b). This is because the higher/lower strings high-E, lower-E will have larger type b) action than middle strings (D/G).

Think about it in this way : we put a capo on the 17th fret, this cancels whatever happens on the nut->16th fret. This part does not exist anymore : this makes the fretboard almost having a 14-16" radius (read : almost constant) radius. In this case by making the bridge 21, we sacrifice string action of the outer strings.

[sumgai]

Sept 24, 2013 3:59:47 GMT -5 @pyrros said:

.... This is because the higher/lower strings high-E, lower-E will have larger type b) action than middle strings (D/G).

Sorry, but that's a false assumption.

.... put a capo on the 17th fret, this cancels whatever happens on the nut->16th fret. This part does not exist anymore : this makes the fretboard almost having a 14-16" radius (read : almost constant) radius. In this case by making the bridge 21, we sacrifice string action of the outer strings.

Why? As you said, the total string length now runs from fret 17 to the bridge saddles, but what else has changed? Answer: nothing. Ergo, our method of adjusting relief is now measured over 6 frets (up to the 24th), which allows us a degree of freedom of adjustment, when compared to the full neck length. In fact, the level of compromise goes way down, meaning sacrifice of action goes commensurately down, too.

As in your example, now remove the capo, and we've just introduced 17 more frets do deal with. Bow and relief just came into the picture, big time. Compromise enters the picture, and I suppose that could be viewed as an alternate definition of sacrifice, but I choose not to go that far. Instead, I just assume that the 6 fret version (the shorter overall string length) was valid to start with, and work my way backwards to the original nut/string length.

Where you got into trouble was the "almost constant radius" premise of 14-16", and then extrapolating that out to the bridge (wherein I erred slightly, it's only a little over 20", not nearly 21"). Regardless of the number of frets between the two endpoints, the radius of the arc will remain the same constantly changing factor, because it is essentially the outer surface of a cone. Unless the frets were improperly dressed, then they should also follow that constantly changing arc radius, and there should be no 'sacrifice' of action under either of your definitions of action.

The two definitions really aren't different animals in fact - all you need do is substitute a 'zero fret' for the nut, and separation of the two becomes moot. An "open" string is still an endpoint, and if it's closer to or further from the bridge is of no consequence (except in reviewing the neck's profile for relief, due to nodal harmonics). Whether it's a nut made of bone, plastic, metal or graphite, or if it's an actual fret, it's still an endpoint.

Your guess is correct, you're just going to have to try it for yourself. But keep in mind that you'll be in good company - Warmoth didn't truly invent the concept, they just popularized it in mass production. The fact that nearly half off all their sales are compound-radus necks should tell you something about how other players perceive it. While I don't have one on my own Strat, I've played several of them, and I can see a big difference in both comfort and facile agility when bending any string on the upper frets - no more 'fretting out' thanks to the near flatness of the fingerboard.

In fact, as I envision the action of a compound radius neck, the only drawback would be for slide players - one can no longer be sloppy about muting any unwanted strings. Even when you pluck only one or two, the bar will now be resting on several strings at once, unlike a normal neck with a radius of 9.5, 10 or even 12". Probably not a game changer for most players, but certainly it will force the player to clean up his act.

HTH




sumgai

[Deleted]

The guitar lets say has 21 frets. The radius at the 21th fret is 16". Let the radius at the bridge be 20-something. You put the capo on the 20th fret.
Now you have a guitar with one fret, radius at the nut = 16" (nut = 20th fret) and radius at the bridge = 20+". Of course outer strings will have larger action height.
Do you agree with that? If not i think we should just concentrate on this example for a while, till we find out if there is flaw in someone's logic somewhere.
Now if we agree that this is a problematic set-up we can now work by induction backwards as you said yourself, and we have the proof.

[4real]

Sept 22, 2013 5:32:29 GMT -5 guitarist345 said:

hi. am customising an electric guitar. the body is ibanez style flat top. with 25" scale length and 42.8 nut width, les paul shape headstock (3l/3r), brass nut, 18% nickel/silver medium jumbo frets, seymour duncan sh-14 custom 5tm bridge pickup and sh-2 jazz neck pickup all on mahogany body, neck and ebony fretboard with a compund radius of 12" to 16".... and blah blah...............

now for this i would like to use scaller products like (schaller m6 locking tuners, schaller strap locks and schaller 3D6 hardtail flatmount bridge(fixed))

so what do u think about these schaller product for the above guitar specifications? especially the schaller 3D6 bridge (string height, string space n intonation adjustment) do anyone know if it goes with compound radius fretboard of 12" to 16"?


and am not comfortable with toms or tremolo bridges. will be happy for ur reviews...

Hi there. I' struggling to imagine this project, are there pictures or sketches?

Otherwise, I use schaller locking small size tuners on both my fender type guitars and love them compared to others I've used on other guitars. Not tried larger les Paul types if they are required for your headstock. Mine are also staggered but possibly not an issue if your headstock angled back.

I also use schaller strap locks on a few of my guitars and found them superior in design as the strap button is copped and the weight is not on the 'lock' but the button itself and can't fall out.

The bridge is interesting but no experience and on a phone so hard to see. My khaller bridges have '3D adjustment and been invaluable in set up being able to adjust string spread. The ability to secure the strings through the plate to increase pressure over the saddles may well be crucial on some guitars and advantageous. Personally I shim the neck to increase pressure over the saddles which is important on very 'flat' fender like instruments, a les Paul already has a lot of pressure due to the curve and angled body and with a stop tailpiece already adjustable.

Compound radio us is nothing 'new' and features on many guitars for decades, iota a good thing that avoids fretting out on bends and sound.

Everything depends on the setup but at least with this kind of bridge you have more you can do I imagine and string spacing for me has been important but can't see quite how and how much you can play with on this phone.

Schaaler is quality product. I recently used hip shot products and they too are excellent and offer a lot of options in tuners and bridges. The open backed customisable 18:1 3+3 locking tuners I feel, for that guitar, superior to the schaller a but for the electrics would not hesitate to use them again. Hope that helps...

[Deleted]

Sept 24, 2013 14:01:49 GMT -5 @pyrros said:

The guitar lets say has 21 frets. The radius at the 21th fret is 16". Let the radius at the bridge be 20-something. You put the capo on the 20th fret.
Now you have a guitar with one fret, radius at the nut = 16" (nut = 20th fret) and radius at the bridge = 20+". Of course outer strings will have larger action height.
Do you agree with that? If not i think we should just concentrate on this example for a while, till we find out if there is flaw in someone's logic somewhere.
Now if we agree that this is a problematic set-up we can now work by induction backwards as you said yourself, and we have the proof.

coming to think about it, my example above is still a compound radius guitar. And i can see that it could be rational to think that the action would be uniform.

I was worried about the case, when the distance to bridge goes to "infinity" thus causing a "negative" radius on the bridge, and thus problem in action height.
But it seems that i miss the mathematical equations governing the compound radius neck ( i have them somewhere in erlewine's book, just no time to look it up)
so there might be a harmony that governs this in a tight and bound way. I just could not see it. It was the extreme case dragging me to think of potential problems with that, or the notion of "paying some price somewhere".

all well SG

[sumgai]

gd,

Your mention of Dan Erlewine triggered my own memory, so I went hunting.... is this what you were thinking of:

Stew-Mac on Compound Radius Necks


Those illustrations and formulae are pretty clear, or at least I think so.   Too bad I didn't think to look earlier, and save you some head-scratching.






sumgai

[Deleted]

Sept 24, 2013 23:46:30 GMT -5 sumgai said:

gd,

Your mention of Dan Erlewine triggered my own memory, so I went hunting.... is this what you were thinking of:

Stew-Mac on Compound Radius Necks


Those illustrations and formulae are pretty clear, or at least I think so.   Too bad I didn't think to look earlier, and save you some head-scratching.






sumgai

very helpful, it explains at some point that compound radius specs (parameters of the cone) is bound to the difference in spread E-E in nut and in the bridge, so in short, :
a) a compound radius not only is the correct way of building a neck/nut/bridge, but,
b) its geometry is fully bound by the guitar's specs (nut spacing, bridge spacing)

cool

damned i was forcing my self to distant from the idea of owning a fender deluxe strat... now the valkries are flying over once again

[JohnH]

The stewmac article was quite insightful.

Having read that, it seems to me that one could approach such compound-radiused conical perfection to quite a close degree, with a single radius, by paying carefull atttention to neck relief.

Imagine a straight neck of constant radius, and strings tbat spread apart as usual towards the bridge. A theoretical central string, between 3rd and 4th, could achieve perfect alignment with the centreline of the neck. The outer strjngs however, have a higher action in the high frets, due to the smaller than optimum neck radius, which would ideally become greater high up the neck. To deal with that we can drop the saddles a bit to get the right action on all strings at the highest fret.

But now imagine the action along tbis outer string at various positions along this perfectly straight neck. Action is perfect at the nut and also the top fret, because we have made it so. In between the action becomes too high. This is because, if you project the line of the strring down, as if cutting our cylindrical fret board, at a slight skew angle, like a cheese wire, the profile created is part of a shallow upwardly curved elipse. This effective upward curveature of the neck when considered interms of the line of teh string, could be corrected by neck relief, jusf like adjusting for back bow.

Only one pair of strings could be perfectly adjusted by this method, since each string is at a different angle to the centreline. But if this is done to optimise the 2nd and 5th strings, then all the others are only one string away, so the result would be very close.

General conclusion: necks with constant radius should have a bit more relief for best set up.

[sumgai]

John,


Your guestimates are probably dead on, but....

The real underlying problem is that the truss rod can adjust in only one direction, nominally straight up/down, so indeed as you suggest, all of the strings are actually at an angle to that rod's direction of "bend". IMO, this will prevent adjusting relief on any of the strings for "best case scenario", and will require a lot of compromise, ultimately leading to more than a bit of sacrifice.

Now it has been done this way for the past 100 years and more, and with acceptable results when all things are considered, but that doesn't mean that it's still acceptable, given the advantages of a conical-shaped fretboard. Therein, all of the strings should be able to be optimised for desired action, even though the truss rod is still limited to one plane of adjustment. At that point, adjusting relief for best-case scenario on B and A strings really should allow the others to come much closer to ideal, compared to a cylindar-shaped fretboard.

But I repeat my admission, I'm stroking from thin air, I have no personal hands-on experience with adjusting and setting up such necks. Take all the above for what it's worth.


HTH





sumgai