-
Thinking of ordering a Warmoth Tele neck for my next body build. Does anyone have the 10-16" compound radius fingerboard and what do you think of it? I'm going with curly maple/ebony - no face dots and 1-3/4" nut.
-
02-27-2018 09:43 PM
-
I love mine. The compound radius is kind of a subtle thing. I don't really notice it until I play one of my other guitars. I had never had one before, but I didn't have any trouble adapting to it.
I think the profile you select is going to have a bigger effect on how the neck feels and plays for you. I went with the "Boatneck" which is a big chunky C profile. I think it feels great.
-
I have a compound radius on my Franken tele but with a standard thin profile.
Its probably my favorite neck ever, it was professionally levelled after I finished my build however, it made a huge difference.
-
i thnk i have one. i don't think i like it. but it also doesn't make a huge difference and it isn't my biggest quibble with that guitar- i hate the neck shape more than the compound radius. but for my playing style, it doesn't seem to help. its just a little odd. the guitar is a schecter tempest custom that is more geared toward shred stuff, which isn't me at all. but were it up to me, i'd stick to the good old 12 radius, until conviced otherwise.
this has been on my mind a lot as i've been looking to put a partscaster together, but a 12" radius is really limiting, and they are really pushing the compound radius thing. not sure how much i should care, if at all.
-
In principle, since the string spacing is narrower at the nut that the bridge, then the FB should be a cone segment and not a cylinder segment.
Thus the larger radius at the bottom.
I have never calculated the actual cone shape assuming a given string spacing at the nut and bridge. 10 to 16 can seem like quite a difference, but a Fender design has one of the greatest differences in string spacing between the nut and bridge. So maybe these are the right numbers.
BUT with a 1 3/4” width, the string spacing taper is less than typical for a Fender design. Again, I have not run the numbers, but 10 to 16 sounds like it would be a little extreme in this case.
*************************
I do notice that when aiming for super low action, the D and G strings can seem a little buzzy as you get up past the 10th fret or so. A compound radius would address this.
This is all well and good, it in practice I just can not manage to be dissatisfied with the plain old straight 9 1/2 to 12” radius setups.
-
I have a Fender with a 9 1/2" radius, and while it's better behaved than a vintage-Fender-style 7 1/2" radius, it frets out on bends noticeably more than my 12" radius fretboards. I can see the value of a compound radius wrt this issue.
Originally Posted by ptchristopher3
But what happens when you refret (and sand) a compound radius board? Are luthiers able to maintain the compound radius?
John
-
In my opinion, it takes an understanding of the “cone segment” and some care to not goof up a compound radius on re-fret. Originally Posted by John A.
Instead of leveling the frets straight along the neck, you need to adjust the leveling stroke to fan wider toward the higher frets.
I feel this is no harder really than leveling on a straight radius. Just needs a few more minutes of care.
-
I have Charvel Desolation DC1 FR, which is advertised as 12" - 16" compound neck.
Frankly, I can not see the graduation with my poor naked eyes. I can only see that at body end it likely is 16", because the curve is far less noticeable than on 12' neck of X-155 Squier.
All in all, playability of this neck is great, but I do not know how much it owes to compound radius (if it really is compound), because necks of all my 3 guitars are of different shape and radius (the 3rd is 71/2" Squier Tele).Last edited by Vladan; 02-28-2018 at 01:15 PM.
-
A compound radius should affect the bridge configuration, no? I would think the bridge should be flatter than usual for a standard fretboard, not following the radius at the end of the neck, because of the cone principle. For a Fender type this should be easy enough to set up, by just adjusting each saddle as needed. But for an archtop bridge, it needs to be addressed before installation.
-
It would also require awareness that the neck has a compound radius, right? So how do luthiers get this awareness? Do you take measurements beforehand? Look up specs? Keep a mental database of models and specs? Or it just obvious to a practiced eye? I never thought about this before, and I don't think I've ever had a luthier mention radius one way or another in discussions of how to set up a guitar. Originally Posted by ptchristopher3
John
-
One doesn’t have to think about using a sanding beam to level frets and follow a fanned out pattern. That’s how you would do it naturally on a tapered fingerboard. In any case, you are just sanding off as little from the crown as necessary to ensure level frets. If you are changing the existing radius of the frets by leveling there is either something wrong with the fretboard or you are being way too heavy handed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
i dislike the compound radius. I'd rather have a straight 16" radius. This is what holdsworth and scott henderson and frank gambale and tim miller use. (tim actually uses a 20" radius I believe) The idea of the compound radius came out of the notion that folks would play cowboy chords in lower positions and switch to a flatter radius going up the neck. I like the flatter radius. To me it makes no sense to have the rounder radius in lower position because it's actually harder to bend in lower positions anyway and the round fingerboard makes it worse.
I think carvin realized this early-on and so have many other companies and players. YMMV.
-
In my opinion, it goes more or less as rlrhett mentions above. Originally Posted by John A.
1. You are taking very little off the frets in the first place.
2. You follow the sort of fan pattern created by the tapered FB.
Ironically, following the fan pattern creates a slight chance for error on a constant radius board.
But in my opinion, an experienced hand can do a remarkably accurate job leveling frets with a VERY small amount of material removed. If you do not lean on the tool, it is not that hard to feel when you are now making contact with all frets - thus level.
In my opinion.
-
The bridge would (in a perfect, or at least theoretical, world) be larger in radius than the FB for two reasons. Originally Posted by sgosnell
1. It is farther south on the “cone segment”.
2. It is farther out from the center of the cone than the FB.
Most TOM bridges have a greater than a 12” radius, which actually is a good thing for a critical setup.
-
Radius is pretty subjective. JZ opines that he likes a somewhat flat radius, other guys love the old Fender radius (I have played some guitars from the 30's that had a smaller radius than the old Fender 7.5, talk about a curved fingerboard!). I think the compound radius is an attempt to "be all things to all people". And it may work for some. I am comfortable with 9.5-12. I could never bond with Fenders with a 7.5 nor any Martins with a 16 (and not for want of trying!).
I would want to have a pretty good tech doing a refret or fret level on a compound radius neck, but then again, I would want a pretty good tech doing those jobs on ANY neck.
-
And just for laughs:
Rounding off the decimals, we get this as an example:
Scale length = 25”
E to E (center to center) spacing at the nut = 36 mm
E to E at the bridge = 53 mm
The E strings would meet 77.94 inches from the bridge. At this point the “radius” would be zero.
So if we put a 12” radius on the FB at the 12th fret, the “cone segment” radius at the nut would be 9.68” and at the 24th fret (for you shredders) it would be 13.11”. At the bridge it would be 14.26”.
Some nearly interesting things:
A 10 to 16 radius is arguably less accurate than a simple “flat 12”.
Roughly speaking, a 10 to 13 compound radius would at least make theoretical sense.
The roughly 14” radius of a TOM ABR-1 is pretty much a perfect starting place for a very critical setup even though it does not “match” a constant 12” radius. A little string notch differential lets you fine tune.
Now, there is more to it, and certainly a player who loves the over-compounded 10 to 16 will have, in my opinion a very good experiential reason for this. Specifically, note bending is done mostly toward the center of the FB, so the 10 to 16 compound radius will notably “fall away” toward the center of the FB. So for emotive bends it holds some slight advantage.
But broadly stated, a flat 12” on a normal-ish guitar (no crazy scale length or string spacing) will be more than close enough.
ALL in my opinion.
Well the arithmetic may not be opinion.
-
I own several Warmoth necks with their compound radius. All of them were bought from their Showcase i.e. on the shelf. The three others I own were special ordered and have my preferred 12" radius. While I can see it (the radius), I was a inside and outside machinist in my 20's, I honestly don't feel much of a difference between the two. I do do my own fret leveling so I am aware of the different technique required.
I have guitars ranging from the Fender 7.5 to my nearly flat radius classical and flamenco guitars. Radius is one of those things that for me I can adapt to with relative ease. I am much more concerned about back profile, nut width and string spacing (finger style).
-
I have a straight 14 " Radius and if I play a Suhr or Anderson with a compound 12" to 16 " with the same medium jumbo frets I feel no difference.
But 10" -16" I think I would feel and not like it.
I am as likely to play chords or single notes or diads etc anywhere on the first 10 or 12 frets .
I like uniformity all across the neck so I would not like to feel different radii on one neck.
Although I still use vibrato more than straight Jazz Guitarists...I like the purity of clean playing a lot and do fewer wide bends so I could maybe live with a smaller radius but I don't get the compound radius thing...
Better ergonomics , more attractive to women , easier to play...what is the main reason again ?
-
I'll probably go with a straight 14" or 16" radius - for my purposes, I don't see the need for the compound radius but some folks must like it because they make so many of them - almost all their 'off the shelf' models have it. I came up playing an old Gretsch Nashville and Super Chet and I like the "neo classic" fingerboard - not sure if it was flat but it was pretty darn close. The surprising thing is, Warmoth charges extra for straight radius fingerboards if you do a custom build.
-
Skip..yeah that is strange about Warmoth that a straight radius is more expensive...
I have heard some good things about some of the Warmoth semi hollow Strat types and resonance.
I like 25.5 " scale but very phatt tones ...then maybe switches for thinner tones .
But guys who weren't trying to sell me anything have raved about some Warmoth builds...
-
The only compound radius neck I had was on a Parker P-36. I didn’t like it. If I was newer to guitar I might have but it just felt too different and I could never set it up like I want my guitars to feel. I also don’t bend strings or if I do it isn’t much of a bend so one of the main advantages just weren’t there for me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
The difference between a compound radius and a straight one is only about 1/128” at the outside stings above the twelfth fret. It is very subtle.
But 1/128” of difference in action under the “e” string is not nothing. If a conical/compound radius is available I choose it every time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
I have owned two compound radius guitars. The first was a rarity: a 1983 Ramirez 2a. It was flat at the nut and approxomately 16” at the 12th fret. It was my main guitar in the mid-90’s and I found it very comfortable for a 664mm classical. It did startle college level instructors on more than one occasion when they picked it up expecting a flat fingerboard.
My current Tele has a 9.5” to 14” radius. After more than two years, this is my all-time favorite guitar. It is very comfortable, intonates well and plays with ease.
While not for everyone, I recommend playing one for a while to get a good feel for them.
-
I have it in all of my four Warmoth‘es and I love the compound radius (neck shapes are with 59 roundback or boatneck). After a fret leveling and polishing these necks play as good as it gets (IMHO of course)
-
If you have a narrower string spacing at the nut vs. the bridge, then a cylindrical (constant radius) FB is already a mismatch. It is just a familiar mismatch to most of us, and really not that much of a mismatch.
Nothing magical happens with a “compound’ radius. On many compound radius designs you go from the slight mismatch of a constant 12” radius, to a greater mismatch (albeit in the other direction) of some compound designs that arguably over-do it.
The actual “ideal” taper in radius depends on the taper from the string spacing at the nut to that at the bridge.
But to generalize a “compound radius” vs. a constant radius bundles together a remarkably wide variety of designs as “compound”. Some can be a great match to the actual geometry in question, others can be somewhat ridiculous.
In my opinion.
Reply With Quote
Jersey Girl
Today, 11:36 AM in For Sale