This is what I've observed about compound radius fretboards. The only advantage I've seen is in bending notes at the higher frets. Set a standard Strat with a 9 inch radius with as low of action as you can get without buzz. Now try to bend on the high E around the 12th - 14th fret. It will probably fret out on you. Now try the same thing with an LP (around 12 inch radius), It won't fret out as badly. This is the problem with tight radius guitars. The compound radius gives you the bending advantage of an LP, but with the easy chording at the lower frets of a tele/strat. I've ordered several Warmoth necks with the compound radius of 10 - 16 inches, and I'm very pleased with the results. I also have normal Strats and LPs, and am happy with them. You just need to set them up a little different. Hendrix did fine with a 9 inch radius fingerboard.
^^^ This. Exactly. The science behind a compound radius is definitely sound - but the "viability" of it as an improvement greatly depends on the radii in question. There's zero point in making a 14" to 20" compound. But if you love bar chords on a 9.5" AND bending 2.5 steps on a 16" then a compound definitely works as intended. I agree with Matt on the points of "loss" when it comes to a small-time builder. But anyone the size (and CNC tech) of Warmoth is making "exact" 10 to 16 compounds. I put one on a baritone build and it definitely has a noticeable difference.
I get the whole bending and fretting out thing. I don't understand how people have difficulty playing chords with a flatter radius. Like I say, if you dig it rock on.
@@donvanco3078 , exactly....I hope no one thinks I am of the opinion Matt should do them, we just like to disagree on this subject, I guess...He knows I am just being a pain.
I was just banging out some bar chords on my classical, and you can indeed play bar chords with no problems. This may just be a matter of habit and personal preference. I think the strings will be closer together on the flat fingerboard than on a radius one for a given width. Probably not much, my calculus is rusty, someone else can calculate that. Chapman sticks have flat fingerboards, and 8 string guitars have pretty flat fingerboards also. Seems to be no problem with them. One thing I did notice on the few (acoustic) guitars I've made, when I level the fingerboard, I sand along the taper of the fingerboard. This seems to end with a conical fingerboard radius whether I planned it or not. I drew a fingerboard with taper on an old cardboard tube I had laying around (constant radius) and when you lay a straightedge along the taper you get an arc. I think when we're finishing leveling a fingerboard we level to conical shape naturally. Does a player notice this? I'm guessing nope. Sorry for the long post, I geek out on this stuff.@@TexasToastGuitars
FWIW - I don't think it's a matter of it being "harder" on flatter radii - I just think it's easier on numerically smaller radii for lots of people. If that makes any sense. I think the compound was born out of the needs of those folks - the old 9/9.5 necks were great for cords and general noodling - but if you love massive bends and run a low string action the potential to fret out on notes past the 12th was pretty huge.
I’ve build a couple electric guitars, with flat fretboards, works great. Some times when I pull out one of them, I forget that the fretboard is flat. I will claim that nut/neck width, has a more noticeable impact, on playability and comfort, than the fretboard radius.
Compound Radius Fingerboards became the rage with the rise of the shred guitarists in the mid to late 80's. Because of how fast they were playing, they needed a guitar that was as easy to play as possible. In the days when everyone wanted a Jackson Guitar, they were able to use the Compound Radius Fingerboard and a proper setup, to get the action down to 1/16 of an inch on every fret for every string. This gave the shredders the perfect platform to show off how fast they could play. Like with all things, it was a product of its time. Although it is considered passe now, and not something that people worry about, any kid growing up in the late 80's wanted it.
Yeah if you like 7.25 but you also love really low action, but ALSO really want to be able to bend up more than a half step… you’ll be disappointed. I wish my Johnny Marr Jag had a compound radius. Literally the only thing I would change about that guitar.
I tend to agree with you (mostly). Compound/conical/variable radius necks usually do not make much of a difference to most players. Yes, if the maker chose the precise radius for the scale length, you can maintain an even action along the string for the entire scale. But with that comes a share of headaches, too. Necks are wood, for the most part, and wood shifts with humidity, temperature, changes in string diameters, etc. To maintain the benefit of the compound radius means that you may wind up tweaking your truss rod an awful lot, or playing with the height of your bridge (which takes away the benefit). Additionally, if your instrument ever needs refretting you are almost required to send it to the manufacturer as your local guitar mechanic is very unlikely to have the skill or the cauls necessary to bring the instrument back to where it ought to be. Overall, I think that compound radius is much more of a potential headache than it is a benefit. But everyone's mileage varies, yes? Flat fretboards? I learned to play on an old Airline acoustic (from Sears). The fretboard on that thing was dead flat. IT worked, however.
It's cool that you measure round surface using wide flat tool... but that "small" difference multiplies a bit as it affects the way you have to compensate for inconsistent neck relief between strings. The idea is for all strings to have same neck relief underneath.
Very cool and helpful. I bought a Tele Elite last year. When I bought it I wasn’t aware conical radius existed, much less that my Elite had one. What I DID notice was it played better on the higher strings than the Baja that I was about to buy when I saw the one I bought hanging on the wall. I kept going back and forth because the difference was $900. I went home and the next day played them again and couldn’t get the Elite out of my head. So I bought it. I told my friend and he says “nice guitar, noiseless pickups, contoured back, compound radius...” I say “compound what?” So there was (and is) a difference for me but I can see why that might not be so. It didn’t make me a great guitarist. That job is for an Interplanetary Genius. Great video. Thanks..
I like the idea of a flat fingerboard... I actually made my first neck this way, when I was a teenager, and I still like the neck. It now is my fretless bass, because I messed up the fretting job :) I totally agree with your thoughts on combound radii, and although classical guitars nowadays often have a slight radius, there is no actual reason for that because the neck doesnt have tapering either. I am planing to build an electric guitar just like that - everything flat, 640cm scale length (already have the template) maybe even putting in narrow frets... I think this "classical" feel when playing an electric guitar may be an inspiration for the fingers ;) And the intonation should be awesome
You can also compound radius the frets themselves if they are meaty enough. I've been doing that on guitars that I don't want to redo the entire fretboard instead. Generally from the 12th fret and higher is where I flatten the centre out of the frets so I still get a decent action and better bend-ability.
It comes down to what feels most comfortable for your hands, it all comes into play, the neck profile, fret size, radius, scale length etc. A 10-14 compound radius definitely allows for my fretting hand to have a more comfortable transition from one portion of the fretboard to another. A neck with just straight radius through out will work for some people because of their hands, and admittedly I can of course make it work for me if necessary, but not something I would willingly choose on a day to day basis. I make my living playing constantly, so I have to have it my main guitar fit my hand hands perfectly. I have other guitars that have straight radius’s but I do not play them day in and out. If you take a straight radius guitar and approach playing a phrase or lick across the whole range of the neck you’ll undoubtedly find it will perform more comfortably in different areas, and this is assuming you are approaching playing the phrase with exact proper technique and relaxation. From what I have found is a compound radius will help slightly in making a more smooth transition from one end of the neck to another properly helping support the hand given the position. This may just be me, and undoubtedly I unfortunately do have hand problems from not resting enough in my early years and thus my hands are very sensitive now to the differences.
Thanks for this. I’m in the process of making my first fretboard and having some practice runs on cheap wood first. Tried initially doing the compound radius with my plane, line shown on the Crimson channel. But now thinking I might just get myself a 12 inch radius sanding block and just do it that way.
Fretboard radius is a super important step and easy to get wrong. Simplifying the process as much as possible with design or tools would be what I would recommend.
Best and simplest explanation I've ever seen. For me compound radius is just another "unicorn extra" that players think will take them to playing 'Nirvana' - much the same as a certain pedals or amps (or guitars for that matter...) If you're an average player (i.e. all of us) it makes no difference whatsoever. Its just another a sales pitch. I myself move from a 7.25 radius on my Tele to a 12 on my Les Paul and I don't feel/notice any difference at all - nor do they fret out...its like driving your car, then your wife's - its different and takes about 30 seconds to adjust. As you say, all the great stuff was recorded on bog-standard guitars with bog-standard radii...Rock on guys, keep the good stuff coming.
Still, I feel like when you're trying to get the absolute lowest action possible, every 1/1,000th of an inch matters (obviously the fretwork matters more but you'll be better off with a better starting point
I have a 2014 Fender American Deluxe Tele, and it has a compound radius from 9.50" at the nut to 14" at the last fret. It's the first tele, I've owned, that I didn't have to fight, a little, with.
Damn....you likely saved my bacon on the radius specs on a certain bridge type. I didn't even think of that. My first build is soon as I acquire the necessary tools. Going to put a 1998ish Ibanez RG470 Floyd trem onto a Tele body. Was planning on a 12" radius, but originally the guitar had a 12" to 16". Thanks again for the invaluable knowledge! I'd hate to screw up my first build.
I was always curious about compound radius necks but just preferred flat radius necks by a long long mile. My Ibanez RG750 my dad bought me when I began playing the guitar had a wonderful action and a very flat board like 17" flat. It was yrs later I played a Yamaha Pacifica 1221 model where I thought it also had a perfect neck shape and felt flat yet it was also so comfy for open chords. I owned it for 2 yrs before I realised it was a compound 12-16" board...lol. Now I am having all my favorite guitar changed to compound radius as I can find the time to get them done. Guitars like my floral 1990 Jem of course I would never change but all my others will feel much better for me with this modification.. People who say it makes no difference or it is a cash in for guys offering this mod are talking from their butts. It is a slightly subtle mod or it can be a very noticeable effect if you are going from say 9.5" to a 18" ect... For me there is less hand fatigue, bends are easier and playing fast passages above the 12 fret come out even more accurate because the strings are lying flatter especially where you are flat picking. The benefits for me are huge and I now find playing a straight 9.5" fender radius difficult and awkward to retain accuracy. This wa the best video for explaining the compound radius feature on some guitars. Clear, simple with no fancy talk and all that. I subbed and liked this video and will be watching all your videos. Good work my friend...Much enjoyed:)
The compound radius is a terrific idea and should, theoretically, make a big difference in action. Having said that... anyone really interested in the lowest possible action should go with a completely flat fretboard. The classical players have no trouble. We made a guitar with a dead flat board and give it to people, they totally have no idea HAHAHAHA
Hey Matt… I have guitars with compound radii (?) and guitars without….all of them play great when properly set up….I think that the key to an instrument playing and feeling great is in the set up rather than the fretboard radius… anything from 9.5 and up is great for 99.9% of the players out there in the world…. it may be a selling point for some brands… but like Nurburgring lap times for sportscar brands it makes no difference in the real world…. just bragging rights….
What people forgets is that those "heavily" radiused necks like 7.25" and below (if there ever was one) was mostly on the vintage Fenders of the 50s where you DID NOT BEND, and used 012 gauge strings, flatwounds, and a spun third. No one bent back in the old days. I have played and tried 7.25 radiused necks and you have to keep high e-string at such a high action that it is imposible to play anything decent. What people forgets is that on a "heavy" radiused neck like a 7.25" the string buzz may NOT come from the fret right UNDER the string, but it can come from the same fret but at the side, since the fret goes "up hill" and as the strings vibrates it "chokes" on the neighboring fret hill. I e there's closer distance to the sides of the strings, than the distance to the fret point right underneath it. Which defeats the purpos totally. I've come across loads of bass guitars that buzzes even with high action, and that was the culprit. I find the following VERY peculiar in the guitar industry: The only fretboard where you can have the lowest action all across, and bend strings to kingdom come, is if it's completely FLAT and has no radius at all. And as such, only classical nylon strung guitars comes with those. Where you can't bend any strings anyway, bcause the music played on those are not at all including and string bends. Classical, acoustic tunes and so on. Old time music. But as fast as you play other kinds of music, blues, rock, country, folk, where bends are a crucial part in the music, and you go for steel guitars, electric guitars, with light gauge strings where you actually CAN and DO bend strings and it is a large part of the music, all of a sudden - for some rational bizarre - the guitars are made to make that harder, i e with lots of "radius" on the neck, compound, conical etc. WIth lots of fret buzz as a result too... Beats me, and have always done. And will, ever. I like mine with 16" radius all the way through. But.. that's just me. Almost flat. YMMV.
Before I got a compound radius guitar I really believed in it because it made theoretical sense. After I've played one for 6 years, it's really not that remarkable. Sure, it solves the choking out problem when you bend. But so does a flatter radius fretboard. Then the question remains is that does the tighter radius on the lower frets make barre chords more conforming to the contour of the finger? It's a non-issue for most of the players who are already playing up the neck. It's like "we have invented a tool to help you do both grade 10 homework and grade 1 homework!" Er, if I'm doing grade 10 stuff I don't need help with grade 1 stuff.
It's absolutely a solution looking for a problem. Besides, just a little too much sanding will turn your 10 into a 12 and visa-versa. Furthermore, I think the whole "fretting out" thing on standard necks is baloney. Jimmy Page routinely bent a step and a half (3-semi-tones) on a 7.25" Telecaster and didn't seem to have much problem. I'm not a Tele player but I have owned plenty of 9-10" Fender Strats and never had a problem, and I've never had any problem setting up any guitar from any decent manufacturer to play well with a low action all up and down the neck. I have a buddy who makes a really oddball electric (keyless headstock like a Steinberger) that has a *6* inch radius neck, and they also play fine with a nice low action. And yes - the reason bowed string instruments require a conical radius - and a very low # radius at the bridge... is so individual strings can be bowed. The string spacing on bowed strings is much more radical than on a guitar - the nut being very narrow in contrast to the bridge. So it has to be conical. But if you look closely, especially on pro-quality 'cellos and double basses - it's not a pure compound radius at all. It's an oddball shape whereby the lowest string is on a flat, angled section and the three top strings are on a "tilted radius" - take a look here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cello#/media/File:Cello_bridge2.JPG The low string is set up separately and treated differently than the upper three on this type of fingerboard. Note that there's no real "standard" on bowed stringed instruments it's all over the map from one century and maker to another.
You know as well as anyone that there are lots of ways to make instruments. Guitars that are easier to play will always be in style and people will be willing to throw money at answers looking for questions no matter what industry it is.
@@TexasToastGuitars yeah...dare I say "Automotive Industry"? I really don't need a car I have to reboot every time it gets wet. That is why I have a 1993 Jeep Wrangler...
I recently bought my first compound radius neck for a strat. I thought I would be able to tell a difference but I can't. I think that the back of the neck shape, thickness, and fret size are way more important than the radius. If you have a good setup, you will be fine.
Excellent presentation. So many guitars being offered today with these upgrades makes you wonder, is the buying public just latching on to snake oil buzz words? I'm sure compound radius is useful for the very advanced player taking things to the next level (though in micro adjustments) but probably not for us average folk.
Hard to say, I think people like to spend money on guitar stuff and often times people who sell guitar stuff will try and convince us that there is a hardware solution to a software problem... to paraphrase the late Jeff Cooper
I have Guitars with straight radius necks, and Guitars with compound radius necks. To Me, the difference is not really discernible. I will add that the only real advantage to a compound radius neck is that You can get Crazy Low Action with them. Great Video! ✌
Well, if it doesn't cost more and there is any at all advantage in terms of bending and action, even if minor, I'll take it. I've played everything from vintage Fenders to straight 20" 80's shredder necks and I like what a CR neck delivers. I get a slightly more curved radius for rhythm playing and a flatter surface for soloing and it makes slide a little easier up there too. I don't buy off-shelf Fenders and build my bolt-on guitars and I get necks from Warmoth and it's a standard feature so for guitars that aren't vintage-spec, I just prefer them. If it cost a lot more, I'd probably go with a straight radius honestly though.
I have a 1983 strat that is a reissue of a 62, they called it the vintage series back then ( showing my age) , it has a 7.25 radius, and I have to keep a fairly high action at the bridge, not SRV high but about 5/64ths at the 17th fret, or it'll fret out bending. I did a build with a 7.35-9.5 compound radius and I can set that at 4/64 or 1/16 and it doesn't fret out, and to be honest I can barely tell a difference both play about the same. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about and I still don't see, It wasn't that big of a deal, no night and day difference, the flashlight backs that up. My daily driver has I believe a 10 inch radius and I like that too, kinda middle of the road.,
Like I said before, I WASTED money on compounds. I never saw the benefit... Compound radius = more money... Preach the truth Matt!! Cups up to you bud!
Thanks for watching my friend, When I give that neck to people and don't say anything they don't notice. When I tell them it is a compound radius they claim they can see it. People are funny
Great explanation of how little a compound radius is in the overall length of a fingerboard. It's not worth the effort to me. One thing that I do though, for instance, is create a straight 12" radius on my fingerboards, then level frets following the lay of the strings creating a slight conical effect in the frets only. Doesn't take any more effort to do. This is just something that I've always done whether it makes a difference on fretting out issues or not. Adjustable height bridge saddles used.
Hey Matt, every major player in the guitar industry and even after market neck builders have been calling it compound radius your years and it's never been a problem. And it is proper to call it that cause one thing combined with another is a compound. Yes it's convenient to describe as conical but not necessarily more correct. Anyway don't let the nit pickers get you down. Good video, well explained.
How should you radius the bridge? I have a 10-16” neck… some say radius the bridge to 16 and some say 20 as it keeps flattening as the length of of the string continues. What do you think?
You absolutely must set it flatter than the end of the fretboard on a conical radius neck if you want to realize the, mostly theoretical, advantages of said fretboard. 20" is probably pretty close. It is also very important to level and dress your frets such that they are not throwing off the radius as well. The whole thing is pretty much an exercise as far as I'm concerned. The real question is how low do you really need your action? How much relief do you have in your neck etc... I'll say this, if you adjust your truss rod to have any bow at all the whole thing is a wash.
I agree with everything that you said but wanted to expand on a conclusion that you dabbled on but was a pretty big issue with my compound radius. In fairness I grew up with and am comfortable with a 12 inch radius/Gibson but on a Stratocaster body ie a Kramer super Strat. I now have a gorgeous limited edition mint green Elite Stratocaster with a matching headstock and a compound radius. It's the first time I've dealt with fret buzz. The first luthier made the bridge at an angle to raise the height of the low E and A String. I eventually flattened it by screwing it down and just raised the saddle height. I've eliminated most of the fret buzz except if I'm unplugged and playing really aggressively on the 4th and 5th fret of the low E and A. Is this an unfortunate aspect of a compound radius? What is your advice and opinion
Hard to say, of course, the cone will continue but it will depend on the distance from the 15" part to the bridge. I'm sure you could do math but you could also measure from the bottom of the nut slots to the top of the frets and match it all the way down... Good luck RB
@@TexasToastGuitars StewMac actually has an explanation of how to calculate the proper compound radii given the length of the neck and the starting point radius. The calculations can be used to determine the radius at the bridge. It's actually useful in setting a 'starting point' for the bridge set up.
Matt, Thank for all of your insite and and opinions. I am learing a great deal from your video presentations. I also like the way you are so open minded and don't trash talk people. I just want to add my two cents about this particular video on fretboard radius. As you know,, all hands are not the same. I mostly play bar chords because of injuries to my left hand (I am rightey). A smaller radius is easier for me to play because I have short to average thick fingers. I don't know many folks that can lay their fingers " straight and flat. Mine are slightly arthritic and curve inward. You mentioned playing with a slide near the end of the video. Not being a slide player, I was wondering if a smaller radius would be easier to solo on.
Hi Paul I am the wrong guy to ask about that I'm afraid. The purpose of this video was to point out that the actual difference between a 10 and 16 inch radius is very small. That certainly doesn't mean that you should chose on the other or both.
I think the compound radius concept appeals mostly to shredders. Ultimate shredding gets down to tiny little differences being big differences. Shredders rarely play cowboy chords in the first position, so I don't understand why they would want a tighter radius at the first position anyway. Whatever a player wants is what a player should get though. I don't shred much. I don't shred at all actually. Having played a 7 1/4" Strat for years I would say that I prefer the 9 1/2-12" radius necks now. The 7 1/4" neck does fret out above the 15th fret now and then, but I only play up at the 15th fret now and then anyway. Tiny little children play crazy good on youtube with whatever guitar somebody bought for them, so some of this tweeky stuff may just be for fun anyway.
Guitars that are easier to play will always be in style. Easy answers will also always be popular. I remember the first time I heard about the Warmoth compound radius, it was right around the same time I went to Roberto-Venn. There was a lot of misinformation out there about something that everyone wanted.
@@TexasToastGuitars Since I am not a luthier I had to look up the school. Pretty cool. Going to a good school kind of takes some of the snake oil out of the biz....
Idk man, I have a Jackson with the 12-16" compound radius and I can get the strings quite a bit lower (well, percentually) than on my 14" Kramer, both well leveled. If you like the strings to be as low as they can, compound radius will help a little bit at the higher frets.
I have an ibanez, Jackson with compound, and a Kramer, with the kramer and Ibanez I have super low action with little to no buzz, the Jackson though I had to raise the action on the bridge side otherwise it buzzed like mad
We share a lot of similar views on those conical radius fretboards. How small the differences are is easy to see when you got it all in an excel sheet and have the differences together. Some say bending is easier with a flatter radius in the higher frets. If it isn't a very tight radius from 7,25'', sure...but with the regular 10 or 12 inch radius...nah. Jumbo frets make it easier to bend as well or if there is tons of extreme bending going on behind the 12th fret...why not go the Ritchie Blackmore way on those upper frets? I didn't really notice that I have one guitar witha 10-14'' radius. There is so much other stuff going on that makes that neck enjoyable. The overall neck shape, how the sides of the neck curve inwards how the edge is treated and of course the polishing of the frets to make the strings glide real nice . Everyone but extreme players are happy with a medium radius...10-12''. Most people couldn't tell a lot of fret radii without a gauge.
Yeah, I doubt if people could tell unless you make a big deal about it. The later Jeff Cooper would call it a hardware solution to a software problem. I still think that enjoying a guitar neck, regardless of radius, is the hot set-up. You and I both know that guitars that have a great action and is easy to play will always be in style.
So it doesn't matter if you have a 10 radius at the nut and a 15 at the heal of the finger board all the frets have to be level, right? would i have to use 2 different radius block for the different radius on the finger board for leveling the frets ?
Since you seem to like measuring things that really don't matter, here's one: the difference in the scale length of the E&G strings vs the A&D strings on a Jazz bass, given the very narrow nut. The frets are parallel, but the strings are not.... Not to be confused with my crazy crooked five string, with 34-37" scale lengths.
Texas Toast Guitars, Matt's meanderings and meaningless musings. Actually, it was pretty eye opening to see just how little difference there really was up at the end of the board. I know on the new PRS JM strat(cough), it's got not only a normal radius, but fairly tight. One can still bend on that.
Really great demo. This kind of practicality is a rare beast in the otherwise pretentious world of guitar -- where something called "mojo" apparently rules the day. Thank you sir! And nice shirt. #triggerwarning
I can tell difference between a Fender neck with a 9.5 to my Deluxe Strat with a 9.5 to 14 radius, although that’s maybe as much to do with the fact the nut width is slight wider too. But you soon adjust to either. It’s tiny nuances of difference.
as a small time builder myself, if you add compound radius plus stainless steel frets on my workflow, it looks like it just gets more difficult for a small benefit, maybe i'm wrong, i really need to try a compound radius with SS frets, and maybe i'll be all caught up to it, but right now i feel like this just add difficulty to a alone guy in the shop workflow. i'd love to have access to all the tools and workflow the guys at Suhr or Fender have :D i dream about a plek machine every single time i have to touch a fret as well!
Only you can decide my friend. I think that every time you see something peculiar on a guitar it is for manufacturing ease rather than what the company making the guitar says
I think that you’re right about the compound radius not mattering that much. However, preface: I could be wrong about this, won’t a roller nut work on a 12 but not on a 16?
You are 100% correct. Provided the roller nut is a 12" radius you should be using a fretboard radius that is 12" all the way down or a compound radius that is 12" at the nut. I'm not certain what radius every roller nut is but I'd bet that they are available in several sizes to fit different guitars (just like locking nuts)
This would be a guitar Tech's nightmare. The bridge saddle is yet another radius. It's a hype to justify more money than the guitar is worth. Kind of like "moon spruce". Only harvested at night during a new moon because the sap is not pulled into the tree by the gravitational force of the moon. That's how you justify a $39k guitar... As a builder I've been tempted but your point has made me throw that out for good
Do you have to match the bridge to the neck radius. For example if you had a gibson style bridge with a 9 1/2 to 14 compound radius would it be jacked up since a gibson is usually 12” radius? Or would that be perfectly fine.
I have TTK1 BC Rich here with a compound radius, honestly if i wasnt told about the compound radius I wouldnt have picked it. Though I will say fender guitars with a 7.25 or 9.5 radius can have fretting out issues.
However I must add some players who liked the 71/4. rad.because they could more easily hook their thumb around the neck to hit bass strings a la Hendrix could keep that option on lower neck where bass notes live and still have the flatter radius further up the neck for wife bends on unwound strings but if you don't need this feature or don't play with low action or have a 12 " radius or larger I think it mainly a waste of $ and just makes regretting more of a PIA ad one must either do a hammer in fretting or use multiple dies in press or clamp in so repairman like myself have to charge more and it's more difficult for begginers to level their board accurately. But I might try an 8 radius to 14 on top just to see how that plays but for most players and most boards not needed.
I keep thinking that the guitar industry is looking more and more like the car industry in the '70s: lots of gimmicky features, and cost-cutting, but little in the way of fundamental improvements and innovation. A few builders are trying new things, of course. I like that you guys proudly sell a daily driver.
Yeah I don't like compound radius fretboards. I've got one on my tele that goes from 10" to 16" and my regular 9.5" strait radius strat is a more comfortable guitar. I mean the whole point of the radius in the first place is that it makes the guitar more comfortable to play on. The compound radius just means that I'm getting less radius and a flatter fretboard as I move up the neck negating the comfort that the radius provides. I'd rather just have a strait 9.5 or 10 inch radius. So in answer to the question in the title, yes, its a solution in search of a problem. I mean I'm sure there are some guys that experience the advantages of a flatter radius higher up on the neck, but I've never had an issue of bent notes choking out. It just makes me wonder how low people have their action, and how far are they bending their notes??
The only reason compound radius fretboard came to pass is that back when all Fender necks came with 7 1/4 it 3as hard to do large bends on B and G string without string fretting out especially with lower actions so when we regretted these boards we would scrape and sand the radius flatter as we went up the board.Many happy customers found they could do easier bends especially those chicken pickers that did pedal steel bends and some blues and rock players.Then Fender found out about their earlier problem and switched to a flatter radius after that it became more of a vintage Fender "problem" and like all things vintage became supposedly desirable.
Hey other small shop builders on here, am I the only one who thinks Stewmac need to put handles on their aluminum radius beams? Think about how much easier those things would be to control, like vertical handles that can screw into threaded inserts in the back, middle, and front, so you can move where you want to put more pressure.
I am proud to call Jim and Karen my friends. We have made lots of guitars for Jim and if you look closely you might see some Texas Toast t-shirts on the Rifle Dynamics page
What are your thoughts on a 7.25" radius for a someone relatively new to guitars. Also radiuses of 7.25. 10, 12 for someone with big or small hands or fingers.
Thanks for replying. My question is not so much what you like but more would it be more difficult for a relative beginner to play a guitar with a 7.25" Fret Radius. I have a Fender American Ultra Stratocaster, a PRS CE 24 and a Gibson Les Paul Studio. I'm thinking about getting a PRS Silver Sky but that 7.25" radius gives me some concern. Between that and the Gibson Les Paul Modern not sure what direction to go.
If the difference is so small, what if you do a more extreme radii proportion, like 7,25 to 14? Will it the too problematic to craft? Or more simply: to get a really comfortable “feel” and overall versatile setup (low action for playing chords through out the WHOLE neck while keeping bending strings easiness), will it be more important the choice of the frets? I’m starting thinking that the action/frets height is even more important (or at least just as important) then radius when you look for comfort and a sense of roundness underneath your left hand’s fingers while playing. But I don’t know... Thanks for the awesome video!
If I followed you correctly your remarks about compound radius being not all that different in string height due to frets, it seems This is only in relation to action not fretboard feel. Where as a compound radius match’s the curve of your hand in different positions differently. But as to action goes between compound and none relates is more setup
I've tried guitars with a compund radius and they've felt and played great, but I own guitars that typically are just one radius and don't have a problem with any of them.
Hey great video. I don't really care, but I wonder, one thing (i find it peculiar why no one mentioned it anywhere, Stewmac, TH-cam, other luthiers): 1. The regular truss rod adjustment for relief, must be thrown slightly askew, when using it on a compound/conical neck, doesn't it? I e if you have the same radius, all across/along the neck, any truss rod adjustment bows the WHOLE of the neck JUST AS MUCH, even the outermost strings like high E and low E. But if you have a conical radius, whenever inducing a bow or relief, the relief can only follow the trussrod adjustment EXACTLY on the "top of the hill" of the radius which means right between the D and G strings. What I mean that some parts of the neck will have SLIGHTLY more relief, even too much, than the flatter radiused parts of the neck ones. Especially on the outer E-strings. Now, of course, relief should mostly occur on the twelfth fret, but in order to have it work on conical fretboards, you must overshoot and may have to adjust to a too much relief in order for the second half of the neck even react to any truss rod adjustment. Let's put it this way: Some parts of the neck above the 12th fret will never react to truss rod adjustment and will look like there's no relief at all, while down below 12th fret it will look like a bit too much relief. Although the neck as such reacts the same way to truss rod adjusments. The truss rod and relief of the neck doesn't care and gives a flying **** whether any fretboard is radiused straight, completely flat, compound or conical or anything in between. Or is it so subtle that it is neglible?
For most of this stuff, the theory is certainly accurate but the reality is tricky. Just because the board has a shape doesn't necessarily mean that the frets are pressed in, leveled, dressed, etc. to the same shape. Then there is the bridge, nut, truss rod, string tension and so on. It's a lot of stuff to worry about for a difference of .01 You can't always convince guitar players that stuff isn't important. My friend Jeff who teaches the classical guitar program at Colorado State University likes to say that guitar players should practice more than worry. Sage advice.
@@TexasToastGuitars But still guitatists are anal. Say intonation. Who need guitar tuners with Strobes that has accuracy of 0.02 cents, like Petersons and TurboTuners? All guitarists does is tune up their guitars, and never nails it. And still you have people who wants individual intonation possibilities for each strings. So people DO care about one cent difference here and there, and even 0,5 cents. Hence all these snake oil things with TrueTemperament necks (there's some nitpicking anal retentive stuff right there), Earvana nuts, BFTS (Buzz Feiten Tuning Systems) and everything in between. If you have that the strings spacing goes narrower towards the nut, the strings are NOT in a straight 90 degree angle at all spots along the neck if it's radiused like a CYLINDER. So, if there's the rule of 18 which is made with straight lines only, for placing the frets correctly and achieve proper intonation, it can'y be done on a CYLINDER neck WITH narrowing string width. If the strings spacing was the same from the bridge to nut, no big deal, no problem, or that the fretboard had no radius at all, like classical guitars, then you'd have no problem with intonation. Compound and conical radius may have some merit, but in real world maybe the benefits are so subtle that they're neglible. For all others, here's the detals, for those interested: www.stewmac.com/How-To/Online_Resources/Neck_Building_and_Repair_and_Setup/Compound_Radius_Explained.html As for radius. I don't care. I don't like radiused (Cylinder), compound, or conical radius neck. Flat flat flat like and acoustic nylon string. Minutiae intonation problem gone, lower string action, one can bend strings to kingdom cone, and it follows truss rods adjustment the same all over both across and along the neck.
I like Stratocasters with 9.5" radius, but I also like Les Pauls and I love my Gretsch. I don't like Stratocasters with a 12" radius. There is a difference, but I can not put my finger on it, maybe it has to do with the scale length? Compound? I don't know, maybe I have tried a guitar with a compound neck and didn't notice...
I want to stick with the standard radius neck myself whether it be 10" 12" because I think there would be a cost factor involved in manufacturing. I have a stratocaster style guitar with a 7 and a quarter inch radius and have my Les Paul has a 12 they both serve purposes. But to each their own correct?
Great video as always, I've put compound radius fingerboards on a few of my builds and they seem to work out pretty cool. I built a router jig that I can change either end of the swing to get different radii. I would like to see how you guys do it I'm sure you have some kind of custom badass tool to do it. Sometimes I'll even mess with using different radii sanding beams, I've gotten mixed results doing it that way but if you don't try you don't find the little nuggets of awesome.
Can a compound radius be added easily to a straight radius board? I was wanting to use some radius blocks from Stewmac but was wondering how to blend the different radius sections. Is that a bad idea? You would ultimately use a straight edge in each individual string position checking for gaps... right?
Hi Taco Conch, I know it can be done but you will need more than two blocks to get a conical radius. Now... if you wanted to do only two radiuses I'm sure it could be done. As you may know, I am not the world's biggest proponent of the compound radius but I applaud your desire to make something cool my friend
@@TexasToastGuitars I just want to give my ESP a similar feel to my Jackson. Let's say my Jackson is a 10"-16" compound radius. Could I remove the ESP's frets, carefully level the fretboard in 3rds with a 10", 14" and 16" radius block as evenly as I could, and be safe as long as I level the new frets with a reliable leveler?
I used to spec a 10" - 16" radius. Now that I see how minuscule the difference is, I'm a bit embarrassed. I dragged out one of my guitars, and I can feel the difference, but it's not much. The production SRV Strat has a 12" radius.
Nice explanation ... Minute physical differences confirm mental deficiencies ... btw ... After I spotted the" moonshine" in the background behind the Dr Pepper and Canada Dry I guit listening ... 😎
It's totally fine guitars without a compound radius but if we're talking about consistency all across the fretboard, that tiny difference between a 10 inch and 15 inch radius plays a significant role. If it didn't all guitar makers would built their fingerboards with the same radius, or players wouldn't tell the difference between a 9.5 inch raxius and 12 inch radius which are fender and gibson. These boards feel totally different and every player choses one for the other according to his or her playing style and habit. That cone you're holding is the exaggrrated version of a guitar fretboard just for people to understand better but in real world, that tiny difference changes the feel and comford. Because a fretbord does not have the same thickness at the nut as the last fret, then the radius should not be the same. Secondly, if you don't have a compoud radius on your guitar's neck, that means it's thinner at the last fret than it is at the nut which results in higher action at higer frets with your low and high strings not the middle ones. That means it is inconsistent. It's not an issue if you don't play low action but if you do, then you would miss a compound radius when you don't have it.
Little things do make big differences... I question whether or not the fretting crew can always realize the theoretical advantages of the compound radius. Not to mention the bridge one is using had best be capable of 20" or nearly flat. I still think that the compound or conical radius is a great marketing strategy to separate guitar players from their money. You seem to be a fan so who cares what I think?
@@TexasToastGuitars I am kind of a person who prefers to do things "the right way" not a fan, and compound radius is definitely the right way. But it doesn't mean one cannot live without it, appearantly virtuosos like Satriani and Vai do without it. It's definitely not a necessity. On the other hand we shouldn't take players as models, they spent 30 thousands of hours to their instruments, maybe it doesn't matter to them just because they learned to play on a noncompound radiused guitar. If they learned straight fingerboard in the first place, they would still be playing straight fingerboard guitars. It doesn't mean what they are using are always the right tools just because they are the best players in the world. They boight their first guitar in 70s, 80s or whatever, its 2019 now. A young player on a budget can buy a really nice and sufficient guitar for 600 hundred dollars. On the other hand, someone who has more money to spend on nice things like his bmw car or fancy house, can afford 150 dollars more for a compound radius, 150 dollars more for carbon fiber neck stabilizers or 500 or even 750 dollars more for a fancy ziricote, cocobolo or bahia top. This is not about tone or music (although bahia is the king of all tone woods), it's only about feel and comfort, the same reason why you would prefer a cadillac over ford let's say.
I know this is an old video but I’m curious, do compound radius necks tend to have more issues with warping? For example the Gibson Songwriter Studio (uniform radius) vs Songwriter Standard (compound). Asked another way, are there more ways to things to go wrong in the long term?
Is there any trick to fret leveling compound radius fretboards? The only two guitars that give me fret buzz are the only two that have a 10.5-16 radius.
I am wondering how I must setup the tremolo bridge height in a strato guitar that has a compound radius of 9.5 - 14 radius. Do I set the bridge height to 9.5 or 14? Let me know please because I am confused a bit. Thank you.
Well, by the time a conical radius goes from 10" a the first fret to 16" a the 21st you would probably be at 19 or 20 by the time you get to the bridge. I'd make a hundred dollar bet that there are very few bridges set to match the radius of the fretboard... much less the fret leveling
I never really thought about the tolerance of it all. And yeah, that’s such a minute measurement that it really can’t Make that much of a difference in your playing
@8:54 What about the, "Master of Puppets" album? As I understand it, most of the rhythm guitars were recorded with a custom Jackson King V Hetfield was playing at the time. It may have had a straight radius fretboard but compound radius is kind of Jackson's thing. Right? I'm sure it wouldn't have made any noticeable difference in the sound anyways. haha
Like I said... everything cool was recorded with regular radius guitars hahaha I have always thought that the last good Metallica record was Ride The Lightning. Yes, I'm an old fart
Hi! Could you tell if leveling frets with fretlevel works the same way on compound radius as on set radius? If I have a few frets higher on compound radius neck is it possible to level it with straight edge or better to use several radius blocks?
Hi Stefan, I only use a flat block/beam/etc. to level frets. I never use a radius block to do this job regardless of the radius. This is just me and there are several ways to do this job.
@@TexasToastGuitars Great thank you for your reply! Could you tell what disadvantage is to level frets with radius blocks of variable length? I guess you use the only to sand fretboard.
I'm sure lots of people use radius blocks to level frets. I don't know what advantages or disadvantages there are? As I said, I never use them for that purpose. please do not mistake what I do or don't use to mean that what you do is right or wrong. You will need to find what works for you. Having said that... I find that the flat leveling tools work best for me. I'm sure you could find any number of guitar builders who will say that I am wrong and that they use another method.
@@TexasToastGuitars Great thank you! One last question. If you install frets do you bend them at exact radius of fretboard or slightly smaller radius for like a spring tighter fit at fret edges? If you overbend frets thrn by how much?
So with a floyd rose that comes with 12” radius nut, can I put a 16” radius on my fretboard and then shim the tailpiece? 12” nut on a 16” fretboard doesnt matter? I came to see this video as I was thinking to put a 12-16” compound radius but now In having second thoughts
If your Floyd Rose has a 12" radius nut the fretboard will have to match at the nut. If you decide to go with a conical radius... like say, 12" to 16" (very little actual difference by the way) you will need to shim your bridge to match what the radius is by the time you get to the end of the scale. I would imagine it would be 20" or so. If you don't than the advantages of the conical radius will not be realized and you will actually have a higher action than you would if you just went with a straight 12" fretboard. So... in order to have it work like you want, remember to match the nut to the fretboard and the bridge to the fretboard (or virtual fretboard if that makes sense).
Texas Toast Guitars woah thanks for the reply. I actually found out floyd has a 15” nut also, I think Im going to go with that and then shim the tailpiece
The problem was guitarists who have played different guitars realize some guitars are better to play certain parts for chords in comparison to high fret board solos. But if I have one guitar that can do both I don’t need a strat and a les paul I have my custom guitar that does it all.
I you have any more necks that are unsalable due to headstocks my teenage sons and I would give them a good home. (Finishing our first three guitars of our father and son build...three more guitars slated to be built in the spring.)
I have a Charvel Pro Mod DK 24 with a roasted maple compound radius neck. I can't get the action as low as i'd like without it buzzing and feeling like crap. I'm guessing the fretwork is shit since it's now a Fender product and I can feel the sharp edge of the frets while sliding while my other guitars frets feels much more rounded. This is my second one as I sent the first one back because it was so bad. Am I looking at a fret level and crowning on a guitar I paid almost a $1000 for?
It also depends on what you're playing. If you're shredding, getting that action that extra bit lower may be important to you. But I do think there are a lot of things that are strictly because marketing now rules the world and simply convinces you that you need X, Y or Z to play better. The only person this really matters to is yourself. The audience won't care.
Compound radius by far...not so noticeable on electric than on a dreadnought/000...spacing at the nut/brigde plays a big difference.....check out Bill Scheltema and his one piece neck built, takes the guesswork out of things....great vid, man, thanks!
so, if you say the difference is negligible... have you tried building a hugely conical neck as an antagonist to flat one? like 4" to 24" or something stupid? Cellos have like 2" radii fretboards and are still comfortable to play (no bends tho, lol)
Hey Matt! I have a question: since the radius is compound, how do you level the frets? I was always wondering about that. Can it be done with a beam? It seems to get complicated. Cheers!
Love this video series! Just to share my opinion though, compound/conical necks are like overthinking The Three Stooges. I’m just unable to see the point!
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
This is what I've observed about compound radius fretboards. The only advantage I've seen is in bending notes at the higher frets. Set a standard Strat with a 9 inch radius with as low of action as you can get without buzz. Now try to bend on the high E around the 12th - 14th fret. It will probably fret out on you. Now try the same thing with an LP (around 12 inch radius), It won't fret out as badly. This is the problem with tight radius guitars. The compound radius gives you the bending advantage of an LP, but with the easy chording at the lower frets of a tele/strat. I've ordered several Warmoth necks with the compound radius of 10 - 16 inches, and I'm very pleased with the results. I also have normal Strats and LPs, and am happy with them. You just need to set them up a little different. Hendrix did fine with a 9 inch radius fingerboard.
^^^
This. Exactly.
The science behind a compound radius is definitely sound - but the "viability" of it as an improvement greatly depends on the radii in question. There's zero point in making a 14" to 20" compound. But if you love bar chords on a 9.5" AND bending 2.5 steps on a 16" then a compound definitely works as intended.
I agree with Matt on the points of "loss" when it comes to a small-time builder. But anyone the size (and CNC tech) of Warmoth is making "exact" 10 to 16 compounds. I put one on a baritone build and it definitely has a noticeable difference.
I get the whole bending and fretting out thing. I don't understand how people have difficulty playing chords with a flatter radius. Like I say, if you dig it rock on.
@@donvanco3078 , exactly....I hope no one thinks I am of the opinion Matt should do them, we just like to disagree on this subject, I guess...He knows I am just being a pain.
I was just banging out some bar chords on my classical, and you can indeed play bar chords with no problems. This may just be a matter of habit and personal preference. I think the strings will be closer together on the flat fingerboard than on a radius one for a given width. Probably not much, my calculus is rusty, someone else can calculate that. Chapman sticks have flat fingerboards, and 8 string guitars have pretty flat fingerboards also. Seems to be no problem with them. One thing I did notice on the few (acoustic) guitars I've made, when I level the fingerboard, I sand along the taper of the fingerboard. This seems to end with a conical fingerboard radius whether I planned it or not. I drew a fingerboard with taper on an old cardboard tube I had laying around (constant radius) and when you lay a straightedge along the taper you get an arc. I think when we're finishing leveling a fingerboard we level to conical shape naturally. Does a player notice this? I'm guessing nope. Sorry for the long post, I geek out on this stuff.@@TexasToastGuitars
FWIW - I don't think it's a matter of it being "harder" on flatter radii - I just think it's easier on numerically smaller radii for lots of people. If that makes any sense. I think the compound was born out of the needs of those folks - the old 9/9.5 necks were great for cords and general noodling - but if you love massive bends and run a low string action the potential to fret out on notes past the 12th was pretty huge.
I’ve build a couple electric guitars, with flat fretboards, works great. Some times when I pull out one of them, I forget that the fretboard is flat. I will claim that nut/neck width, has a more noticeable impact, on playability and comfort, than the fretboard radius.
I would agree
Compound Radius Fingerboards became the rage with the rise of the shred guitarists in the mid to late 80's. Because of how fast they were playing, they needed a guitar that was as easy to play as possible. In the days when everyone wanted a Jackson Guitar, they were able to use the Compound Radius Fingerboard and a proper setup, to get the action down to 1/16 of an inch on every fret for every string. This gave the shredders the perfect platform to show off how fast they could play. Like with all things, it was a product of its time. Although it is considered passe now, and not something that people worry about, any kid growing up in the late 80's wanted it.
I think lower action and guitars that are easier to play will always be in style.
@@TexasToastGuitars I agree!
In my day I only had a stick and a string and it doubled as a fishing pole and I was happy for it.
both ways..in 10 feet of snow
You had a string? Lucky!
I still think this comment wins the internet for this discussion!
Lol what do you breath out? Dirt?
You must've been rich being able to have a stick. We only had a pinecone I had to wrestle from a squirrel.
I think if you went from 7.25 to a 12 compound it would make a difference for bends compared to 7.25 all the way.
Yeah if you like 7.25 but you also love really low action, but ALSO really want to be able to bend up more than a half step… you’ll be disappointed. I wish my Johnny Marr Jag had a compound radius. Literally the only thing I would change about that guitar.
I solved by getting a guitar with 12 all the way lol. 12 is just perfect.
I tend to agree with you (mostly). Compound/conical/variable radius necks usually do not make much of a difference to most players. Yes, if the maker chose the precise radius for the scale length, you can maintain an even action along the string for the entire scale. But with that comes a share of headaches, too. Necks are wood, for the most part, and wood shifts with humidity, temperature, changes in string diameters, etc. To maintain the benefit of the compound radius means that you may wind up tweaking your truss rod an awful lot, or playing with the height of your bridge (which takes away the benefit). Additionally, if your instrument ever needs refretting you are almost required to send it to the manufacturer as your local guitar mechanic is very unlikely to have the skill or the cauls necessary to bring the instrument back to where it ought to be. Overall, I think that compound radius is much more of a potential headache than it is a benefit. But everyone's mileage varies, yes?
Flat fretboards? I learned to play on an old Airline acoustic (from Sears). The fretboard on that thing was dead flat. IT worked, however.
It's cool that you measure round surface using wide flat tool... but that "small" difference multiplies a bit as it affects the way you have to compensate for inconsistent neck relief between strings. The idea is for all strings to have same neck relief underneath.
Very cool and helpful. I bought a Tele Elite last year. When I bought it I wasn’t aware conical radius existed, much less that my Elite had one. What I DID notice was it played better on the higher strings than the Baja that I was about to buy when I saw the one I bought hanging on the wall. I kept going back and forth because the difference was $900.
I went home and the next day played them again and couldn’t get the Elite out of my head. So I bought it. I told my friend and he says “nice guitar, noiseless pickups, contoured back, compound radius...” I say “compound what?”
So there was (and is) a difference for me but I can see why that might not be so. It didn’t make me a great guitarist. That job is for an Interplanetary Genius. Great video. Thanks..
Thanks for watching Bruce, glad you enjoyed the video and are digging your new guitar too
I like the idea of a flat fingerboard... I actually made my first neck this way, when I was a teenager, and I still like the neck. It now is my fretless bass, because I messed up the fretting job :) I totally agree with your thoughts on combound radii, and although classical guitars nowadays often have a slight radius, there is no actual reason for that because the neck doesnt have tapering either. I am planing to build an electric guitar just like that - everything flat, 640cm scale length (already have the template) maybe even putting in narrow frets... I think this "classical" feel when playing an electric guitar may be an inspiration for the fingers ;) And the intonation should be awesome
Man that's actually very good idea! I moded my schecter from 14' to flat radius..you can see it on my channel ..it is very good neck now.
The Shawn Lane Vigier sig has a flat radius. It is wonderful, very subtle diff from a 16 radius (wizard) but noticeable. Very cool.
"I think there might be a few other things" I'm dying
Me?
😂😂
You can also compound radius the frets themselves if they are meaty enough. I've been doing that on guitars that I don't want to redo the entire fretboard instead. Generally from the 12th fret and higher is where I flatten the centre out of the frets so I still get a decent action and better bend-ability.
You sure can, it is a very small amount of variation
It comes down to what feels most comfortable for your hands, it all comes into play, the neck profile, fret size, radius, scale length etc. A 10-14 compound radius definitely allows for my fretting hand to have a more comfortable transition from one portion of the fretboard to another. A neck with just straight radius through out will work for some people because of their hands, and admittedly I can of course make it work for me if necessary, but not something I would willingly choose on a day to day basis. I make my living playing constantly, so I have to have it my main guitar fit my hand hands perfectly. I have other guitars that have straight radius’s but I do not play them day in and out.
If you take a straight radius guitar and approach playing a phrase or lick across the whole range of the neck you’ll undoubtedly find it will perform more comfortably in different areas, and this is assuming you are approaching playing the phrase with exact proper technique and relaxation. From what I have found is a compound radius will help slightly in making a more smooth transition from one end of the neck to another properly helping support the hand given the position. This may just be me, and undoubtedly I unfortunately do have hand problems from not resting enough in my early years and thus my hands are very sensitive now to the differences.
If you can feel the difference than more power to ya.
Thanks for this. I’m in the process of making my first fretboard and having some practice runs on cheap wood first. Tried initially doing the compound radius with my plane, line shown on the Crimson channel. But now thinking I might just get myself a 12 inch radius sanding block and just do it that way.
Fretboard radius is a super important step and easy to get wrong. Simplifying the process as much as possible with design or tools would be what I would recommend.
Best and simplest explanation I've ever seen. For me compound radius is just another "unicorn extra" that players think will take them to playing 'Nirvana' - much the same as a certain pedals or amps (or guitars for that matter...) If you're an average player (i.e. all of us) it makes no difference whatsoever. Its just another a sales pitch. I myself move from a 7.25 radius on my Tele to a 12 on my Les Paul and I don't feel/notice any difference at all - nor do they fret out...its like driving your car, then your wife's - its different and takes about 30 seconds to adjust. As you say, all the great stuff was recorded on bog-standard guitars with bog-standard radii...Rock on guys, keep the good stuff coming.
Thanks for watching Phil, we don't see the allure of the compound radius either. I think people overstate the advantages of this feature.
Still, I feel like when you're trying to get the absolute lowest action possible, every 1/1,000th of an inch matters (obviously the fretwork matters more but you'll be better off with a better starting point
I always enjoy the way you explain your work ... thanks !!!
Thanks for watching my friend, glad you like the videos
The light demo was perfect! Thank you so much for such a simple and effective demonstration. You guys ROCK!
Thanks for watching my friend, explaining it is one thing but the visual is important
I have a 2014 Fender American Deluxe Tele, and it has a compound radius from 9.50" at the nut to 14" at the last fret. It's the first tele, I've owned, that I didn't have to fight, a little, with.
Damn....you likely saved my bacon on the radius specs on a certain bridge type. I didn't even think of that. My first build is soon as I acquire the necessary tools. Going to put a 1998ish Ibanez RG470 Floyd trem onto a Tele body. Was planning on a 12" radius, but originally the guitar had a 12" to 16". Thanks again for the invaluable knowledge! I'd hate to screw up my first build.
Glad I could help out Adam
I was always curious about compound radius necks but just preferred flat radius necks by a long long mile. My Ibanez RG750 my dad bought me when I began playing the guitar had a wonderful action and a very flat board like 17" flat. It was yrs later I played a Yamaha Pacifica 1221 model where I thought it also had a perfect neck shape and felt flat yet it was also so comfy for open chords. I owned it for 2 yrs before I realised it was a compound 12-16" board...lol. Now I am having all my favorite guitar changed to compound radius as I can find the time to get them done. Guitars like my floral 1990 Jem of course I would never change but all my others will feel much better for me with this modification.. People who say it makes no difference or it is a cash in for guys offering this mod are talking from their butts. It is a slightly subtle mod or it can be a very noticeable effect if you are going from say 9.5" to a 18" ect... For me there is less hand fatigue, bends are easier and playing fast passages above the 12 fret come out even more accurate because the strings are lying flatter especially where you are flat picking. The benefits for me are huge and I now find playing a straight 9.5" fender radius difficult and awkward to retain accuracy. This wa the best video for explaining the compound radius feature on some guitars. Clear, simple with no fancy talk and all that.
I subbed and liked this video and will be watching all your videos. Good work my friend...Much enjoyed:)
The compound radius is a terrific idea and should, theoretically, make a big difference in action. Having said that... anyone really interested in the lowest possible action should go with a completely flat fretboard. The classical players have no trouble.
We made a guitar with a dead flat board and give it to people, they totally have no idea HAHAHAHA
yeah but how many classical guitarists bend strings 😂
Hey Matt… I have guitars with compound radii (?) and guitars without….all of them play great when properly set up….I think that the key to an instrument playing and feeling great is in the set up rather than the fretboard radius… anything from 9.5 and up is great for 99.9% of the players out there in the world…. it may be a selling point for some brands… but like Nurburgring lap times for sportscar brands it makes no difference in the real world…. just bragging rights….
I call it "second cool" you can't universally quantify it but it's neat and you dig it and that is good enough for me
Bends fretting put on very low action is the problem 15 - 16" solves the problem.
What people forgets is that those "heavily" radiused necks like 7.25" and below (if there ever was one) was mostly on the vintage Fenders of the 50s where you DID NOT BEND, and used 012 gauge strings, flatwounds, and a spun third. No one bent back in the old days. I have played and tried 7.25 radiused necks and you have to keep high e-string at such a high action that it is imposible to play anything decent. What people forgets is that on a "heavy" radiused neck like a 7.25" the string buzz may NOT come from the fret right UNDER the string, but it can come from the same fret but at the side, since the fret goes "up hill" and as the strings vibrates it "chokes" on the neighboring fret hill. I e there's closer distance to the sides of the strings, than the distance to the fret point right underneath it. Which defeats the purpos totally. I've come across loads of bass guitars that buzzes even with high action, and that was the culprit.
I find the following VERY peculiar in the guitar industry: The only fretboard where you can have the lowest action all across, and bend strings to kingdom come, is if it's completely FLAT and has no radius at all. And as such, only classical nylon strung guitars comes with those. Where you can't bend any strings anyway, bcause the music played on those are not at all including and string bends. Classical, acoustic tunes and so on. Old time music.
But as fast as you play other kinds of music, blues, rock, country, folk, where bends are a crucial part in the music, and you go for steel guitars, electric guitars, with light gauge strings where you actually CAN and DO bend strings and it is a large part of the music, all of a sudden - for some rational bizarre - the guitars are made to make that harder, i e with lots of "radius" on the neck, compound, conical etc. WIth lots of fret buzz as a result too...
Beats me, and have always done. And will, ever.
I like mine with 16" radius all the way through. But.. that's just me. Almost flat. YMMV.
We use 10" for almost everything but have made several flat boards for people. It's killer and you can bend strings just fine
Before I got a compound radius guitar I really believed in it because it made theoretical sense. After I've played one for 6 years, it's really not that remarkable. Sure, it solves the choking out problem when you bend. But so does a flatter radius fretboard. Then the question remains is that does the tighter radius on the lower frets make barre chords more conforming to the contour of the finger? It's a non-issue for most of the players who are already playing up the neck.
It's like "we have invented a tool to help you do both grade 10 homework and grade 1 homework!" Er, if I'm doing grade 10 stuff I don't need help with grade 1 stuff.
It's absolutely a solution looking for a problem. Besides, just a little too much sanding will turn your 10 into a 12 and visa-versa. Furthermore, I think the whole "fretting out" thing on standard necks is baloney. Jimmy Page routinely bent a step and a half (3-semi-tones) on a 7.25" Telecaster and didn't seem to have much problem. I'm not a Tele player but I have owned plenty of 9-10" Fender Strats and never had a problem, and I've never had any problem setting up any guitar from any decent manufacturer to play well with a low action all up and down the neck. I have a buddy who makes a really oddball electric (keyless headstock like a Steinberger) that has a *6* inch radius neck, and they also play fine with a nice low action. And yes - the reason bowed string instruments require a conical radius - and a very low # radius at the bridge... is so individual strings can be bowed. The string spacing on bowed strings is much more radical than on a guitar - the nut being very narrow in contrast to the bridge. So it has to be conical. But if you look closely, especially on pro-quality 'cellos and double basses - it's not a pure compound radius at all. It's an oddball shape whereby the lowest string is on a flat, angled section and the three top strings are on a "tilted radius" - take a look here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cello#/media/File:Cello_bridge2.JPG The low string is set up separately and treated differently than the upper three on this type of fingerboard. Note that there's no real "standard" on bowed stringed instruments it's all over the map from one century and maker to another.
You know as well as anyone that there are lots of ways to make instruments. Guitars that are easier to play will always be in style and people will be willing to throw money at answers looking for questions no matter what industry it is.
@@TexasToastGuitars yeah...dare I say "Automotive Industry"? I really don't need a car I have to reboot every time it gets wet. That is why I have a 1993 Jeep Wrangler...
I recently bought my first compound radius neck for a strat. I thought I would be able to tell a difference but I can't. I think that the back of the neck shape, thickness, and fret size are way more important than the radius. If you have a good setup, you will be fine.
Excellent presentation. So many guitars being offered today with these upgrades makes you wonder, is the buying public just latching on to snake oil buzz words? I'm sure compound radius is useful for the very advanced player taking things to the next level (though in micro adjustments) but probably not for us average folk.
Hard to say, I think people like to spend money on guitar stuff and often times people who sell guitar stuff will try and convince us that there is a hardware solution to a software problem... to paraphrase the late Jeff Cooper
@@TexasToastGuitars Great way of putting things... just practice
I have Guitars with straight radius necks, and Guitars with compound radius necks. To Me, the difference is not really discernible. I will add that the only real advantage to a compound radius neck is that You can get Crazy Low Action with them. Great Video! ✌
Thanks man
Well, if it doesn't cost more and there is any at all advantage in terms of bending and action, even if minor, I'll take it. I've played everything from vintage Fenders to straight 20" 80's shredder necks and I like what a CR neck delivers. I get a slightly more curved radius for rhythm playing and a flatter surface for soloing and it makes slide a little easier up there too. I don't buy off-shelf Fenders and build my bolt-on guitars and I get necks from Warmoth and it's a standard feature so for guitars that aren't vintage-spec, I just prefer them. If it cost a lot more, I'd probably go with a straight radius honestly though.
I have a 1983 strat that is a reissue of a 62, they called it the vintage series back then ( showing my age) , it has a 7.25 radius, and I have to keep a fairly high action at the bridge, not SRV high but about 5/64ths at the 17th fret, or it'll fret out bending. I did a build with a 7.35-9.5 compound radius and I can set that at 4/64 or 1/16 and it doesn't fret out, and to be honest I can barely tell a difference both play about the same. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about and I still don't see, It wasn't that big of a deal, no night and day difference, the flashlight backs that up. My daily driver has I believe a 10 inch radius and I like that too, kinda middle of the road.,
Yep, your Daily Driver has a 10" I think it is just about perfect and easy to achieve.
@@TexasToastGuitars I agree
Like I said before, I WASTED money on compounds. I never saw the benefit... Compound radius = more money... Preach the truth Matt!! Cups up to you bud!
Thanks for watching my friend, When I give that neck to people and don't say anything they don't notice. When I tell them it is a compound radius they claim they can see it. People are funny
Great explanation of how little a compound radius is in the overall length of a fingerboard. It's not worth the effort to me. One thing that I do though, for instance, is create a straight 12" radius on my fingerboards, then level frets following the lay of the strings creating a slight conical effect in the frets only. Doesn't take any more effort to do. This is just something that I've always done whether it makes a difference on fretting out issues or not. Adjustable height bridge saddles used.
Sounds like a good technique my friend.
Hey Matt, every major player in the guitar industry and even after market neck builders have been calling it compound radius your years and it's never been a problem. And it is proper to call it that cause one thing combined with another is a compound. Yes it's convenient to describe as conical but not necessarily more correct. Anyway don't let the nit pickers get you down. Good video, well explained.
Leo Fender got vibrato and tremolo wrong and he completely changed the lexicon. Of course, I'm no Leo Fender hahaha
7.25” - 16.25” is what I would order :)
Good choice
How should you radius the bridge? I have a 10-16” neck… some say radius the bridge to 16 and some say 20 as it keeps flattening as the length of of the string continues. What do you think?
You absolutely must set it flatter than the end of the fretboard on a conical radius neck if you want to realize the, mostly theoretical, advantages of said fretboard. 20" is probably pretty close. It is also very important to level and dress your frets such that they are not throwing off the radius as well. The whole thing is pretty much an exercise as far as I'm concerned. The real question is how low do you really need your action? How much relief do you have in your neck etc...
I'll say this, if you adjust your truss rod to have any bow at all the whole thing is a wash.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Great video as allways
Thanks for watching Rodney
I agree with everything that you said but wanted to expand on a conclusion that you dabbled on but was a pretty big issue with my compound radius. In fairness I grew up with and am comfortable with a 12 inch radius/Gibson but on a Stratocaster body ie a Kramer super Strat. I now have a gorgeous limited edition mint green Elite Stratocaster with a matching headstock and a compound radius. It's the first time I've dealt with fret buzz. The first luthier made the bridge at an angle to raise the height of the low E and A String. I eventually flattened it by screwing it down and just raised the saddle height. I've eliminated most of the fret buzz except if I'm unplugged and playing really aggressively on the 4th and 5th fret of the low E and A. Is this an unfortunate aspect of a compound radius? What is your advice and opinion
On the neck which goes from 10" to 12" to 15", what would be the correct radius for setting the bridge saddles, 18"?
Hard to say, of course, the cone will continue but it will depend on the distance from the 15" part to the bridge. I'm sure you could do math but you could also measure from the bottom of the nut slots to the top of the frets and match it all the way down... Good luck RB
@@TexasToastGuitars StewMac actually has an explanation of how to calculate the proper compound radii given the length of the neck and the starting point radius. The calculations can be used to determine the radius at the bridge. It's actually useful in setting a 'starting point' for the bridge set up.
Matt, Thank for all of your insite and and opinions. I am learing a great deal from your video presentations. I also like the way you are so open minded and don't trash talk people.
I just want to add my two cents about this particular video on fretboard radius.
As you know,, all hands are not the same.
I mostly play bar chords because of injuries to my left hand (I am rightey). A smaller radius is easier for me to play because I have short to average thick fingers. I don't know many folks that can lay their fingers " straight and flat. Mine are slightly arthritic and curve inward.
You mentioned playing with a slide near the end of the video. Not being a slide player, I was wondering if a smaller radius would be easier to solo on.
Hi Paul
I am the wrong guy to ask about that I'm afraid.
The purpose of this video was to point out that the actual difference between a 10 and 16 inch radius is very small.
That certainly doesn't mean that you should chose on the other or both.
I think the compound radius concept appeals mostly to shredders. Ultimate shredding gets down to tiny little differences being big differences. Shredders rarely play cowboy chords in the first position, so I don't understand why they would want a tighter radius at the first position anyway. Whatever a player wants is what a player should get though. I don't shred much. I don't shred at all actually. Having played a 7 1/4" Strat for years I would say that I prefer the 9 1/2-12" radius necks now. The 7 1/4" neck does fret out above the 15th fret now and then, but I only play up at the 15th fret now and then anyway.
Tiny little children play crazy good on youtube with whatever guitar somebody bought for them, so some of this tweeky stuff may just be for fun anyway.
Guitars that are easier to play will always be in style. Easy answers will also always be popular. I remember the first time I heard about the Warmoth compound radius, it was right around the same time I went to Roberto-Venn. There was a lot of misinformation out there about something that everyone wanted.
@@TexasToastGuitars Since I am not a luthier I had to look up the school. Pretty cool. Going to a good school kind of takes some of the snake oil out of the biz....
Idk man, I have a Jackson with the 12-16" compound radius and I can get the strings quite a bit lower (well, percentually) than on my 14" Kramer, both well leveled. If you like the strings to be as low as they can, compound radius will help a little bit at the higher frets.
If you like it you should run with it brougham
I have an ibanez, Jackson with compound, and a Kramer, with the kramer and Ibanez I have super low action with little to no buzz, the Jackson though I had to raise the action on the bridge side otherwise it buzzed like mad
We share a lot of similar views on those conical radius fretboards. How small the differences are is easy to see when you got it all in an excel sheet and have the differences together.
Some say bending is easier with a flatter radius in the higher frets. If it isn't a very tight radius from 7,25'', sure...but with the regular 10 or 12 inch radius...nah. Jumbo frets make it easier to bend as well or if there is tons of extreme bending going on behind the 12th fret...why not go the Ritchie Blackmore way on those upper frets?
I didn't really notice that I have one guitar witha 10-14'' radius. There is so much other stuff going on that makes that neck enjoyable. The overall neck shape, how the sides of the neck curve inwards how the edge is treated and of course the polishing of the frets to make the strings glide real nice . Everyone but extreme players are happy with a medium radius...10-12''.
Most people couldn't tell a lot of fret radii without a gauge.
Yeah, I doubt if people could tell unless you make a big deal about it. The later Jeff Cooper would call it a hardware solution to a software problem. I still think that enjoying a guitar neck, regardless of radius, is the hot set-up. You and I both know that guitars that have a great action and is easy to play will always be in style.
So it doesn't matter if you have a 10 radius at the nut and a 15 at the heal of the finger board all the frets have to be level, right?
would i have to use 2 different radius block for the different radius on the finger board for leveling the frets ?
Let me tell you what I think. I think you have made an excellent video on the subject-matter. Thank you very much.
Since you seem to like measuring things that really don't matter, here's one: the difference in the scale length of the E&G strings vs the A&D strings on a Jazz bass, given the very narrow nut. The frets are parallel, but the strings are not....
Not to be confused with my crazy crooked five string, with 34-37" scale lengths.
I don't only like to measure things that don't matter I like to make videos about it.
Texas Toast Guitars, Matt's meanderings and meaningless musings.
Actually, it was pretty eye opening to see just how little difference there really was up at the end of the board. I know on the new PRS JM strat(cough), it's got not only a normal radius, but fairly tight. One can still bend on that.
Really great demo. This kind of practicality is a rare beast in the otherwise pretentious world of guitar -- where something called "mojo" apparently rules the day. Thank you sir! And nice shirt. #triggerwarning
Jim & Karen hooked my up with a bunch of Rifle Dynamics gear the last time I was out there. :)
@@TexasToastGuitars See, this is why you have retained the right to use the word "Texas." Hook 'em. 🤘🤘🤘
If you have jumbo frets you can level your frets to a compound radius by the way you use the block
I can tell difference between a Fender neck with a 9.5 to my Deluxe Strat with a 9.5 to 14 radius, although that’s maybe as much to do with the fact the nut width is slight wider too. But you soon adjust to either. It’s tiny nuances of difference.
as a small time builder myself, if you add compound radius plus stainless steel frets on my workflow, it looks like it just gets more difficult for a small benefit, maybe i'm wrong, i really need to try a compound radius with SS frets, and maybe i'll be all caught up to it, but right now i feel like this just add difficulty to a alone guy in the shop workflow. i'd love to have access to all the tools and workflow the guys at Suhr or Fender have :D i dream about a plek machine every single time i have to touch a fret as well!
Only you can decide my friend. I think that every time you see something peculiar on a guitar it is for manufacturing ease rather than what the company making the guitar says
I think that you’re right about the compound radius not mattering that much. However, preface: I could be wrong about this, won’t a roller nut work on a 12 but not on a 16?
You are 100% correct. Provided the roller nut is a 12" radius you should be using a fretboard radius that is 12" all the way down or a compound radius that is 12" at the nut. I'm not certain what radius every roller nut is but I'd bet that they are available in several sizes to fit different guitars (just like locking nuts)
This would be a guitar Tech's nightmare. The bridge saddle is yet another radius. It's a hype to justify more money than the guitar is worth. Kind of like "moon spruce". Only harvested at night during a new moon because the sap is not pulled into the tree by the gravitational force of the moon. That's how you justify a $39k guitar... As a builder I've been tempted but your point has made me throw that out for good
We still do it if someone HAS to have it but we try to talk people out of it.
Do you have to match the bridge to the neck radius. For example if you had a gibson style bridge with a 9 1/2 to 14 compound radius would it be jacked up since a gibson is usually 12” radius? Or would that be perfectly fine.
I have TTK1 BC Rich here with a compound radius, honestly if i wasnt told about the compound radius I wouldnt have picked it. Though I will say fender guitars with a 7.25 or 9.5 radius can have fretting out issues.
Hi Aaron, we did a neck with no radius just to see if people would even notice... they don't. It certainly doesn't fret out on big bends
@@TexasToastGuitars Really? How did they not notice? Yeah i bet it didnt fret out!
Compound radius is one of those little things you don’t notice until it’s pointed out. It is a small improvement, but one none the less.
I'd say it is a theoretical improvement at best
However I must add some players who liked the 71/4. rad.because they could more easily hook their thumb around the neck to hit bass strings a la Hendrix could keep that option on lower neck where bass notes live and still have the flatter radius further up the neck for wife bends on unwound strings but if you don't need this feature or don't play with low action or have a 12 " radius or larger I think it mainly a waste of $ and just makes regretting more of a PIA ad one must either do a hammer in fretting or use multiple dies in press or clamp in so repairman like myself have to charge more and it's more difficult for begginers to level their board accurately. But I might try an 8 radius to 14 on top just to see how that plays but for most players and most boards not needed.
Everyone likes different stuff and there is a butt for every bench
I keep thinking that the guitar industry is looking more and more like the car industry in the '70s: lots of gimmicky features, and cost-cutting, but little in the way of fundamental improvements and innovation. A few builders are trying new things, of course. I like that you guys proudly sell a daily driver.
We would love to earn a living building the whacky stuff
It was my understanding the reason for a compound radius was so the notes wouldn't fret out when the action is low and your bending a note !
I think that is half of the marketing
Yeah I don't like compound radius fretboards. I've got one on my tele that goes from 10" to 16" and my regular 9.5" strait radius strat is a more comfortable guitar. I mean the whole point of the radius in the first place is that it makes the guitar more comfortable to play on. The compound radius just means that I'm getting less radius and a flatter fretboard as I move up the neck negating the comfort that the radius provides. I'd rather just have a strait 9.5 or 10 inch radius. So in answer to the question in the title, yes, its a solution in search of a problem.
I mean I'm sure there are some guys that experience the advantages of a flatter radius higher up on the neck, but I've never had an issue of bent notes choking out. It just makes me wonder how low people have their action, and how far are they bending their notes??
Our standard radius is now and will remain 10". People like to mountain mole hills hahaha
The only reason compound radius fretboard came to pass is that back when all Fender necks came with 7 1/4 it 3as hard to do large bends on B and G string without string fretting out especially with lower actions so when we regretted these boards we would scrape and sand the radius flatter as we went up the board.Many happy customers found they could do easier bends especially those chicken pickers that did pedal steel bends and some blues and rock players.Then Fender found out about their earlier problem and switched to a flatter radius after that it became more of a vintage Fender "problem" and like all things vintage became supposedly desirable.
Agreed
Hey other small shop builders on here, am I the only one who thinks Stewmac need to put handles on their aluminum radius beams? Think about how much easier those things would be to control, like vertical handles that can screw into threaded inserts in the back, middle, and front, so you can move where you want to put more pressure.
That's a cool idea. I have been talking with Erick from StewMac and we are planning on a live Q&A with him this year. Maybe you could tell him
Nice Rifle Dynamics shirt. They make a heck of an AK... I used to have a 74. Shouldn't have sold it but wanted something else at the time.
I am proud to call Jim and Karen my friends. We have made lots of guitars for Jim and if you look closely you might see some Texas Toast t-shirts on the Rifle Dynamics page
@@TexasToastGuitars Very nice. I have only owned 1 of their fine firearms over the years and it was excellent.
What are your thoughts on a 7.25" radius for a someone relatively new to guitars. Also radiuses of 7.25. 10, 12 for someone with big or small hands or fingers.
I like 10 for everything... but it really doesn't matter what I think . 7,25 is really popular too
Thanks for replying. My question is not so much what you like but more would it be more difficult for a relative beginner to play a guitar with a 7.25" Fret Radius. I have a Fender American Ultra Stratocaster, a PRS CE 24 and a Gibson Les Paul Studio. I'm thinking about getting a PRS Silver Sky but that 7.25" radius gives me some concern. Between that and the Gibson Les Paul Modern not sure what direction to go.
Hi! How can i get a low action for soloing, on a 12"-16" compound radius fretboard without fretbuzz?
Cheers from Chile!
If the difference is so small, what if you do a more extreme radii proportion, like 7,25 to 14? Will it the too problematic to craft? Or more simply: to get a really comfortable “feel” and overall versatile setup (low action for playing chords through out the WHOLE neck while keeping bending strings easiness), will it be more important the choice of the frets? I’m starting thinking that the action/frets height is even more important (or at least just as important) then radius when you look for comfort and a sense of roundness underneath your left hand’s fingers while playing. But I don’t know... Thanks for the awesome video!
I don't think that conical radius is that big a deal, but there isn't any penalty
Thank you for this
If I followed you correctly your remarks about compound radius being not all that different in string height due to frets, it seems This is only in relation to action not fretboard feel. Where as a compound radius match’s the curve of your hand in different positions differently. But as to action goes between compound and none relates is more setup
You are a smarter man than I
I've tried guitars with a compund radius and they've felt and played great, but I own guitars that typically are just one radius and don't have a problem with any of them.
Me neither
Hey great video. I don't really care, but I wonder, one thing (i find it peculiar why no one mentioned it anywhere, Stewmac, TH-cam, other luthiers):
1. The regular truss rod adjustment for relief, must be thrown slightly askew, when using it on a compound/conical neck, doesn't it?
I e if you have the same radius, all across/along the neck, any truss rod adjustment bows the WHOLE of the neck JUST AS MUCH, even the outermost strings like high E and low E. But if you have a conical radius, whenever inducing a bow or relief, the relief can only follow the trussrod adjustment EXACTLY on the "top of the hill" of the radius which means right between the D and G strings.
What I mean that some parts of the neck will have SLIGHTLY more relief, even too much, than the flatter radiused parts of the neck ones. Especially on the outer E-strings. Now, of course, relief should mostly occur on the twelfth fret, but in order to have it work on conical fretboards, you must overshoot and may have to adjust to a too much relief in order for the second half of the neck even react to any truss rod adjustment. Let's put it this way: Some parts of the neck above the 12th fret will never react to truss rod adjustment and will look like there's no relief at all, while down below 12th fret it will look like a bit too much relief. Although the neck as such reacts the same way to truss rod adjusments. The truss rod and relief of the neck doesn't care and gives a flying **** whether any fretboard is radiused straight, completely flat, compound or conical or anything in between.
Or is it so subtle that it is neglible?
For most of this stuff, the theory is certainly accurate but the reality is tricky. Just because the board has a shape doesn't necessarily mean that the frets are pressed in, leveled, dressed, etc. to the same shape. Then there is the bridge, nut, truss rod, string tension and so on. It's a lot of stuff to worry about for a difference of .01
You can't always convince guitar players that stuff isn't important.
My friend Jeff who teaches the classical guitar program at Colorado State University likes to say that guitar players should practice more than worry.
Sage advice.
@@TexasToastGuitars But still guitatists are anal. Say intonation. Who need guitar tuners with Strobes that has accuracy of 0.02 cents, like Petersons and TurboTuners? All guitarists does is tune up their guitars, and never nails it. And still you have people who wants individual intonation possibilities for each strings. So people DO care about one cent difference here and there, and even 0,5 cents. Hence all these snake oil things with TrueTemperament necks (there's some nitpicking anal retentive stuff right there), Earvana nuts, BFTS (Buzz Feiten Tuning Systems) and everything in between.
If you have that the strings spacing goes narrower towards the nut, the strings are NOT in a straight 90 degree angle at all spots along the neck if it's radiused like a CYLINDER. So, if there's the rule of 18 which is made with straight lines only, for placing the frets correctly and achieve proper intonation, it can'y be done on a CYLINDER neck WITH narrowing string width. If the strings spacing was the same from the bridge to nut, no big deal, no problem, or that the fretboard had no radius at all, like classical guitars, then you'd have no problem with intonation. Compound and conical radius may have some merit, but in real world maybe the benefits are so subtle that they're neglible.
For all others, here's the detals, for those interested:
www.stewmac.com/How-To/Online_Resources/Neck_Building_and_Repair_and_Setup/Compound_Radius_Explained.html
As for radius. I don't care. I don't like radiused (Cylinder), compound, or conical radius neck. Flat flat flat like and acoustic nylon string. Minutiae intonation problem gone, lower string action, one can bend strings to kingdom cone, and it follows truss rods adjustment the same all over both across and along the neck.
I like Stratocasters with 9.5" radius, but I also like Les Pauls and I love my Gretsch. I don't like Stratocasters with a 12" radius. There is a difference, but I can not put my finger on it, maybe it has to do with the scale length? Compound? I don't know, maybe I have tried a guitar with a compound neck and didn't notice...
I'm sure you have played one, they are certainly available. not much of a difference but from front to back but some people really dig them
I want to stick with the standard radius neck myself whether it be 10" 12" because I think there would be a cost factor involved in manufacturing. I have a stratocaster style guitar with a 7 and a quarter inch radius and have my Les Paul has a 12 they both serve purposes. But to each their own correct?
I agree Jack
Good video so what radius would you set your bridge saddles to?
We set the saddles to whatever the fretboard radius is.
Great video as always, I've put compound radius fingerboards on a few of my builds and they seem to work out pretty cool. I built a router jig that I can change either end of the swing to get different radii. I would like to see how you guys do it I'm sure you have some kind of custom badass tool to do it. Sometimes I'll even mess with using different radii sanding beams, I've gotten mixed results doing it that way but if you don't try you don't find the little nuggets of awesome.
We used out radius sander Eddie, did you see the video?
I love awesome nuggets hahaha
Can a compound radius be added easily to a straight radius board? I was wanting to use some radius blocks from Stewmac but was wondering how to blend the different radius sections. Is that a bad idea? You would ultimately use a straight edge in each individual string position checking for gaps... right?
Hi Taco Conch, I know it can be done but you will need more than two blocks to get a conical radius. Now... if you wanted to do only two radiuses I'm sure it could be done. As you may know, I am not the world's biggest proponent of the compound radius but I applaud your desire to make something cool my friend
@@TexasToastGuitars I just want to give my ESP a similar feel to my Jackson. Let's say my Jackson is a 10"-16" compound radius. Could I remove the ESP's frets, carefully level the fretboard in 3rds with a 10", 14" and 16" radius block as evenly as I could, and be safe as long as I level the new frets with a reliable leveler?
Hmmmm I do not recommend that.
I'm not saying it can't be done or that you can't do it but I just don't know that the juice is worth the squeeze
I used to spec a 10" - 16" radius. Now that I see how minuscule the difference is, I'm a bit embarrassed. I dragged out one of my guitars, and I can feel the difference, but it's not much.
The production SRV Strat has a 12" radius.
I have talked to a few people who have claimed to have re-radiused the SRV neck from the original to 12. One of them might be telling the truth?
Nice explanation ... Minute physical differences confirm mental deficiencies ... btw ... After I spotted the" moonshine" in the background behind the Dr Pepper and Canada Dry I guit listening ... 😎
That is actually tequila
Thanks for explaining that.
Happy to help
It's totally fine guitars without a compound radius but if we're talking about consistency all across the fretboard, that tiny difference between a 10 inch and 15 inch radius plays a significant role. If it didn't all guitar makers would built their fingerboards with the same radius, or players wouldn't tell the difference between a 9.5 inch raxius and 12 inch radius which are fender and gibson. These boards feel totally different and every player choses one for the other according to his or her playing style and habit. That cone you're holding is the exaggrrated version of a guitar fretboard just for people to understand better but in real world, that tiny difference changes the feel and comford. Because a fretbord does not have the same thickness at the nut as the last fret, then the radius should not be the same. Secondly, if you don't have a compoud radius on your guitar's neck, that means it's thinner at the last fret than it is at the nut which results in higher action at higer frets with your low and high strings not the middle ones. That means it is inconsistent. It's not an issue if you don't play low action but if you do, then you would miss a compound radius when you don't have it.
Little things do make big differences... I question whether or not the fretting crew can always realize the theoretical advantages of the compound radius. Not to mention the bridge one is using had best be capable of 20" or nearly flat.
I still think that the compound or conical radius is a great marketing strategy to separate guitar players from their money.
You seem to be a fan so who cares what I think?
@@TexasToastGuitars I am kind of a person who prefers to do things "the right way" not a fan, and compound radius is definitely the right way. But it doesn't mean one cannot live without it, appearantly virtuosos like Satriani and Vai do without it. It's definitely not a necessity. On the other hand we shouldn't take players as models, they spent 30 thousands of hours to their instruments, maybe it doesn't matter to them just because they learned to play on a noncompound radiused guitar. If they learned straight fingerboard in the first place, they would still be playing straight fingerboard guitars. It doesn't mean what they are using are always the right tools just because they are the best players in the world. They boight their first guitar in 70s, 80s or whatever, its 2019 now. A young player on a budget can buy a really nice and sufficient guitar for 600 hundred dollars. On the other hand, someone who has more money to spend on nice things like his bmw car or fancy house, can afford 150 dollars more for a compound radius, 150 dollars more for carbon fiber neck stabilizers or 500 or even 750 dollars more for a fancy ziricote, cocobolo or bahia top. This is not about tone or music (although bahia is the king of all tone woods), it's only about feel and comfort, the same reason why you would prefer a cadillac over ford let's say.
Fret levelling a compound radius fretboard must be a nightmare.
It's not too bad as long as the fretboard surface was done well
Still trying to find a video on SETTING UP a compound radius. I have one and it's a pain in the butt.
The bridge is often the hangup on compound radius necks
I know this is an old video but I’m curious, do compound radius necks tend to have more issues with warping? For example the Gibson Songwriter Studio (uniform radius) vs Songwriter Standard (compound). Asked another way, are there more ways to things to go wrong in the long term?
That I do not know?
Is there any trick to fret leveling compound radius fretboards? The only two guitars that give me fret buzz are the only two that have a 10.5-16 radius.
Hi Andrew, the trick is keeping everything flat all the while keeping the radius conical. It sounds counter intuitive...
I am wondering how I must setup the tremolo bridge height in a strato guitar that has a compound radius of 9.5 - 14 radius. Do I set the bridge height to 9.5 or 14? Let me know please because I am confused a bit. Thank you.
Well, by the time a conical radius goes from 10" a the first fret to 16" a the 21st you would probably be at 19 or 20 by the time you get to the bridge.
I'd make a hundred dollar bet that there are very few bridges set to match the radius of the fretboard... much less the fret leveling
I never really thought about the tolerance of it all. And yeah, that’s such a minute measurement that it really can’t
Make that much of a difference in your playing
Of course, you could like it just because you think it's cool, nothing wrong with that
@8:54 What about the, "Master of Puppets" album? As I understand it, most of the rhythm guitars were recorded with a custom Jackson King V Hetfield was playing at the time. It may have had a straight radius fretboard but compound radius is kind of Jackson's thing. Right? I'm sure it wouldn't have made any noticeable difference in the sound anyways. haha
Like I said... everything cool was recorded with regular radius guitars hahaha
I have always thought that the last good Metallica record was Ride The Lightning. Yes, I'm an old fart
@@TexasToastGuitars BLASPHEMY !!!
I'll bet you would say that the last good Metallica album was And Justice For All... Lots of people think that and they are also wrong.
@@TexasToastGuitars I'm sure there are weirdos out there that think St. Anger was their last good album. It's all subjective.
If Hetfield played a Jackson,it was compound radius....Grover did that 12 to 16 on all Jackson’s.....
Hi!
Could you tell if leveling frets with fretlevel works the same way on compound radius as on set radius? If I have a few frets higher on compound radius neck is it possible to level it with straight edge or better to use several radius blocks?
Hi Stefan, I only use a flat block/beam/etc. to level frets. I never use a radius block to do this job regardless of the radius.
This is just me and there are several ways to do this job.
@@TexasToastGuitars Great thank you for your reply!
Could you tell what disadvantage is to level frets with radius blocks of variable length? I guess you use the only to sand fretboard.
I'm sure lots of people use radius blocks to level frets. I don't know what advantages or disadvantages there are?
As I said, I never use them for that purpose.
please do not mistake what I do or don't use to mean that what you do is right or wrong.
You will need to find what works for you.
Having said that... I find that the flat leveling tools work best for me. I'm sure you could find any number of guitar builders who will say that I am wrong and that they use another method.
@@TexasToastGuitars Great thank you!
One last question. If you install frets do you bend them at exact radius of fretboard or slightly smaller radius for like a spring tighter fit at fret edges? If you overbend frets thrn by how much?
Thanks for explaining this! 2 of my best playing guitars have a standard 12" radius, which shows it's pretty much all down to the setup!
Glad to help!
So with a floyd rose that comes with 12” radius nut, can I put a 16” radius on my fretboard and then shim the tailpiece? 12” nut on a 16” fretboard doesnt matter? I came to see this video as I was thinking to put a 12-16” compound radius but now In having second thoughts
If your Floyd Rose has a 12" radius nut the fretboard will have to match at the nut. If you decide to go with a conical radius... like say, 12" to 16" (very little actual difference by the way) you will need to shim your bridge to match what the radius is by the time you get to the end of the scale. I would imagine it would be 20" or so. If you don't than the advantages of the conical radius will not be realized and you will actually have a higher action than you would if you just went with a straight 12" fretboard. So... in order to have it work like you want, remember to match the nut to the fretboard and the bridge to the fretboard (or virtual fretboard if that makes sense).
Texas Toast Guitars woah thanks for the reply. I actually found out floyd has a 15” nut also, I think Im going to go with that and then shim the tailpiece
The problem was guitarists who have played different guitars realize some guitars are better to play certain parts for chords in comparison to high fret board solos. But if I have one guitar that can do both I don’t need a strat and a les paul I have my custom guitar that does it all.
You should have whatever guitars you want
@@TexasToastGuitars my wallet would say otherwise
I you have any more necks that are unsalable due to headstocks my teenage sons and I would give them a good home. (Finishing our first three guitars of our father and son build...three more guitars slated to be built in the spring.)
Sorry Darren, I think I used the last of them for this series and a class I'm doing at Red Rocks College
I have a Charvel Pro Mod DK 24 with a roasted maple compound radius neck. I can't get the action as low as i'd like without it buzzing and feeling like crap. I'm guessing the fretwork is shit since it's now a Fender product and I can feel the sharp edge of the frets while sliding while my other guitars frets feels much more rounded. This is my second one as I sent the first one back because it was so bad. Am I looking at a fret level and crowning on a guitar I paid almost a $1000 for?
Bummer man, that sucks
@@TexasToastGuitars Yes it does.
Great explanation !
Glad you liked it John
I have guitars with both radii, and notice no difference in either's play-ability....
How do you set the saddles on a compound radius?
I measure the string height at the last fret and set them all the same.
It also depends on what you're playing. If you're shredding, getting that action that extra bit lower may be important to you. But I do think there are a lot of things that are strictly because marketing now rules the world and simply convinces you that you need X, Y or Z to play better. The only person this really matters to is yourself. The audience won't care.
I think you are right
Hey Matt!! Since you aren’t gonna make a hot wire cutter, how about a conical radiused arm cutaway 😂😂
I'm down for that, I need more details though, we want to make sure we get the radius just right
Take the measurements from the orange cone!! Looks about right to me!!
Compound radius by far...not so noticeable on electric than on a dreadnought/000...spacing at the nut/brigde plays a big difference.....check out Bill Scheltema and his one piece neck built, takes the guesswork out of things....great vid, man, thanks!
Thanks for watching my friend... I'm going to check out Bill's stuff now.
I just did a video with Steve at Maximum Guitars... he has a similar tool
so, if you say the difference is negligible... have you tried building a hugely conical neck as an antagonist to flat one?
like 4" to 24" or something stupid?
Cellos have like 2" radii fretboards and are still comfortable to play (no bends tho, lol)
It would never have occurred to me to try ...
Certainly no one would pay me to do it
Refretting might be a problem with a compound radius. Luckily I never had to refret a guitar. Cheaper to buy a new neck
Thank you!
You bet!
Hey Matt! I have a question: since the radius is compound, how do you level the frets? I was always wondering about that. Can it be done with a beam? It seems to get complicated. Cheers!
Yes it can but it is a little tricky. If you are not careful you can create or even eliminate the conical radius feature with fret leveling.
@@TexasToastGuitars so how do you do it?
Love this video series! Just to share my opinion though, compound/conical necks are like overthinking The Three Stooges. I’m just unable to see the point!
HAHAHA overthinking the Stooges, nice one. I think the idea is cool but the reality is hardly noticeable.