Official Luthiers Forum!

I spent a lot of time setting up the cnc to address as much of the shaping of the frets as possible. Fret slots are cut with a cnc using a .023” end mill. They are all cut to an exact length to create a faux bound fretboard.

viewtopic.php?f=10106&t=26579

This pictures a holding fixture that is used in lieu of a fret nipper to do two things: 1. Create a very flat "nipped" surface of each fret, 2. Create a fret tang that is the exact length required for each fret slot…not to help the frets line up but rather, to maximize the amount of slot/tang area for an optimized grab

I made another similar fixture that holds the nipped frets upside down and facilitates the machining of the fret ends as well as establishing the exact length of each fret after bending to a 10” radius. This may seem very elaborate but the upside is that any shape can be programmed for the fret end….and I’ve tried many. I can shape the base of each fret end to have small rounded corners which would be very difficult to achieve another way. The downside is that when you pre-shape the fret wire, placement of each fret into the fretboard becomes critical. It is quite difficult to line them up such that looking down the fretboard doesn’t reveal even subtle imperfections in the line up. I made an edge tool that helps align the frets as they are installed. This got me 99% of the way there but using the tool requires some craftsmanship. I prefer to endow my tooling with craftsmanship so as to eliminate the need for it in my hands. This idea will need some revision but I can see it will work with more effort.

If one can place frets perfectly and avoid any serious sanding of the edge of the fretboard after the frets are installed, then the upside is that the fret ends can have any shape, be perfectly consistent from fret to fret, and can be fully polished prior to installation. On my last guitar I had to sand a little on the fretboard edge and that forced a little reshaping of a few fret ends. Not too bad as a concept but it can be improved.

Having done many shapes I can say that I don’t like playing a semi-spherical shape as well as a typical 30 degree bevel. With semi-spherical ends there is a pervasive "nub" feel as the hand slides past which drives me to distraction. I settled on a shape that starts with the 30 degree bevel and shaped it to have a little more edge rounding than the illustration Todd published. I play a lot of lead and like this shape best. As far as bending the string off the fret end and expecting the shape to have a profound effect on how that goes, I would respectfully suggest bending the string in the other direction.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

I am using 1/8" from the edge of the string to the edge of the neck, not centre to centre, which means the low E string is a bit more offset. And yes I have given it some thought and settled on what feels right as my standard set-up. I have been requested to use as much as .140", and as little as .100" clearance, some players really know what they want.
Traditionally the fretboard flares out a bit more than the strings path, the 12th or 14th fret (depending on the body style) should be the same width as the bridge string spacing. Again, some (rare) players require more space there, as it is much easier to fret out in the middle of the strings' length where tension is the lowest.
I think those preferences are technique dependent. For example, some players like to use the left hand thumb to fret bass notes Jimi style (I do) and with too little clearance it is easy to fret out on the low E string, especially with light strings. A player who uses a lot of pull-offs will find it easy to fret out as well with too little clearance on the outer strings.
Finally I bevel the edges of the fretboard very slightly, following the fret bevel, so semi-hemispherical frets are a non starter for me. Same reason: if you play with the left hand thumb a lot, a sharp fretboard edge is extremely annoying.

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/

It would appear to me to be totally feasible to install semi-hemispherical frets and subsequently bevel the edge of the fretboard in between the frets.

Time-consuming, perhaps, but eminently do-able.

Do-able, sure. But too much real estate would be lost I would think: the semi-hesmispherical frets have to stop .010" to .020" before the edge, itself losing perhaps .020". Whereas with bevelled frets, the bevel follows the bevelled edge.

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/

Wow, what an interesting discussion this has turned into.

Hey, just wanted to let those who are interested know that I posted a tutorial in the tutorial section on my way of making rounded (semi-hemispherical) fret ends.

I think I'll ask the question of beveled fret end or rounded fret end on the Acoustic guitar forum to see what the players think?

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

Good idea, Rod. I'm actually surprised at the lack of experience or feedback with rounded fret ends here from the builder section. Could it be that this feature is a solution to a non-existent problem?

_________________
JJ
Napa, CA
http://www.DonohueGuitars.com

Right-on Rodney! Now that's a nice straight forward approach I can appreciate!

I will try this method for sure!

I love the look of these rounded fret ends. As far as having less than 1/8th goes, I don't know. Maybe for others, it's a non-issue, but for me, I like having that extra real estate less my vibrato-folly gets the best of me. On my last guitar, I bevelled and rounded the corners, as Filippo mentioned and I love the feel. My fret boards are slightly bevelled as well. I think I went the standard 5/32 for big E spacing to the Edge and I have a large string spacing (the nut being 1'' 27/32) and I have no problembs wrapping my thumb around to grab some notes on the A string...

_________________
I'd like to be able to prove, just for once, that money wouldn't make me happy...

In fact, string setback further up the neck is much more important to most players than at the nut. Certainly, many factories use a 12-fret fingerboard width that is equal to their string spacing at the saddle, but generally I think this is excessive for most players (someone called it "idiot proof"). You need more setback up the neck, but most don't require that much more. It was one of the first specs I changed on my own guitars, because I don't like the excessive setback on the necks of my Martins.

The different taper rates defined by different nut and saddle string spacing ratios mean that there are no good rules-of-thumb for fretboard taper -- it needs to be reverse calculated given the player's preferred setback up the neck. The calculator for fretboard taper and string setback that I just posted here http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=30835 was spawned by attempts to reduce the normally excessive setback in a calculated way and is helping me design fret board specs for players' requirements.

Real estate, B.S., shape em so it feels good.

Remember...
"if the feelin ain't right, sooner or latter it'll drive you crazy"
~ Crosby Stills Nash and Young


Real estate.. my ask.


blessings
Padma

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

Here are my deep-seated thoughts on this, as a player...

I prefer as vertical a fret-end as possible, and a semi-hemi treatment can be a great way to do this.

I am *very* concerned with wanting all the distance I can get between the E strings and the edges of the fingerboard...more so on the high E...although I like good space on both. Addressing this with the fret edge finish is a good start. Most fret-edges do lose too much for me with anything but a very vertical (or semi-hemi) finish.

...but this is only the beginning of the conversation with me...

Rather than give you the "inset" numbers I like, however, I prefer to just give full set-up...because it also involves the overall width of the fingerboard/neck at the 12th fret.

Lay these numbers out, and I think you'll be surprised:

1) Overall nut width = 1-13/16"
2) E-to-E nut spacing, center to center = 1-1/2"
3) Bridge spacing = 2-1/4"
4) Overall width of 'board @ 12th fret = 2-5/16"


The biggest surprise may be the 12th fret width, especially vs. the bridge spacing...I like a wiiiide number there, and I have never seen any builder use a 12th fret width wider than the bridge spacing...but that's exactly what I want.

The other surprise is that the nut-spacing is about middle of the road for a narrower 1-3/4" nut. Well, these are the numbers I like, and they give a certain symmetry to the strings in relation to the edges of the fingerboard...all up and down the board.

Place the bridge (and the nut) so that the E-string centers are equidistant to the edges of the fingerboard, and with the above numbers you've got my "inset"...and that inset will get even a little deeper as one goes up the neck.

So that's one crazy-man's perspective on this....hard-won information that *I* think makes a guitar more playable (and it does, at least for me!)...greater possibilities in attacking the high E string, side-to-side vibrato, just a more comfortable overall feel....again, IMO.

I believe that the overall 12th fret width should be, at the very least, the equal of the bridge spacing. Some guitars are built this way, but not a lot of them.

...and if a few builders would take the chance on my wild concept that a wider-than-bridge-spacing overall-12th-fret-width is not only possible but *desirable,* well, then more players would get a chance to try this configuration. I predict that many, many players would love the way this feels.

Okay, hope this gives folks something to think about...

_________________
LP

LarryPattis.com
AmericanGuitarMasters.com

I did exactly this on #2 and it's a dream to play.

I do the same thing Filippo describes. My fret edge file is angled at 15 degrees, so a bit steeper initial angle than Filippo's. To make filing the rounded fret end easier & prevent scratches in the fingerboard, I filed about .040" off the edges of the SM diamond fret file & smoothed the filed surfaces out to a nice finish.
Now I can file a nicely rounded end without leaving any marks in the fingerboard... While minimizing the lost real estate issue.
As Larry Pattis mentions, the edge distance at the nut is not as important as it is further up the neck.

No. I have done many fret jobs where the frets are more square on the ends, like your illustration. It does not feel as good as the beveled ends, but it will allow for wider string spacing. It is much more of an issue on vintage guitars than new ones. Many of my vintage guitar clients actually prefer a 1 3/4 nut, but the 'price of admission' (which is pre-mid-1939 on 14-fret Martins) is too steep. Many have found that they can abide the narrower neck, provided the frets are finished more square and the strings widened.

_________________
John

Larry Pattis represents the kind of player that would be a joy to work with. In spite of some unconventional dimensions and relationships between FB and string spacing at the saddle, having a strong and rational sense of what he needs means that execution is a matter of hitting the numbers. I wish more players were so certain.

Thanks for the feedback, Larry!

_________________
JJ
Napa, CA
http://www.DonohueGuitars.com

Amazing.

Welcome to OLF, Larry. I really enjoy your playing. It is great that you have spent the effort to figure out what works best for you as a player. I have tried to do likewise over the last 6 or 8 years after years of ignoring such. It really helped my playing by paying some attention to this tool, the guitar. You have gone deep into it.

To all,
I consider the feel of the neck which includes the frets to be very important. In fact, I think it MUST feel good to the player. If there is a consensus on this thread, that may be the only one. But I also consider conservation of real estate for string spacing as important too, which one even called B.S. (very surprising to me) while others place little, if any, priority on it. Some admit to never having thought about it. I think that several priorities need to be considered and balanced without throwing out any.

The other thing about string spacing that has not even been mentioned herein, is the choice for equal string centers (this makes little sense to me) or near-equal string edge-to-edge spacing (this makes much more sense to me). As a player I find, due to the slant of fingers, that the bass strings are more challenging to prevent muted string mistakes than the treble strings (where fingers are more straight up). So having near equal space between string edges or even more space between bass string edges than treble string edges makes sense to me. The equal centers approach yields LESS string edge-to-edge spacing on the bass strings than the treble strings. This is going in the wrong direction for ME. I want, as a minimum, equal space between string edges. Others may rightly argue that the bass strings should have more space between edges than the treble strings. Obviously, all of this is ultimately up to the player.

Much (really most?) guitar playing comes out of the subconscious mind (players don't consciously think about how to move each finger when going to a chord). The subconscious mind controls most of the finger movements which some call muscle memory (only our brain has a memory, not muscles). The subconscious can control unequal center spacing just as well as equal center spacing. No conscious thinking is needed for playing guitars with equal edge-to-edge string spacing (unequal centers) IMHO.

I feel sure I will have started another discussion with many differing opinions.

Ed

Ed, traditionally nut spacing is not done centre to centre, but with equal spacing between strings, regardless of string gauge. This is what "feels", and looks, right.
A few builders do the same for bridge string spacing, but the great majority do centre to centre there as it doesn't seem to make much difference.
Ultimately there is no perfect solution for all this, although there certainly is a "middle of the road" set up that won't upset anybody. But rather it is the playing style of the guitarist that determines the little quirks, if any.

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/

Laurent, I totally agree with all you said.

There are a number of factory builders that use equal centers. Enough that use of equal string centers is a significant part of the factory guitars out there. One of the best sounding and most consistent factory guitars in this writer's opinion is Collings. I think they are doing a lot of things well. Yet Collings uses equal center spacing on their nuts. As mentioned, there are a number of others out there as well. I would guess that some builders here use equal centers on the nut as well, but that is just a guess.

All of my comments were on nut spacing. Like you, I think this is of little consequent at the bridge. But I think it is significant at the nut.

Ed

Good point on the spacing issue, Ed, and one I've struggled with as a marginal player as well. I admittedly assumed that c/c (center to center) spacing was the most logical approach. I think it was Mario Proulx who first introduced me to the concept of mostly e/e (edge to edge) spacing on one of the forums. I tried it about a year ago and now prefer it going forward. So I have since been surveying players who agree to take the time to give feedback.

I think that the general knowledge and attention to such details is lost on most players. Most seem to accommodate to what they consider as unimportant details. You and Larry, I would wager are within a 25% exception group of the general population of players in my universe. It may well be that my sampling includes more intermediate and far fewer accomplished and formally trained guitarists. Nonetheless, it's worth showing players and opening their eyes as to possibilities to improve their abilities. Since I have quite a few of my personal guitars with different setups and nut spacing, I have been able to have local clients and "guinea pigs" discuss such information. While there are only a few converts to different options, they at least get thinking more about technique. On a more positive note...it helps all of us as builders to go deeper than the more superficial approach. In the end, it improves our skills and in addition helps us to better serve clients.

Ed...can you describe your process of laying out spacing for a typical nut with light strings? TIA.

_________________
JJ
Napa, CA
http://www.DonohueGuitars.com

This is a great thread. I've got several professional guitarists in my fold and have learned a lot from their input. I usually inset around 1/16" from the edge of the bevel of the first fret for both E's and use the StewMac gauge for spacing. Bridge pin spacing has been the same as the width at the 12th and equal. That usually puts the stings about 6/32 in from the edge of the fretboard on each side at the 12th. So far no complaints but the single biggest thing I've done that everyone likes is putting a pretty vertical bevel on the fret ends and continuing it into the edge of the fretboard a little as has been mentioned earlier in the thread. I have no experience with the hemi frets but would think they would be great if you level and fret after finish.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

I've been following this thread with interest. I agree that the look of the hemispherical ends is definitely high finish. But I've been watching my fingers as I play and trying to imagine the feel of those ends, I think they would drive me batty and be far easier to pull off the edge. Don't know for sure till I try em but that's my initial thought.

One thing I do find puzzling. With all the chat about string set back from the edge it seems to me that using these type of ends would necessitate more set back than a traditional angled fret end. Assuming a fret that is .100" wide and .050" tall, to form a complete semicircle on that fret end would require a .050" radius. If it is a true spherical section then it would mean that the end of the playable fret on top would also be back the same .050". The ends appear to be set back on the fretboard about .015" or so. This gives a total of .065" from edge of finger board to end of playable surface of the fret on top. If we take the same fret and apply a standard 30 degree bevel the playable surface on the fret is now only about .030" from the edge of the fretboard. that's a whole extra 1/32" that the string would need set back from the fingerboard edge on a semi hemispherical end to maintain the same playability and feel. Or do I got it wrong?
Brian

_________________
Brian

You never know what you are capable of until you actually try.

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

When I did the rounded fret end, I really tried to get it so that the end was right at the edge or just a hair back from the edge, not 1/64" from the edge. Also, I didn't measure the radius of the fret end when I was finished, but I never actually rounded any of them over the full radius (being the fret height) so I would venture a guess that the actual offset from the end of the fret to the point where the radius terminated at the top of the fret was 0.030-0.040", which would be very similar overall to a standard bevel. And if beveling most folks bevel into the fretboard too which is probably 0.010"+/- so that would also be taken into account.

To me, this is really splitting hairs as I know when I play my fingers can't feel the difference of 1/64"-1/32", but I'm sure there are players out there who can.

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

Thanks for the "welcomes", folks...I do lurk from time to time, and then this caught my attention via the AGF...always love a good discussion about fingerboard geometries! I'm glad this is a topic being actively explored here.

I think the guitar-playing world would be a finer place if fingerboards were tapered wider, for any given nut width and bridge spacing!

I do prefer an equa-center approach to string-to-string spacing at the nut (and bridge), vs. the edge-proximity effect. Just *my* preference...

...and of course I have some friends here, as well...good to see folks!

_________________
LP

LarryPattis.com
AmericanGuitarMasters.com

OK JJ, you ask for it.

This spacing will not work for ALL players. But I believe it will work for the vast majority of players. Otherwise, many from the hundreds of thousands of Taylor players would be complaining. There is much I could say, but time is lacking. Below are the dimensions for the straight forward method for determining them.

APPROACH FOR EQUAL SPACING BETWEEN STRINGS EDGES AND REASONABLE EDGE SPACING.

Nut width = 1.75” = 1750 thousands (all figures in thousands to keep it simple)
Edge space from center of outside high e string to nut edge = 3/32” = 93.75
Edge space from center of outside bass E string to nut edge = 3/32” = 93.75
Total space of 2 edges = 187.5

1750 nut
- 187.5 edge spaces from string centers
1562.5 space between centers of outside strings

Using light gage Elixirs:
12 e string width
16 b string width
24 G string width
32 D string width
42 A string width
53 E string width
Total of 6 strings 179

Half of e = 6
Half of E = 26.5
Total of half of outside E strings = 32.5 (this space is already included in the 3/32” edge space)

179
- 32.5
146.5 space used by strings less half of the outside strings

1562.5
-146.5 space used by strings
1416 space between strings

1416/5 spaces = 283.2 for each space between strings

35 Space for fret end treatment (beveled or hemi or whatever you want to do within 35 thousands) Same allowance of space on each edge.


So here is the lineup from the high treble nut edge to the bass nut edge:

35 space for fret edge treatment (beveled or hemi, whatever. If increased past 40 watch out! A Martin in my shop is 55 here! Collings is 35)
52.75 “flat” fret space to edge of e string (2008 Martin HD28 in my shop right now has 51 here.)
12 high e string width
283.2 space between e and b
16 b string
283.2 space between b and G
24 G string
283.2 space between G and D
32 D string
283.2 space between D and A
42 A string
283.2 space between A and bass E
53 E string
32.25 flat fret space
35 fret edge treatment
Total 1750

Here is same space but expressed to string centers (more practical numbers for cutting the nut slots):
93.75 (3/32”) nut edge to center of high e string
297.2 space to center of b string
303.2 space to center of G string
311.2 space to center of D string
320.2 space to center of A string
330.7 space to center of E string
93.75 E string center to nut edge
Total 1750

Obviously, without CNC (or likely with it) we can’t measure to this accuracy. So there will be some round off to the above figures.

Here is another string spacing that has merit (I like better) and could be considered. It is a little more conservative with a little more edge space, but also has more space for the bass strings (not quite equal spacing) which you can see by comparing with the above. The fret end treatment must still be limited to 30 to 40:

100 nut edge to center of high e string (including 35 fret edge treatment)
285 space to center of b string
290 space to center of G string
310 space to center of D string
330 space to center of A string
340 space to center of E string
95 E string center to nut edge
Total 1750

When I get a chance I'll post the Martin HD28 and Collings D2H string spacings here, which is eye-opening when compared to the numbers above when percentages of difference are highlighted. I'll also point out percentages of difference for finger clearance which is really what most of this is about for me. Then one can see the big difference between these spacings.

Ed

Larry their are some photos of Rick Toones (on his site) with flared boards at the 12th.

Steve